A Chat with Project Better Place Investor, Michael Granoff

57 Responses to “A Chat with Project Better Place Investor, Michael Granoff”

1. 
   
   

   Jim I Says:
   March 31st, 2008 at 7:11 am

   My reaction to this is that Israel is the size of New Jersey, and the population (less than 6 million) is about two thirds of that state. And Denmark is about twice the size of Massachusetts, again with less than 6 million in total population. This type of plan may work in very small countries with small populations, and limited amounts of roadways. For comparison, Israel has about 10K miles of roads and Denmark, about 25K miles. Ohio alone has over 119K miles! So I could not guess the amount of time it would take to set up the infrastructure in the USA for such a project.

   That is, of course, assuming the people in this country would consider buying a car without a fuel source in the first place!

   I think that for the time being, the E-REV solution makes the most sense….  
   
   (Quote)

2. 
   
   

   Van Says:
   March 31st, 2008 at 7:36 am

   To fail to see the need for a range extender seems like an admission of blindness to the facts. The battery, or electrical energy storage device costs a lot per KWH, so it makes economic sense to cover the average commute with the smallest battery possible, that also provides the power draw and longevity to satisfy expectations, and then provide a range extender for the occasional long drive. Later, when the cost of the energy storage system comes down, and the energy density goes up, then BEVs will make the most sense. But not yet.  
   
   (Quote)

3. 
   
   

   Eric Says:
   March 31st, 2008 at 7:42 am

   A REEV is the best solution to getting electric cars here for short trips TODAY, while not compromising people’s desire to travel on long trips when necessary.

   An infrastructure such as this would be extremely costly. I think such a structure is less accommodating than a REEV for the driver, IMHO.

   However, once we get 300-400 mile BEVs, a structure that would allow fast-charging (sub 10 minutes) would seem quite profitable. That would rely on more complex charging stations (more investment) and the battery chemistry to handle such a fast charge becoming mainstream.  
   
   (Quote)

4. 
   
   

   Schmeltz Says:
   March 31st, 2008 at 7:55 am

   Although I think PBP is a revolutionary idea, I think Jim I above brings up an excellent point about the population and geographical difficulties that would be at issue in the U.S. I could see this taking off in the 3 big U.S. metro centers, (NYC, LA, Chicago), and then eventually working its way to smaller cities, suburbs, and then finally the rural areas, although, I think the Volt is a much better interim solution for the U.S….now. For smaller countries, with denser population centers and less/no wide open expanses of driving (think of the mid-western U.S.), this could be very viable. Japan comes to mind as an excellent candidate.

   It seems to be a really thought provoking concept, (and I’m not knocking it), but it just seems for the U.S. market, at least for the next 15-20 years, the Volt seems to be a better solution.  
   
   (Quote)

5. 
   
   

   Dave B Says:
   March 31st, 2008 at 8:11 am

   Lyle,

   Glad that you and other players in the EV field are debating the various “options” when it comes to possibilities.

   As for PBP, there is such a problem that organizations become too big too fast and the idea implodes because the infrastructure simply is not yet there. PBP had better ensure the idea works in Israel and other nations before even thinking about bringing it to the US for the same reasons Jim I echoes above. And another thing, PBP is or will be subsidized by government dollars which is a very slippery slope when it comes to free market ideas. I do NOT want government telling me how or when or how far I can drive.  
   
   (Quote)

6. 
   
   

   Statik Says:
   March 31st, 2008 at 8:46 am

   I do alot of investing, a good 4-5 hours of my day is trading. Generally the rule of thumb is, if you can’t understand the model…there isn’t one. Think the thousands of IPOs that are build on nothing.

   Let me tell you about PBP from how I understand it:

   A) Build large scale recharging infrastructure, for a industry that doesn’t exist, in a couple obscure foreign companies.

   B) The CEO has zero experience in any auto field.

   C) The company has a whopping 10 employees (as of 4 months ago)…based out of California for some reason.

   D) Here’s a quote from fearless leader, “Mr. Agassi acknowledges that pulling off such an idea could take years and billions of dollars in capital investment”

   E) The company has no ‘officially registered’ name, it just goes by the working name is Better Place.

   F) That 100 mil from Isreal…from big oil. That wants to lease you batteries instead of selling you gas. The Chairman from ‘Isreal Corp,’ is ‘Chairman’ at Project Better Place.

   G) Here’s his old boss at SAP: “I’ve never seen someone as skilled as Shai at selling abstract concepts,” says Nimish Mehta, a former senior vice president at SAP

   Agassi, as far as I can tell, is a kid who developed (with childhood friend Udi Ziva) a ‘dot.com’ start up “Top Tier” in the 90s…sold it as gold to SAP for 400 million cash when he was 30.

   Later Ziva is quoted as saying SAP bought them because it was scared of potential licensing deals that might have been made with the likes of Microsoft…and he answers this question”How much do sales of the portal amount to?” Like this: ”We don’t measure the revenue of the portal, because the revenue is counted as part of our overall revenue.”

   Oooh boy, where do I send my check?

   Fortunately there is multiple places on the site “Projectbetterplace.com” to ‘get involved’ Whether it be ‘a business partnership agreement’ or ‘technology partnership agreement’ or just a plan old sticky ‘Investing in Project Better Place’ While your these why no jump to the thread ‘IPO planned?’

   Lyle, really do some homework and make him answer some tuff questions before you give them free publicity. I’d start with this:

   “How do you plan on recouping hundreds of millions/billions of dollars when there is virtually no electric cars out there and people are only willing to pay fractionally the cost of gas for electric power…and last time I checked the only thing worse in people’s mind to buying gas is ‘leasing’ anything when it comes to electric.”

   /Judge Dredd world off…total scam  
   
   (Quote)

7. 
   
   

   Statik Says:
   March 31st, 2008 at 8:47 am

   I have to cut down the lengths of my posts, lol.

   Apologies  
   
   (Quote)

8. 
   
   

   nasaman Says:
   March 31st, 2008 at 9:11 am

   I agree with most of what’s been said, but want to add that I believe the Volt’s E-REV architecture will be the best available for quite a long time, at least for most people. I’ve watched batteries evolve over several decades for spacecraft applications (where cost is secondary to capacity, efficiency & lifetime) and where PLENTY of development money has been available. Based on this, I think many people here are overly optimistic that EV battery performance will improve significantly, or that battery costs will drop dramatically, in the next 10-20 years. Part of the reason I’m convinced battery performance will improve by (at most) about 2:1 while battery costs drop by only about 2:1 over the next decade or so is that the range extender will continue to be much lighter & cheaper than a massive battery such as used in a Tesla, for at least 10-20 years.

   Also, I cornered several GM engineers at Volt Nation and asked them if they’d given adequate consideration to an inherent advantage of the E-REV architecture –REDUNDANCY. Most of us have become resigned to the fact that conventional cars have numerous weaknesses, many of which can strand us on a busy interstate in heavy traffic and at great danger. I said to these guys, “you should be thinking the way guys like me have been forced to think —i.e., how can I eliminate failure modes that could immobilize the Volt?”

   A simple example is failure of the serpentine belt nearly all cars use —within a few miles, the engine will overheat without the water pump, disabling the car. However, the Volt’s range-extender could lose its belt, water pump, or anything else that would render it inoperative (including the generator itself) AND THE VOLT COULD STILL BE DRIVEN TO A SAFE OFF-ROAD LOCATION OR TO A SERVICE STATION, EVEN STARTING OUT WITH ONLY A 30% SOC —if an emergency override switch were included to allow it.

   It’s also true that a complete failure of the Volt’s 16KWh battery will still allow the car to be driven safely home. Properly marketed, this is a powerful argument for a well-designed E-REV over an BEV —an argument that will make battery swap-outs and/or 300-mile batteries hard to sell when the cost & weight of both are compared!!!  
   
   (Quote)

9. 
   
   

   nasaman Says:
   March 31st, 2008 at 9:27 am

   PS: Regarding the Volt’s range extender reliability & duty cycle…. Here in “hurricane gulch” (Florida), several hundred thousand people & businesses own gasoline-powered generators for use during extended power outages. Most of these are only needed every 2-3 years, and you can be sure most owners DON’T fire them up once/month, drain their gas (or “winterize them”) in between those emergencies. Honda, Yamaha, etc actually design these generators to operate reliably on a VERY infrequent basis (despite what their operating manuals might say).

   I’m therefore convinced GM can design the Volt’s 3cyl ICE to operate reliably on a very infrequent basis (despite what the Volt’s operating manual might say)!!! E-REV is here to stay for a LONG, LONG time!  
   
   (Quote)

10. 
    
    

    Jim F. Says:
    March 31st, 2008 at 9:59 am

    I don’t think the PBP concept will work in the U.S. for many years. I think the Volt E-REV is the solution for the forseeable future. I live in Texas, but have relatives in Florida and grandchildren in Oklahoma. I want a vehicle that can go the distance without special recharging stations, etc.  
    
    (Quote)

11. 
    
    

    Mark Bartosik Says:
    March 31st, 2008 at 10:05 am

    Nasaman, yet another deserving override switch. I’m not sure how many we have thought of so far, but there are quiet a few…

    1) Force SOC below 30% for getting off road safely in case of failure (might want loud annoying noise to ensure not used too often).
    2) Force generator to run to cycle the oil.
    3) Force generator to run to burn off (all) old fuel.
    4) Force generator to run to save battery for when you get to the city (better to run zero emissions in populated areas).
    5) Force EV only for another X mile, e.g. nearly home and not worth firing up the ICE (with bad first 30 seconds emissions) if you are 1 minute from home.
    6) Pre-heat cabin car from grid.
    7) Run ICE now, because my wife is freezing cold and the battery heat pump isn’t heating the cabin fast enough.

    Maybe we should start a forum thread to list behavior override uses?  
    
    (Quote)

12. 
    
    

    Schmeltz Says:
    March 31st, 2008 at 10:16 am

    Nasaman:
    You said: “I’m therefore convinced GM can design the Volt’s 3cyl ICE to operate reliably on a very infrequent basis (despite what the Volt’s operating manual might say)!!! E-REV is here to stay for a LONG, LONG time!”

    That is a good point about the range extender ICE, and being able to operate (problem free) on an infrequent basis.  
    
    (Quote)

13. 
    
    

    BillR Says:
    March 31st, 2008 at 10:19 am

    So, cars will now become like big cordless drills, just yank out the depleted battery and slap in a new one. Although, I see problems with this.

    Have you ever flown to a city where there is a big event in town, like the Final Four? There are hardly any rental cars available. Don’t you think the same thing could happen with battery packs? Then what’s your option, get in line for a charging port? To me, this option leaves too much room for inconvenience (spend an extra night in a motel in shady part of the city, because that’s where the battery went dead).

    How about the blackouts? We’ve had several large ones in the past decade. Where is your power coming from in these situations? Just more things to think about when your only source for energy comes from the grid.

    Also, I like having independence. Once I’m “hooked” onto the battery exchange, I am at their mercy. If they decide to double their prices in one year, what are my options? It’s too much like credit card companies deciding to up your interest rate because you were late on one payment.

    With the E-REV concept, if gas stays ridiculously expensive, I can make the best of my battery pack. If my utility rates soar, I can go back to gasoline, ethanol, or look at solar power. With changing times, I have different options.

    For most people, their gasoline consumption with the Volt will be about 1/5 to 1/10 of what it is in a normal vehicle. Why are we worried about this small amount of gasoline? To me it’s like trying to build a house that is perfectly insulated. With 3″ of insulation, you may need 2000 gal. of heating oil, with 6″ you reduce to 1000. To install 12″ of insulation, you need to double frame your house , pour a thicker foundation, add the extra insulation, etc. The return on the extra 6″ of insulation is negative. Theoretically, you will never get to zero energy loss, no matter how much insulation you install.

    For me, the E-REV is the best way to go. With time, if battery technology improves and charging times are reduced, then the gasoline stations will be replaced by charging stations.  
    
    (Quote)

14. 
    
    

    Texas Says:
    March 31st, 2008 at 10:33 am

    This Project Better Place movement is quite exciting. I was shocked the other day when I heard that Denmark also signed up. I think the system could work for large land area countries with a few modifications:

    1) Start with a series hybrid design like the Volt. The vehicle would have a small (40 mile range) user owned battery AND a compartment for the rental (utility or country owned power source) unit. This way you could enjoy the best of both worlds. You would not have to lug around all the extra weight for your normal short commute but could use the swap stations when they were available (like on the highways) during your longer drives. Since the US – Canada – Mexico land masses are so huge it would be impossible to fully cover all of that driving area, even with an Apollo like project. You could add the infrastructure in sections (like in a big city – LA) that make economical sense. The E-REV (or similar) design would allow you to get anywhere a normal car can go plus enjoy any of the clean infrastructure that you encounter.

    2) Since the mobile concept was brought up. Use that. However, just like a phone in the US you will not get good coverage everywhere. It will be accepted just like the spotty phone coverage. When you are “roaming” you would just use the old gas stations.

    3) Have a federal ruling for charging and swap-out standards. Nothing would be worse than different standards across the country. If you can’t get this, don’t even start.

    4) Make sure the V2G systems are wireless and idiot proof. You should be able to just drive your car in the slot and it not only charges your battery but also your account.

    5) Make the swap-out area weather proof. There are still areas in the US that use salt to melt snow. The ice, dirt, crud that gets all over the chassis is a difficult engineering challenge to overcome. Test this harshly or I can see people crawling on their backs in the middle of the winter trying to knock off the ice and snow buildup so the battery compartment can be accessed.

    6) Hate to say this but crime in the US is rampant. Make the battery not only hard to steal but hard to authenticate. Make it so only the very sophisticated criminal can get all the systems working.

    If enough countries get on-board with Project Better Place and these smaller test markets prove to be successful I think there will be a big push to make this work in bigger countries. Let’s start small and work our way up. The PHEV is an excellent solution for large countries. I also think the two can work together. As the price of gas goes higher the motivation to use the charging and swap-out stations will grow. The more demand the faster the infrastructure can be built out.  
    
    (Quote)

15. 
    
    

    Jeff M Says:
    March 31st, 2008 at 10:44 am

    The guy behind Project Better Place came from SAP, Germany’s biggest software company. See http://tinyurl.com/yq8sam

    There’s also 13 other stories about PBP linked to over at evworld.com

    As Jim has already mentioned, Israel is a small geographic area. In addition, unlike in most other places, most folks are NOT driving outside the geogrphic area for obvious reasons.

    Folks should also go back and look at the threads on this site regarding how different Chevy Volt price points price more and more folks out of the market for one. A setup like this one in a fixed small geographic area may make sense for today. Not buying the battery but essentially renting it reduces up front costs to the car’s buyer. In addition not having an on board generator set (aka “range extender”) also reduces up front costs and also makes the design less complex.

    I also disagree with nasaman regarding the need for redundancy, at least in Israel’s case. I don’t think a cost benefit analysis would substantiate having a “range extender”. These battery exchange/recharge stations are going to be spread out across Israel so not being able to get to one before depleting the battery (”running out of gas”) shouldn’t be a problem, and if you do, your distance to one isn’t going to be that far (I also wouldn’t be surprised if road side assistance couldn’t do a swap or a partial quick charge, enough to get you to a swap/recharge station).

    In addition don’t forget that adding in redudancy also introduces another failure point itself. Look how many shuttle missions were aborted on the launch pad because an redundant system or sensor failed. Without a “range extender” you have a pure battery electric vehicle, so these cars in this project will probably have 90% fewer moving parts. It would be interesting to see some real world data on how often those few Rav4-EV’s and Chevy S10-EV’s that have been on the roads have broken down while on the road, and what the actual nature of the failure was (a “range extender” won’t help if the POT on your gas pedal fails, or a power transister controlling the power to the drive motor, etc).

    In the USA it’s a different story, and if you want to use the EV as your only vehicle, you really need a range extender. Our neighborhoods aren’t set up for NEV’s, and setting up battery swap/recharge stations nation wide is something that’s going to take a long time. BEV’s with a 120 or more mile range could still have a future as a primary, but not “only” car (unless one rents a car for those longer trips and you don’t mind the inconvience).  
    
    (Quote)

16. 
    
    

    RB Says:
    March 31st, 2008 at 11:16 am

    A better time to consider PBP or other similar ideas is after we can get cars and know better our actual issues with them. Right now battery exchange is speculation about speculation.  
    
    (Quote)

17. 
    
    

    Jim Says:
    March 31st, 2008 at 11:19 am

    Michael Granoff says that one day we have batteries that can power a car for 300 miles. In 1996 those batteries existed and there was a car that was publically demonstrating a range of 375 miles. The car was the Solectra Sunrise and the batteries were the Ovonic Nimh.

    Solectra had been converting Geo Metro gliders for years with lead acid batteries. They are still active with some EV components.

    A number of Sunrises were tested in a major eastern city with positive results. Solectra was going to offer a 100 plus mile range Sunrise for $19,000.00.

    It never happened. The Sunrise disappeared about the same time that GM sold Ovonics to Chevron. Chevron sued the auto companies and Nimh battery makers. The Bush administration and the automakers sued CARB to drop the EV requirement thus forestalling the inevitable EV revolution ten or fifteen years.  
    
    (Quote)

18. 
    
    

    2Snowboard Says:
    March 31st, 2008 at 11:56 am

    “He feels adding a range extender and its control architecture is an unnecessary expense and complexity, for if PBP’s charging infrastructure was in place, none of it would be needed, and petroleum could be fully displaced.”

    I think others have commented on this as well, but I feel the need to say that this type of idealism is dangerously naive. This is the kind of argument that halts progress by refocusing on the impractical. Like the EV1 zealots, this sounds nice, but displays a fundamental ignorance of the marketplace. Its far less expensive to build in the range extender within the vehicle then it is to build an infinite number of them in public places throughout the US. Its far less complex to change people’s driving habits with them plugging in their cars at home then it is for them to trust finding battery distribution centers the methods for swapping them.

    To be blunt, I find this whole project to be a nonstarter. It reminds me of the initiative in some Northwest city to provide free bicycles that everyone shared and dropped off where they needed. Sounds nice and I’m sure everyone that was a part of it felt really super about themselves.

    Within about a week all the city’s bikes were stolen.  
    
    (Quote)

19. 
    
    

    Rashiid Amul Says:
    March 31st, 2008 at 1:08 pm

    Project Better Place is a great idea, guys. It’s just not the right time.
    An E-REV, in my opinion, is the right way to go now. Project Better Place is kind of in the same place as Hydrogen. The infrastructure needs to be build from almost nothing.

    But what if all existing gas stations had the battery rental system in place? Like the Blue Rhino (the propane exchange company)
    you see at convenient stores and Home Depot. At these places they fill up the tanks. The gas stations can charge up the batteries.
    This could work, but it will take time. For now, E-REV is the only option.
    I don’t want to be stranded, or drive around looking for an exchange.  
    
    (Quote)

20. 
    
    

    KariK Says:
    March 31st, 2008 at 1:44 pm

    Of course, once Nissan has a car for PBP, then they could also slap their own battery pack on it and sell it to other countries as a BEV. That could sell as a niche market car here in the US as well.  
    
    (Quote)

21. 
    
    

    omegaman66 Says:
    March 31st, 2008 at 2:53 pm

    It is a great idea but unfortunately for them they are going to be beaten out by an even better system. A system that includes cars with one of four things, as all could be available at the same time depending on which make and model of car you bought.

    1. Batteries that can be charged much much faster alleviating the need for a range extender if you don’t mind charging for about 15 minutes.

    2. Batteries that give you say ~250 miles of range and have a charger that is much smaller than in the volt. If you know you are on a long trip of say 1000 miles you start the small ice and run it as you drive before the batteries ever drop to their minimum.

    3. Compressed air range extenders in your car. Allows for a range extender like the ICE but doesn’t run on gasoline so it is “Greener”.

    4. Compressed air car without batteries. This seems to be the only NON EV option out there that actually looks very promising.  
    
    (Quote)

22. 
    
    

    Jack Says:
    March 31st, 2008 at 2:59 pm

    Everyone make battery swapping sound simple. From what I’ve read though the battery packs are being made into a specific shape to fit into the Volt. I would assume that every other electric car will have a specific shape to fit their individual chassis. How do you make a generic battery fit all these different compartments? I haven’t seen a weight estimate for the battery packs, but I assume it will be substantial. My understanding is that the Volt’s batteries will be located down the center of the car and under the back seats, how easy will these be to access and swap? I can’t see this working until batteries are smaller and standards are in place.  
    
    (Quote)

23. 
    
    

    omegaman66 Says:
    March 31st, 2008 at 4:01 pm

    The volt will not be able to participate in any battery swapping scheme. Any car that does participate would have to be built with the swapping of batteries as part of it goal.

    The swapping place would have to have different batteries to accomodate different cars. That shouldn’t be a problem though as the cars that participate would have to be designed that way to begin with.  
    
    (Quote)

24. 
    
    

    nasaman Says:
    March 31st, 2008 at 4:07 pm

    Once again everybody, please note only 2 DAYS remain….

    ….to RANK the top 10 or 20 questions not yet answered (at least not fully answered) by GM at VoltNation or elsewhere. Go to….. http://www.gm-volt.com/forum/showthread.php?t=175 where you can rank these questions that I’m calling the ”Lutz List” from most important to least important. The deadline is Wed, April 2.

    (If the above link doesn’t work for you, please copy/paste it into your browser’s URL address window instead.)  
    
    (Quote)

25. 
    
    

    Rashiid Amul Says:
    March 31st, 2008 at 4:21 pm

    Jack #22, You’re right. The batteries will need to be standardized.

    Oh well. PBP is a good concept, but may be difficult to implement.  
    
    (Quote)

26. 
    
    

    Microbatman Says:
    March 31st, 2008 at 4:42 pm

    Batteries are NOT COMMODITIES!!!!!!!!

    Give up my battery NEVER!!!!!

    My recommendation would be quit now and cut your losses on this idea.

    OR follow your ego and spend more money.

    There is a WIDE performance variation amoung batteries.
    I have tested and used the same battery of the same capacity from the same manfacture used in the same way and
    At the end of a year there is a measurable amount of difference between the 2 same products.  
    
    (Quote)

27. 
    
    

    Jakob Trojmer Says:
    March 31st, 2008 at 4:45 pm

    Remember: A normal car in Denmark cost 60.000 dollars, and one gallon of petrol cost 7 dollars. We will be able to buy a new electric car for 20.000 dollars. It will be a cheap second car, and I think that would work just fine for a lot of people.  
    
    (Quote)

28. 
    
    

    Stomps Says:
    March 31st, 2008 at 5:09 pm

    3 things will kill this. First like everyone mentioned above standardization. Good luck getting all the major auto makers to come up with a standard batter pack not just for one car but all the different models ie subcompact, 4 door sedan, sport coupe, SUV and pickup trucks. Second is storage space. A service station is going to gave to manage 100’s if not thousands of these battery packs which currently are not that small and light weight.

    Finally it locks you into an energy format. What happens if some one comes up with an energy format that is much better but does not fit into that standard format.  
    
    (Quote)

29. 
    
    

    Tim Says:
    March 31st, 2008 at 5:19 pm

    A 70 mile electric range will handle over 92% of my daily driving and I have a gas car for that 8% of the time I need more range and AAA in case I screw up.

    However, some talk about “redundancy” as the main reason for the E-REV concept which also prices it out of the range of most consumers. Maybe I should buy a second gas engine for my car incase the first one dies. What happens if they BOTH fail?

    Give me a break!

    According to the “redundancy” concept, people just should not even be driving ICE cars because they will ultimately run out of juice or the engine will break and leave them stranded without a back-up way to limp home. Oh and buy the way, do YOU stop by a gas station EVERY DAY? Neither do I, but I do go home EVERY night. That’s where I refuel my cell phone. It only takes about 10 seconds to plug it in. E-REVs are BEVs with training wheels for those who can’t plan their trips or read their range remaining gauges! E-REV’s will go away as BEV technology goes mainstream and people realize that they never use the range extender.  
    
    (Quote)

30. 
    
    

    Troy Says:
    March 31st, 2008 at 5:58 pm

    I would like to see a government incentive for businesses to install charging ports for their employees. I have approximately 32 mile commute one way to work. With only a 40 mile range I will still need to burn gasoline.  
    
    (Quote)

31. 
    
    

    2Snowboard Says:
    March 31st, 2008 at 6:07 pm

    Tom, you seem to be missing that BEVs will never be mainstream without EREVs, and EREVs could never be mainstream without hybrids. Its a progression that must be gone through in order to foster consumer confidence in a different kind of car.

    After their homes, a car is the biggest investment people will make, we’re not talking about which brand of soda you want, buying a car is a weighty decision. You can produce stats about 8% of driving or whatever, but until any kind of electric plugins become mass produced, the perception is they could be stranded. You can argue that its just like your cell phone charging (though I don’t know of any phone that takes 6-8 hours to recharge) the perception is key, and that will dictate that electric vehicles are not mainstream.

    I believe that EREVs will allow battery technology to mature, and through that we can ween off of ICEs. They are basically the logical evolution of hybrid technology, and as you said people will soon realize they have more to fear from stale gas then they do with running out of charge. With regards to EVs becoming mainstream without “training wheels” as the old saying goes, you can’t get there from here.  
    
    (Quote)

32. 
    
    

    noel park Says:
    March 31st, 2008 at 6:14 pm

    Test, 1234.  
    
    (Quote)

33. 
    
    

    Rashiid Amul Says:
    March 31st, 2008 at 6:21 pm

    #31, Snowboard, “I believe that EREVs will allow battery technology to mature, and through that we can ween off of ICEs. They are basically the logical evolution of hybrid technology, and as you said people will soon realize they have more to fear from stale gas then they do with running out of charge. With regards to EVs becoming mainstream without “training wheels” as the old saying goes, you can’t get there from here. ”

    I agree wholeheartedly. Well said. Frankly, EREV is the only answer for now. BEV won’t go very far for the average consumer to consider buying. We have to get off of fossil fuel. Right now, how else can we really do it? My answer: By taking a small step and buying and EREV, get used to plugging it in, and then brag loudly about how much gas you are saving.  
    
    (Quote)

34. 
    
    

    noel park Says:
    March 31st, 2008 at 6:31 pm

    Duh, well it took me all day to get going here. Probably because I just finally noticed that the changeover seemed to erase my name and e-mail. Oh well, I guess it’s a “generational” thing. Aka CRS.

    As usual, by the time I got here, you guys had made all of my comments for me. I would just say that we ought to pay attention to #27 Jakob Trojmer. He sounds like he is on the front line. One of
    our other European friends commented the other day that gas was costing something like $9.62/gal where he was. A lot of things can change at $9.62/gal.

    You all are clearly right, this sounds cool, but the infrastructure to support it has to be what, 20-30 years out in the US. Also, these guys set off my scam alarms pretty loudly. Watch your backs boys.

    #14 Texas:

    LOL about the bicycles. I heard a story a while ago on NPR about a similar scheme in Paris. It seems that Paris is pretty hilly in some areas. The bike racks at the top of the hills were really popular. All of the bikes ended up at the racks at the bottom. They had to get a truck and a couple of guys to haul them back up. Kind of like U-hauls leaving Detroit, as one of our suppliers remarked this AM.

    #17 2Snowboard:

    Good point about theft. In SoCal there is an epidemic of catalytic converter theft. Evidently they scrap them for the platinum, or whatever. They crawl right under your high clearance SUV in front of the house. I can’t think what might happen with batteries worth several thousand dollars.  
    
    (Quote)

35. 
    
    

    Tim Says:
    March 31st, 2008 at 6:35 pm

    Snowboard, I agree that E-REVs would be a step toward the maturity of BEVs and that is what makes them BEVs with “training wheels” and a step toward BEVs as the primary commuter vehicle.

    Unfortunately, because E-REVs are so complex and expensive they will NEVER become mainstream unless you believe that a $40K PLUS car is “mainstream”. I don’t!!! Guess what (shhhh… whisper….neither does GM)

    BEVs are the answer and we need information and education NOT indoctrination. People are NOT stupid. Once they CAN buy a $20K, 100 mile range highway capable electric REAL CAR (not toy, not clown car, not 3 wheel gadget, not NEV, not “hey look, I’m gay” advertisement) that would be good for 93% of all their driving at 1/10th the cost of driving their OLD car, THEY WILL.

    THEY WON’T MAKE THEM… YET!

    Most will also one of their old ICE smokers for those occasional long trips. They will also quickly realize that it’s foolish to pay property tax, insurance and maintenance on an ICE car that they almost never drive and it would be far cheaper to just rent an ICE car or a “hybrid” for those occasional trips to see grandma.

    The problem is NEVs are making electric cars look stupid & useless and the Tesla is making them look WAY too expensive and they currently have NO electric alternatives because they have almost ALL been destroyed.

    By the way, this “battery leasing/swapping” is CRAP! Do you “swap you cell phone batteries with a total stranger? NO! Why? You wouldn’t know where that thing has been or how it’s been treated. People want to own, not lease and not rent. They want to OWN a real electric car for daily commuting and OWN a gas car for those occasional long trips.  
    
    (Quote)

36. 
    
    

    2Snowboard Says:
    March 31st, 2008 at 7:07 pm

    Thanks Rashiid, and you are right, bragging about gas savings was a critical component I left out. I say that semi-seriously because if we take the example of the EV1, or the MiEV or whichever, the question we will get from the friendly neighbor Joe Lunchpack is “well how many miles can you go?” and when you tell him and explain that its just like charging a cell phone or however you make that number more palatable, he’s still not going to be able to relate to that structure and get beyond suspicion about how limiting that range is.

    With an EREV we have a common measuring tool, Joe and I are talking the same language, and people will not find it intimidating or bleeding edge. They say “how often do you fill up?” and you say “every couple of months.” or whatever, it will knock their socks off.

    For anyone like project runway backer quoted or Tim that is disappointed that an EREV is too small a step towards our common goal, I would actually call it a giant leap forward culturally, every bit as big as the Prius was years ago. What I find exciting too about the EREV over the EV is how it opens the door for additional sources of electric power without being dependent on them. The very definition of a “hybrid” is a cross between two species that utilizes the traits of both to make it stronger. With a real battery in there (unlike current hybrids) evolving to solar assisting would be practical. You spend an extra grand for an EREV with solar cells on your roof and hood to increase the electric-only runtime of the car for your satisfaction and peace of mind, not because you are scared that you need to squeeze every spark out of the battery before you stall out in the middle lane of the 405, thereby projecting that fear to all who see your EV and believe the car is not for their family.  
    
    (Quote)

37. 
    
    

    noel park Says:
    March 31st, 2008 at 7:30 pm

    Rashiid & 2Snowboard:

    Too bloody right. The real bottom line? My wife is right where Joe is. 120 mile range? I might run out of battery? No way, nohow, end of story, game over.

    The plug-in hybrid is an elegant solution, which I can sell at home.

    Next case.  
    
    (Quote)

38. 
    
    

    Grizzly Says:
    March 31st, 2008 at 7:45 pm

    PBP is a little like communism in that to some it looks good on paper but it would be a disaster if implemented.

    There have been a host of good points made so far about this and IMHO they’re pretty much on target.

    On point I’d like to make is that part of what drives our economy is innovation through competition. This is one reason we don’t pay taxes like Swedes and other Europeans do. Having one company or entity decide on a battery and not allow companies like GM, Toyota and Ford etc to compete is absolutely wrong and IMHO almost a socialistic approach. What will drive battery technology in the age of the electric vehicle is competition, and one of the targets of competition will be AER not unlike the way autos compete today with mpg, 0-60, features etc. Another competition target will be…you guessed it….recharge time.

    Every successive year of EV proliferation will almost simultaneously dim the prospects of both PBP and H2.  
    
    (Quote)

39. 
    
    

    Eric Says:
    March 31st, 2008 at 8:51 pm

    #35 Tim,

    I disagree with you when you say that “E-REVs are so complex and expensive”.

    For starters, an E-REV inherently has less complexity than a parallel hybrid system, having only one motor drive the wheels. Furthermore, an E-REV doesn’t require a transmission, so there’s another big chunk of complexity that’s removed from the standard automobile. Sure, it still has a motor to act as a generator, but I would argue that complexity added is far less than the complexities removed by powering the wheels directly with an electric motor.

    What do you feel ls so complex about an E-REV that they won’t become popular? I wouldn’t cite the time it’s taking for this project as a way to infer its complexity – the first true US production attempt of it’s kind. Every new technology has some expense to it.

    However, if parallel hybrids can become as popular as they are (more complex than a typical ICE) then it would seem logical that E-REVs can become magnitudes more popular (less complex than a typical ICE, much less than a parallel hybrid, more fuel savings).  
    
    (Quote)

40. 
    
    

    kent beuchert Says:
    March 31st, 2008 at 9:07 pm

    Well, there’ ain’t no free lunches, nor are there
    any free electric cars. If this sounds like a con,
    it’s probably because so much of what Agassi has
    spouted sounds very much like a con, and a monopoly
    as well. Israelis may be happy that those fuel costs
    won’t be going to any oil producing nation, but most
    of that cost went to their government, which now must
    tax them using another device.
    The main thing Agassi’s scheme has going for it in
    Israel is the fact that the country is no larger than
    a postage stamp and driving across the border is out
    of the question, so it really doen’t have all that much
    of a driving range issue in the first place.
    The oxymoronic component of Agassi’s scheme, aside from
    the monopolies that it seems to be errecting everywhere,
    is that it greatly increases the cost of the batteries, one of
    the main obstacles to battery-only electrics as a viable
    technology in the first place. If batteries are to be readily available for anyone needing to extend their driving range, that means that
    1) you will need a whole lot more than 100 battery packs for
    each 100 customers, and
    2) you will need them to be always available at every swapping
    station, which will require even more battery packs.
    3) any battery pack swapped out won’t be available for many hours, meaning still more packs will be needed.
    I seriously doubt that Agassi has statistics available or modeling software that can estimate the battery requirements.

    The other problem with this scheme is that it is scheduled for
    years from now. If a fast charging battery or a cheap battery
    appears, Agassi’s scheme, which already has a lot of holes in it,
    becomes immediately obsolete. EEStor devices were described by
    ZENN Motors chairman today as being not in the lab, but actually
    in production in Austin, Texas, and others claim they will cost
    around 12% to 25% of what li ions cost, and have 2 to 3 times the
    capacity, and of course can be recharged in a few minutes. He also describes his cars as costing no more than gas
    powered versions. ZENN Motors has exclusive use of the EEStor
    devices for vehicles under 2800 pounds and for their “automobile
    conversion business,” which is scheduled to use the first units
    off the production lines.
    Their success would spell the end of many technologies and plans,
    and none more completely than Project Better Place. Right now I
    would rate investment in Project Better Place as one of the
    riskiest around. Even if EEStor should fail, there are many other
    bullets out there with Agassi’s name on it. His scheme depends
    upon no big advances in battery recharging/cost technology for at
    least 5 more years. I wouldn’t bet against that possibility.
    I have lost practically all my former skepticism about EEStor :
    believing otherwise simply requires that I believe way
    too many implausible things : lying CEOs who have no conceivable
    reason for lying, major govt contractors basing big contracts on
    technology they would have to believe will work, etc. a company
    claiming production line output in a few months (!). It may be hard
    to believe that anything so revolutionary as EESTor’s device could
    actually be here, but I can’t think of any good reason to doubt it,
    at this point.  
    
    (Quote)

41. 
    
    

    Jimee10 Says:
    March 31st, 2008 at 9:07 pm

    Having charging stations all over is what we already have in place. They just don’t charge yet. I would never buy an EV thats only option is to charge at a station. The idea that makes the EV so desirable is, the fact you break up the monopoly that the gas companys have and control the charging yourself at home or wherever you wish. This is what will stop the money from leaving this country.
    I have no intention of ever leaseing a battery either, although it may be an option for some.  
    
    (Quote)

42. 
    
    

    john1701a Says:
    March 31st, 2008 at 9:38 pm

    >> What do you feel ls so complex about an E-REV that they won’t become popular?

    That’s not it.

    The problem is that consumers aren’t the ones concerned about complexity. Only the enthusiasts care.

    K.I.S.S.

    Price, Reliability, MPG, Emission Rating  
    
    (Quote)

43. 
    
    

    2Snowboard Says:
    March 31st, 2008 at 10:07 pm

    “Unfortunately, because E-REVs are so complex and expensive they will NEVER become mainstream unless you believe that a $40K PLUS car is “mainstream”. I don’t!!! Guess what (shhhh… whisper….neither does GM)”

    I’m not sure anyone has authoritatively said the car would be $40k plus yet, I think when they start rolling off the line we’ll see some maneuvering on the price for early adopters. Eric brought up good questions on how EREVs could be considered complex.

    As to GMs motivation, I got the distinct impression watching the video and what people said from VoltNation and what Lyle has said, GM is deadly serious about the Volt being a mainstream, mass produced success.

    “BEVs are the answer and we need information and education NOT indoctrination. People are NOT stupid. Once they CAN buy a $20K, 100 mile range highway capable electric REAL CAR (not toy, not clown car, not 3 wheel gadget, not NEV, not “hey look, I’m gay” advertisement) that would be good for 93% of all their driving at 1/10th the cost of driving their OLD car, THEY WILL. THEY WON’T MAKE THEM… YET!”

    I will concede there has not been a test of the market of how a sub 20K normal looking electric car. I contend they will fail because they’re too constraining, but if they could be made super cheap, maybe that wouldn’t matter as a 2nd/3rd car to the upper middle class. I have not seen evidence that something that cheap is realistic though.

    “Most will also one of their old ICE smokers for those occasional long trips. They will also quickly realize that it’s foolish to pay property tax, insurance and maintenance on an ICE car that they almost never drive and it would be far cheaper to just rent an ICE car or a “hybrid” for those occasional trips to see grandma.”

    Again, I think its a question of consumer confidence, idealistic people look to the masses to solve our energy dependence with sweeping changes, and individual buyers look out for their own interests and needs. Look how successful SUVs were after 911. I care about this stuff emensley and I wouldn’t touch an EV1 with 10 foot poll. Every time I left my garage with an EV1 I would be terrified about the chance of needing to do an extra errand and getting trapped. 80 miles round trip sounds like a lot, but in an area like LA, that really is only a couple separate tasks. As a friend of mine said about the time of the EV1, “the only time I would ever see an EV1 was on the back of a trailer being towed back home after it ran out of juice.”  
    
    (Quote)

44. 
    
    

    Grizzly Says:
    March 31st, 2008 at 10:09 pm

    “Your comment is awaiting moderation”…..Gotta’ love it.  
    
    (Quote)

45. 
    
    

    Texas Says:
    March 31st, 2008 at 10:40 pm

    Kent #39, I can’t believe you feel Project better place is a scam but EEstor is not! lol. That’s priceless. Project better place is using existing technology, has already raised the need capital, has talked to anyone that will listen and is being up-front with all their plans. EEstor doesn’t even have a web site! I’m hoping EEstor is for real but at this point we have no idea at all!

    Project Better Place is even more important that you realize if only to answer some of the questions you bring up. Hey, it’s only a few hundred million dollars to answer questions that can help this planet get off of oil. Small price to pay if you ask me. Great post by the way, I really enjoyed that!  
    
    (Quote)

46. 
    
    

    Grizzly Says:
    March 31st, 2008 at 10:54 pm

    Texas #44

    I think that both are questionable to say the least. “Questionable” has nothing to do with viability. I addressed this in a post now caught in “moderation purgatory”.

    If I had to bet on either, I’d bet on Eestor simply because PBP is a free market, capitalist disaster. It’s chances are less than fool sells, and that says a lot.

    Granoff must have been born with money, because I’m having a VERY hard time believing he earned it the old fashioned way. If you don’t understand what I’m saying, please re-read the header on this blog.   
    
    (Quote)

47. 
    
    

    Adam Says:
    March 31st, 2008 at 11:25 pm

    I didn’t read everything yet on this page, but had to make a reply to #3.

    I’d much rather support the electrical infrastructure, what other choice do we have? We gave gas/diesel/ehtanhol infrastructure in place, and a LOT of elecricity as well. Realisticaly speaking, what’s left, Hydrogen?

    I agree with Statik, and Nasaman on a lot of things, everything is coming together rather nicely, just need some more time.

    My first thought about PBP was a scam. I don’t like the idea of leasing a battery. The fact is, we all want a battery that will last 10+ years, handle hot and cold, will travel 300+ miles, and takes <10min to recharge.

    Nasaman, your the whiz here, how big of a battery would it take to propel the volt 300+ miles, and what kind of electrical service would a person need to employ to get <10min recharge time?  
    
    (Quote)

48. 
    
    

    NZDavid Says:
    March 31st, 2008 at 11:57 pm

    PBP is a good idea for small, high population density, countries, maybe large cities. E-REV technology is better for large countries, or low population densities. Both approaches have their place.
    For NZ E-REV is the way to go.  
    
    (Quote)

49. 
    
    

    nasaman Says:
    April 1st, 2008 at 12:01 am

    Re: 45 Adam…… You ask, “….how big of a battery would it take to propel the volt 300+ miles, and what kind of electrical service would a person need to employ to get <10min recharge time?”

    OK, I’ll bite. Using the Volt’s current battery technology, a 300-mile version of the Volt’s battery would likely weigh roughly (300mi/40mi)x350lbs= 2,625lbs, or as much as some small cars weigh. And to recharge such a battery in 10 min would require 120KWh/0.167h= 718.6KW. At 220V this would draw 718,600W/220V= 327amps, which is impractical. (Even if a charging station could somehow supply 327amps for 10 minutes, the car’s battery could not accept charging currents this high without overheating enough to damage itself.)

    Therefore GM’s sizing of the Volt’s battery is exactly right for today’s technology.  
    
    (Quote)

50. 
    
    

    NZDavid Says:
    April 1st, 2008 at 12:09 am

    #45 Adam.
    You don’t lease the battery, you rent it. Thats why it doesn’t matter when you swap it out. For example, you recharge each day and after two years you notice the SOC going down, change it no problems. If its below specs at the swap station, it will go off to be recycled. As long as the battery specs are set, I don’t see why other car companies could not make product as well. Indeed, I don’t see why different battery companies could not compete as well.
    I can see Singapore going with PBP as well.  
    
    (Quote)

51. 
    
    

    Tom Says:
    April 1st, 2008 at 4:44 am

    nasaman, #8:

    >>I think many people here are overly optimistic that EV battery
    >>performance will improve significantly, or that battery costs will drop
    >>dramatically, in the next 10-20 years.

    I’m glad somebody else feels this way. For some reason most people here take it as a given that batteries will start improving at the same rate as computer chips, because of “science” and “mass production.”

    Computer chips (and the things that are based on them) only improve so quickly because there are frequent and steady improvements to how small transistors can be etched onto silicon.

    Other than that, a brand new computer chip today isn’t really that much different from one 30 years ago. From a certain perspective, they haven’t even really improved at all. They’re still silicon squares with ceramic packages and metal wires coming out of them.

    Since batteries don’t depend on pretty pictures you can etch on them, expectations must be adjusted.  
    
    (Quote)

52. 
    
    

    KariK Says:
    April 1st, 2008 at 10:01 am

    “EEStor devices were described by ZENN Motors chairman today as being not in the lab, but actually in production in Austin, Texas”

    Kent #39, could you give us a link to this news, I was unable to find it?  
    
    (Quote)

53. 
    
    

    noel park Says:
    April 1st, 2008 at 11:38 am

    I don’t even know if it’s a Zenn or not, but a local guy here has a Canadian made electric car, and it is the cutest thing you ever saw. Beautifully welded all aluminum frame, ultra thin fiberglass body, everything done to minimize the weight. Even the seats are totally minimalist. They look sort of like high end lawn chairs with elegant aluminum frames. The whole thimg must weigh about 1000#, less batteries.

    It’s only a 35 mph, 35 mile range deal, but it is really elegant for what it is. An omen for the future, IMHO. Alas, however, the 35 mi range is a total deal killer for my wife, and I can’t commute in a 35 mph car. Still, it is really cool.  
    
    (Quote)

54. 
    
    

    doggydogworld Says:
    April 1st, 2008 at 12:42 pm

    Tim, your EREV vs. EV cost numbers are way off. A Volt-equivalent EV with 100 mile range would cost MORE than the Volt. There’s an extra $10k or so in battery cost vs. only a $5k-ish savings from eliminating the ICE/generator.

    Your hypothetical non-toy $20k EV-100s might be big sellers, if they existed. The only way to get close to $20k in a non-toy car is to use lead-acid, which needs total replacement every few years. Lifetime car+battery cost is thus more like $40k than $20k.

    KariK, here’s what Zenn’s chairman actually said:

    “To be very clear, this is not a lab that they are building. It is a full, state of the art production facility that is nearing completion, and we remain very pleased with their progress.”

    He did not say devices were already in production. No one, including EEStor customers/investors such as Zenn, Lockheed and Kleiner Perkins, has ever claimed to have seen a working EEStor capacitor.  
    
    (Quote)

55. 
    
    

    Neutron Flux Says:
    April 2nd, 2008 at 10:52 am

    Some may call this car a toy but based on things read, it will be in production this year with a price under 20K when sold in the US. Range 111 miles, 62 MPH max speed, battery would be leased for around $150.00/month. What is it : Think City. Would not count on any coming to US any time soon though based on production numbers. If Volt is 35-40K & one of these or the Ox is available for sub 20K it will become the mainstream for most long before Volt & has recharge option of up to 80% < 1 Hour and uses A123 batteries. Google Think City if interested. The Aptera looks nice too excepting it is currently a two seater but would defiantely turn heads and has a series hybrid option & looks to be produced before the Volt in Carlsbad Ca. I like the Volt but if GM can’t get its price down there are other options for those who want to get us off oil ASAP. GM is not the only show in town.  
    
    (Quote)

56. 
    
    

    Shawn Marshall Says:
    April 2nd, 2008 at 7:46 pm

    I’d like to have a Vega/Volt with a 20 mi. range for my local trips.  
    
    (Quote)

57. 
    
    

    Shawn Marshall Says:
    April 2nd, 2008 at 7:52 pm

    Scuse please. To extend range give me a trailer with an ICE and Battery pack so I can go full scale if and when I want. Should cut the price a lot and give me options for sizing the trailer. The trailer could attach in a rigid way that would give essentially me a six wheeler with just an up and down freedom of motion for the trailer.
    I’m an optimist- I believe some smart company will do it. They could lease range extending trailers if they want. It’s a transformer in a way.  
    
    (Quote)

Leave a Reply