"Better Place, the California-based electric vehicle battery charging infrastructure pioneer, said this morning that it has secured a 103-million euro ($133.8 million) equity and debt financing in conjunction with Denmark's DONG Energy to fund initial deployment of its previously announced Danish charging infrastructure.

DONG will be the preferred supplier of renewable energy to the charger network and will assist Better Place in rolling out the nationwide system of EV battery chargers and battery exchange stations.

The charging infrastructure is part of a plan by Better Place, the Renault-Nissan Alliance and the Danish government to begin marketing electric cars in Denmark in 2011."

"...The Danish government uses tax policies to encourage a switch from petroleum-based cars to zero emission vehicles and has pledged to help the country reduce CO2 emissions by 21 percent by 2012.

EV purchases are not taxed in Denmark, while gas and diesel vehicles are taxed at up to 180 percent of the purchase price, depending on fuel economy and CO2 emissions.

In conjunction with its financial announcement, Better Place also said that Microsoft Corp. executive Jens Moberg has been appointed to head Better Place Denmark and to serve as chief of business development for Europe, Middle East and Africa."


http://blogs.edmunds.com/greencaradvisor/2009/01/better-place-secures-1338-million-infusion-for-danish-ev-charging-network.html

Here are some statistics to put things into perspective:

5.5 million Denmark population - 300 million U.S. = 54.5 times as much
$133.8 million Denmark secured investment - $7.3 billion U.S. (equivalent)
2 million cars in Denmark - 250 million cars in U.S. = 125 times as much

Cost of charge point: $5000 (estimate based on competitor)
26,760 possible number of charge points (not counting swap-stations)
1 charge point for every 74 cars
1 charge point for every 206 people


Thus, this is a huge amount of funding that is equivalent of the U.S. getting $7.3 billion. Denmark is going all in. It should be all up and running with cars being sold to the public in 2011, around the same time the Volt will be available. Things are moving quickly!

Just my 2 cents but this is wasteful. It's social engineering at it's worst and will be obsolete on day 1.

Just my 2 cents but this is wasteful. It's social engineering at it's worst and will be obsolete on day 1.






How do you figure that? How is it different than AT&T setting up a cell network? Better Place secured their own money. Just because they work with EVs doesn't mean it's funded by the government.

As to your second statement, I guess will find out in about 2 or 3 years. They have the money and it's very likely now to be put in. No new technology is needed so...

I'm guessing that once it's up and fully functioning you will justify your position one way or another. Here are some helpful statements:


1) It only worked in Denmark because they are a small country.

2) It made sense for Denmark because they had so much excess wind generation they needed a place to store that energy.

3) It was the huge tax gap that made it work. It would have failed otherwise.


Or something along that line of thought. Disregard the fact that if the project is successful they will reduce their petroleum imports by a huge amount, reduce their CO2 and city smog by a huge amount and that they will become heroes to the world. I'm sure you will make yourself feel good no matter what happens (success or failure). Humans are great at it! ;)

As I said it's my 2 cents, no ego invested. I'm a person who would honestly smile and capitulate if my prognostication proved untrue.

I just happen to happen to believe, at this point in time, the model is flawed and will fail accordingly. Hence I consider it wasteful.

As I said it's my 2 cents, no ego invested. I'm a person who would honestly smile and capitulate if my prognostication proved untrue.

I just happen to happen to believe, at this point in time, the model is flawed and will fail accordingly. Hence I consider it wasteful.







Are you at least past the, "it's social engineering" thoughts? I mean, it's just a company with an idea that got funding and is going to give it a try. It's the American way!

I am also not sure that it will make it. However, I feel it will answer many questions about the market for EVs and thus it is at the very least a great research project. Doing nothing has got us nowhere. Right? When Regan pulled down the solar panels from the Whitehouse that pretty much stopped things dead in their tracks for decades. I just think we need the shotgun approach here. Even if we try 100 different things and only 1 makes it. Heck, even if none make it but we learned what doesn't work, that is still very useful. We need knowledge and we need to try something. If not, nature will force us sooner or later. If we do it on our own we are more likely to save a lot of pain.

You really think it's a useless endeavor? Useless?! Heck, it's got all kinds of good stuff like smart grid network software, charging station standards design, electrification drivetrain development, battery development, government cooperation efforts getting them thinking about transitioning away from petroleum based transport, etc. It's full of useful activities. Yes, there might be some questionable activities like the swap-out stations and the cell phone pricing model but to think there are no useful development activities seems very harsh.

What exactly do you see for our future of transport? Maybe that will answer a lot of questions. If you expect us to just walk and bike around then I would understand. If you expect us to use hydrogen cars then there is still a lot of work to electrify vehicle drivetrains. E85 will save the day? Then OK, the EV infrastructure would be a waste. Algae based biodiesel will flow like rain? OK, the EV efforts would only delay that. What say you?

EV purchases are not taxed in Denmark, while gas and diesel vehicles are taxed at up to 180 percent of the purchase price, depending on fuel economy and CO2 emissions.

I can't believe that any citizens of a country would put up with this crap!! If the Danes are cool with this, then I wish them all the best, but if they tried this kind of tax here, I would sign up for the rebellion/insurgency pronto! What a nice way to insure that only rich people get to have cool cars. This country was founded on tax rebellion and I hope to keep it that way.

I can't believe that any citizens of a country would put up with this crap!! If the Danes are cool with this, then I wish them all the best, but if they tried this kind of tax here, I would sign up for the rebellion/insurgency pronto! What a nice way to insure that only rich people get to have cool cars. This country was founded on tax rebellion and I hope to keep it that way.







Before you pull out your flag and gun you have to look at the logic. They are very wealthy people yet don't have a lot of space for everyone to be driving a Hummer. It would make the standard of living worse for everyone. Imagine bumper-to-bumper Hummers all belching out their fumes in a tiny city environment.

The Danish are aware of the reason and even vote in politicians that support this. If the Danish didn't agree they would just vote in the idiot that said no restrictions on cars! Right? We do!

At this stage of U.S. development we have lived with almost unlimited resources. We have plenty of just about everything. We can have Hummers and McMansions for everyone! Soon this will not be the case. We are just starting to see that there are limits to resources and there will be severe consequences to mindlessly wasting them. We soon won't be able to keep up with unsustainable economic growth rates and ever increasing usage of fossil fuels. There is going to be a stomp down delivered by Mother Nature soon and we are going to have to figure out what to do after that. Do you feel it coming? Perhaps after the next global economic face plant you will be more open to negotiation. ;)

It should be obvious to most people that we can't just do what we have been doing. It's unsustainable. Nobody knows for sure when it will break but it's unsustainable. That's not even up for debate.

Just my 2 cents but this is wasteful. It's social engineering at it's worst and will be obsolete on day 1.

Wasteful yes, because they are paying a middle man to do a job they could do themselves. Obsolete only if they are planning on putting in the battery swapping stations. The charging stations and the grid to support them should prove useful for years to come. Social engineering at it's worst? No, not really. That would be the holocaust. Really bad social engineering, yes.

Wasteful yes, because they are paying a middle man to do a job they could do themselves. Obsolete only if they are planning on putting in the battery swapping stations. The charging stations and the grid to support them should prove useful for years to come. Social engineering at it's worst? No, not really. That would be the holocaust. Really bad social engineering, yes.



OK, let's first get a handle on why people use the term social engineering. Here is a good decription of why it is used:


"In practice, whether any specific policy is labeled as "social engineering" is often a question of intent. The term is most often employed by the political right as an accusation against anyone who proposes to use law, tax policy, or other kinds of state influence to change existing power relationships: for instance, between men and women, or between different ethnic groups. Political conservatives in the United States have accused their opponents of social engineering through the promotion of political correctness, insofar as it may change social attitudes by defining "acceptable" and "unacceptable" language or acts. The right has itself been accused of social engineering due to its promotion of Abstinence-only sex education, Sodomy laws, and state sponsored school prayer."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_engineering_(political_science)



OK, now that we understand why the term is used. Maybe you two can explain how the Better Place project is "bad" social engineering. I'm at a loss there. It's plan is to help countries get off their addiction to petroleum. That same resource that looks to be running into serious supply instability.

Ok Texas, I'll concede on my social engineering comment, I connected a few dots in your original post incorrectly, mea culpa, mouth ahead of mind etc. :o

Still, while this specific project is not being directly underwritten by the Danish government, the fact that they keep gas taxes high in order to discourage it's use in effect shields all competing projects from reality, and that's what the Danes apparently want. Further, they must do something with the taxes collected? To the extent any of it finds it's way back to private sector projects deemed deserving, that is social engineering. Tax to discourage, pay to encourage.

Ok Texas, I'll concede on my social engineering comment, I connected a few dots in your original post incorrectly, mea culpa, mouth ahead of mind etc. :o

Still, while this specific project is not being directly underwritten by the Danish government, the fact that they keep gas taxes high in order to discourage it's use in effect shields all competing projects from reality, and that's what the Danes apparently want. Further, they must do something with the taxes collected? To the extent any of it finds it's way back to private sector projects deemed deserving, that is social engineering. Tax to discourage, pay to encourage.







You mean bad like a tax on tobacco for the health of the public? That kind of bad social engineering?

Anyway, If I'm not mistaken Demark already had that high tax on the purchase of a car. They used that revenue to support their transportation infrastructure. Some tax gas, some use toll roads, some have sales tax, some have inspection fees to keep new cars on the road to promote fleet changes and continuous new car purchases and some us a combination of several different systems to make their transportation systems work.

I do agree that the government has to be careful not to keep out competition. Better Place even said that they want a fair and open playing field. Set the stage and let the actors perform.

It has been shown that increasing the tax on gas keeps the vehicle sizes low and the gas mileage high. It's obvious we did something wrong because our average vehicle size has gotten ridiculously big and the average gas mileage is the lowest in the developed world.

Perhaps when resources and land are unlimited there is no need for "social engineering". People will eventually be driving around converted busses that are made in China. However, once there’s a hint that the resources are finite and non-renewable maybe we need to take some action for the good of the country. Is this concept so hard to grasp or accept? What do the libertarians or anarchists think? Noam Chomsky, what say you?

Do we just sit back and let our civilization die off like yeast? Then maybe next time we will evolve wireless collective communication capability that keeps us from pushing to the absolute edge. Like an overweight person in a donut shop that just eats until they cannot stuff another donut down their throat.

Perhaps we can take a vote and see to what extent we are willing to allow control of our lives so that we can all have a good standard of living. Imagine the U.S. with a population of 2 billion people plus people. We could probably do it but the parks and nature areas would have to be paved over.

I would like to know what the readers think, especially those that are very conservative or anarchists. No government no interference kind of people. Would you rather live like you were always packed in an elevator or allow the government to have rules and global agreements to keep populations below agreed upon limits? Set limits on water usage or face the risk of soon having to go thirsty?

I have been thinking lately that the world might even need to figure out new economic systems. The old fast and continuous growth model that the developed world is using has to stop sometime. It's unsustainable. New, sustainable government and economic systems are going to have to be developed and flushed out.

It's funny because most systems were sustainable before agriculture was developed. Things went wild during industrialization and we might be facing the first real global resource max point - petroleum production.

Well, there was whale oil before and wood before that but thankfully something new was right around the corner to pick up the torch. Maybe we will just switch to solar or another renewable energy source or even nuclear fusion and not even skip a beat. Our population might shoot up to 20 billion and we might be as prosperous as ever.

I guess we will all have different opinions on what to do. Nobody is going to always be happy. We must then let our system do it’s magic. We are all free to bitch and complain as much as we want and to vote for our leaders. If there are more people that want control then we can do our best to persuade then to our cause but if we fail maybe we should trust our system and let our rules be followed. If we don’t, there will never be a consensus on anything and we will just vacillate into obscurity.

You mean bad like a tax on tobacco for the health of the public? That kind of bad social engineering?


Not really.

I'm not a smoker personally but I think it's generally accepted that, long term, smoking will hasten one's destiny with eternal rest. So the government taxes the heck out of it, ostensibly to reduce consumption. In reality the government hopes the plan doesn't work because they are addicted even more to the tax money than the smoker's are to tobacco, but I'll stipulate I could be wrong on that.

On the flip side we have pay-to-encourage, like the investment tax credit. Sounds good on paper because investment is good right? Well yes, but to get the most out of if many bought gas guzzlers or equipment they didn't really need, or whatever. It's organized bribery. And they (govt) are using the taxes collected from hard working Americans to bribe another group of Americans to just go buy stuff. Fine.

Then there's the most pernicious form of social engineering which endeavors to take the profits from a successful enterprise and hold it up as bounty to whomever they decide offers the best substitute. America, I think, has so far avoided this sort of thing. Europeans seem comfortable with it. So it goes. I'm glad I live in America.

Not really.

I'm not a smoker personally but I think it's generally accepted that, long term, smoking will hasten one's destiny with eternal rest. So the government taxes the heck out of it, ostensibly to reduce consumption. In reality the government hopes the plan doesn't work because they are addicted even more to the tax money than the smoker's are to tobacco, but I'll stipulate I could be wrong on that.

On the flip side we have pay-to-encourage, like the investment tax credit. Sounds good on paper because investment is good right? Well yes, but to get the most out of if many bought gas guzzlers or equipment they didn't really need, or whatever. It's organized bribery. And they (govt) are using the taxes collected from hard working Americans to bribe another group of Americans to just go buy stuff. Fine.

Then there's the most pernicious form of social engineering which endeavors to take the profits from a successful enterprise and hold it up as bounty to whomever they decide offers the best substitute. America, I think, has so far avoided this sort of thing. Europeans seem comfortable with it. So it goes. I'm glad I live in America.





So I take it you are voting to have the government keep their hands completely off the problem? That makes me nervous because I feel the price of oil might drop back to $20 per barrel for many years this coming decade due to prolonged recession. That low price will keep the remaining people that have jobs as well as the government and military to continue to burn oil at their heart's content. The low price will lead to high burn. Price is the strongest motivator. It’s definitely not morality. ;)