Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [future-fuels-and-vehicles] How Green Are Electric Cars? Depends on Where You Plug In

Expand Messages
  • murdoch
    I thought this was worth reading. I have often thought that at EV conferences and in EV insight research we should do more to involve business historians so
    Message 1 of 5 , Apr 22, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      I thought this was worth reading. I have often thought that at EV
      conferences and in EV insight research we should do more to involve
      business historians so they can help us have perspective both on
      recent technology and business lessons and also on other longer-ago
      lessons.

      One or two thoughts here on your points:

      - Solar I think took 40-50 years, not 20 in my view, to get to "near
      public saturation".
      - It would be interesting to make a table and analyze which of these
      ran up against certain factors and to what extent (habitual
      enforcement or non-enforcement of IP by this or that government,
      concerted lobbying by established industries striving to avoid being
      displaced, etc.).

      One of the top principles I think that is on display in following the
      efforts to make and sell and support and advocate for chargeable
      transportation is that it is wrong (in my view) to assume that under
      whatever system the US has that passes for "capitalism", that
      technological innovation and better technologies will necessarily
      result in business progress. In my fallible view, the best technology
      does not always win in the short, intermediate or even longer-term
      over decades.

      Another nearby (but I think separate) principle is that EV technology
      won't be more widely recognized as superior (by widely-recognized I
      include in terms of revenues increasing to EV businesses) unless and
      until the externalized property-damaging costs of fossil fuels are
      acknowledged, recognized, internalized and finally output directly
      into the price of fossil fuels and fossil-fueled-vehicle operation.
      EVs and chargeable-hybrids (CHEVs?) are definitely competitive with
      and superior to ICVs in some ways (reduction of NVH, elimination or
      reduction of emissions, reduction of wear and tear on breaks, reduced
      fuel costs per mile) but I think a missing element in a "fair fight"
      or "level playing field" competition between EV/CHEV and Gasoline and
      Diesel vehicles, in the marketplace for consumer buying-dollars, is
      that as long as the prices of fuel do not reflect all property damages
      and costs.... as long as governments refuse to perform their
      appropriate functions in a so-called free market system of recognizing
      and addressing property damaging activity where it occurs...., then
      Gasoline and Diesel Conventional IC Vehicles have a totally
      inappropriate and wrong (by free market or level playing field
      definitions) advantage.



      [Default] On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 14:45:52 -0700, MarketMole
      <marketmole@...> wrote:

      >It's taken 20-25 years, a generation, to finally get to the point where
      >electric vehicles are talked about as main stream media topics; where it's
      >normal now to see EVs and hybrids driving the streets. That's a hell of a
      >long development cycle for a technology. But, better than the computer
      >(about 35-45 years.) And better than the original ICE motor vehicle (also
      >about 35-45 years.) But longer than the WWWeb, about 10 years and solar
      >(about 20 years). And longer than the shortest so far, mobile
      >communication, which is less than about 10 years. All of these numbers are
      >pure estimations of course and roughly range from the beginning of general
      >public knowledge and use to near public saturation.

      [...]
    • MarketMole
      Perhaps not all, but perhaps most technologies go through the following stages: • Discovery - the idea is theorized and proven to be true or the realization
      Message 2 of 5 , Apr 23, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Perhaps not all, but perhaps most technologies go through the following
        stages:

        � Discovery - the idea is theorized and proven to be true or the
        realization that the idea is now viable.
        � Confirmation - 3rd party scientific confirmation and general scientific
        community acceptance that the discovery is valid and can be substantiated
        with reproducible results.
        � Funding - investors can be found to support and drive the development
        forward.
        � Commercialization - the technology is salable and can be turned into a
        product or service.
        � Commoditization - the technology becomes manufactured and sold by so many
        businesses that the price is driven down to the point where,
        � Saturation - can occur which allows the mid to lower levels of society to
        be able to afford the technology or service.

        The time between discovery and saturation, I think, is what we are dealing
        with in the prior posts, and you're probably right about PV solar, 40 years
        or more to reach "near" saturation. And the other time frames were probably
        irrationally condensed due to my compressed sense of time (getting old you
        see), what I think of as fairly recent actually happened in the 80's... The
        '00's don't even register as time passed in my head yet.

        With today's politicorps running the show, the reeeeaaalllyy beeeg shoow, I
        have no doubt that your point about "let the best tech win" is spot on. We
        will probably never know what wondrous technologies we've missed out on due
        to political/corporate/conspiratorial suppression. Until a product reaches
        commercialization, it can be killed and buried at any step along those
        early stages above. And even then, there are no promises.

        And your continued thought about societal and environmental costs being
        ignored with regards to fossil fuels, well, corporoticians will never
        rollover on that pork barrel. "End the oil subsidies" Obama cried. Bah!
        That lasted about a day. Without true calamity I'm afraid that first world
        humanity just won't get it. The energy demand cliff is getting closer and
        closer and frankly I think we keep tilting our gaze higher thinking we will
        always have "plenty of time" to find alternatives, ignoring the looming
        abyss just in front of our feet.

        MM






        On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 2:16 PM, murdoch <murdoch@...> wrote:

        > **
        >
        >
        > I thought this was worth reading. I have often thought that at EV
        > conferences and in EV insight research we should do more to involve
        > business historians so they can help us have perspective both on
        > recent technology and business lessons and also on other longer-ago
        > lessons.
        >
        > One or two thoughts here on your points:
        >
        > - Solar I think took 40-50 years, not 20 in my view, to get to "near
        > public saturation".
        > - It would be interesting to make a table and analyze which of these
        > ran up against certain factors and to what extent (habitual
        > enforcement or non-enforcement of IP by this or that government,
        > concerted lobbying by established industries striving to avoid being
        > displaced, etc.).
        >
        > One of the top principles I think that is on display in following the
        > efforts to make and sell and support and advocate for chargeable
        > transportation is that it is wrong (in my view) to assume that under
        > whatever system the US has that passes for "capitalism", that
        > technological innovation and better technologies will necessarily
        > result in business progress. In my fallible view, the best technology
        > does not always win in the short, intermediate or even longer-term
        > over decades.
        >
        > Another nearby (but I think separate) principle is that EV technology
        > won't be more widely recognized as superior (by widely-recognized I
        > include in terms of revenues increasing to EV businesses) unless and
        > until the externalized property-damaging costs of fossil fuels are
        > acknowledged, recognized, internalized and finally output directly
        > into the price of fossil fuels and fossil-fueled-vehicle operation.
        > EVs and chargeable-hybrids (CHEVs?) are definitely competitive with
        > and superior to ICVs in some ways (reduction of NVH, elimination or
        > reduction of emissions, reduction of wear and tear on breaks, reduced
        > fuel costs per mile) but I think a missing element in a "fair fight"
        > or "level playing field" competition between EV/CHEV and Gasoline and
        > Diesel vehicles, in the marketplace for consumer buying-dollars, is
        > that as long as the prices of fuel do not reflect all property damages
        > and costs.... as long as governments refuse to perform their
        > appropriate functions in a so-called free market system of recognizing
        > and addressing property damaging activity where it occurs...., then
        > Gasoline and Diesel Conventional IC Vehicles have a totally
        > inappropriate and wrong (by free market or level playing field
        > definitions) advantage.
        >
        > [Default] On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 14:45:52 -0700, MarketMole
        >
        > <marketmole@...> wrote:
        >
        > >It's taken 20-25 years, a generation, to finally get to the point where
        > >electric vehicles are talked about as main stream media topics; where it's
        > >normal now to see EVs and hybrids driving the streets. That's a hell of a
        > >long development cycle for a technology. But, better than the computer
        > >(about 35-45 years.) And better than the original ICE motor vehicle (also
        > >about 35-45 years.) But longer than the WWWeb, about 10 years and solar
        > >(about 20 years). And longer than the shortest so far, mobile
        > >communication, which is less than about 10 years. All of these numbers are
        > >pure estimations of course and roughly range from the beginning of general
        > >public knowledge and use to near public saturation.
        >
        > [...]
        >
        >
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • MarketMole
        Here s another time compression example: To reach an audience of 50 million people, radio took 38 years, television 13 years, the Internet four years,
        Message 3 of 5 , May 4 7:32 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          Here's another time compression example:

          "To reach an audience of 50 million people, radio took 38 years, television
          13 years, the Internet four years, Facebook three and a half years.
          Instagram took 1.3 years."

          http://www.technologyreview.com/business/40318/

          Granted, information delivery generally piggybacks on itself, the last
          three items speak to this. While new fuels and energy sources may not be
          able to leverage prior technology as well. Novel energy sources may be so
          outside the box that they take multiple decades just to become provable,
          much less commercially viable. One analogy to remaining within the
          information age is quantum computing. Although it's predicted it is
          possible and experiments have started to show fractional progress, the
          potential for quantcomp to replace our existing silicon transistor
          technology may take decades to realize.

          MM


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.