Caulk up another one for Project Better Place. California signs up. I was surprised at the large scope of this project. Be sure to check out the video. Here’s a snip:


“For the past 50 years, California has been known as the birthplace of innovation. Today, the state has announced a historic private/public partnership for sustainable transportation infrastructure and ‘green’ job creation that once again serves as a model for economic and environmental innovation.

California has defined a plan for a sustainable transportation model in which State and local government are working in partnership with the private sector to move the state from greenhouse gas-emitting cars that run on fossil fuel, toward clean, electric cars fueled by renewable energy, supported by an open network infrastructure.? Better Place estimates the network investment in the Bay Area will total $1 billion when the system is fully deployed.”


http://www.betterplace.com/california


I wish them luck not only for California but their success will produce a model for the rest of the country. Now, I know a lot of you are against this system, especially the swap-out stations. I’m not to keen on the swap-out stations myself but realize they will be very simple to convert to quick-charge stations. They will be in the right locations and have the necessary amount of power going to them. Of course the normal charging points will not need to change, even if there is quick-charge super battery powered cars.

Thus, I’m very excited about this project and it seems there is a quite a deep commitment to get it done, from tax incentives to permitting to financing assistance, etc. It is really nice to see something positive actually getting done around here.

The last speaker on the video was great, by the way. At first you think he can’t speak but he then carries you along for a ride. Does he give workshops? It’s like people are pulling out their pens to sign-up or sign checks. ;)

I have a better Idea.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAk2BBhQm1o

I have a better Idea.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAk2BBhQm1o

Great shot, umfug! Right on target.

Seriously, Project Better Place has been traveling around the world promising utopia to anyone who will stand up an do a press conference with them. However, we haven't seen a single car or even a quote for how much this all will cost. Looking at the promises and the costs involved, there's zero chance that they can make this work without govermnent subsidies - starting with just 'little' subsidies in the beginning, and then turning into billions of loans and guarantees down the road. The fact that they're only talking with governments, rather than businesses, is a tip-off.

In the end, charging stations are a good idea for all electric vehicles - including Teslas and Volts. Replaceable batteries are a non-starter. But even with the charging stations, we haven't seen the business model yet. When we do, I gusrantee that there's going to be some sort of government subsidy or guarantee involved. When people spend their own money on an idea, they usually make sure it's solid before they invest. But when government officials spend OUR money, they're not quite as picky - especially if it gets them on camera at a press conference!

I wouldn't quite say California is signing up for Shaggi's plan. It's pretty much the usual suspects of San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose spending more money they don't have. Years ago, they put in charging stations at the BART stations here in the Bay Area for electric cars with the same sort of Field of Dreams concept. If they build it they would come. Those charging stations are all gone to my knowledge.

They talk about infrastructure, but what's behind the charging station? California is already having trouble meeting it's energy needs, so just tossing up charging stations will only make that need even worse if it becomes popular. They talk glowingly about solar, so I say forget the charging stations, use the same money and resources to put up solar generating plants. Build the infrastructure for the infrastructure first!

There is no need to give PBP any money!! Their battery swapping idea is completely wacky and will go nowhere. A first year engineering student could design a charging station with ease. Provide a socket and the auto industry will provide a car with a plug free of charge to the cities. Of course all this is based on the assumption that people are ready to spend serious money on EVs.

This Democrat lovefest is just political grandstanding. That's it. It saddens me that my cities totally useless mayor is wasting time on this rather than working on the real problems that face Oakland. We're not even as good as Springfield, almost no one shows up for a city council meeting here!

I wouldn't quite say California is signing up for Shaggi's plan. It's pretty much the usual suspects of San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose spending more money they don't have. Years ago, they put in charging stations at the BART stations here in the Bay Area for electric cars with the same sort of Field of Dreams concept. If they build it they would come. Those charging stations are all gone to my knowledge.

They talk about infrastructure, but what's behind the charging station? California is already having trouble meeting it's energy needs, so just tossing up charging stations will only make that need even worse if it becomes popular. They talk glowingly about solar, so I say forget the charging stations, use the same money and resources to put up solar generating plants. Build the infrastructure for the infrastructure first!

There is no need to give PBP any money!! Their battery swapping idea is completely wacky and will go nowhere. A first year engineering student could design a charging station with ease. Provide a socket and the auto industry will provide a car with a plug free of charge to the cities. Of course all this is based on the assumption that people are ready to spend serious money on EVs.

This Democrat lovefest is just political grandstanding. That's it. It saddens me that my cities totally useless mayor is wasting time on this rather than working on the real problems that face Oakland. We're not even as good as Springfield, almost no one shows up for a city council meeting here!





I can't believe you’ve been on this site so long and still know so little about what's going on. Of course it's OK to not like the Project Better Place plan but to be so ignorant of the details of the plan is inexcusable! Did you even look into the business plan (yes, they have one)? Or even at what level of funding they have already secured (hundreds of millions)?

Or maybe you don't think we need charging stations? You said something about them being there before. Does that mean you think EVs will never work? Not even with improved A123 (or some other manufacturer) battery technology?

You made another comment that you have not seen anything out of them yet. They have been working around the clock and already have a prototype. You alredy know how long it is taking GM to deliver the Volt but don't give even 1/4 the amount of consideration for PBP. It really shows that you are just against this plan without even caring about the specifics. It's like you just hate the blue team just because.

I think we all need to really be open to many new and extremely different options moving forward. The old ways are not going to be good enough. You can see how the economy is just crashing and the amounts of oil are just not growing like they did in the past. No, the price of oil going down is not a good thing! That means less investment and even lower supplies in the future. If we go past the 85 mbd supply AND the price is still low and we have all these new projects coming and no problems in sight then I will still mention all the other problems with buying energy from foreign companies. Even if they are friendly (which most are not). Thus, let's please keep an open eye, research the details carefully and be prepared to support ideas that have a good chance at moving us forward. Having several projects is better than having no projects and dooming us to our current fate.

Actually, Project Better Place doesn't have a business plan - they have a "business model", which falls far short of any normal business plan. Their claim is "Cars are made much more affordable—even free in some markets—by the business model’s financial and environmental incentives to add drivers into the network". However, there is no explanation in the plan as to how they will actually do this, no capital funding models, and no cost/benefit analysis. It's all just big claims.

Given the engineering, manufacture, and support structure involved in automobiles, they're not going to produce free cars. In addition, unless a breakthrough happens, electric cars are going to cost MORE to manufacture than gasoline-driven cars (and if that breakthrough happened, everyone else would take advantage of it). Finally, the support structure of charging stations and battery replacements costs big money, and they don't have any idea whatsoever as to how they're going to recover the capital outlays involved in this.

Realistically, PBP has a utopian plan that doesn't work without big government outlays - either direct government payments or extra taxes on the people that don't get with "their program". Shah Agassi is out trying to find government support on this - he certaintly doesn't have the capital needed to make this work in a small country like Israel, much less the large state of California.

It makes me sceptical when they have one press conference in California, and then the web site announces that the entire state is now backing the plan. Their site even claims that they now have all 20+ million cars in California backing the plan.

I'm a big fan of electric transportation, and even moved to where I live so that I had access to electric mass transport. However, this project doesn't look like progress - it looks like fanfare, smoke, and mirrors. It's fine as long they just have press conferences and news briefings, since they're not hurting anyone or slowing progress being made elsewhere. Once they start asking for government subsidies or higher taxes on those that don't buy into their program, watch out and hold onto your wallets.

Not that I have looked at PBP plans all that carefully, but to me it seems a viable idea. An EV without batteries should be cheaper than an equivalent ICE car with an ICE, transmission, alternator, and starter, all replaced by an electrical motor and a battery management system. Maybe in the beginning the car needs some subsidies to pay back the development cost, but in time the car company should be able to make money on them.

Then you can buy the battery, say $10,000 extra, or lease it for $200.00 per month. Normally you just plug in at home or at work to recharge. If you go on the highway and run low, then you use one of the recharge stations, which just replaces your battery with a fully charged one. In time the battery costs will go down, so after several years we might have a $10,000 car plus a $5,000 battery.

I see nothing wrong in this, except in a big country, like US, where we have too many highways. Still, for many families it makes sense to have an EV for small driving and an ICE car or an EREV like Volt for longer trips.

I can't believe...

1) Battery swap stations are impractical and are pointless. Now because the batteries are too big and heavy and in the future because when the batteries get small and light, the range will be so good there will be no need to swap. This is a huge waste of R&D money.

2) Charging stations are simple to engineer and build. They have been done before and so there is no reason to give money to PBP for this purpose. Their services are not needed to achieve a charging station network.

3) Cars are not cell phones. Nobody is going to give you a $20,000 car just to sell you battery service, and if they did the high cost of driving would keep people away from your service.

4) Electric cars are coming already without PBP help. Again, their services are not needed.

5) The money wasted on PBP could be better used to fund things that really matter like solar charging stations and power grids.

6) These Mayors in California are real dupes and easy marks. They are known for making bad choices. They do things like this because it looks real good for reelection given the overwhelming green nature of the Bay Area, but without considering the consequences. In the end, tax payer's money is wasted.

1) Battery swap stations are impractical and are pointless. Now because the batteries are too big and heavy and in the future because when the batteries get small and light, the range will be so good there will be no need to swap. This is a huge waste of R&D money.

Let me see your analysis. Yes, I'm for quick-charge batteries but where are they? What about now? Swap stations can easily be transitioned to quick-charge station. They will have big power lines going in and batteries being charged. All they need is to have those batteries deliver a quick charge and to design a good automated (or semi-automated) interface to the EV's battery system.




2) Charging stations are simple to engineer and build. They have been done before and so there is no reason to give money to PBP for this purpose. Their services are not needed to achieve a charging station network.

Who is going to build the charging stations? If they are so simple why are they not already here? Answer to that is because nobody (until now) could figure out a way to make money doing it. PBP is not asking for money. They are asking governments for tax policies so that there are incentives to drive a clean vehicle. Please read more on what PBP is doing. Many of the details are there and they are moving at lighting speed.




3) Cars are not cell phones. Nobody is going to give you a $20,000 car just to sell you battery service, and if they did the high cost of driving would keep people away from your service.

I guess we won't know until someone tries it. We have a genius (Shai Agassi) who has dedicated his life for this quest and luckily for us he has more charisma and persuasion than you do. Why are you so against these tiny projects to see if it can be done? Perhaps the original plan might not work out but a second or third generation tweak of the idea might. You never know until you try.




4) Electric cars are coming already without PBP help. Again, their services are not needed.

Please show me the list of cars that we can buy and their price tags. So people don't have range anxiety anymore? Better tell GM to scrap the Volt, people are already buying and driving EV's in mass quantities. Not. Oh, that's right... You said they are coming. Not here but coming. I guess we will see. PBP will not stop other companies. Let them fight it out. Companies do better when there is competition. Is that OK with you?




5) The money wasted on PBP could be better used to fund things that really matter like solar charging stations and power grids.

You made the same mistake that McCain did. He doesn't understand that grid power and systems that are direct substitutes for diesel and gasoline are two different things. We could have our entire grid powered by nuclear, wind, solar (and whatever you propose) and we would still have the exact same problems with petroleum. Please educate yourself on the difference. How long have you been on this forum? Petroleum is the main problem! We can power our grid for a long time using coal and NG. We need a solution to free us from the petroleum grip and we need it yesterday




6) These Mayors in California are real dupes and easy marks. They are known for making bad choices. They do things like this because it looks real good for reelection given the overwhelming green nature of the Bay Area, but without considering the consequences. In the end, tax payer's money is wasted.

Sounds like someone got dumped at the dance. I guess we will find out how things work out.


We need the shotgun approach to solve our glaring petroleum problems. Not all of them will be successful and some will be massive failures. However, if there are very intelligent people willing to put down huge investments (like the supporters of PBP) then that is more than enough of a reason to let them try out their ideas. I thought that was the American way. Again, they are not asking for a handout. They are asking for permitting and tax incentives to make it easier for people to drive a clean and petroleum free mode of transportation. I don't think that is unreasonable. I'm surprised that you do. Additionally, these incentives will be in place for every other company to use. It will make the area more EV friendly. Yeah, that's so terrible. We need to stop this project!

I have to ask why the poster is so against giving this very good idea a try? A test. A pilot test. Perhaps you are afraid that this huge 1 billion dollar investment (not tax payer money) is going to break the country. It seems like a tiny amount for the answers we are going to get. Can this model work for us? Can it work at all? Will people like the idea of renting the battery? Will the infrastructure work? Will people tear it down? How will people feel about plugging in all the time? Will it clean up the air in the city? How fast will this be adopted? How will the culture be changed? etc. So many questions that many of us want to know! You don't want to know or are afraid of the answers. Perhaps you have hidden agendas and don't want the EV to make it. Would that make plug-in hybrids obsolete? Your Volt might not be needed? Therefore you must do your best to hold back this bold plan? Who knows what you are thinking. Who cares. PBP is moving forward in many countries and we should have many of our questions answered in the coming years.

let's say you are successful and convince people not to do this pilot project in California. What is saved and what is lost? What if the model is successful in other markets and we find that out 3 years from now. That just put us back several years. Perhaps you would like America to just sit back and wait for the answers to our petroleum problem. Maybe we can buy some cars and batteries from Japan.

I just question your motives. They seem fishy. Again, PBP is not asking for your money. They just want to build a pilot network in California and they feel they can then convince the rest of the US that this is a great business model. Oh, who was that poster that said they have no business plan? I can't believe we have people on this forum (regulars!) that actually used that as an argument. Like they didn't need a business plan to obtain their several hundred million dollars of investment capital. All I can say to that argument is, "Wow"!

Not that I have looked at PBP plans all that carefully, but to me it seems a viable idea. An EV without batteries should be cheaper than an equivalent ICE car with an ICE, transmission, alternator, and starter, all replaced by an electrical motor and a battery management system. Maybe in the beginning the car needs some subsidies to pay back the development cost, but in time the car company should be able to make money on them.

Then you can buy the battery, say $10,000 extra, or lease it for $200.00 per month. Normally you just plug in at home or at work to recharge. If you go on the highway and run low, then you use one of the recharge stations, which just replaces your battery with a fully charged one. In time the battery costs will go down, so after several years we might have a $10,000 car plus a $5,000 battery.

I see nothing wrong in this, except in a big country, like US, where we have too many highways. Still, for many families it makes sense to have an EV for small driving and an ICE car or an EREV like Volt for longer trips.

Unfortunately, it all sounds like a good idea until you look into the details. Once you get into the details, it doesn't work without a lot of subsidies. That's why I said earlier "hold onto your wallets", since these subsidies usually come from taxpayers - and not investors.

First off, you might be surprised how small a part of the cost of a car the engine, transmission, and alternator add up to costing. In a $20,000 car, these three components only add up to about $2500 of the cost. If you're not convinced, look at the price of a riding lawn mower, which also has an engine, transmission, and alternator - and comes in for a retail price of less than $2000. Mechanical components like these are readily mass-produced, and are surprisingly inexpensive.

The biggest costs in the PBP car are unchanged - product engineering, interior build-out, and safety features. All of these are still there. Now, add the big expense of a battery. The Volt battery drives the car 40 miles, weighs 400 pounds, takes up the middle of the back seat, and costs $10,000. The PBP battery runs the car for 100 miles (their quote from their web site), so even assuming some improvement it likely still comes in at $20,000 and 800 pounds, and probably takes the entire back seat. At $20,000, you're looking at least $300/month to lease the battery.

The worst part of the PBP plan is the replaceable battery idea. It's been tried many times before. GM tried it in some of the precursors for the EV1. Knoxville Tennessee tried it on their electric bus systems. In the end, you always have the problems of the structural integrity of the vehicle - how many 800-pound removable parts do you have on your car, and how solid will they be after 12 years of operation? Even if the mechanical problems were solved, there's still the cost of the batteries in the quick-charging stations. A $20,000 battery for the car also needs a some fraction of a $20,000 battery for the charging station so that it's there when you need it. Someone has to pay for that, so your $300/month battery lease now goes to $450/month or more to cover that cost. Once that happens, your target market goes down and the plan falls apart.

The charging stations are a no-brainer. Put them at places like shopping centers and mass-transit stations, and people will use them. The economics of the charging station work, because a KWH of electricity moves an electric car as far as $0.50 of gasoline, so splitting the difference and selling electricity for $0.25/KWH provides a benefit to the driver and enough profit to pay for the charging station. The charging stations will naturally come when the cars start coming - both Volts and plug-in Hondas, Toyotas, and Fords are on the way.

I deal with venture capital and business plans for a living. One of the things we say is "if you just want to look like a leader, get in front of a parade and waive a baton". The PBP plan is just that - everyone knows that electric cars are coming, and it doesn't take a charismatic leader, a cool web site and a press conference to tell us that. It takes someone doing the hard work - working out the technical details and building a car that will work. Once that's done, the charging infrastructure falls into place automatically. PBP adds nothing to the process, like the guy in "front of the parade".

Finally, a comment to our friend "Texas". Please, chill out. The purpose of this site is to share information and opinions on a subject that interests all of us. It's pretty obvious that you're a big fan of Shai Agassi and his plan, and that's fine. You're entitled to your opinion, just as the rest of us are entitled to ours. Just because some of us think that PBP's business model can't work, and that it's just a publicity stunt, doesn't mean that we're right or wrong. We each have our opinions, and you don't need to dump on people for expressing theirs. If you like Agassi, that's fine with me. He won't be getting any investment of mine, and as long as he doesn't go after any tax dollars, I don't mind what he does with HIS money.

Swimdad, Thank you for your call to "chill out". Can I still point out your logic and economic justification errors? Thank you.



The worst part of the PBP plan is the replaceable battery idea. It's been tried many times before. GM tried it in some of the precursors for the EV1. Knoxville Tennessee tried it on their electric bus systems. In the end, you always have the problems of the structural integrity of the vehicle - how many 800-pound removable parts do you have on your car, and how solid will they be after 12 years of operation?

You mean like the massive problems they are having with swapping out batteries in forklifts? They do it all day, every day. They also use those massively heavy battery blocks. Can you wait a year or so for the final PBP prototypes before you claim it's impossible?



The charging stations are a no-brainer.

Well, I'm glad you agree with PBP there. This is the most expensive part of their network. It might not be a total loss after all.



It takes someone doing the hard work - working out the technical details and building a car that will work. Once that's done, the charging infrastructure falls into place automatically. PBP adds nothing to the process, like the guy in "front of the parade".

This is were I don't understand your logic at all. Are you suggesting that they are not using their hundreds of millions of dollars for working out the details and building prototypes and getting ready for the build out that is already financed? What are they doing? Again, can you give them another year to see where they are? Why so quick to discredit a fully funded operation in full swing? Are their milestones too far off for you? You want immediate results? For someone who does this for a living I would expect that you would understand that projects of this scale take time. The Volt will take four years! They are talking about not only making a new car but a complete network for it to run on. Come on, give them a break. How long would it take you to show some progress? How long did it take your projects to show success? They are all asses and elbows as they say. Maybe YOU should "chill" a little bit and give them some time to make their milestones. Fair enough?

Not much time so I'll try to be succinct. Swapping is the only EV solution without range/time limitations that is technologicaly viable today. The only issues are funding and scale. These are valid concerns and demand proper case studies but to dismiss it offhand is just beeing blindly foolish. For Islands less than 100,000 it is a no-brainer, as well as for small isolated nations like Israel.

Designing a car to be able to swap out 1000 pounds of batteries in 15 minutes is not a big deal. Everybody gripes about the cost of the Volt and the need for a vehicle everyman can afford. Well, this is the only EV option available today that satisfies these needs. A batteryless EV can easily be manufactured and sold profitably for $10,000. This model creates easy paths to EV ownership individually tailored to the consumers needs and benefitting from battery advancements. Lease and own and battery size as you see fit. If one actually thinks about the real technical and practical aspects of this model they will see many benefits and few drawbacks for a "properly" implemented system.

The real argument is with the implementation for countries of size, especially the US. Does it make sense to commit the resources needed for such a plan? How much getting off foreign oil really worth? I don't profess to enough to fully answer these questions to say with enough confidence that committing the tens of billions of dollars (or more) is a wise decision. I do feel I know enough to say it's ludicrous to dismiss it without any meaningful consideration, especially when we have the perfect scenario in Hawaii to try it out. It is a no-brainer there.

What about the problems of standardization and modularization of batteries of this size? Unless we all want to drive the same car from the same company, swappable EV batteries will need to be standardized (like fuel is today). Also, unless every car is the same size (or has very different range), it will need to be possible to put multiple batteries in one car, so they will need to be modular, meaning 300-500V modules that can be "ganged" together for a larger vehicle. Either that or each swapping station will need to stock several different size batteries (but standard sizes) and have the equipment needed to do the swapping of different size batteries.

I agree, this concept might work for a small, isolated island. Otherwise, PHEV makes much more sense.

So Portugal just signed up:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/11/portugal-and-re.html#more

"After four months of discussion and analysis, Portugal became the first European country to sign a final agreement with the Alliance for implementing a zero emission mobility program.

"The plan calls for 1,300 vehicle charging locations to be operational by the end of 2011, with 320 of those locations already in place in 2010.

"Portugal will also offer incentives to electric vehicle purchasers, including an income tax credit for individuals and corporate tax reductions for fleet purchases of electric vehicles. The tax incentives, which begin in late 2010, will last at least five years.

So Portugal just signed up:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/11/portugal-and-re.html#more

"After four months of discussion and analysis, Portugal became the first European country to sign a final agreement with the Alliance for implementing a zero emission mobility program.

"The plan calls for 1,300 vehicle charging locations to be operational by the end of 2011, with 320 of those locations already in place in 2010.

"Portugal will also offer incentives to electric vehicle purchasers, including an income tax credit for individuals and corporate tax reductions for fleet purchases of electric vehicles. The tax incentives, which begin in late 2010, will last at least five years.




Great news. I love to see things moving forward. Of course there are posters here that will refuse to see this as moving forward. They will fight this till the very end. Here are more details from the article:


"In July, Portugal became the first European country to establish a partnership directly with the Renault-Nissan Alliance to explore zero emission mobility. (Earlier post.) The goal was to address concerns such as global warming, dependence on oil and sustainable mobility. After four months of discussion and analysis, Portugal became the first European country to sign a final agreement with the Alliance for implementing a zero emission mobility program.

The plan calls for 1,300 vehicle charging locations to be operational by the end of 2011, with 320 of those locations already in place in 2010.

Portugal will also offer incentives to electric vehicle purchasers, including an income tax credit for individuals and corporate tax reductions for fleet purchases of electric vehicles. The tax incentives, which begin in late 2010, will last at least five years.

We realized early on that zero-emission mobility goes far beyond the vehicle itself. It requires extensive collaboration with government and other partners to ensure success.

—Carlos Tavares, executive vice president of Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

The Government of Portugal is also mandating that 20% of public fleet vehicle purchases be zero-emission, starting in 2011.

Additional measures, such as reduced parking rates, preferential access and financing subsidies are being studied further. Public awareness and educational activities, including electric vehicle demonstrations, will begin in 2010."

I will say that something like this could work in the end but I think it's unrealistic to target California as a test bed. A place like Hawaii would probably be a better place. It is a small land mass with a small, centralized population. It is isolated and requires imported fuels. It is also a large tourist destination. If I were trying to launch something like Project Better Place I would start with Hawaii and learn there.

It should be easy to establish a network of charging stations and a fleet of electric vehicles.

I will with-hold judgement and wait to see how things come along but I won't hold my breathe waiting for this to become successful.

You mean like the massive problems they are having with swapping out batteries in forklifts? They do it all day, every day. They also use those massively heavy battery blocks. Can you wait a year or so for the final PBP prototypes before you claim it's impossible?


Fork lift trucks??? Give me a break. Fork lift trucks don't drive down the freeway, or park outside on snowy sub-zero weather, or have to save their occupant's life in a collision with an SUV. The engineering involved in a fork lift truck isn't anywhere like the engineering in a automobile, so there's no comparison here.

Obviously, this conversation has gone beyond the realm of logic, so we should just stop and agree to disagree. You can continue to think that PBP is the best hope for the world, and I'll just continue to think that it's a scam and a publicity stunt. As long as Shah Agassi doesn't take any money from me, from my company, or from any American taxpayers, I hope he has fun and enjoys leading the parade.

I will say that something like this could work in the end but I think it's unrealistic to target California as a test bed. A place like Hawaii would probably be a better place. It is a small land mass with a small, centralized population. It is isolated and requires imported fuels. It is also a large tourist destination. If I were trying to launch something like Project Better Place I would start with Hawaii and learn there.

It should be easy to establish a network of charging stations and a fleet of electric vehicles.

I will with-hold judgement and wait to see how things come along but I won't hold my breathe waiting for this to become successful.




Here are my thoughts on Hawaii being a test market:

1) Different culture - If you have never been to Hawaii then you will not know that they love their big trucks and cool cars (huge population of military personnel - young and gung ho kids). You don't need much gas to get around so drivers would not be saving that much going to a Nissan EV. I think most of the market would not be up for it.

2) The Geography is so different from the mainland that it would not make a good pilot site. It would answer some questions but not other major ones like would it work in a big country like the U.S. The other areas around the world would be better for answering more of the questions.

3) There is a big problem with crime in the local population. The charging stations would probably be ripped out in less than 6 months. Again, if you have never been to Hawaii you would not realize the situation.


I was very hopeful about Hawaii making a great transition and becoming a shining global example for alternative forms of energy. After doing a "boots on the ground" check for project viability I have come to the sad conclusion that Hawaii will probably be a follower at best and more likely produce a failed project.

If you are still hopeful for Hawaii I suggest going there for an extended trip. Don't just go to the tourist areas but go downtown, take the public transportation, talk to the locals about your ideas, etc. Really get a feel for the culture. Learn about how the majority of the population feels about change.



I think California is a much better market. Since there culture is more Green and they have open space I think the pilot project has a much better chance of adoption and success. It will also answer many of the pressing questions many of us want to know. Go Project Better Place: California!

Does PBP already have a battery change-out system that has been full tested for reliability, or is it still a concept? I’m not very familiar with them so I do not know answer.

If not, 2010 - 2011 seems extremely aggressive to me. It could easily take that long just to wring out a reliable design using test - fix - text methodology.

What they are proposing can be done, but the more they rush the higher the probability for a design defect that could cost them millions.

.......is broke. We will be lucky if we can keep prison guards on tour. We were 11 billion in the red 2 months ago. I doubt that the state finances have improved since then. Really. Unfortunately, some really good ideas are going to have to wait.

All this effort into batteries makes you realize how much juice a single gallon of 87 octane has. Or a gallon of #2 diesel. 40 miles in my cheap little Saturn. 3 gallons of fuel will easily exceed the range of 23, 65-lb lead acid batteries, well over 1,000 lbs of dead weight. The move away from OPEC is going to take time, technology and will be full of ups and downs.

http://www.betterplace.com/our-bold-plan/how-it-works/battery-exchange-stations


Battery Exchange Stations:

In addition to widely deployed charge spots, the Better Place network will provide fully-automated battery exchange stations. These swap stations are designed to extend the driver’s journey beyond the 100 mile range of a fully-charged battery. Because most of today’s driving is within 40 miles of the home, a visit to one of these facilities will be infrequent when compared to the number of times we currently have to pull into a gas station.

These Better Place battery exchange stations are even more efficient and convenient than conventional gas stations. Each is roughly the size of your average living room. Like the charging spots, they are fully automated. A driver pulls in, puts the car in the neutral gear, and sits back. The battery exchange station does all the work. The depleted battery is removed, and a fully-charged replacement is installed. In under three minutes, the car is back on the road. It’s just like an automatic car wash—a quick, effortless, drive-through experience.

The battery exchange stations will be able to accommodate any Better Place-compliant vehicle. All manufactured batteries will be stocked so that any electric vehicle with a swappable battery, regardless of make or model, can pull in and be serviced.

Thousands of charging spot stations by 2010 - 2011, is doable. However, thousands of fully automated battery exchanges stations by that time -- no way, that could take 10 years. Keep in mind these vehicles must be "Better Place-compliant", meaning they must use the PBP interface design. It had better be reliable, or there will be big time liability issues.

On the website, I see an artist's rendition of one of these stations, which is very different from a fully tested prototype. I’m not against the idea, but don’t underestimate the technical challenge – it will take time, testing and money to perfect. The KPP will be reliability and cost. (MTBF and $/Op hour)

As you can see from previous posts, there are so many questions and concerns. Doubts and indecisions regarding PBP and their grand plan.

The good news is that we will have a very good idea if PBP's plan will work or not before the Volt is launched. PBP is fully funded for initial roll out of every part of their plan. They have great engineers, a genius leader and milestones to reach.

Normally I would just sit back and relax and wait for the answers but... PBP is not just working on current projects. They are talking with countries all over the world for a massive rollout of this plan.

I personally feel that the more activity on this plan the better. The more brains (engineers, scientists, politicians, leaders, thinkers, teachers) that are working on this idea the faster the world can transition away from using fossil fuels for transportation.

Yes, PBP is a far out and grand idea. I'm not even convinced myself if it will be successful. I am however convinced that every hour of effort and every dollar put into this project is money well invested. It's an investment in our collective future.

Critics are so against this plan it might be shocking to supporters. The fear of change and the fear that it could be a massive and costly failure are strong. The passion that is going into both sides of the argument are proof of these fears.


Consider this:

A) PBP folds tomorrow and returns all funding to investors. Apologizes to the public for starting such a crazy idea.

B) PBP continues with it's current plan.


Consequences of A:

Positives:

1) Critics get to gloat.
2) There will be less money spent on this.
3) More effort can be put into other alternatives.
4) Perhaps a more open network can be created in the future.
5) Maybe more competition for customer’s money will exist in the future.

Negatives:

1) The question of will this model work would not be answered.
2) There will be far less slow charge stations installed.
3) There will be far less green jobs created.
4) Less governments will be working on EV tax incentives.
5) Potentially less engineers will be working on EV designs.
6) Less engineers will be working on EV infrastructure.
7) Less knowledge will be gained on customer preferences.
8) Less actual road data on EVs will be collected.
9) Without a national plan there is less likelihood of standardization of charging.
10) Piecemeal installed charging stations are more likely to be less connected and sophisticated. Remember that PBP has to have a central data center to be able to charge customers and control charging activities.
11) The questions about range anxiety will have to wait longer to be answered.
12) There might be a huge push toward hydrogen and Government may try to knock off EVs and their infrastructures (they were already successful at this a few years ago in California). Remember that it is easier to tax liquid fuels. If PBP already has many proven infrastructures running successfully around the world it will be much harder for others to dismiss or cover up the potential of EVs. To all conspiracy theorists - oil companies will not be able to put a cover on EVs and battery technology.


Consequences of B:

Positives:

1) Many things will be answered (listed many times in the previous posts).
2) Charging infrastructure will be in place for other EVs and hybrids to use (if PBP is an open network - I think it should be if the government is giving incentives)

Negatives:

1) If PBP installs a closed network it may gain such an advantage that others are not allowed to compete. This is why I feel the network must remain open to competition. Otherwise PBP could become an evil empire and charge whatever they want. The government however, can always step in and make them open it up.

2) Critics would be sad that they were wrong.



Thus, it's is clear to me that the advantages (especially the knowledge gained) far outweigh the disadvantages (mainly that it will cost money to the taxpayer and has the potential for a AT&T like closed network). However, I think we have learned from the phone company monopolies and will thus structure things to prevent that problem. Also, the government can always step in and fix it. However, the damage to other competitors may have already been done. We need to keep an eye on all transition activities because they are so important to the health of the global economy.

Thus, Let PBP live! However, make sure the network rules are well thought out to prevent a closed network that raises the barriers of entry to competitors. The few billions that may be lost are just a drop in the bucket compared to the reward of even a partial success. It's all about the battery, stupid. Until we have that perfect battery, PBP offers a way to get going today and get more minds on the problem. The more minds we have on it, the more likely we will get to a great solution faster. I think that argument makes logical sense.

That's great Texas, but I'm waiting to see something more than a simple computer rendering of a battery swapping station before I get my hopes up. You're quick to jump on people for buying into Eestor hype and this looks like another piece of vapourware. I hope I'm wrong!

I am not flat-out against PBP, but I am highly skeptical of it. I look at this "grand plan" and wonder if, by the time PBP is all rolled out, their solution won't fit the problem anymore. Who knows what revolutionary technology is right around the bend? (Did someone say EESTOR? ;) )

I would rather all engineering effort directed into putting EREVs and EVs on the road NOW; even though the Volt still uses gasoline, if we achieved major market penetration with EREV technology it would make a huge dent in our foreign oil usage - immediately.

I have misgivings about the practicality of automated battery replacement; as another poster mentioned, we are NOT dealing with forklifts here. There would need to be a substantial engineering effort among automakers to implement such a thing, and then there is the issue of whether a vehicle can be engineered to support automated removal and replacement of its battery without sacrificing safety and/or performance.

As long as no taxpayer dollars go to support "visionary" programs such as this, I say "go ahead". I don't consider myself to be a visionary type, and I could be totally wrong. We'll just have to wait and see . . . Maybe Oilcan Henry's will be replaced by Battery Bob's. ;)

Well, I'm glad you two are going to give PBP at least a chance to reach their milestones before deciding if they are failures.


Differences between PBP and EEscam:

1) PBP has a website.
2) PBP has not missed any deadlines.
3) PBP has entire countries signed on.
4) EEscam’s main partners are Zenn and some electric bike shop.
5) EEscam's technology is discounted by just about every cap expert.
6) PBP requires no new technology. Just engineering, coordination, planning, capital investment.
7) PBP already showed an EV prototype - yes, just basic but EEscam?

I finally got around to watching the video. I think this is great. This is what the author of "Hot, Flat, and Crowded" is hoping for, we need a green bubble. We need an absolute over reaction to the energy situation (if it's possible to call anything an over reaction this late in the game). We should have started this revolution at least 10 years ago but at this point we are behind and need to catch up. We need to invest billions of dollars in this issue and sure, a lot of what we thought might work won't, a lot of public and private money will be invested in technology that won't pan out, and even scams, but there's no such thing as bad publicity and press conferences like this are important to get people to wake up and get moving.