Is Propulsion Going Electric

Fully electric ships?

Still have to burn fossil fuel to run the steam turbines or the gas turbines to generate the electric power...(lots of mechanical linkages...).

I am having trouble seeing an electric plane any time soon, power to weight ratio for the drives make gas turbines pretty hard to beat.

Hi Steve S.

I have sailed on these electric propulsion ships many times in the 1960s and 70s and as recently as 1997. As you point out they have to have an initial propulsion unit to generate the electricity, usually this is a large diesel engine but I have also seen one with a couple of smaller steam turbines.

Initially these types of diesel electric propulsion systems were used because it is much easier to control electicity while manouvering, another fact is that they have not yet been tried out on ships larger than 30,000tonnes gw.

And neither can I envisage planes with electic propulsion ststems?

Spencer.

You're only a crackpot till you hit the jackpot ! Don't give up hope. Theoreticallly since electricity has zero weight you'd think that someday "someone" (someone on cr4? ) will discover how to keep electricity in a very very lightweight battery (or 'other' storage device) or figure out how to make it in a very lightweight design that could be carried on board (SCI FI NOW but of course the future always has been sci fi) an airplane. They do have very small electric planes now (some drones ) and of course the RC recreational types but the batteries only last a short time. Electric is nice for drones because it is so quiet.

FYI: The electric car was "HERE" in america but was chipped into little pieces and suppressed by detroit, and oil industry. www.peacenikinternational.com a video is available of this EV that won rave reviews by all who drove leased them http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=YCBc8pL1SGc. Over 1100 were frantically crushed and chipped into little bits . GM sold control of the patent fo the "super" battery to Texaco who was then bought by Chevron. Why all the fear? Detroit correctly assumed that the EV cars would not need any mufflers, radiators, gas tanks, carbs, oil filters, etc etc etc They and the auto parts industry were very so desperate to suppress it. And since the EV can supply 90% of americas driving needs, big oil is also against it. And our govt has let them get away with it while they tout the super expensive super expensive to fill, and very dangerous H car that is still 10 years away from production, and only has s 60 mile range between fill ups.

In London england, conversely, they are selling EV's like hotcakes and giving free parking to any EV (worth about $32). Some have said that some whole suburb towns have virtually switched over to an EV (g-wiz or spark Reva indian types) at least as a 2nd car. And they only cost 1 cent per mile to operate they say. Other places in europe are making the ni-mh batteries as fast as possible to for electric trains, and electric buses.

Yes big oil and detroit screwed America out of some of the best years of our lives ramping up gas prices and keeping the electrics from us for as long as possible. Even now foriegn electrics can't find many dealers to sell here, (Red tape, crash test problems, tarrifs, on and on).

I am sorry, but I think that finger pointing is not bounded in reality. Warning flags go off when the cliché Big Oil and Government Conspiracies are mentioned in any posting.

While these theories sound captivating, they are are not exactly true.

First, the EV does not threaten Big Oil nor Midas Muffler. It is not high on the consumer wish list. The economy is still driven by consumer demand and right now the US consumer is still in love with pickup trucks and SUVs. I live in the SUV capital of the world, Florida, where there are more SUVs and pickups than I have seen anywhere else. Many pickups here are also big horse power monsters. Whether you personally like it or not, it is what the consumer wants.

Second, the EV technology is a long way from prime time. Don't bother telling me that Big Oil is suppressing the technology. Batteries are a staple of the world and anyone that can improve that technology is in for a windfall and batteries are the rate limiting step for EVs.

Again, there are a lot of misconceptions and outright lies about the state of batteries. The cheapest battery packs would be lead-acid. To get meaningful power from a bank of these requires $3,000 to $6,000 for a battery pack. They are good for about 1,000 recharges. That means every 3 years you need to pay $3,000 to $6,000 for a battery pack. Consumers complain about $300 repair bills to their cars. It will be hard to swallow an order of magnitude higher cost for battery replacement. Hey! Maybe we could have Congress pass an energy tax? Sure, let's tax the rich so that the rest of us working people can get free batteries every three years.

The problem with the cheap batteries are weight and volume. You can't go far on a charge and you will have to give up that Big Car for a little lightweight econo-box with little luggage space so that you can carry the large amounts of batteries you need. Also, the performance is pretty ho-hum.

The next step would be nickel-metal-hydride. You get better power density, but the cost is much higher than lead-acid. You also get longer battery life, but it is not enough to offset the cost.

Right now the cat's meow is lithium. These batteries are both light and have a better power density. However, the cost is astronomical. You can double battery life over lead-acid, but small packs are at least $20,000! Imagine having to replace that every 6 to 7 years. Yeah, I can see people rushing to the dealers to buy a car for $50,000 and have to put in a new battery pack every 7 years. The alternative is to trade it in, but what will it be worth? Probably $10,000 if you are lucky.

Oh, current vehicle range is very limited. Getting 80 miles is typical for current technology. That assumes you don't need lights, air conditioning, and wipers. I could probably live with that for my normal daily use, but there are times where I need considerably more range or AC is a must.

Then there is safety. Do you want to be inside a car and have an accident with gallons and gallons of sulfuric acid sloshing around? Or what about carcinogens from lithium batteries? Your EV needs to be very light, so crash resistance with a semi-tractor-trailer or even a small commercial truck is going to be non-existent.

The truth is that EVs have a long way to go. We need a battery breakthrough and that hasn't happened yet. You can't blame industry. Batteries are used everywhere from computers to mobile phones. People want cheap batteries that last a long time, so the market is there, but the physics is not - at least not yet.

When technology catches up with demand, the EV will be a hit. Furthermore, Detroit will build them when people demand them. Right now people complain about gas prices, but it hasn't changed their buying habits. They still buy big SUVs that get 15 mpg. In fact, nobody cares! Congress finally had to put its foot down and tell you that you shall care and now mandates the industry to improve mpg. To hell with what the people want. That should tell you right there that there isn't a market or a desire for the EV.

Yes, there are some of us that wait with baited breath, myself included. However, we have to realize we are not a majority of the market and there is a lot more work to be done before it becomes the panacea promised by the hype. And that is exactly what it is right now - hype.

As you said, don't give up hope. The EV is coming, but it is technology and physics that are the roadblocks, not conspiracies, Michael Moore, or Al Gore. And that is the Awful Truth.

Gosh AnonHero, You sound just like the corporate lobbyist or you bought hook line and sinker their story:

Ask yourself:

1. Why did they crush perfectly good EV1's when people were screaming at them to let them buy the ones they already were leasing?

2. Why so many small car sales if as you say "everyone" only wants an SUV? Count cars on any street in america and tell me how many small fuel efficient cars you see compared to suv's. its about 4 to 1

3. FYI: Toyator RAv 4 EV is electric SUV and those built in latte 90's (before conspiriacy to suppress them started) are STILL on the road using SAME NI-MH batteries with no need to replace them yet more than 10 years later. Google toyota Rav4 ev before answer please.

4. Ni-Mh was/is battery of choice for 1100 EV1's (all but a few of the 1100 were destroyed by GM and only 1 left on the road against their will ).

5. Ni-Mh was and is still choice for production model hybrids from Honda and Toyota (insight and prius ) although because of GM selling patent to Texaco who were subsequently bought by CHEVRON (big oil) the price is now $1000 each and you need about 15 -17 of them ($17000 more to sticker price). So Honda and Toyoto make their own packs out of D cells (honda ) intially *(Yes hundreds of D cells soldered together made up first production model pack), and now 60 6 volt ni-mh batteries soldered together to make up a pack. The EV1 used onyh 17 batteryes of the automotive size and power back when they only cost about $50. each. Thus by buying patent from GM and increasing cost to insane $1000 each they have effectively suppressed the Electric Vehicles from using the "unbreakable" battery *FORD exec was overheard saying the Ni-Mh was unbreakable electrically speaking. Test if for yourself if you don't beleive it. We did.

6. Lead acid batteries are very poor performers comparatively.

7. EV1 gets over 100 miles per overnight charge at 1 cent per mile. And you never have to go to gas station and only rarely to auto repair.

8. Google "who killed electric car" and also the EV1 vexes GM on YOU TUBE. thanks.

Well, been there and done that. My colleague has built his own EV. We are electrical engineers. Another of my colleagues just left to work for Vectrix (the electric scooter manufacture). So I have some knowledge of the field and I have enough business experience to know what makes the wheels turn.

I should point out that the business side of things is one of the most misunderstood aspects of the problem. People tend always think in terms of government and corporate conspiracies and frankly that is almost always bull. The problem is one of ignorance and being mislead by others, so the misconceptions flourish.

For instance, I thought those GM test vehicles were leased to the "owners" and the contract specified that would happen in the end. I have seen this first hand working for Whirlpool. Basically, Whirlpool will select a few customers (usually repeat customers) and offer a test program where they get to keep a new appliance for one year as an evaluation study of that product. The contract states that after one year the customer must surrender the appliance to Whirlpool. They are given the option to buy that model if it is available as a replacement, but they can not keep the test unit, period. If Whirlpool does not decide to produce that product then they can't buy one, period. Whirlpool doesn't have to produce that appliance if they don't want to. The testers can cry and suck their thumbs, but they can't make Whirlpool do that if the company decides not to do it.

This sounds just like what GM did. GM crushed them because they did not want to make them. That's GM decision and it was most likely a business decision because the profits for the EV where not there. Oh, GM is in business to make money. The public has no right to demand that a private or public company build what they don't want to make or sell something that doesn't make money. There are a few exceptions to that, but in general it is still a free country in the US.

There are a million reasons why GM could have done what they did. Most likely the explanation they gave was the real reason. A few evaluation customers may have been upset, but they signed up for the test and they agreed to a contract (whatever it was).

It is stupid to expect GM to continue to service, stock parts, and support 500 unique vehicles for 10 to 15 years if they are not going to build them in production. You have to be insane to do that from a business point of view. No, you just hear that BIG GM is being nasty and mean and trying to kill the electric car so us poor little guys have to keep buying gas and oil.

Contrary to what common folk lore states, business are in for a profit. If there was really money to be made with EVs there would be a scramble to deliver them. Sorry, but there isn't a big market. You are dreaming if you think there is. That will someday change, but not today and not next year. Soon, I hope! Yes, there are specialized companies that produce EVs and some limited Japanese excursions into the field (bless the Japanese), but the market isn't there to support a mass production and drive costs down to where people will buy them.

Your analysis of the number of cars versus SUVs and light trucks (non-commercial trucks) is wrong. I would recommend looking at a better source for your data than casual glances of traffic. New SUV and light truck sales continue to be just above 50% of total vehicles sold in the US. There was a dip last year, but SUVs and light trucks have returned and slightly outsell cars. I hate those vehicles. They are killers, but the reality is that this is what people want, so we just have to accept the reality.

I really doubt that Chevron is holding a golden patent that allows batteries to be made at a fraction of the current cost. At least I would not bet my house on that story. Again, this smacks too much like conspiracy stories and being led by the nose to be true. Also, anytime I hear the word BIG as an adjective it tells me to run to the hills. This is an old political strategy that just refuses to die and people keep buying it.

Batteries are the main reason EVs are not taking us by storm. There are other reasons, but they are small issues compared to batteries. Wait for a breakthrough to happen, then the tide will turn. Ni-Mh is not the best solution out there, but it is better than lead-acid. What does "unbreakable mean? Ni-Mh has a life span and it is not infinite. Current technology limits that to about 500 to 1000 complete discharge and recharge cycles. Lithium-ion is about twice that number. However, it is more complex than that because most people don't drive their batteries until they are drained, then recharge. Nor do EV batteries see a constant discharge rate, it is highly variable in the application of a car. My lithium-ion battery for my laptop is about 3 years old. It still works, sure, but its capacity is about 50% - 60% of its original state when new. Soon I will need to replace it. That's life. Battery life, to be exact.

So, here is my rub. I will jump out of my current gas powered car when I can get equivalent performance from an EV. However, it has to meet the following criteria:

1. Zero to 60 in 4.3 seconds or less. The RAV4 EV screams to 60 in just 18 seconds.

2. Top speed in excess of 190 mph.

3. Weight <= 3,050 lbs.

4. >= 1.0 G on the skidpad.

5. Range (based on a tank of gas) ~400 miles.

6. Price < $80,000.

7. 100,000 mile/8 year bumper to bumper warranty. That means, no out of pocket costs except for tires, fluids, and electricity.

8. Resale value to better than 75% of original sale price after warranty expires.

That's the ride I am currently sitting in and before I jump ship I need to be at least at parity to that. Now add in my monthly fuel costs and let's say that the difference I pay between gas and electricity is $200 per month. That's $2,400 per year. If a new battery pack costs me $24,000 (in today's dollars) it would have to last 10 years with my kind of performance driving to meet parity with my gas powered car.

Gas prices have barely kept up with the cost of living, so I think my above criteria is realistic. What is more, I need a reason to jump ship, so my total out of pocket costs need to be less to entice me to do the jump. The Tesla is a close possibility, but it costs over $100,000 and falls short on some of my criteria.

My criteria is not the same as most people, but if you do the same thing with the average buyer of a car you would find that the hurdles are probably more difficult to overcome than mine. Not many people can drop $80,000 for a car. Not many can drop $40,000, but your odds improve. I think that to make a compelling case to the consumer you need to offer an EV at under $25K that performs and drives like a Toyota Camry (or maybe like a Ford Explorer) and doesn't have the huge battery replacement costs hanging around its neck. That battery pack offsets the whole savings EV offer. That's today, but a breakthrough will change the landscape and I look forward to that day when it comes.

So, I differ with your reasoning that conspiracies are keeping people out of EVs. I think that there is more than enough evidence to show that the driving factors are technologies and meeting customer expectations in a new vehicle. Yes, people want to save money at the pump, but virtually nobody really wants to give up anything else in their transportation to get it. They want more for less. Do you blame them?

Let's go through it point by point. I don't think you actually read what I wrote, but I really don't mind. The numbers are your point numbers from the previous post you made to me...

1. What is the percentage of EV sales in Europe? World-wide figures give us 0.5% for 2007. Source = HERE. I don't know how accurate that is, but probably reasonable. I don't think that is taking the world by storm or a HUGE market. Show me your data.

2. Good question. The answer is it can't! First, 50% of all oil consumed is used for manufacturing (not autos or trucks) i.e., plastics, etc. Second, there are no practical EV solutions for replacing 18-wheeled trucks. If 100% of all non-commercial transportation was converted to electric you still can only reduce consumption by less than 50%. Look it up for yourself.

3. I really do not know your background or profession, but if you were to learn about statistics you would learn something about sample size and sample polling and your analysis is highly unscientific. I got my data from research on the Internet from multiple sources, which I believe are significantly more accurate than an ad-hock sample of cars passing my street. Try the US Department of Transportation. They keep very accurate records of sales. I did my own research, please do yours and cite your sources if your findings disagree. Let's do this in a scholarly fashion.

4. I don't doubt that they do have patents, but there are a million ways around that and you are right; I did not research that. However, I qualified my answer by stating that I doubted that they were a road block to technology and I went on to say that at least I would not bet my house on it. Batteries are just too important in so many other categories that the competition is hot. My gut feel (which is just my experience from other things in life) tells me that there is more to this story than meets the eye and it seems unlikely that this situation would really exist. Maybe it does, but I am just skeptical.

5. This point is a little confusing. You go on about someone that went to Congress and was threatened and went home, but I don't see what that has to do with the real main reason, as you say.

The second, and unrelated, half of point 5 states that I didn't explain why GM destroyed the eased cars. I can only ask that you reread my post you are responding to. There were three or four paragraphs that directly answer that question. I won't repeat them here since it was covered quite extensibly in my last post.

I regret that I did not address why Ford repainted Andy Griffith's car. To be perfectly honest, my interest in that mystery is not really high enough to warrant a trip to North Carolina.

6. Okay, we agree, but I don't know the service use of those GM batteries. I based my point on battery life on research from the Internet and information from my colleague (who has done a whole lot research into the matter) that is building his own car (I hope to see it tomorrow at work). Based on that data and normal driving (12K a year) for the average driver I doubt that batteries would last 10 years. Again, it is also a small sample size in a big universe of driver conditions and climate. You can't draw meaning information from such a sample. You should really look into statistics if you like math. It's an eye opening subject.

7. Okay, you did not either read or understand my post on this section. I stated that I was not a typical consumer and I also stated that I hated SUVs. Your inference that I have an SUV that performs to the numbers I cited is in error. I don't know of any SUV that will. I drive a Porsche GT3, which is a high performance sports car that generates about 400 horsepower. I still get much better gas mileage than an SUV. At 67 mph I get 31.8 mpg if I drive nice. I admit I do not always drive nice, but I drive what I drive the way I drive it because it is a blast and I can afford to do it. My point was that I would be willing to switch, but before I do that, whatever I switch to has to offer what I get now and something more to make me switch. The same logic that governs what I would switch for is no different than the average person.

And in my previous post I stated that my preferences are different than most people and I tried to outline what the average buyer is looking for.

I wonder if your view of what people want is skewed by your own desires. Perhaps you feel a deep desire to drive green that is more important than getting performance. That is okay and there is nothing wrong if you do. If that makes you happy, then I am happy to see you get it. However, most people are not that green motivated and what would motivate them to switch is a much different set of criteria. My previous post was attempting to state that.

The EV1 weighed in at almost 3,000 lbs, which is a good weight, but nowhere near 1,500 lbs. Look it up if you believe otherwise.

Skidpad numbers of 1.0 G have nothing to do with torque. It has to do with the amount of lateral force that a vehicle can generate in a fixed radius turn on a skidpad. Typically, it is a measure of lateral grip of a vehicle. Torque is used for acceleration. 18 seconds to 60 mph is nothing to brag about (compared to the average car, which does tit from 7 to 10 seconds). EVs have a very large flat torque curve. The EV1 has a flat torque curve over the operating range of the motor, but the amount of torque is very low. That is why it takes the EV1 so long to get to 60 mph.

Personally, I really don't like you telling me what I should do to help America. I did not solicit your help and it is impolite for anyone to do so without permission. If I am not clear on that, consider how you might feel if I pointed out that you had misspelled the word 'batteres' in point #9, second paragraph? The correct spelling is 'batteries', but do you expect people to tell you to go take an English class for the good of communication?

I may not be the thriftiest vehicle on the road, but I use less fuel than most Americans per mile.

Which specific EV will outperform my GT3 at $80K for the specifications I listed? I would love to see that alternative, but I seriously doubt that it exists yet. Like I said, show me and I will jump.

7 (Continued). Yep. I agree with the reliability of EV motors and electronics. That's why I have the extended warranty for my car. I don't want to spend anything and the complexity of my engine is much, much more than an electric motor.

8. You are right. I can't say that about the average car. Mine is not average.

9. This is a repeat about Chevron's patent and I won't repeat my answer.

10. True, but I already stated previously and in this post numerous times that I am not typical. I also stated that the target is closer to $20-$25K for a new car.

The fact is that no one can build and sell an EV that competes dollar per dollar with the Toyota Camry at $25K with today's technology. I thought I made that point.

11. I tried to make every one of my comments directly on target. I refrain from bringing up paint jobs on Andy's cars because that has nothing to do with the subject. I have had my share of argumentation courses in college and feel that I have addressed all of your points pretty well. It was clear to me that you either did not read my post completely or did not understand it. If you did not read it completely before spouting off an answer, then that's your fault. If you didn't understand something I said, then just ask me for clarification. I would be happy to fill in the missing elements for you so that we can have a useful discussion.

However, you already have labeled me twice (in two different posts) as someone that is your adversary on the subject. Your mind is made up about me and you don't want me to confuse that image of me with facts that say otherwise. I am a fan of EVs, but I simply do not buy into all of your points (many of which are easily proven either false or in error with 5 minutes of research).

Ironic that you claim that I am the one following a "corporate line" when there is ample evidence that you are stuck following a rut of thinking that looks like a cult brainwashing. I don't mean to be offensive, but I am trying to say that I believe you are passionate in your beliefs to the point where you have lost critical thinking on the subject.

In summary, I applaud you passion. I only wish more people had it in life, but I feel like I am talking to a radio rather than having an educated discussion with an intellectual. Maybe I am wrong, so if I am, I am sorry.

All those who want all-electric propulsion systems for everything forget that electricity has to be manufactured and that will require doubling the number of electric generating plants or more. Solar is very expensive and doesn't work at night. Wind generation is undependable. Geothermal needs geological hot spots which are not common. Wave action generation can be taken out by violent storms. Nuclear produces deadly radioactive waste. Coal is plentiful, but it gives off CO2. Hydroelectric dams change the environment. Every one of these is opposed by an environmental group or a NIMBY group. It won't happen.

These groups were all for renewable fuels, made from plants, until they became a reality. Now they oppose biofuels because they compete for land with food crops and they think people will starve. Yet many of these groups also want fewer people on Earth. Biofuels are CO2 neutral and they get their energy from the sun. No, they cannot replace coal and oil completely. No one alternative will, but all together they can reduce our use of fossil fuels. The best way to make biofuels is to genetically engineer plants high in oil, starch or sugar that will grow well on marginal land, but that too is opposed as unnatural.

If you analyse the aims of PETA, vegans, radical environmentalists, population controllers, the free love and pot types and wildlife protectionists and take them to their conclusion, their ideal future society would live in the tropics, grubbing out their crops with stone tools, without fire, naked in mud huts. End of civilisation.

I think a multi-fueled capable external combustion vehicle would be cleaner and more efficient than any internal combustion vehicle. It could be built to use one or more fuels and be capable of easy conversion to any liquid or gaseous fuel. In the case of autos I would like to see a steam-electric hybrid which operates about 80% of the time as a short-range plug-in electric car, yet has the capability of going up to 400 miles by having a built-in generator powered by a small, clean, highly efficient steam engine. Ask - beesidemeusa@yahoo.co.uk - by e-mail about steam electric hybrids, lots of info.

Hi Guest.

I would do the same, only using a Stirling engine which is twice as effeicient as any steam engine, and is also multi-fuel capable. I have already done this 20 years ago when I installed a stirling-electric driven boat.

Spencer.

I agree with most every point you've made, however, "Nuclear produces deadly radioactive waste" is only true unless the waste is reprocessed. Nuclear dependent European nations reprocess their spent nuclear fuel virtually eliminating waste. We have had all reprocessing efforts in the USA blocked by (ignorant) environmental groups who are now realizing that nuclear energy produces no emissions, doesn't have the environmental impact of hydro or wind farms, is plentiful, consistent, controllable, safe and the waste can actually be reprocessed. It could actually be the 'Greenest' energy source we know. Gee, maybe these groups should have researched the facts on nuclear energy rather letting ignorance, fear and paranoia control them and their attorneys.

Go PHEV's!

Propulsion is going electric. Even for planes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8Pb_psj1A8 There are some great electric energy storage solutions already in the pipeline and lots more on the drawing board.

The production of th is energy doesn't have to be fossil fuel driven either. Nanosolar has already started producing the new gen of higher voltage solar panels and other similar companies (heliovolt, innovalight...) are building factories. Geothermal (and it's not limited by location) should get a lot of attention in the next year as well as several other new innovative ways of producing electricity.

The future is electric.

Since my last in depth comment was erased. Its reposted here since you obviously didn't read it. By they way deleting someone else's comment show that you are afraid of what they say. why?

Re: Is Propulsion Going Electric 01/01/2008 11:10 AM

Double gosh AnonH, your claims fly in the face of reason and fact: (can you recheck your data? )

The greatest tranfer of wealth in the history of mankind has taken place from the west to the arabs because the powers of big oil, detroit, and defense industry moguls, don't really care about your families future or their health. Consequently the dollar is falling like a rock, america is quickening on its pace to third world status. On the other hand why is europe gaining ground so fast? The euro continues to climb , why? History will look back on this time period as the time of mass blindness and blunders! The Oil Wars have cost YOUR GREAT GRANDCHILDREN what they were supposed to have, now the TRILLIONS of BORROWED money for the wars will have to be repaid by them.

1.

Contrary to what common folk lore states, business are in for a profit. If there was really money to be made with EVs there would be a scramble to deliver them. Sorry, but there isn't a big market. " ACTUALLY THERE IS A HUGE MARKET. CHECK DATA FROM OVERSEAS. ALSO GLOBAL WARMING IS A CONCERN AND PATENTS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE TO ENCOURAGE PROGRESS AND GROWTH NOT ALLOW A CO TO SIT ON IT MAKING IT SO EXPENSIVE THAT NO ONE CAN ECONOMICALLY USE IT.

2. YOU FAILED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS LIKE : WHY ISN'T OUR GOVERNMENT ENCOURAGING A TECHNOLOGY THAT CAN REDUCE OIL DEPENDENCE BY 90%?

3

Your analysis of the number of cars versus SUVs and light trucks (non-commercial trucks) is wrong"

Do your own research : go look at freeway at rush hour and tell me what you see. LOTS OF SMALL CARS> So your previous statement to the effect that america doesn't want small fuel efficient cars is in error.

4.

I really doubt that Chevron is holding a golden patent that allows batteries to be made at a fraction of the current cost. At least I would not bet my house on that story. "

Actually this is true in the way of they bought control of patent and then made it cost so much that no one could afford it (adds 17,000 $ to cost of cars). So since you are not researching this and we have how can you say this , again in error.

5.

Batteries are the main reason EVs are not taking us by storm"

Only partly true. The real main reason is such things as those who dare to go to congress to talk to senators are told by Union Reps (this is the story a friend told us) to back off or risk their families health. So the guy canceled his appt with senators and got back on plane to home. sad.

You don't answer why they destroyed perfectly good cars . These are the same co's that are so cheap they actually (ford) repainted cars used on serials like andy griffith and resold them instead of saving them in a museum. Go to mt airy Nc and ask them for yourself " where are these cars from the serial" .

When all the customers and mechanics agree on the fantastic nature of the EV1 and only the GM corportate line disagrees why would anyone think different?

6. Ni-Mh is not the best solution out there, but it is better than lead-acid"

Actually for once we agree. But disagree in the fact that Ni-MH works very well enough for now and is being suppressed by economic high pricing . The ni-mh's in the original RAV 4 ev's are STILL IN USE!! over 10 years and running. (don't come up with an exception go with the predominant data and never trust GM data on this).

7.

1. Zero to 60 in 4.3 seconds or less. The RAV4 EV screams to 60 in just 18 seconds.

We'll check that. Your SUV goes to 60 in 4.3 secs? really? which SUV is that ? FYI: High performance electrics do scream and out run ic's on many occasions. But I thought we were talking about fuel economy for consumers, not drag racing cars ?

2. Top speed in excess of 190 mph. " For a consumer vehicle helping reduce oil dependence in america to save us from global warming?? My car doesn't go 190? Most all DON'T . This is what a lawyer would call 'SPECIE' an attempt to confuse and cloud the issue by a barrage of meaningless off focus comments.

3. Weight <= 3,050 lbs. " With full fuel tank? or without? I think the EV1 was much less than that probably about 1500 lbs from the looks of it.

4. >= 1.0 G on the skidpad." Many EV owners brag about their high torque . Do your own research , don't focus on highest performance but on the gas saving moderate performances that can help america out from under big oils heel.

5. Range (based on a tank of gas) ~400 miles. . Range for commuters need only be about 100 miles. Of course more is better and over time it will happen but in europe first because our govt is not nurturing this technology and has its head up the big oils H car alternative ($$$ to buy $$$ to fill $$$ to run and only can 59 miles on one fill up).

6. Price < $80,000. Actually most EVs are much much less than that ($9,000 - 30,000). IF you did get one for $80,000 you would find it blows the doors off your car .

7. 100,000 mile/8 year bumper to bumper warranty. That means, no out of pocket costs except for tires, fluids, and electricity. " Not hard to get since hyundai does it already for the dirty gas cars we use today, information from EV1 mechanics says they never had any repairs. What goes wrong with your vacuum cleaner? Electrics are much less parts and less problems to boot, Also no heavy engine, no gas tank, no radiator, no carb, no muffler, on and on. Less parts less things to go wrong.

8. Resale value to better than 75% of original sale price after warranty expires. You can't say that about the average american gas car.. its more like 7.5% of original price after 8 years. FYI: the few remaining EV1s are priceless at this point in time since no one will sell you one. In europe you can walk down the street to a dealer and buy an electric, in america they are stifled and only by special order. (excepting hybrids of course).

9.

Now add in my monthly fuel costs and let's say that the difference I pay between gas and electricity is $200 per month. That's $2,400 per year. If a new battery pack costs me $24,000 (in today's dollars) it would have to last 10 years with my kind of performance driving to meet parity with my gas powered car. "

Actually for NI-MH that may be not so far off target I would say $17,000 for battery pack, but it used to cost (late 90's ) only $900 for same pack. WHY? you guessed it , CHEVRON raised the prices so high no one can afford it. But thats only if you buy from / thru them. HONDA AND TOYOTA STILL USE NI-MH (WHY NI-MH?_ must be pretty good! ) in their hybrids. And again the toyota rav-4 ev's are still in use with same original batteres MORE than 10 years later.

10.

Gas prices have barely kept up with the cost of living, so I think my above criteria is realistic. What is more, I need a reason to jump ship, so my total out of pocket costs need to be less to entice me to do the jump. The Tesla is a close possibility, but it costs over $100,000 and falls short on some of my criteria. "

Most americans don't spend $100, 000 on a car. Sorry but this comment is again off focus to the discussion of consumer transportation needs. Most spend $10 - $25,000 and resent that as well. Maybe gas prices have not kept up with inflation but neither has AIR either , doesn't mean we need to charge 20 times norm for it. The greatest tranfer of wealth in the history of mankind has taken place from the west to the arabs because the powers of big oil don't really care about your families future or their health. Consequently the dollar if falling like a rock, america is quickening on its pace to third world status. On the other hand why is europe gaining ground so fast? The euro continues to climb , why? History will look back on this time period as the time of mass blindness and blunders!

11. In summary most of your 'answers' are off target, not on focus, in error, based on changing the discussion to high performance vehicles when we were talking about the EV1 consumer type cars in the first place , and worst of all: Follow exactly the corporate LOBBYIST line! Remember ENRON?

HOPE THIS HELPS !! HAPPY NEW YEAR !

__________________
Peace begets Synergy which begets Progress!

ADDITIONAL:

IF you do car counts your original statement that americans don't want small cars and prefer suv's is totally inaccurate. GO TO Los Angeles freeway during rush hour and count them .. you will find instead of the 90% suv's you "originally " inferred its actually more like at least 50% small cars ---> thus at least half of L.A. driver see a need for small fuel efficient cars.

Seeking to cloud the issue by erasing and hiding the truth says you are the kind of person who either works for Oil/Detroit/Defense industry or is completely not looking at the facts. You probably believe Oswald acted alone. Check out : why did the government send limo for immediate refurb to detroit and told the refitters there to destroy all the extracted materials like bullet holed windshields etc. ? ?

"Since my last in depth comment was erased. Its reposted here since you obviously didn't read it. By they way deleting someone else's comment show that you are afraid of what they say. why?"

I did not erase your post. Post #10 was your last post and that post is still there. Post #11 was my response, which is also still there.

well maybe there is a change in the wind what about a unit that would never need to be plugged in at all ? that uses no fuel but does need parts changed every 20 years or so ? its compact and light weight and can use a regular lead acid to store excess power faster then the lead acid can take it out ?

cars are going to be electric its just a matter of time and they will have to figure out how to tax these as it will not be at the pumps !

the other issue is that it has to happen as the way we burn fuel is killing the planet and it has to stop soon.

If you wonder if its for real well there was testing done at a university in Ontario where they mesured 400 volts @ 10 amps AC power output oh best of all it was using 12 volts @ 1 amp DC as the input power ! i was there to see this all happen and made the prof. question the testing so as he used more equipment to check 3 times just to make sure what he saw.

just can not wait to see what comes out of this as a product as it will change the world and make it a greener place !

TO ANON: I can't see my # 10 but can see the rest of my comments including the last one before this. ?? (twilight zone_ or does some other mechanism make some comments visible and other not? ) . Of if not you maybe someone else decided to make it not visible?

Anyway ask yourself "why would GM sell a non-golden patent to Texaco? Why would texaco want a bad patent ? (chevron later bought texaco). And if NI-MH patent is so worthless why does honda and toyota keep choosing it over and over year after year, instead of "good" patent battery? Why are they in so many cordless phones? ( GM chose it too before they became terrifed of the electric car reducing profits in parts sales). Hope this helps. Do your own research and tell us what you find out. Make sure you charge them twice at least if you do drain them completely as they seem to have a plateau of sorts. Don't take for gospel the words of those who make trillions on the sales and filling of the gasoline cars. Don't accept their "stories" that for some reason electrics work great in europe but not in america. Look at sales figures in europe and then ask yourself why? thanks.

Also, count non-suv vehicles on the road. Its about 4 to 1 in favor of non-suv.

Now count small cars on the road , its about 50% compared to all others. Do these counts only at rush hour since we are talking about average commuter needs (not joyriding in the Hummer).

TO guest:

You say: " If you wonder if its for real well there was testing done at a university in Ontario where they mesured 400 volts @ 10 amps AC power output oh best of all it was using 12 volts @ 1 amp DC as the input power ! i was there to see this all happen and made the prof. question the testing so as he used more equipment to check 3 times just to make sure what he saw . "

I am doubtful because the laws of energy and physics say you can not get more out than in (thinking in universal terms of suns dying and galaxies eventually becomiung extinct ). Of course there is a form of psuedo perpetual energy in the solar alternatives that use "free" psuedo perpetual energy of the sun (of course some day the sun will go out in perhaps billions or years, but for out lifetimes its psuedo perpetual). Also there is a clock in the smithsonian that uses the motion of the earth to swing the pendulum on a "perpetual " clock. But most of this psuedo perpetual energy is low power . (although the tidal waves do have lots of power to generate electricity with).

Now you are saying that 1amp @ 12 volts = 12 watts as an input, creates somehow "close" to 4000 watts ? I really must say I don't believe it. They probably measured the ac amps incorrectly.

One fool PROOF way to convince laymen is to simply hook up a window ac unit, Thats a load that 12 watts won't support but that 4000 watts will.

BEWARE about half of the so called miracles are scams. If you want to see one that really does double the "LAPS" in toy trains and REAL OVER THE ROAD MILES in full size golf carts (motors) you can get out of batteries (because the energy is already in the already paid for batteries , you just can't use it until now), and triple and even quadruple the "TIME" of lighting (using low drain bulbs and slightly less lumens) goto www.triplebatterylife.com Remember, "time" and "miles" are not the same.

Please, let's not get stuck on stupid!

I believe Chevron bought that patent as a means to slow down EV growth (this is done all the time in industry. Look up Color Kinetics and how they are going after LEDs), but it is a mute point now. There are two other companies that build NiMh packs that do not infringe on that patent and a third that has a licensing agreement that supersedes Chevron's ownership. Also, Panasonic has reached a closed-door agreement with Chevron to produce packs for Toyota and Honda. The cost hasn't dropped, but I never expected them to because the price is market-driven.

GM sold the patent because they didn't want it and did not see EVs as a viable product line at the time.

Also. NiMh is an old technology that will be replaced most likely by Lithium-Ion, which the cost is dropping. That is where the immediate future is and there will be better technologies than that in the years to come. No one wants to bet the meg-million dollars on a large scale startup when the technologies are so volatile. The more money that gets put into the battery search the faster it will obsolete what we already have.

Speaking of parts inventories. Anything any company builds they must supply parts for that product for 10 to 20 years past its production life. Nobody in their right mind wants to stock 20 years of obsolete inventory to meet demands for parts. Then if the technology jumps to one thing , then again a few years latter you end up with multiple SKUs on the storage rack. That costs money!

I think I have said this three times before, but counting cars on the highway is not a scientific survey!!!

I think your insistence with this (and other points you are stuck on) is adequate proof to me that you are stuck like a skipping record. The whole discourse has become a useless one-way shouting match. You have no intention on debating (or listening), just preaching.

Have a good day. However, I will keep that bigger shovel handy if you really want it.

ANON: TripleGOSH ! You change your story daily?

"I believe Chevron bought that patent as a means to slow down EV growth..."

HOORAY FOR YOU YOU ACTUALLY SEE PART OF THE LIGHT ! This preplanned "slow down " you speak of is CONSPIRACY by legal terms. Legal conspiracy is still conspiracy ! This is a complete reversal of your 2 days ago position. We do agree although initially they didn't know it was so good. When you say this you are agreeing that slow down" is a means of suppressing. You haven't answered why they push garbage like the edsel, the gremin, the yugo, etc out the door but stop when the public raves about how good the electric (EV1) is. You trully sound like a broken record.

'Also, Panasonic has reached a closed-door agreement with Chevron to produce packs for Toyota and Honda."

HOORAY ! Now your new story is that they are the ones to use. (you previously said they weren't_). WoW we are on a roll of agreement. !!!

"The cost hasn't dropped, but I never expected them to because the price is market-driven." The original cost was about $50 but after they realized how good it was they raised the price (for full size auto battery size_) to $1000 each ($18,000 per car) to make sure no one would use it. Honda and toyota were forced to use hundreds of D cells or 63 - 6 volts all laboriously soldered together to get the wattage they could previously get for $900 in 18 batteries.

"GM sold the patent because they didn't want it and did not see EVs as a viable product line at the time."

ALMOST ! if you change your statement to include "didn't want to see it as viable" . http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=YCBc8pL1SGc to see the EV1 running recently.

"Also. NiMh is an old technology that will be replaced most likely by Lithium-Ion, which the cost is dropping. That is where the immediate future is and there will be better technologies than that in the years to come. No one wants to bet the meg-million dollars on a large scale startup when the technologies are so volatile. The more money that gets put into the battery search the faster it will obsolete what we already have. "

Wrong Again! Ni-MH is not in my book old. Ni-cad is old, Ni-FE is old, lead acid it old. They will churn and delay and buy up appropriate patents to make sure america doesn't have electric car for as long as possible (meanwhile europe has it everywhere). In other words don't expect electrics in america 'on a mass scale" until much later than everyone else.

"Speaking of parts inventories. Anything any company builds they must supply parts for that product for 10 to 20 years past its production life. Nobody in their right mind wants to stock 20 years of obsolete inventory to meet demands for parts. Then if the technology jumps to one thing , then again a few years latter you end up with multiple SKUs on the storage rack. That costs money!"

Wrong again, read above, they made billions of those crummy cars that they foisted out on the public in parts and sales.

"I think I have said this three times before, but counting cars on the highway is not a scientific survey!!! "

No, depending on how you do it. If you counted cars for a year in every big city at rush hour I think you'd have a good feel for what the public is driving. The main idea is you are doing YOUR OWN research instead of accepting the corporate line. Did you that car counts are done all the time by governments to get an idea of what is the count on certain roads so they can adjust their lights systems and for planning. You are great a clouding the issue: WHERE ARE THE EV'S IN AMERICA?

I do have one QUESTION: Do you get paid indirecty by any of the auto, oil, or defense industries?

Oh, joy. No, I don't think I have changed my story. I have consistently stated that this was opinion. And come on, now you are just dancing around the definition of "conspiracy".

Speaking of conspiracy, I sense that you are just a "conspiracist". That's fine if you want to live that way. I am a "skeptic" by nature and I don't look over my shoulder and I don't see the government, black helicopters, Big Oil, Big Pharmaceutical, Big Brother, Andy Griffith, Elvis, or any other monsters under my bed when I turn out the light at night.

Furthermore, just because I know it will irritate you to no end, I will not tell you who puts money in my pocket nor what really lies under your bed. ;-)

" I believe Chevron bought that patent as a means to slow down EV growth " was your statement. If that is not Conspiracy what is? You talk in circles and the fact that you won't reveal what industry pays you probably means you are hiding something? Do you really work for Oil or Auto or Defense industry, the three goups making the most tremendous profits off the perpetual oil wars?

This country is in BIG trouble (reread above message, ) greatest % transfer of wealth in history of mankind to arab nations thru oil sales vastly increased by artificially as you say "slowing down the EV growth" which makes us buy much more gas (oil), which transfer everyone life savings and their grandchidrens partially to the arabs? ALso dollar is falling like a rock significantly due to this (economy is bad when energy is high). Also all the money for the TRILLIONS spent on the oil wars is ALL BORROWED (bonds and other means) and who gets to pay for this huge whammy on the economy.. you got it YOUR GREAT GRANDKIDS !! What a disgusting generation to foist off this on the future kids and then at the same time pretend it isn't happening?

As for conspiracy theorists : Who did kill Lincoln, Kennedy, Oswald, King, Robt Kennedy, and so many others? Lots of dead bodies and according to your non- conspiracy ideology must all be accidents? WOW !! Right Booth was actually trying to protect Lincoln when he stubbed his toe and the gun went off by mistake.. scared he ran to collect himself thinking no one would believe him right? is this what you would believe? Connect the Dots !! They are doing it to you and your descendants as we speak! http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=YCBc8pL1SGc

Now they say Alex Graham Bell Stole idea for phone from ELisha GRAY! But according you to this would conspiracy and so automatically false! Wow.. I bet I could sell you some hot properties in the everglades for new condos!

Hey. TBL! Conspiracy involves more than one entity. Just because a business buys a patent does not a conspiracy make. Look up the definition for yourself.

Maybe I am hiding something, maybe not. Why should I tell you? Do you feel that "they" are out to get you?

So, the greatest wealth in history has been given to the Arabs? How? Show me the data. Don't just point to some YouTube video of a car parking, show me the facts.

We currently buy 11% of our oil from Arab nations. 3% of our imports come from Iraq (less than 2% of our total oil consumption). Maybe we should have invaded Canada since they represent almost 9% of our imports.

We would not need to import so much oil if we could drill for it ourselves, but the Green movement has put a stop to that. Instead, China is making deals with Mexico to drill in the Gulf of Mexico for oil where we are not allowed. For that matter, there is nothing that the Green movement and other organizations allow us to do for harvesting energy. You name it, wind, solar, oil, coal, nuclear, hydroelectric, or whatever it's opposed by these groups. Maybe that is the real conspiracy.

If you think I talk in circles, you should try to follow your own derailed train of thought in your threads. I think both the engineer and the conductor have jumped off your train a long time ago. It seems to me that it is a long distance call between where you are at and where reality lies.

If I "conspire" to bilk you out of your money because I want to sell lots of oil .. is that not a term that involves the word "conspire"?

Also OBVIOUSLY GM is not one person, in fact they have board meeting where the decisions discussed in private are voiced "for the record" and many times (not always) involve choreogaphed "information" to base seemingly "logical" decisions on.. of course the real decisions have already been made in private ,, these discussions are for the "record" and stockholder inquiries.. and god forbid govt investigations into what they said in the 80's WINDFALL Profits. SO now you know.. GM is more than one person.. also is the oil companies, and the defense industry. WOW ! SO there IS more than one person in your self admitted statement that you "believe GM slowed down the advent of the EV" .. CONSPIRACY involves as you said more than one.. and there is lots more than one.

If you need proof that massive monies are being transferred to arab countries via the OIL sales you indeed are out of touch. Psst... read the paper~ ~!

You sound just like an Oil or Auto or Defense industry Lobbyist.. therefore since you apparently aren't proud of who you work for enough to tell who you do work for or are paid by.. then we must presume you work for one or more of them.

In any event. The times are alot more critical than you armchair quarterbacks like for us to believe.... haven't you seen the exponential melting of the polar ice cap? Do you know that suppressing alternatives like EV's increase fossil fuel pollution massively? What do you need to see.. smog in your office? Experts say the environment is like a ship capsizing ever so slowly for hours even days until finally a tipping point is reached and in a very short time (minutes) it goes completly up side down! That is what could happen and your defense of those who are doing it for profit is not helping anyone (even those who profit by oil wars and gas cars will suffer in the end as well if the tipping point is reached) . Where will people go to escape the water levels rising.. would there be mass starvation? Wall street under the water? And experts say this could happen in only 50 to 100 years.

Not to mention "stealing" the blessing of the better lower cost lifestyle from so many around the world by ramping up energy prices so high that is seriously causing many problems including suicides, domestic violence, home foreclosures, now employment is down, etc etc. Yes when finances are bad crime goes UP ! Ask anyone. Its a pity you don't wish to see that those who seem to own you don't care !

1. I used the word entity with precision. There is a difference between entity and person.

2. If you posit a statement, be prepared to back it up. I have asked you to back up your statements more than once, but you have done that exactly zero, nada, times. Telling someone to read the paper is not backing up your claim. Show me the data

Your logic for whom I work for is an excellent example of paranoia under the bed. Again, you make vague accusations and innuendoes, but nothing to back up your assertions.

The New York Times is an agenda machine and hardly a critically acclaimed publishing house. The experts do not agree with each other, but there is way too much politics on the subject to get a valid answer as to what is really happing. You can cherry pick any of the experts you want. It is frustrating when you can't get the real facts because so many groups have an agenda of their own and twist the truth so much now that nobody can be sure what is really happening and why.

The Earth has been going through warming and cooling for millions of years. These cycles are documented. Since 2004 global temperatures have been going back down as per NOAA data. However, I would suppose that since they are a government entity they must be in Chevron's pocket. Maybe some shaman in South America would be a better source?

As for stealing the "blessings" from others, this is a great line. There is no other country in the history of the world that has given so much to the world than the USA. Again, agenda driven propaganda is eager to paint a different picture of history. It seems clearer and clearer that you may have swallowed the whole bait hook line and sinker.

Where is your critical thinking? Why can't you cite facts and data from credible sources? I suggest to you that you might dig for these things for yourself and not grab talking points from well know propaganda machines without cross checking. Once again, give me the facts and not rhetoric.

soooo.. then you are going on record as saying that there is no massive transfer of wealth to arab nations thru the oil sales? Truly you do exhibit paranoia at this truth being correct.

Talking to you is like talking to a corporate lobbyists (enron types). End of discussion . You choose to live in the dark and feed the darkness to others as well. Sorry for you.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=YCBc8pL1SGc

They feverishly recalled and destroyed 1110 brand new EV1's in the late 1990's (see "Who Killed the Electric Car" http://www.ev1.org/ ) and now hype a super expensive H car that everyone knows is dangerous, expensive to fill, hard to fill, and far away in the future. Why would they destroy evidence of a great car?

What I am going on record as saying is that your claims are baseless or at least the way you present them. Where's the data? Cite sources. If you want to make a claim fine, but I am calling you to the mat, so cite your sources and your data.

I will not accept a YouTube video of someone parking a car as definitive evidence of a conspiracy, a transfer of wealth, nor anything else that you have posted as true. Even your website www.ev1.org. These are not facts, just rhetoric (if you don't know what it means, look it up).

You need to cite verifiable facts from independent sources to make an argument and I don't think you can do it (or know how). From my viewpoint, when you send me links to these web sites I see someone that is consumed with the propaganda of a cult (at least that is how it comes across).

Furthermore, when I answer your questions (in detail) you ignore those answers totally and then ask the question to me again two or three posts later.

You shouldn't feel sorry for me. Talking (or writing, to be more precise) to me is like talking to a skeptic. Herein lies the problem. If that person you are talking (or writing to) doesn't agree with your statements you label them as one of the evil conspirators. What I am sorry to say is that I don't think you have an independent thinking mind, but I dare you to prove to me otherwise.

TODAYS NATIONAL NEWS ITEM: (google it if you don't believe it). OPEC makes enough in 6 days to buy GM and enough in 3 years to buy 20% of S&P 500.

Alternative transportion is not just a good idea its a matter of national security since the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind has / is taking place. Our government has let us down by letting big oil suppress the electric car in america. In 1998 oil was $8 /barrel now its $100. WE NEED THE ELECTRIC CAR AND NOW! I.E. The www.TripleBatteryLife.com patent makes a 50 Mile range into 100 miles for electrics, more than enough to eliminate 90% of america's oil needs. Imagine 50 cent gasoline and never having to stop at gas stations unless you are going more than 100 miles !

There is your facts! se le vie !

ok so i have to ask there was 4 in the room who are you and why did you release these results ? its ok the world is about to find out in a big way

ok the company website is www.magnacoaster.com

its magnetic pulse with electrical input and yes it is tested and yes those are the results we are getting the university back involved and offering them the chance to be the fist green place in the world. think they will say no ?

its been 2 long years and we have a product that is now ready to come into the market

Richard

Richard,

Congratulations. However, I am a bit confused about what it is that you are releasing. The post by 'Guest' was not well written and your web site really doesn't describe what you are doing.

For clarification, what is meant by 12V in @ 1 amp yielding more power out? I assume that the laws of Thermodynamics still are valid.

Your link below did not work? Is there another spelling. Be wary of machines that promise more than laws of physics say is possible.

=================================================== Your previous statment ---------------------------------------

ok so i have to ask there was 4 in the room who are you and why did you release these results ? its ok the world is about to find out in a big way

ok the company website is www.magnacoaster.com

its magnetic pulse with electrical input and yes it is tested and yes those are the results we are getting the university back involved and offering them the chance to be the fist green place in the world. think they will say no ?

its been 2 long years and we have a product that is now ready to come into the market

Richard

We have a breakthrough, although we may not know whether it will provide a real solution for a while.

From:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_ion_battery

In December 2007, researchers at Stanford university reported creating a lithium ion battery with ten times the energy density (amount of energy available by weight) through using silicon nanowires deposited on stainless steel as the anode. The battery takes advantage of the fact that silicon can hold large amounts of lithium, and helps alleviate the longstanding problem of cracking by the small size of the wires. [1] To gain a 10fold improvement in energy density, the cathode would need to be improved as well; however, just improving the anode as such could provide a severalfold improvement in energy densitity. The team leader, Yi Cui, expects to be able to commercialize the technology in about five years.[2

I saw that, too. I expect to see more of this in the next few years. Battery technology development will be a bit volatile for a while. However, this is good!

Long, but somehow interesting exchange of opinions.... :o

let me add to the inventive side of this topic: I googled and found this:

http://www.flynnresearch.net/products/PPMT%20Products.htm

I hope, that we see more to this invention, as I think it look promising,

but what do you think?

I will try to make a generator for a small household windmill with this technology, but it will take some time before I can post results.

moe

First impression looks good. I didn't have a lot of time, but it would be interesting to see some comparative numbers to get a feel for how much more efficient these things will be.