Why are the different types (full, mid, and light) and brands (Toyota, Ford, General Motors, and Honda) so important and what contributes to that?

Your question is a great technical question

that people tend to get very emotional about.

So again, the future depends on who and what

regular people buy.

Kind of like brands of clothes regardless if they are made from

organic cotton or chemicals,
brands and stores and prices usually mean more.

HOW DIGITAL IS YOUR HYBRID?

So now that you understand that our world's future

is becoming more digital and that we've powered

the industrial revolution with chemical power such

as coal, oil and gas, it's easy to see the difference

between the types of hybrids and brands.

The level of digitization depends on Research & Development

in the largest business in the world for the most amount.

For example, Toyota spends 10 times Apple on R&D,

but according to a recent survey in Tokyo among 20 years olds,

most don't want a car because they want iPods and digital things.

From light to full, there are R&D costs and technologies that

depend on patents. So if Toyota has 650 patents for the Prius

mostly on the transmission, tranaxle, generator, braker, powerplant

called the Hybrid Synergy Drive, it means that Ford for example

has to make a different hybrid OR pay Toyota for licensing.

Another example, is that oil companies have the R&D patents

on some high voltage digital batteries for cars so car companies

are rumored to have to pay oil companies when people buy hybrids.

Unfortunately, how digital (light, mild or full) depends on

- costs (R&D, patents, licensing, legal)

- what and how many patents you control

- who is working for you in terms of engineers

SUMMARY

The Hybrid Synergy Drive is VERY IMPORTANT to Toyota

because they paid billions to R&D it before everyone else,

so guess what, Toyota has the most FULL hybrids on the road.

Toyota had to build a $1,000,000,000.00 factory just to make

the computer that controls the electricity in the hybrid which

is about the same amount of R&D money that GM spent

on making and killing the now million dollar EV-1 digital car.

The emotional part of R&D is pride!

Honda engineers are never allowed to work for another automaker,

so if Toyota comes up with a full hybrid, Honda will try to pursue

another idea in R&D.

WHO PAYS FOR THE RACE?

Think of types of hybrids and brands like a race

where everybody wants to wear a different color

and drive a different type of technology.

Unfortunately, the consumer has to pay

for all these different choices, failures,

and dirty secrets that costs billions.

Why or why not?

From the same student below: Why or why not?

This part of the question has to do with

how the global variables will change over time.

FUTURE ENERGY

An extreme case would be oil running out.

Many people are working on this problem

because many experts believe that oil will

be gone in cheap large amounts in a century.

So some companies are making synthetic oil,

oil from plants, oil from gases and other things.

HYBRID FLEXIBILITY

The interesting thing about hybrids is that they

are compatible with any kind of chemical fuel:

- biodiesel hybrids (buses and semi trucks)

- diesel eletric hybrids (many trains)

- gasoline electric hybrids (most cars)

- air electric hybrids (trains and cars)

- hydrogen electric hybrids (e.g. Honda clarity)

- natural gas electric hybrids (buildings, houses, washing machines)

- nuclear electric hybrids (most advanced submarines)

- natural gas steam (water) hybrids (most power generation)

and I could go on and on because hybrids can
DIGITIZE any chemical technology and make
it BETTER, FASTER and/or MORE EFFICIENT!

CHEMICAL OR DIGITAL SOCIETY

So if oil runs out and we maintain a chemical society

and do not convert to a purely digital society powered

by futuristic technologies like crystals and string theory,

hybrids will always be more efficient than chemical engines.

HYBRID CONS

The down side is additional costs, although those costs

are going down everyday, while the chemical (gas-powered)

costs of building an engine have dropped about as far as

they can go for now. So hybrids will continue to threaten
chemical technologies if consumers pay the small extra.

SUMMARY
The hybrid is compatible with every gas-powered technology,

costs a bit more, and is in between the chemical and digital world.

If we choose a digital future, hybrids could overtake gas-powered

and then electrics overtake hybrids as our chemicals run out.

If we choose a chemical future, we'll continue to have wars

over natural resources and we may just end civilization

before we can burn up all the things we dig up.

Hybrids are compatible with
BOTH
a chemical and/or digital society!

Do you think that hybrid car levels will ever meet or exceed the number of gas-powered ones?

Kids are getting smarter and doing research reports earlier and earlier.
From the 7th grade, I received the following question about hybrids:

Q) Do you think that hybrid car levels will ever meet or exceed the number of gas-powered ones?

First of all, let's discuss the UNITED STATES market for NEW automobiles.

U.S. COMPARED TO WORLDWIDE

Globally, NEW car and light truck sales usually run about 60 million units,

with 16 to 20 in the U.S. with the rest almost equally divided between

Asia and Europe. Because U.S. consumers (customers) are the most

high profile in the world, the U.S. market is the world's most important.

U.S. CONSUMER BEHAVIOR

There are many things that have changed the U.S. consumer recently.

2008 is forecasted to be one of the worst years in a long time due to

several factors including problems on Wall St, gasoline prices and

of course, a looming recession. These are huge factors that have

nothing to do with the kind of automotive technologies avail,

and according to February data, almost every automaker except

Honda had a drop in sales. Almost all large vehicles were down,

and only the sub-compacts like the Honda Fit spiked upward.

WHAT DRIVES SALES?

There is one variable that appears to be more correlated with

hybrid sales than the others: gasoline prices. Now remember

that the rest of the world uses liters and we use gallons.

So MPG is the consumer side of the equation and U.S. hybrids tend

to look very strong compared to miles per liter or liters per 100km.

HYBRID SALES

Toyota dominates hybrid sales and over the past 10 years

hybrids have followed the typical bell curve upwards.

From 1999 to 2007 hybrids sales grew from 17 to about 350,000.

In my 174 page master's thesis researched from 2004 to 2007,

I identified 100s of hybrids being prepared for showrooms

and forecasted the hybrid market. Experts ranged from

20% to 80% of the overal NEW car market by 2012 to 2020.

FORECAST

My forecast was based on plotting the first several years of U.S. hybrid sales

against Geoffrey Moore's Technology Adoption Life Cycle in Crossing the Chasm.

It's a bell curve and what really drives a technology from something new to

the mainstream is the average buyers. Those that may not understand the

details of how hybrids work and just want a car that gets better mileage.

Under the assumption that the first nine years made up 16% of the area under

Moore's curve, I forecasted that there was 84% of the curve left for Prius and

current generation hybrids. Simple math resulted in a 2.5 million unit market

and at $20,000 per car, it's a $50 billion or $50,000,000,000.00 opportunity.

SUMMARY

To forecast "car levels" we need to look at more than just new car sales

and the current generation of hybrids. How do we count electric cars,

plug-in hybrids, alternative fuel vehicles, etc? If you define "gas-powered ones"

as all the cars like diesel, biodiesel, E85, gasoline-hybrids, flex-hybrids, hydrogen hybrids,

then I would say that hybrids cannot exceed the number of "gas-powered ones."

There are millions of older cars on the road and when and how they are recycled

is up to other factors, usually smog laws driven by politics that has nothing to

do with hybrids being 90% cleaner than most cars.

What I can say for sure is that digital car levels

WILL exceed gas-powered cars in the longer term future.

In the short-term, fuel efficient cars will increase the most

and in the mid-term, hybrids, plug-ins and alternatives

and in the long-term vehicle that have powertrains

controlled by computers. Gas-powered cars have

computer controlled engines, but not

digital transmissions for hybrids, plug-ins and electrics.

CLOSING

The future will converge towards digital just like

the LP became the digital CD that died for the iPod

the tube became the digital transistor that enabled personal computers and flat screens, etc.

According to Jim Press who ran Toyota America to the top,

the automobile industry is the world's biggest and buys

more computers than the computer industry.

Hybrids vs. Electrics

This is the most recent interview in response to The Hybrid Phenomenon.

I'm quite impressed with her deep questions
for a research paper of her choice in a
College English course as a high school student!!!

It's good to see the next generation of drivers
think before they buy that first jalopy!

Questions

1. Why choose hybrid electric vehicles over the other options- especially over fuel cells, a favorite option of the Bush administration?

According to several studies and interviews with hybrid owners, the main reasons to buy hybrid electric vehicles (hybrid) are
1) mileage
2) statement or image

The research was mostly American, where cars and trucks represent two major parts of our persons:
1) the most expensive household purchase and expense
2) fashion that we sometimes wear everyday

Choosing hybrids allows people to be selfish and giving at the same time.

In terms of technology, most hybrid buyers I talked to were not aware of the details of types of hybrids or benefits over fuel cell vehicles, which in my opinion, are all hybrids as well. Those are what I call hydrogen-electric hybrids because all fuel cell vehicles need batteries or capacitors and electric motors to work, just like gasoline-electric hybrids.

The main reason to choose gasoline-electric hybrids over hydrogen-electric hybrids is cost. Cost has several components including down payment, financing, leasing, insurance, fees, tolls, registration, maintenance, fuel, oil, etc. Convenience is the other major reason. Gasoline is everywhere, but hydrogen is very hard to find and much more expensive than gasoline. Could you imagine the insurance costs if you got in an accident with a million dollar fuel cell vehicle?

Politically, the reasons are quite different. Since carbon has become a top issue, new vehicle regulations have becoming more important. Both types of hybrids are very clean, and in fact, cleaner than most of the vehicles we have every produced. But hydrogen looks cleaner at the tailpipe.

Unfortunately, few are using overall cleanliness of the entire fuel to vehicle cycle to compare technologies.
So, hybrids are still addicted to oil, and to make hydrogen requires turning electricity into hydrogen and back into electricity.

In other words, hybrids are the best of the best in terms of efficiency,
but along the way, energy is always lost. So the reason to choose
hybrids is to save energy for the next generation.


2. Could you explain more clearly the section in your paper titled, 'Efficiency: "Well-to-Wheel" Analysis'? I was confused by the percentage values for efficiency and some of the statements, such as this one: "So for every 10 barrels of oil extracted from the earth, one to five are lost along the way to the gas station or electric outlet."

I'm not sure if it's possible to explain well to wheel clearly. It's a very complicated topic. It's kind of like explaining where the lead came from in a dangerous toy or following mercury in an unborn fetus in Oregon from a mother that ate a fish that had ingested mercury from acid rain over the ocean that might have originated in another part of the world at one of thousands factories that were powered by equipment from another part of the world and ingredients mined from some other part of the world. Every step of the way, something bad happened, but most of us just think the fish is bad...

The concise version is that there are hundreds of steps to make a car go down the road.
Since energy can never be made, at each step, energy is lost. Usually to heat.
Someone has to pay for that loss, both in terms of economics and the environment.

Well to wheel attempts to measure the loss in a holistic or full cycle way with things we can relate to,
such as efficiency, or the amount of carbon being released causing global warming. Carbon is created from heat.
Most of the 800 millions cars and trucks driving Earth have a well to wheel rating of 15%.
In other words, we pump and pay for 100 barrels of oil, and in the end,
the equivalent of 1.5 barrels turn the wheels in the last vehicle.

But what happens in between the well to the last wheel?

Helicopters, planes, heavy equipment, pumps, electricity, trucks, trains, ships, pipes, more pumps, cars, trucks and more!!!

All those things are counted in the price of gas we pay, but we don't see them.
Well to wheel wants to see them and measure them and compare the options.

Let's look at some of those steps...

According to physics, energy cannot be made. It can only transfer from one form to another. But at every transfer, there is a loss of energy someone has to pay for. It's usually heat that are lost on the way to a gas station or let's say your TV. Feel the back of your TV. It's warm or hot because it's converting electricity to video and losing energy in the form of heat. Fortunately, your TV is much more efficient that your car.

Heat represents the loss or the cost of making the electricity in a sense.
Just as heat is how your car loses most of all the gasoline you pour in.

Gasoline and fuels are exploded, thousands of times per minute,
so that you can drive your car. Explosions turn fuel into up and down motion
and then circular motion that can turn your wheels. Every step along the way,
more energy is lost. So your car's engine loses or wastes 8 of 10 gallons you
pay for and the last 2 get turned into motion. Of those last two, more gets
lost in the transmission and other parts before the wheels turn.

We didn't even count the pump that pumped the oil, the truck that transported it,
the refinery that burns it, the other trucks that deliver it again, or ships,
and all the other energy losses before you fill up at the gas station.

According to the oil expert Amory Lovins, only 1% of the energy from the beginning of the process
actually moves the drivers body (not counting the weight of the car) down the road in the end.
The rest is wasted or paid for by consumers. We pay for losses.

Now that we see well to wheel is an apples to apples way to compare,
how do the most popular cars and trucks fair?

Rough well to wheel estimates in ultimate conditions:

Gasoline powered = 15%
Diesel powered = 20%
Hybrids = 30%
Diesel hybrids = 40%

Electrics depend on how the electricity is made,
and unfortunately the electrical grid is only 50% efficient.


3. How high do you think the fuel economy standards could be if the fleet was made up of all hybrids as opposed to being all conventional vehicles?

I'm not sure because of the several articles I've read, the rules for measuring the average of the fleet are changing.

For example, the economy standards for light trucks is not the same as heavy trucks.

So I think the economy standards depend more on vehicle class,
and in America we have different classes than abroad,
so our standards will probably be the lowest in the world.

I would like to see a restructuring of the car classes more along the lines of the rest of the world.

The Honda Insight was rated at 70 MPG and many plug-in hybrids are getting 100 MPG.
But there are few heavy or large vehicles in the world getting more than 20 MPG.
Wal-Mart is trying to convert their fleet to hybrids because semi-trucks get very poor mileage.

So for the smallest class of cars, the standards could be 100 MPG using hybrid technology.

But as you move up in weight, it takes more energy loss,
and a semi truck that goes from 10 MPG to 20 MPG
is like a hybrid Prius going from 50 MPG to 100 MPG.

It's impossible to set an average with a political number such as 35,
without a breakdown analysis of the entire 230 million cars and trucks
how many in each class, and the current hybrid technologies in each area.

Even so, I feel that price is much more important than mileage,
because there are billions of first time car buyers entering the global market.

Of the 100s of hybrid owners I've talked to, none of them were first time buyers.

In fact, most hybrids owners have owned several cars and come from the middle or upper class.

A fuel economy standard without classes is like one flat tax rate for all...


4. Many people don’t believe hybrids truly get better mileage than say, diesel engines with other efficiency features often found on hybrids. How would you respond to this kind of statement?

This is an illusion caused by ignorance or a numerical illusion.
All cars and trucks get plus or minus about 20% around EPA.
The reason hybrids stick out, is that 20% of high mileage like 50 MPG is 10 MPG.
Compare that to a semi-truck going from 6 MPG to 7.2 MPG.

When an unskilled driver gets -20% down to 40 MPG,
we tend to think it means more than a truck going from 10 MPG to 8 MPG.

In fact, driving and numbers are often misunderstood.
The ignorance stems from the fact that very few people in the world
know how to drive to maximize gas mileage. Everyone knows how to
drive to maximize horsepower or from a physics standpoint, energy loss.

Theoretically, we'll have to go back to the pump to wheel part of well to wheel.
That is, everything from the fuel pump to turning of the wheels.
The explosions, heat, idling, waste, starting, stopping
and all the parts like transmission, drive shafts, wheels, etc.

In apples to apples, full hybrids are more efficient than diesels,
but diesels are more efficient than gasoline engines.

Put them together, and hybrid-diesels are the most efficient,
disregarding issues like deadly particles, environment, etc.

If we are just talking about gas mileage and gas mileage only,
and not concerned with how we make the electricity,
electrics and hybrids are at the top because they recycle energy.

Most of the other 800 million vehicles shoot energy right out the tailpipe,
and don't recycle any of it, aside from the few turbos.

In summary there are hundreds of ways to get better mileage, just increase efficiency:

Here is a list of some examples any vehicle could use,
but every hybrid has already decided to use:

- turn the engine off when the wheels aren't turning
- use electric steering, air conditioning, etc.
- better tires, higher pressure
- more slippery bodies

Diesel-hybrids would be the best of both worlds,
but generally, cars are like fashion, and you don't
see rival groups coming together.


5. I’d like to borrow one question from the interview you linked:
Is the hybrid vehicle an intermediate step to gasoline free vehicles, or will future vehicles always require some gas? If you could first answer the exact question and then add any further or new thoughts, that would be great.

Hybrid vehicles are compatible with any fuel: gasoline, diesels, E85 and biofuels, propane, natural gas, electricity, hydrogen, air, water, and more...

But hybrids are more expensive.

So in terms of which step from a science standpoint,
they are in between fuel engines and electric motors.

Assuming that gasoline free vehicles are electric vehicles,
then hybrids are a natural technological step because all
the high voltage components in a hybrid are theoretically
the same as an electric, but simply less powerful.

But humans are emotional and the best technology doesn't usually win.

Some prefer luxury, image, speed, horsepower, prestige, price, and other things over hybrids.

Others may want cheap, small, reliable, easy to see and drive, not complicated and simple.

What I'm getting at, is that cars are fashion, and demographics matter!
From socioeconomics to race to gender,
steps in the evolution of vehicles
is much more emotional than logical.

There are hundreds of thousands baby boomers and elderly that
have bought hybrids as their last step, but remember, they have
money and wanted to make a point.

My thoughts are that the upper classes will only buy hybrids for image,
maybe a 20th car.

The middle class that wants to save money and wants a green image,
might buy a hybrid as a last step.

The billions of first time car buyers coming into the marketplace from the lower classes,
cannot afford to buy hybrids.

The consumers that can afford a hybrid are using it as a last step.
They will always buy hybrids again, according to the interviews I've done.

Hybrids owners do not go back to regular vehicles,
so you can generalize that hybrids are a last step
for the people who have already bought them.

Otherwise, it depends on image and price.


6. Also- are hybrids just an intermediate step specifically towards completely electric vehicles? (as opposed to gasoline free cars that are not purely electric)


See above answer.

Do you think the 500,000 people in the world that bought hybrids
are planning to trade them in for electric cars???

Do you think the 2,000,000,000 people that want their first car,
can afford to even think about a hybrid or electric car???


It would also be helpful for me to know your credentials as an expert in this field- so if you could, list the ways you are involved with this topic and your background in it.


My main credential is the fuel for the article you read.

A California State University Master of Business Administration

culminating experience and research project that came out of

1,000 pages of research, dozens of interviews, dozens of events,

dozens of hybrids driven, three years of data collection, several drafts,

and much more in the 183 pages with hundreds of sources I could provide...

It's copyrighted and covers oil, fuels, environment, politics, pop culture, technology and the auto industry.

From a personal standpoint, I have worked on and studied cars for over 20 years,

have owned and driven and car shared and rode more than a dozen hybrids and electrics,

and am currently studying in an auto technology program that has three hybrids to study.

Academics: CSU MBA Management, UC BA Statistics


Hope this helps and let me know if you need anything else.


If you would like to share your results, I would be happy

to post them to my blog for you.


John

Oil vs. Alternative Fuels

Another student is writing a research paper. Here is our interview on alternative fuel vs. oil published straight up from the email:

Kenneth,
WOW!!! We've got a deadline so here it goes:

1. why is still gasoline is the first choice for motor vehicle?
It's cheap, widely available and powerful (high energy content).

It generates more money for companies and government (through taxes)
than well over half the world countries make each year.

There are quite a few business reasons,
so how about looking at this question from different perspectives:
automobile company, oil or gasoline company, consumer, airline industry

Automaker
If you are an automobile company, make a non-gasoline engine is a huge financial risk. Your customer base drops from 2 billion potential drivers down to a few million with access to alternatives. It does not make short-term financial sense to design and manufacture a non-gasoline vehicle because of the investment and time it takes to bring a car or truck to the showroom.

Take the innovative EV-1 for example. It was a great car, people loved it, it didn't use any gasoline and if you had one today, it would be worth a million dollars. But why didn't it work from the standpoint of being an automaker. That's pretty simple, there were only a few hundred customers, compared to the 230 million Americans driving cars and trucks, and it lost GM more money that you can imagine. Try over $1,000,000,000.00 invested with more than 1,000 leased for hundreds each month, it lost millions each month. GM only brought in a million or so so it's easy to say that they lost a billion or so dollars, including an expensive black eye from the public, which leads me to the 2nd reason...

Until recently, making a non-gasoline vehicle was not cool, kosher, politically correct, etc. This is changing fast! Toyota is a great example. They developed the multi billion dollar Prius for the long-run. But they could afford to lose a billion for the first 10 years before they made any profits. Even today, rivals accuse Toyota of selling the Prius for below cost. This may be partially true, as the 650 patents in the hybrid drive cost an arm and a leg (1,000 engineers, lawyers, MBAs, multiple countries, etc.) but Toyota can afford to lose money for now.

So if you're an automaker, let's say like NUMMI over in the East Bay that has to pay PG&E $1,000,000.00 each month for electricity, do you think you can afford to take a chance on a non-gasoline vehicle? How would you keep the lights on?

Tesla does, and found $50,000,000.00 in free money to try and get a license plate on the first car in a few years. Incidentally, the battery pack has over 6,000 batteries and is estimated at $40,000 vs. a typical gasoline engine at hundreds times cheaper. Which would you build?

Oil or Gasoline Company
These companies are just the opposite of automakers in a way. They make all kinds of products from crude oil. Everything from the roads we drive on to plastics we use everyday to jet fuel that delivers the majority of our perishable foods to areas that don't grow it. They have no shortage of customers, unlike automaker. Why don't they make less gasoline?

Probably money and costs. Gasoline brings in plenty of profits, satisfies Wall Street with record profits for any company for all time, and the cost of making gasoline, distributing it, with thousands of gas stations ready to buy more without additional R&D, is like owning a gold mine and shutting it down to start mining for silver somewhere else. Why stop the money coming in?

Why should oil companies lose money to make less gasoline? Why do oil companies invest so little of their profits?

Maybe they would like to maximize the investment they've made, just like any other person or company.
Maybe oil will run out so far in the future, that it really doesn't matter on Wall Street (all the majors are publicly traded held by insurance companies and other financial houses that do thing like pay for our grandparents retirement) which tends to be very short sighted focused on quarterly earnings.

The proof is in the pudding. Most all biofuel, Ethanol, Biodiesel, and alternative fuel companies are losing money so far.

Alternatives will take off when they are cheaper
and at that moment, oil and gasoline companies
will probably start heavier investing...

PS An oil company owns the patents on hybrid batteries
so for every hybrid that sells, some money goes back
to an oil or gasoline company...

Consumer
Again, it's all about the money, well mostly. There are a few drivers that will pay extra to make a statement, such as those driving $40,000 hybrids or flex-fuel vehicles, but the bottom line is that consumers can't afford to pay more for non-gasoline.

That could change QUICKLY!!! In fact, with E85 was first released it was more than 20% less than gasoline (the break even price point because E85 is 20% less powerful than gasoline = 20% less miles per gallon). But, with so many farmers selling corn to biofuel plants instead of tortilla factories, Coca Cola and soft drink corn syrup suppliers, beef, pork and chicken producers, etc. the price of corn has gone up... So has the price of food from corn chips to steaks!

So unfortunately, E85 is an example that looked really good at first, but the price has come up higher than gasoline on an equivalent energy content comparison. Right up the street from my apartment, the gas station always sells E85 for only 10 cents less than gasoline, even though both prices change everyday. If you use simple math and take the 10 cent difference and divide by the 20% less energy, the break even point at my local gas station is 50 cents per gallon. So if gasoline was 50 cents per gallon and E85 was 40 cents per gallon, they would be the same price.

Anything more than 20% price premium is too expensive for the consumer. What's more, the price is being held low by politicians giving our tax dollars to farmers and biofuel plant operators. So in theory, E85 on the West Coast is much much more expensive than gasoline.

So why would a consumer or driver or customer buy non-gasoline?
To pay more to make a statement.
Otherwise, gasoline is the first choice!

Airline Industry
Although other transportation industries such as trucking can switch over to bio-diesel (and will so long as it's cheaper), the airline industry can't. There are no planes that run on lower octane alternatives. Planes last much longer than vehicles; it's easy to find a 50s plane at any airport in perfect condition. Planes are also owned by the upper class. Millionaires aside from green celebrities can afford to buy gasoline until the end.

The good news is that visionary entrepreneurial millionaires like Richard Branson care and see biofuels in a different light. Just like the Indy 500 guys and girls filling up every race with moonshine. Why, because it's powerful and they have to buy the gasoline anyway. So again, it's attempt to reduce major costs with a feel good fringe benefit.

We can stop driving but the airlines HAVE TO keep delivering
us, our mail, our food, our goods, etc.

I'm not an expert on jet fuel, but I know it's one of the most expensive components of running an airline and there are no alternatives today!

Gasoline may the first choice until the end of the oil or airlines.

Where does a barrel of oil go?
Half to gasoline for now,
the cheapest, most available,
easy to transport and powerful fuel...

Nothing can replace gasoline!!!

We will have to be shocked into using something else
when gasoline gets up around $10 per gallon and airplane flights are triple.

If our oil civilization collapses,
let's save the gasoline for delivering
food to parts of the world that can't afford oil anymore...


2. why do we need an alternative source of energy?

I will say this twice or three times because it's not what you read elsewhere:

because the daily demand for oil is accelerating at the same time the daily supply is flattening
in other words we will soon not be able to pump enough oil every day,
in more words, the potential growing gap between DAILY supply and demand is
a MUCH BIGGER problem than global warming or cheap electricity getting less cheap.

Why? We can barely keep up today with only 800 miliion cars and trucks
or about 1 in 15 people on the planet. The number or cars and trucks
is growing daily, 2,000 new ones hit the streets of Beijing EVERYDAY!!!

Imagine 2,000 new cars and trucks in your city tomorrow,
and then 4,000 the next day, and then 12,000 on Day 3,
we're talking about as many cars and trucks in the world
that took 100 years to get to, getting rolled out into our
streets for the first time in history, all over the next few decades!!!

That's why traffic cops die in their 40s in Beijing
and everyone on the street is wearing a mask.

The worldwide fleet is expected to double and then triple soon!!!

How much oil will we need everyday, if there are a few billion cars or trucks???

There might be enough in the ground, such as the Canadian oil sands,
but those are like having a million dollars in the bank and only being
able to go to the ATM everyday and withdraw a 20 dollar bill.

Many argue that there's plenty of oil, but does it matter?

I don't think so, does 10 extra or 20 extra years matter?

Not in terms of the shock point: when the daily demand
accelerates away from the daily supply!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We need an alternative source of energy that can reduce the
DAILY DEMAND for oil. A source that can accelerate fast,
like plugging in 100 million cars at night to a socket and saving
millions of gallons of gasoline every day of the week we are not
allowed to buy gas, like in the 70's, not experimental cars that
cost millions and can only serve a few millionaires here and there.

We will not run out suddenly, we will have to ration suddenly,
and society will slow down, so alternatives are required
if we expect to continue the growth path we're on...

We need to find alternatives because of fundamental flaws in economic theory.

Under the assumption that all suns supernova
and humans will still be living here until it does:

Free trade is not free, i.e. solar energy (slow energy) is finite and NOT renewable.
All resources approach zero as time goes to infinity.
i.e., there are no renewable energy sources.
Economic growth assumes resources do not approach zero,
so economic growth will also approach zero
and wealth, money and everything tied to the
economy will also have to correct to zero.

Bottom line, without energy, there will be no economies.
If oil is finite, we need alternatives to keep an economy.
Without oil or alternatives, there will be no economy.


3. What are some ways for hydrogen to compete with oil in global market?

Hydrogen is not the same thing as oil. Oil is banked energy just sitting there.
Oil has a high energy content and more importantly we can make hundreds or
even thousands of products from oil.

What can hydrogen make? Expensive electricity
Where is it sitting? Compare drilling to catching ghosts

Physics tells us that energy can never be made and can only be transferred.
Every transfer costs energy in the form of heat or friction.

An example, natural gas and tremendous electricity and water
transfers into hydrogen while losing 50% on the electrical transmission lines
and a lot of heat into the water. So we lost a lot to get to hydrogen.

Then we have to turn the hydrogen back into electrical energy
because MOST ALL hydrogen vehicles are HYBRID-ELECTRICS!!!

Why did we change the electricity two times???

So the only way for hydrogen to compete is efficiency
which will bring the costs down.

Hydrogen transportation will have to become more efficient than oil and fuels.
Hydrogen distribution will have to become more efficient than gasoline and diesel.
The fuel cell or engine will have to become more efficient than above!

If the infrastructure beats the estimated
85% gasoline and 80% efficient diesel supply chains,
hydrogen has a chance.

But take Arizona public fleet for an example:

the natural gas starts in Canada to form hydrogen
then liquified using tremendous electricity
then filled in large tanker cars and finally shipped to Arizona
then it awaits filling into buses a minus hundreds of degrees...

Compare that with the gasoline pipeline from Long Beach harbor (one of the biggest ports in the world with oil tankers avail everyday)
to Las Vegas that feeds just about every gasoline station and fueling company. Just pump the gasoline and out it comes 350 miles away.

The hydrogen infrastructure will have to get to 90% efficient,
and that is not possible without pipelines and slow energy.

What taxpayers and companies will pay the billions for that?
California has been trying for 10 years and there's only a few pumps and a few trucks
out of tens of thousands of gasoline pumps and 230 million cars and trucks in America!


4. what can government do to convince to buy hyfrogen powered vehicle?

Government taxes us and spends the money in exchange for politician votes or support.

So they could use tax dollars to make hydrogen vehicles look cheaper.
Maybe if it increased votes or lobby dollars,
but I doubt hydrogen can become sexy like hybrids.

We're trying to convince people to buy E85
and it looked cheaper because we all paid for the corn and stills.

Hybrids are a good and bad example.

They were made cheaper with tax credits, free parking, free commuting lanes, free bridge tolls, etc.
in other words, us tax payers paid for hybrid driver benefits...

Did politicians make a difference?

According to my research, of the dozens of hybrids buyers I studied,
two main reasons came up over and over:
1) mileage
2) image

Saving on taxes or free parking or free tolls was NEVER a PRIMARY REASON
for buying a hybrid, even after the govt convinced us the breaks mattered.

So for hydrogen, there would have to first be main reasons such as
1) mileage or cost
2) image
then with those in place, govt could stimulate additional sales through incentives...

There's no sense in spending tax dollars
to lower the price of a HYDROGEN VEHICLE
from $1,000,000 to $900K with tax breaks is there?

The wild card might be govt getting into the grey areas of conversions,
such as plug-in hybrids or hydrogen conversions on regular gasoline cars and trucks...

But in the end it won't really make a dent in the 230 million vehicles America is in love with!


5. How important do you think it is for U.S. to reduce its dependence on foreign oil?

That's a loaded question because it focuses on the U.S.
as if the U.S. is the only customer for foreign oil.

Take Japan for example, it's been importing 99% of its oil for decades,
and runs an estimated 40% nuclear. France runs 70% plutonium I believe...

Everyone is dependent on foreign oil in the industrialized world.

Brazil and Iceland are outliers that I don't have time to talk about,
but it can be done, much like a addict goes on medication.
For Brazil it's destroying the rain forest for sugar cane Ethanol
and for Iceland I believe there's natural geothermal accelerating
due to global warming, which is basically geographical luck,
like the Middle East sitting on the largest free bank accounts
in the history of our civilization!

So if we are focusing JUST ON THE U.S. then we have to think about
the U.S. in terms of geopolitical terms. We have a lot of natural gas,
we make half our electricity from coal, we have less than 1% overall
solar and wind after 25 years of welfare and development, etc. etc.

We also have 230 thirsty addicted cars and trucks than need
gasoline or diesel EVERY DAY, TODAY, TOMORROW, DAY AFTER,
NEXT MONTH, ETC. that's about 3 of 10 cars and trucks in the world.

So we've got one of the largest fleets in the world,
one of the largest demands for electricity in the world
and we have the largest military in the world.

We also have the world's most powerful economy.

If you believe in survival of the fittest,
the U.S. will be the last country that
will be able to control and consume
foreign oil. Who will stop us?

How important is that? Depends if your American or not...

So reducing our dependence is more of a political show right now,
and you've got politicians mistakingly placing global warming above oil.
That's like cutting out a lung cancer and smoking a pack through the hole in your throat.

I'm saying the problem is the GLOBAL daily supply and demand,
the cigarettes, not the sick lungs...

It's like there's one milk to go around for each school lunch,
but suddenly, there are twice then three times more students,
as one to two billion worldwide and global citizens buy their
first TVs, VCRs, PCs and they plug in... Then they buy their
first cars and trucks and go down the gas station and fill up...

The U.S. is the biggest bully in the cafeteria,
we pay the cheapest price for gasoline in the industrialized world,
so why should we reduce our oil dependency,
when we pay the least and spend the most?

When it becomes a moral issue!

If our oil dependency kills people, in other words if you believe
that deaths in IRAQ or asthma deaths in Long Beach from
kids breathing the ports and trucks emissions is related to
our foreign oil dependence, then we have to do something!

I think it's VERY IMPORTANT to reduce our oil dependency
if it's directly related to killing human beings.

As far as global warming and other reasons,
are polar bears more important than American kids
dying early from lung problems due to breathing foreign oil byproducts?

Death is a very important reason to reduce dependency on foreign oil.


6. is it possible for U .s. to be free from oil?

It's more possible for the U.S. than other countries.
We have more money and more power and more guns.

If there was something out there more valuable than oil,
let's say the diamond planet they discovered larger than Earth
as a fun example, the U.S. would probably get there 1st,
if diamonds could fill up our gas tanks that is...

9 of the Top 10 Global Fortune 500 companies ranked in terms
of money coming in every year are either oil or car companies.
The 10th is Wal-Mart which has the largest truck fleet around.

These companies make much more money than more than half the countries in the world.

If you made as much money as a country,
would you give that away to corn or hydrogen?

We are very lucky to have the cheapest gasoline prices in the modern world,
and in fact, I believe that is why we maintain the strongest economy in the world.

The only way to free ourselves from oil is to find a co-addiction,
something either cheaper and worse than oil
or better and more expensive.

Could it be Back to the Future space ships powered by
banana peel reactors and Lithium batteries?????????

Probably not in our life times, so we should probably focus
on the one or two billion cars and trucks coming online soon
as most first time buyers can't afford non-gasoline vehicles
and want the same things we have, a car and a mobile phone.

A cheap clean vehicle for every grandchild
is just as important as leveling off our oil demand.

In fact, if we don't start making cheap alternative fuel vehicles,
even if we manage to get off half the oil, we're going to need
three times as much for the rest of the world anyway...

One thing is for sure,
electricity is making a run for oil.
Look at Tokyo for a glimpse of the future,
99% imported oil, don't need a car or truck,
electric trains are connected to everything,
but 40% nuclear and bad air and water...

Oil is too powerful and too cheap to be replaced,
only shock treatments can change our behavior now.

We (U.S.) will start to slowly move away from oil at 10 dollars per gallon,
but the one or two billion people that are buying their first car or truck
can't really be stopped from buying a cheap gasoline vehicle
unless we "radically rethink the automobile!"
by Prof. Gerdes at Stanford's CarLab.

I say focus on the new cars and trucks NOW,
remember that hybrids have already saved
500,000,000 gallons of gasoline already!

How much oil have hydrogen or electrics saved?

Running out of oil is probably the only way to be completely free of it as a civilization,
as I said before, airplanes may never be free from oil.

We can work together to
free parts of our society,
certain communities
interested in freedom from oil.

I heard cars and trucks maybe be banned
in some large cities around the world soon...

Sincerely
John

Interviewed by middle school student...

writing a report on hybrids, electrics and social impact:


1. What do you believe is the main reason that many electric cars are not being mass marketed? Any others?

I believe that the main reason electric cars are not being mass marketed is because of money. Money can be broken down into several factors including Research & Development (R&D), marketing, sales and profits.

Using the EV-1 as an example, General Motors spent an estimated $1,000,000,000.00 for R&D and a little into marketing. According to Wikipedia, 1,117 units were produced which included 650 lead acid battery and 457 NiMH versions.

Assuming each EV1 was leased for $500 each for an average of 18 months, estimated total revenues for the EV1 fleet was about $10,000,000.00. So GM spent $1 billion to mass market the EV1, leased every unit except for two, and lost 99% of the investment.

This may not even include the salaries and other expenses paid to clean up the mess after the cars were developed. So, it’s safe to estimate that GM lost $10 million per EV1.

Not very many people, companies or organizations can afford to lose $10,000,000.00 per unit of a new mass marketed product, so why did GM develop the EV1? Because the California Air Resource Board’s mandated that 2% of vehicles had to be zero-emissions.

Comparing mass marketing a new gasoline car to an electric, the money is completely different. For a gasoline car, dealers are setup, showrooms, service departments, mechanics, etc. Then there are oil changers and gasoline stations and all the jobs to keep cars on the road. The auto industry hires 1 in 10 Americans and that does not even include things like rubber to make tires, or clerks working at the gas station.

Compare all those jobs to what’s available and ready or the costs of developing an infrastructure for electric cars. If the EV1 cost $10 billion to develop, the infrastructure to fuel, service and recycle electric cars could cost the world trillions. How many of the six billion people on the planet own their homes and have access to solar panels or windmills and reliable electricity?

Millions of people around the world can grab a can of gas, oil or diesel and vote.

Jobs, voters and politics are the other reasons that people, groups and organizations do not want to kill off the existing oil based infrastructure.




2. Is there any major flaws in hybrid and electric cars that you believe should be fixed?

Hybrids
Assuming you are asking about technology and the cars themselves, looks, performance and size are probably the most common complaints by non-owners. Owners and buyers love their hybrids and will rarely go back to a conventional vehicle.

The main flaw is aesthetics or looks. Since some hybrids are as slippery as fighter jets, the body designs are unusual for most consumers. In fact, the majority of hybrid buyers are female, and calling hybrids cute has been cited in many studies.

The cars are also small, so a buyer looking for space might call it a flaw, whereas in Asia, small cars are an advantage where streets are narrow. For example in Japan, many city streets have mirrors to see around the tight blind corners that few SUVs could handle.

Another traditional trait for cars has been horse power. Hybrids lack horse power because electric motors provide more torque, not horse power. This flaw is being challenged by miles per gallon (MPG) as gasoline prices are correlated to hybrid sales.

American buyers may see hybrid cars as feminine and small, Asian buyers see them as too expensive because they do not value the environment as much, and European buyers may view hybrids are lacking in performance

Electrics
Aside from minor flaws like not having a masculine sound, electric cars have always been flawed in range, top speed and fueling. Batteries limit range and electric cars do not perform at racing speeds. For some Europeans it’s very hard to provide electric cars that can keep up with traffic on the German autobahn for example. In Japan, top speeds are moot in a country with few open highways.

Tesla Motors has increased the range flaw with a very expensive climate controlled and computerized battery pack of over 7,000 individual cells. It’s wrapped in a very sexy and masculine car, but top speed is only 130 mph. On one charge an average driver might be able to drive 250 miles in a Tesla, 400 miles in a gasoline car, 500 miles in a diesel car and 700 or more in a hybrid.

Charging
Electrics also have a major flaw outside of the home owner population with access to cheap, safe and convenient electricity. For buyers and drivers that cannot park near a safe charging station, electrics do not help lower income renters.

For example, my cousin lived in San Francisco, and had to plan each car trip 10 minutes ahead to walk to his $3,000 per year parking space two blocks away, warm up the car,

drive back to the house, pick up his wife, and then drive her to work. How could he do that with an electric car? Every night, his two block long extension cord would have to cross intersections including a cable car line, and any cords or equipment would probably get stolen or vandalized every night. Cords could also cause hazards and lawsuits.

Electric cars do not help those people that do not have their own garages with expensive custom charging stations. Of the six billion people in the world, very very few have their own garages. Many more can get to a can of alcohol, gasoline, diesel, pond of algae, etc.

Standards
That brings up another flaw when talking worldwide use of electrics, standards. I don’t have time to talk about AC vs. DC other than there is a lot of efficiency lost in conversion and AC motors are required for regenerative braking whereas all solar panels are DC, but I will say that the plugs for all the electric cars are different.

Why? Because when companies R&D new things, the main way they protect themselves and make money in the future is to file patents. For example, the Prius has over 650 new patents and the Ford Escape hybrid has over 350 with over 20 borrowed from Toyota.

When companies file patents, other companies developed a different idea or variation. All these different plugs, voltages, charging units, battery packs, etc. hurt the customers.

The EV1 has a different plug than the RAV-4 and wouldn’t you know it, Tesla created a whole new system so that they could patent it, get customers locked in, and hopefully sell them a sister company produced compatible solar system.

So the major flaws with electrics have to do with use around the world regardless of income or living conditions.


3. What to you believe is the more common reason to developing hybrid and electric cars: the fact that oil is a non-renewable source, or environmental related issues like global warming?

The more common reason automakers are developing hybrids is because the other car companies (rivals) are developing them. Big businesses tend to copycat each other because of not wanting to risk money on new things. Small businesses on the other hand, such as Tesla Motors, like to take risks and may develop electric cars because they are angry, frustrated, curious or just rich and bored.

World’s first hybrid
Porsche invented the first hybrid over 107 years ago because he wanted to build a faster electric car. At that time, most of the cars on the road were electric or coal/wood-steam hybrids. There were very few electric plugs available, so his hybrid allowed for more speed and range. In fact he was able to win races, set world records and make a splash at

the 1900 World’s Fair with his world’s first hybrids. So the first hybrid had nothing to do with oil or the environment, it was developed for performance.

World’s first mass-produced hybrid
The Prius was led by an engineer with a background in vibration and noise (note that noise is a form of pollution and one reason people buy hybrids). He led a team of 1,000 engineers hired by a manager of the Global 21st Century Project G21 at Toyota’s secret factory in Japan around 1993. In this case, the main reason in developing the world’s most famous hybrid was to respond to the Kyoto Protocol. At first, the manager challenged the engineers to make a car that got 50% better mileage. But as the deadline got closer, he doubled the goal to 100%. After throwing out 80 designs, the G21 team came up with a concept that became the Prius. It was 32% efficient, that is, it used 3 of every 10 gallons of gas to turn the wheels. Most of the world’s cars and trucks only use 1 or 2. Today, the world’s most famous hybrids accounts for almost 90% of all of the almost one million hybrids around the world, and it was developed because of environmental reasons.

I would say that in the 90s, hybrids were developed for environmental reasons. In the 2000s, hybrids were bought for both gasoline prices and environmental reasons. And after Al Gore’s movie came out, more consumers are buying for global warming reasons.

I would say that the car companies are developing new cars to survive because of the patent game (once a rival lands a patent, it’s hard to copy the same idea), and are looking to get ahead in any new technology for money.

Oil will run out regardless of which cars we develop because there are over 5 billion people that do not have a car yet. After all, how many people can afford a hybrid or electric when they’re buying their first car?

Electrics don’t really make any money, yet. Tesla is the first to develop a performance electric and is landing large male dollars. I don’t think that the people who develop electric cars understand the global impact of adding a billion electric cars to the world.

If every family has a two car garage, is there really enough electricity and battery components? The problem is that there is enough coal for the electricity, so could you imagine 10 times more smog because more electric cars that need more electricity from the grid which is primarily powered by coal.

So I think most electric cars are developed by people who are angry at the infrastructure and I would answer back in angry question? How many people in the world can afford an electric and can plug into a solar panel or windmill. The answer may be a dozen people in the Bay Area, and when you look at the big picture of every electric vs. hybrid or gas, electric car are irrelevant in reducing oil or smog.



4. What is your stance on other alternative energy automobiles like hydrogen, solar, biodiesel? Are they as effective as electric types?

This is a great question, and the answer changes everyday. The only accurate answer is a moving target, possibly based on well to wheel analysis + a real time dust to dust analysis + social impact metrics.

In other words, the best alternative energy automobile depends on many different variables. The most important is probably the how the end user operates the vehicle.

Here’s a list of some examples:

The average driver that doesn’t own their home:
A used hybrid or natural gas vehicle to reduce oil dependency and smog by up to 90%

The occasional urban driver without access to parking:
Carshare hybrid and mixed fleets with vehicles for specific uses, such as pick up truck borrowed for a few hours to move a couch, hybrid for shopping trips, SUV for carpooling, family or group events, etc.

Restaurant owner or food service worker with access to used grease:
A cheap biodiesel conversion

Middle to upper class technologist and home owner:
A new or used hybrid converted to plug in fueled by off the grid electricity

Middle to upper class home owner with solar panels and short commute or deep pockets:
An expensive electric car that can be charged in a private garage off the grid

The rest of the world:
Think globally and act locally. For example, if there are ponds around, try algae biodiesel. If you live near an oil well, try a clean diesel. If there is biofuel garbage or feedstock for alcohol (ethanol) use that.

The answers are numerous and the main point is that most efficiency is lost moving things around. Make the fuel, impact, vehicle etc. closer and/or smaller.


5. Now that hybrids are commonly used on the roads, what is the next step we should take in manufacturing alternative energy cars?

There are already millions of alternative vehicles on the road and in the showroom. The next step is to buy new ones every two years.




The next step is already being taken by California consumers. Consumers are buyers who go and take a chance with their wallets on something new and different. There are plenty of people talking, but consumers are the next step.

It’s not up to us to decide the answers; it’s up to the people of the world. Give them choices and they will take their own next step in the way they see fit.

In America so far, over 4 million have taken the next step on Ethanol vehicles and almost 1 million on hybrids with very few hydrogen and electrics on the road. Why waste time talking about and taking next steps with cars that aren’t even on the road yet?

In other words, buy a hybrid today, buy a plug in tomorrow, and buy an electric when they’re ready. Stop talking and put your money where your mouth is.

I divorced my hybrid almost two years ago, walk up to 60 blocks on some days, ride electric or diesel buses and trains almost every week, car share hybrids and occasionally bike and job. The next step is to use your wallet or legs to buy less oil.


6. Some of the electricity used by electric cars comes from power-plants that use non-renewable sources. Is this problem easily fix-able?

Actually, I would say that most of the electricity in the world comes from coal. Of course all the power plants can’t be fixed easily. Why fix them? To lose money and clean up the air? Why would a company want to do that?

How much do you think a power plant costs? What about the wires and grid computers and transformers and equipment under our city streets that maintained everyday? There is a huge established system that can’t just be fixed.

Today, the electric car fleet hardly matters, only a few people are driving them, and even those people who have solar panels, still pay for electricity. If they were all unplugged one day, it really wouldn’t create a global difference. Now if every regular car stopped going to the gasoline station one day, the world’s oil demand would go into shock.

If you add up all the smog reduced by all the hybrids versus all the electrics, the electric cars are losing badly, as a fleet.

No matter what is said, the truth is that the impact of the electric cars on the roads of the world is not really part of the world’s energy problems. The power plants will be fixed for early deaths, climate change, policy and green business, not electric cars.




7. With your experience with hybrid cars, do you find them reliable and easy to use?

In addition to owning and driving everything from mini-bikes, motorcycles, go-karts to muscle cars to trucks, I’ve personally driven 6 different hybrid cars and light trucks and have ridden in 4 others. I’ve also ridden in a RAV-4 and electric kit car.

My opinion is that the hybrids built in the last 10 years were built with more attention to detail than any other modern cars every made. I know that the Honda Insight was hand built by the world’s best auto engineers.

I had an Insight and drove it very very hard; it never broke down while I owned it. My dad, on the other hand, get’s a big bill every time he takes the same exact model of Insight into the dealer, because mechanics can always find something wrong with any car, and that’s part of the big business that exists and is reluctant to go away.

Hybrids are very easy to use. There is no required change of behavior if the driver does not care about gas mileage. Many buyers don’t even understand how hybrids work, but they know how to push a button and fill up. That’s one reason why hybrids are popular and effective, practical and simple change.

Overall, reliability and ease of use has contributed to the success of the hybrid phenomenon.


8. With the world dependent on oil, do you see electric cars as a way of solving this problem?

Not today, because most of the people in the world don’t own modern electric houses, have windmills or special solar panels, converters, safe garages and expensive charging stations. On the other hand…

Over 5 million Ethanol and Hybrid cars and trucks are solving this problem every minute of driving as we speak right now all over the world.

According to Toyota, their American hybrid fleet has already saved
• 4 million barrels of oil
• over 125 million gallons of gasoline

How many barrels have all the electric cars in America saved?

Oil for energy
2/3 of the world’s energy is from oil. So 2/3 of electric cars would actually increase the demand for oil, unless they ran on pure DC. I have talked to many electric car owners, and have yet to meet any who were not plugged into the grid. Most will tell you that their meter runs backwards for credits, but throughout the year, the credits eventually get used and the electric car home owners end up consuming a net amount of electricity.

This situation could change if there are millions of electrics plugged in at any moment allowing the various world grids to share and equalize energy production, but that is a question for another interview and global solution.

Oil for cars and trucks
99% of every vehicle man drives including the ones that deliver almost everything we use for daily life, are addicted to oil. But, all the cars and trucks in the world only use about 25-35% of the world’s oil.

So if 2/3 of the world’s energy is addicted to oil and cars and trucks use the rest, more electric cars simply shift consumption to power plants. Whether or not this shift takes place, the world’s oil will run dry in a century or two.

So the real question is, how can we stop the world from becoming addicted to coal (the dirtiest fuel in the world) when there is much more available, and half the world’s electricity is produced by it?

Collaboration (no patents), efficiency (eliminate waste) and diversity (different answers for different areas and communities) are the only way to make the oil last a bit longer and avoid a future of even dirtier coal. Even oil can’t handle the world’s two car garage, when 5 billion people buy their first cars.


9. Should the government act on developing electric cars? If so, should they pass laws to promote electric cars or give money to developers?

Let’s see if we can use collaboration, efficiency and diversity as an answer.

If the government can provide something like the following example, it might work. Let’s say a tax break or incentive to a developer that build green and clean energy, shelter and transportation solutions as a system.

For example, 200 condominiums powered by solar and wind, with standard electric parking spaces for electric cars and plug in hybrids as well as anything else such as scooters and bikes. Buyers would pay for housing, energy and transportation all in one.


The development would have to be off grid and various players would collaborate with tenants to pick a diverse mix of clean and green solutions.


10. Do you believe that people are leery of electric cars? Are electric cars too different and are many people not willing to change?

Of course! Are people leery of any new device with a plug you’ve never seen and could kill you if not handled correctly? When people go to the dealership, are they ready to install solar panels, junction boxes, charging units, etc. without being leery?

Gasoline stations all have the same size nozzles and gas tanks are all about the same size. Why can’t electric cars get this right? Hybrids fill up and go; electrics are for America’s upper class at this point, wealthy technological savvy home owners and mainly golfers.

Here is the reality of the electric vs. other fleets:
Fuel/Vehicle 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Growth
Gasoline-Electric Hybrid 0 50 11951 19843 34689 50,357 88272 139595 279090%
Diesel-Electric Hybrid 7 3 6 29 31 175 419 311 4343%
Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle 0 0 0 0 2 6 31 74 3600%
Alcohol Conventional 217034 426724 600832 581774 834976 859261 674678 743948 243%
Electric 1844 1957 6215 6682 15,484 12,395 2,200 2,281 24%
Gaseous Conventional 16221 19420 14347 14,715 10,802 8,344 10,038 4,072 -75%
Total 235,106 448,154 633,351 623,043 895,984 930,538 775,638 890,281
Source: adapted from the EIA

The electric fleet is very small, slow growing and not very successful. It’s hard to deny the public benefit of over half a million hybrids compared to 50,000 electrics (most of them neighborhood vehicles). As a fleet, Alcohol vehicles and Hybrids are having the biggest impact.

So the questions should be about the electric car fleet vs. the hybrid fleet vs. the ethanol fleet. Rather than asking if people are leery, the question is how many are leery?

Because as a whole, fleets will change the world’s air and oil addiction. With five million ethanol vehicles on the road, America’s corn has double in price and pretty soon everything from meat to cereal to cola may go up.

With five million more electric cars, our internet bills, electric bills, computer related and electronic costs would probably change too, along with the costs of building houses and other things.

So the important answers break down the world’s fleet and question the two car garage. With only 1 car per 9 people in the world, can our planet, oil and coal handle 5 to 10 times more vehicles of any kind?