Comments on: Guest Post From GM’s Frank Weber on Long Term Cost Advantage of EREVs Over BEVs

By: tom gray

tom gray — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 02:45:24 +0000

It seems as though many overlook the fact that a BEV, without fast recharge capability, simply cannot be compared to the EREV,
on the basis of cost or anything else, since the BEV cannot perform all of the functions required by its owner. It has added costs that must be paid, in many forms – the extra car required to do what the BEV cannot do (go on a trip, or drive around town for an extended
non-stop period), or buy that extra parking space and insure, maintain that extra vehicle. When those costs are calculated in, the differences and inferiority of the BEV on a costwise (and every other) basis are enormous. And those folks who manufacture the”costs to the environment” argument are ignorant of the fact that a 40 mile ranged EREV can easily obtain at least 95% of the gas avoidance of the BEV, even if the BEV owner’s gas powered backup car’ gas consumption is not included. End of discussion, folks. Goodnight Gracie.

By: Charlie H.

Charlie H. — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 23:01:26 +0000

Dan Petit, purveyor of fine, fact-free FUD.

The biggest Toyota dealer in MN has replaced ONE battery. They’ll hand a new one across the parts counter for $2299. You’ll have to wait, though, as the low demand means they never stock them.

The most amusing part of your post though, is that you follow up on your “batteries are epensive and fail regularly” meme with a paragraph lauding the Volt, which will feature far more expensive batteries of a new type which have not been proven with long service on the road. Too funny.

By: Michael Robinson

Michael Robinson — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 19:22:19 +0000

It is harder to electrolyze fresh water than it is to electrolyze salt water. Hydrogen can be extracted from natural gas which there is plenty of considering that every time a marine animal dies it sinks to the bottom of the ocean and decays. Hydrogen production takes 1/3rd the amount of water that gasoline production takes, so our current production of gasoline is much harder on fresh water resources than hydrogen production using electrolysis.

Most of the planet is covered in salt water, so there is plenty of salt water to extract hydrogen from.

Use a hydrogen carrier like hydrnol or magnesium hydride slurry, you can store and transport hydrogen easily.

Batteries will NEVER compete with the internal combustion engine and a hybrid, even a series hybrid like the Volt, is not a solution to end dependence on foreign OIL. Fuel cell vehicles will compete, they will compete by 2015. Because a fuel cell car needs a small battery, a nickel metal hydride battery will work.

Nuclear shiips out on the ocean could produce more than enough hydrogen by electrolyzing the salt water storing it either in a liquid or solid hydrogen carrier. Don’t like nuclear? Another option is
wind powered ships (Germany does this). Don’t like that? How about solar powered ships?

By: Eat This Pie

Eat This Pie — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 19:03:33 +0000

Very insightful comment. Thank you for it but you should not stress out about which of the many, many technologies that could drive our economy forward will win in the end. Any one of them could take over the market eventually.

But it doesn’t really matter which technology gets us off our oil addiction. Today’s lead acid batteries could be used effectively to build an EV albeit with limited range between plugging in. Anything we do that gets better than that is just gravy.

By: Lwesson

Lwesson — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 15:55:20 +0000

Nicely done, want to send this to my e-mail site.——–H