Moving Like Water

Chevy Volt

I get questions:

Nick, what are your thoughts on this article in the NYT about the downside of electric vehicles? I thought that they more than a 40mpg range. We’re gonna have to develop cars that don’t need gas at all:

It’s a great question. As I mentioned in the past:

I see plug-in hybrids as a critical transitional component of the move toward sustainability because they offer the trust of being able to reliably cover some distance with the sustainability of electricity.

In other words, the gas-assist engine isn’t as much a range-extender as much as it is a confidence-extender. Getting stranded alongside the road is probably one of the greatest American fears specific to our culture. I believe that fear has by far been the biggest support the foreign car manufacturers ever had. American companies continued to turn out low-quality, unreliable crap while Americans increasingly turned to Hondas and Toyotas. So it’s not a fear to be taken lightly and it’s pure genius of Chevy to go with a small engine that simply recharges the batteries. (Traditional hybrids combine electric and gas engines for power.)

So this gas-assist concept is designed to create trust in the vehicle so you might consider buying it.

However, the real crux of your question relates to what you described as the “40mpg range”. And this is a common point of confusion.

Note the details from the NYT article:

G.M. engineers say that a fully charged Volt is capable of 40 miles of purely electric driving before the computer calls for the generator, which has an output of 53 kilowatts (about 71 horsepower), to start and sustain the battery’s minimum charge level — the “extended range” operating mode.

In other words, it can run for 40 miles on the battery, then the gas is used to recharge the batteries (while you’re driving). That’s different than mpg or miles per gallon. I’m not sure what they’re saying the total range of the car would be and a cursory search around the Internets didn’t turn up anything. In other words if you filled up the gas tank and took off down the road until it died, how many miles could you go? Not clear.

But maybe it’s somewhat irrelevant. It’s being sold as a commuter car and that should allow it to get most of us to work and back home every day and possible even some trips to the store before you’d need to plug in. That means the gas engine might never kick on for many of us.

Right now the main agenda for the U.S. is to build out an infrastructure that can support the Volt and cars like it. My commute is less than 10 miles. I could actually get by with a full electric car if there were currently some reasonable choices, something I’ll post about soon. Supporting electrics with plug-in stations along the highway, at work and along city streets will be desperately needed. If the Volt can help us reach the critical mass needed to force the building of that infrastructure then bring it on. Then, eventually, we may not need gas at all.

Here at Moving Like Water, we’re always hot to jump on something that’s new and different. Which is why I’ve been sitting on this from ecogeek for a few weeks now.

The company, Unimodal, is claiming to be developing a new transportation system that is very low cost, better for the environment (runs on electricity, obviously) and maintains the freedom of the car by eliminating fixed routes.

Now I don’t know how realistic their vision is or how advanced the development is, but I know if I was a shark on Shark Tank, I’d be asking “Do you have any sales??”. Because it’s an interesting idea, but it’s hard to imaging a municipality springing for such an untested concept. And while it may be admittedly cheaper per mile than, say, light rail, it would also demand a much larger footprint to fulfill their key benefit: not being tied to a specific route. In order to get where you need to go, SkyTran would need to have a full city map of possible destinations pretty much at the outset. Otherwise, you have an expensive amusement park ride. Which means, I think, that you could have higher start-up costs than traditional rail by needing more miles for a first phase. But I suppose the counter argument to that is that with the same money, you’d serve more area so it may be worth discussing. (Or maybe I’m just cynical due to Seattle’s history of being suckered by monorail system proposals in the past.)

Now one of the reasons I love trains is the same reason my Republican friends hate them: they work as equalizers in society. In countries that rely on transit, you’ll see wealthy businessmen in suits sitting next to boot-wearing laborers, teenagers with headphones and everyone in between. It becomes impossible to pretend that people who aren’t like you don’t exist and it becomes crucial to think in terms of our common interests instead of your personal self-interest. For example, the fantasy that you’re not affected by your neighbors without health insurance becomes impossible when someone coughs next to you on a train. A healthier society is much more immediately tied to a healthier you. It’s easier to pretend to be unaffected by others when you’re sitting high in your SUV above a homeless person at an offramp.

Unfortunately the SkyTran concept retains the separate pod concept of today’s cars, where we don’t need to interact with others and we can speed along ignoring those around us.

Additionally I’m not totally sold on the argument that systems such as this are cheaper. I once had an argument with someone who claimed you could simply run electric trolley buses on a separated (paved) track and not bother with building the full systems required by rail. And it’s not a completely dumb idea. In a way, it’s taking the best part of trains (largely separating them from traffic) and the best part of buses (supposedly cheap) and rolling it out across the system. But personally I think it depends what time horizon you’re looking at. Buses would be cheaper if you talked about a one-year horizon, but would be vastly more expensive if you talked about 100 years. But maybe SkyTran has a chance of making their affordability argument. When even proponents are stuck in the mindset that buses are cheaper, they might be able to convince some leaders this is the way to go.

That’s why I’m sticking with the tried and true concept of integrated train systems. Seattle, where I live, is finally getting its act together on effective transit systems. It’s not the heavy rail system I’d like to see, such as San Francisco’s BART system, but it’ll do. Experienced transit users know changing trains is not that difficult and can be a very efficient method of getting across a city. The trick is having the political will to build the transit systems we’ll need for the future. And if there were a system like SkyTran here, I’d love riding it, but I’m not holding my breath waiting for it to be built. I’ll be watching it closely, but I don’t think I’ll be investing my money just yet.

When we talk about using “green jobs” to leverage our way out of our hollow economy, this is what we’re talking about.

An idle 320-acre Ford Motor Co. plant, which during its 52 years of operation assembled 6.6 million Lincoln Continentals, Ford Thunderbirds and other vehicles before halting operations two years ago, is getting reincarnated as a renewable energy equipment manufacturing park.

How cool is that? And if you’re even remotely aware of the extent of Detroit’s decay then you’ll be delighted at this news.

From the Earth2Tech article, it sounds like it’ll be more than just a straightforward plant, leasing some of the space to other companies and will have a training center, presumably to gear up the workforce for this new industry. And worth noting that the deal was dependent upon government involvement (ie, money), all of which I’m sure will come back to it in tax revenues as their devastated economy kicks into gear again.

 Nice job, all around!

Well, right on the heels of the ultra-cool Tesla Model S announcement the other day comes word that Detroit Electric had made a strategic partnership to mass produce full electric cars. The very plain-looking sedan may look boring, but according to the spec sheet, it does 0-60 in 8 seconds and boasts a top speed of 112 mph.

The battery pack will come in two options: a short-range and longer range. The short range should get you about 112 miles (which you could do in one hour at top speed – heh!) . The long range version can make it nearly 200 miles on a charge.

The price is much more reasonable than the $50,000 Tesla. It’ll start at $23,000, which is a price for a product launch. Launch is planned for early 2010 in Europe, with the U.S. market hopefully to follow very soon after. 2010 may indeed be the Year of the Electric Car.

Sounds sweet, right? So what’s the downside? Just this: Don’t be fooled by the name. This isn’t an American company (although it does have a long and storied American history) and the cars won’t be built here. So. Incredibly. Frustrating. Still, that’s no reason to boycott since it puts it in the same boat as just about every other car right now, but it sure feels like a big lost opportunity.

I’ve long been struggling with my light bulbs. And the bulbs have been winning. I think it’s critical we get off standard incandescent bulbs, yet widely available alternative of CFLs leaves me cold. And yellow. I’ve hated the weird color they give off and the delay when switching them on. Plus in my old house (I just moved) the CFLs would last half the time of my standard bulbs (admittedly could be related to the older wiring in that house or the quality of the brand I’d purchased). And they contain loads of poisonous mercury.

Now I have to admit, CFLs have been making big strides lately and I’ve been swapping out standard bulbs in the new house with CFLs. I’m experimenting with whether I can put a 75-Watt level CFL into an fixture labeled as maximum 60 watt. My theory is that the CFLs burn cooler and therefore are not a fire hazard. Plus Mr. Tight-Watt agrees!

I tried it recently in a three-bulb fixture, being careful to purchase “instant-on” bulbs with an Energy Star label. These were manufactured by GE. A little more money, but sooo worth it! I’d say the light from these new bulbs is just as good in terms of quality as incandescent and the instant-on feature neutralizes one of the most annoying things about florescent lighting.

So I’m actually pretty happy with light bulb situation when, what’s this? An LED bulb is finally hitting the market that is as bright as a 60-Watt bulb. And only consumes 8 Watts? Yes, the Geobulb is now for sale.

Given that the bulb retails for $115, it’s being marketed as a long-lasting (10 years) replacement bulb for hard-to-reach areas. While I may buy one as an experiment, it obviously makes no sense to buy a bulb at that price. But it’s one to watch and a sign that our path to a clean energy future may be closer than we think!

Oh, and since we all need to get a lot smarter in buying bulbs instead of buying for fire safety (max 60 Watt, etc.) we need to start buying in Lumens. The Energy Star Web site has a handy table for comparing different products on a Lumen basis.

I’ve been beyond busy lately which has naturally affected my blogging frequency. But this just couldn’t wait: The Tesla Model S pictures and specs are out. And it’s sweet. Oh, so sweet. I must have one.

For those of you who haven’t been waiting anxiously for the Tesla sedan to be announced, here are the basics:

• 100% electric
• 300 mile range
• 0-60 in 5.6 seconds
• Seats 7 (this I have to see)
• Plug into any normal outlet
• Looks sweet

Drool, drool, drool.

Regular readers know I believe that a fully electric car is a key building block to a sustainable society and, particularly, to solving the global warming catastrophe. We have an existing road infrastructure that’s not going away any time soon and a generally car-dependent lifestyle. I’d love and prefer to see a move to mass transit but it’s just not realistic in the near-term. With a 300 mile range, the Tesla Model S could become the commuter car of choice. The range will give you the confidence to drive it to work or on a short trip without worry. Drive to work, drive home and plug in for the night. Now if I could just pop a windmill on the roof to provide the free power, I’d have my freedom, baby!

I’d be remiss to not point out the bad news: $50,000 price tag (yikes!) and not available until 2011. Oh well, gives me some time to save up.

Throughout the presidential election campaign, we endured endless ads from two unusual sources. One was the endless loop of “Pickens Plan” ads and other other was the heavy rotation of nonsensical “We” ads.

If you’ve been near a TV at all during the last few months, you’ve seen both of these ads. In some ways the similarities are more telling than the differences with these ads. Both are focused on sustainability in their own way, both claim to be demanding renewable energy and both at least seem to be aimed at moving opinion leaders toward their approach.

But what are these plans and organizations all about? You certainly can’t tell from these 30 second ads. I decided to take a look.

The We campaign is being run by the WeCanSolveIt.org group, founded by Al Gore (full disclosure: big Al Gore fan here and I joined the group when it was first organized). The We group’s goal is to get the U.S. to 100% clean electricity in 10 years. The goal is so aggressive that you could be forgiven for assuming that their position is nothing more than a clever use of the Overton window. I, however, think it is an attainable goal. And, like Al Gore would probably say, it’s a goal that we can’t afford to miss. Sadly it is an expensive goal as well; although we could certainly use some infrastructure spending in America to kick-start our economy.

I’m excited about We because it puts our focus where it should be: moving to electricity for energy wherever possible and creating that energy with clean, renewable sources. And for those of you who are regular readers will note, that means you’re not burning anything. The technology is here today, but it’s not the cheapest energy in most cases. For example, let’s say you wanted to move your house to solar. You would probably pay something above $20,000 on panels and an inverter. Plus you’ll likely need a new furnace if you live in a colder part of the country. With an electric bill of, say, $100ish per month, you’re looking an incredibly long payback. There’s no way to move massive numbers of people to these solutions with those economics. This is why RE<C is such an important concept. In fact it’s the entire basis of this Web site.

Which brings us to the Pickens Plan.

Now I’m doing my best to give the plan an honest look, but readers should note that I’ll never forgive this sleazeball for financing the Swiftboat ads against John Kerry in 2004. Simply disgusting and immoral.

So with that bad taste in my mouth ignored, let’s look at Pickens. T. Boone PIckens rightly highlights the fact that our foreign oil consumption has risen for decades now under both political parties. He doesn’t mention how much money he made off that oil importation, however. His plan calls for a bold move to renewable energy, such as wind. But, as you’ve seen in his commercials, he notes the “technology isn’t there yet. We need a bridge.”

His bridge? Natural gas, or as he calls it, CNG. CNG stands for compressed natural gas (don’t kind yourself into thinking the C stands for clean. It doesn’t. Now natural gas does work in cars. Governments and taxis have used it for years. Now, what you may not know is that Pickens is the largest shareholder in Clean Energy Inc., a natural gas distribution company. Stations are already popping up around the country.

So is this “bridge” really just a bridge from your wallet to Pickens’ bank account? Hard to say, but it’s clear Pickens stands to make a fortune. Not that I mind someone making money from their ideas. I’m a proud capitalist and nothing would make me happier than making money by driving greater sustainability. But is there something else going on here? This Business Week article seems to show that there is. It seems Pickens is snatching up midwest land and driving toward a pipeline pointed toward Texas. For oil? No, this time water. Could Pickens be getting ready to step on the drinking water hose? Yikes! Could the plan to build a massive wind farm in the midwest actually be a water rights grab? I’m sure I’m not qualified to say, but the speed at which Pickens’ wind power plans were shelved puts quite a bit of weight on the wrong side of the scale.

From a marketing perspective, kudos to Pickens for a very clear, powerful marketing campaign. I’m a member of We, have seen dozens of their ads and still can’t figure out what their core message is. Do they want volunteers? Investors? Donations? I can’t tell! Weak! Pickens also shows how shooting some video of yourself in front of spinning windmills can’t help but make you look like an environmental hero. It’s a lesson John McCain used quite a bit during the campaign.

So the bottom line? Pretty simple, really. They just have different goals. Al Gore’s We group is 100% about climate change issues. He wants us to drop the carbon output of this country and fast. And rebuild our economy in the process. Pickens, if taken at face value, is focused on escaping the clutches of middle eastern dictators. An admirable goal, but one that is also solved with the We approach. Unfortunately, if Pickens’ plan were to work, it would actually extend the climate change challenges by extending the timeframe that our economy is based on burning a natural resource. Add in the worries over water issues and with Pickens you have the exact opposite of sustainability. Just more short-term corporate thinking from a billionaire.

Decision: We.

One of the stories I missed while I was out over the holidays was some reporting done on the remarkable growth of wind power over the past year.

Check out this snip from the government:

The U.S. wind energy industry installed 5,244 megawatts (MW) of wind power capacity in 2007, according to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). The rapid growth shatters all previous records and boosts the total U.S. wind power capacity by 45% in only one year. The growth even exceeded AWEA’s expectations for 4,000 MW of new capacity, a prediction made just two months ago. In fact, wind power provided 30% of the new generating capacity installed in the United States in 2007.

Dry language aside, this illustrates a couple different points:

1. The economics of wind power are making sense.
Certainly it could also mean that we’re in some sort of bubble situation, but given that we’re seeing actual windmills stuck into the actual ground, it seems a bit more tangible than either dotcom bubble business models or theoretical real estate property value gains.

2. There’s a capacity need.
Now this might be driven by the desire to move some of our energy overhead to renewable sources, but it also may mean that we need more capacity to keep up with growth. Or, it simply might mean that it’s cheaper (see point 1) to build and install a windmill than it is to produce other forms of power.

Either way this seems like great progress to me.

Special Thanks to Ian Robinson for the excellent drawing.