+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 42
Latest: Heredia05
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 10674
Total Topics: 246
Most Online Today: 22
Most Online Ever: 52
(November 29, 2017, 04:04:44 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 0
Total: 0

Author Topic: Electric Vehicles  (Read 8845 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14895
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Electric Vehicles
« Reply #420 on: June 28, 2018, 05:55:16 pm »
Volvo Says XC40 SUV Will Be Its First All-Electric Car

June 27th, 2018 by Steve Hanley

It wasn’t really a secret, but now it’s official. The Volvo XC40 SUV will be the company’s first all-electric car, signaling a transition to more electric cars in the near future. According to Autocar, Volvo design chief Thomas Ingenlath told the press on June 20 during the reveal of his company’s new S60 sedan, “It’s not a secret any more that the first full electric Volvo is on its way with the XC40 coming. It will arrive very soon after the Polestar 2. That is the first to come that’s not exotic. We’ll start with XC40 and then on it will come step after step into our model range. The next car will be the next generation XC90.”

Volvo XC40 electric SUV

It should be noted that the S60 will be manufactured exclusively in Volvo’s first US factory in Charleston, South Carolina. The next generation XC90 will also be manufactured there beginning in 2021. “That will be the master plan of how electrification will come to the Volvo product range,” Ingenlath said. “We will not establish products beside our hybrids, we will introduce electrification as a powertrain variant within the existing portfolio. You could say that is different to a lot of the mass-production brands. But I have a hard time to understand how their plan will work in the long run.

“Electrification is the future of the automotive industry, so how do you handle that as soon as you come to the majority of electric cars? How do you handle it in your portfolio? I think it’s much more natural to say it’s a powertrain variant that over time will take up the majority of the sold vehicles.” His remarks are clearly aimed at Volkswagen, which will sell its electric cars under the I.D. brand, and Mercedes Benz, which has established a new EQ brand for its electric models. BMW started out by creating its “i” division for the i3 and i8, but has now changed course and brands its electrified cars with labels that require the entire trunk lid to spell out in full.

Volvo says every car in its product lineup will be fitted with an electric motor from 2019 forward. In many cases, that could mean a hybrid or plug-in hybrid variant being sold alongside all-electric models. For instance, the XC40 will be available as a plug-in hybrid as well as a battery electric car. The XC40 chassis was designed specifically to accept a variety of powertrains. The XC40 will be manufactured in China for markets around the world.

Volvo has incorporated Polestar, which began as an independent tuning firm, into its corporate structure and will use it to develop future EVs. It expects 50% of its cars to be fully electric by 2025. “We definitely don’t want to bring something that we’ve so successfully just launched like an XC40 to an end just because combustion engines will disappear,” he said. “To look at new formats, new body styles and non-traditional elements, we founded Polestar to take care of that end of the scope. We developed that strategy: full electrification of the Volvo range, making it a natural part of the offer, and at the same time developing new, unconventional elements in the Polestar brand.”

Interesting times ahead for the Chinese-owned Swedish brand, which like many other manufacturers is trying to find its way forward as the electric car revolution evolves. 💫 


https://cleantechnica.com/2018/06/27/volvo-says-xc40-suv-will-be-its-first-all-electric-car/
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14895
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Electric Vehicles
« Reply #421 on: June 28, 2018, 06:40:01 pm »
New government in Italy plans 1 million electric cars by 2022, could cost $10B

 Eric C. Evarts

Jun 27, 2018

2017 Fiat 500e2017 Fiat 500e (graphic at article link)

Italy has been an electric-car backwater in Europe, but a new populist government has dramatic plans to change that. 👀

According to a Bloomberg report, the new Five Star government elected in March is calling for incentives to put 1 million electric cars on Italy's roads by 2022.

Last year, data from the European Automobile Manufacturers Association showed only 2,600 electric cars were sold in Italy, along with other 2,200 plug-in hybrid vehicles. The country has fewer than 5,000 electric cars registered today, Bloomberg estimates. That number puts it last among 16 large Western European countries.

CHECK OUT: Rome joins European ban-diesel bandwagon after German court ruling

Selling 1 million electric cars would transform Italy into the No. 1 market for electric cars in Europe and require government incentives larger than those in Norway, currently Europe's clear leader in electric car sales. Between tax breaks, exemptions from tolls, free parking and more, Norway's incentives are estimated at $10,400 per electric car, according to Bloomberg.

To sell 1 million electric cars could cost Italy $10 billion in incentives, according to Italian auto industry analyst Promotor research institute.

In March elections, the internet-based, anti-establishment Five Star party, founded less than 10 years ago, got the most votes. To reach a governing majority, the party is forming a coalition with the rival League. The million-car goal, first articulated as part of 31-year-old Five Star party leader Luigi Di Maio's campaign, is part of a draft document forming the coalition.

The governing contract calls for a reduction in gasoline and diesel cars through a cash-for-clunkers program, according to Bloomberg.

A government spokesman confirmed the goal to Bloomberg but would not comment on the cost.

Rome has issued a ban on diesel cars in the city starting in 2024.

Few Italian automakers build electric cars and Sergio Marchionne, CEO of the country's largest automaker Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, has expressed skepticism of electric cars and said the company loses $14,000 on every Fiat 500e it builds.

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1117453_new-government-in-italy-plans-1-million-electric-cars-by-2022-could-cost-10b
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14895
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Electric Vehicles
« Reply #422 on: June 28, 2018, 07:35:31 pm »
INSIDEEVs

JUN 27 2018

BY ERIC LOVEDAY

Tesla Model 3 Is Now Ranked Among Top 100 Selling Cars In U.S. 👀



The Tesla Model 3 logged its first sales back in July 2017, but production was very low up until the end of 2017.


Now it’s 2018 and it’s a whole new ballgame for the Model 3. 🧐

In the first 5 months of 2018, Model 3 sales progressively shot upwards, starting with 1,875 sold in January and closing out May with an impressive 6,250 sold. The results for June will be posted on July 3rd here.

Tallied up for the year, Model 3 sales through the end of May total 18,305 units, which isn’t a whole heck of a lot compared to say sales of the Ford F-150 (#1 on the list at 371,934 sold YTD through the end of May), but it is enough to put the Model 3 in the lead among plug-in electric cars by a margin of more than 6,000 units.

More surprisingly though, the Model 3 is now the only plug-in electric car on the Top 100 sales list for the first 5 months of 2018.


Yes, it checks in with the last slot on the list, but we all know Model 3 sales are trending upwards quickly, while most of the vehicles slightly ahead of it on this Top 100 list are actually on the decline.

Surely in a few more months the Model 3 will be further up the list and it should remain in the Top 100 for the foreseeable future, since some hundreds of thousands of orders still have to be fulfilled.

Interestingly, there are several German vehicles just above the Model 3 for sales. Those will surely fall victim to Tesla’s rising sales in the coming months.

Lest we forget about the upcoming Tesla Model Y. Musk predicts it will be a higher volume car than the Model 3, so soon there should be at least two Teslas among the Top 100 ranks.

For a look at the entire Top 100 sales list, follow the source link below.

Hat tip to Jiří!

Source: Focus2Move

Categories: Sales, Tesla

Tags: featured, Tesla Model 3, Tesla Model 3 sales, top 100

https://insideevs.com/tesla-model-3-slides-into-top-100-selling-cars-in-u-s/
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14895
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Electric Vehicles
« Reply #423 on: July 03, 2018, 09:39:22 pm »
BYD Lands Its Largest Order To Date In The Americas With 100 ⚡ Bus Deal in Santiago, Chile
July 3rd, 2018 by Kyle Field

China-based new energy company and electric vehicle titan BYD has inked its largest bus deal in its history in the Americas with a new deal for 100 fully electric BYD buses in Santiago, Chile. The new buses will go into operation in November of this year, when BYD hands them over to transit operator Transantiago.


BYD and partner ENEL have been piloting two fully electric ⚡ buses in the city since November of last year as city officials looked to determine the future technology for Santiago’s arterial bus routes. BYD and ENEL signed a strategic partnership in 2016 that looks to stack ENEL’s expertise in infrastructure and electric vehicle charging on top of BYD’s decades of experience in stationary energy storage and electric vehicles in a move that said ‘together, we are stronger.’

The new buses will be operated by transit operator Metbus in the Transantiago public transportation system on some of Santiago’s busiest routes. As with all BYD buses, these will be start with a foundation of BYD’s lithium ferro phosphate battery technology on which local transit options and regulatory requirements for the Chilean market will be added.

“Operating a BYD pure electric ⚡ bus is equivalent to reducing carbon emissions from 33 cars,” BYD Chile spokesperson Tamara Berríos said. “In addition, BYD pure electric buses are safe, quiet and can reduce operating costs by as much as 70 percent. Moreover, a BYD pure electric bus only requires 70 Chilean Pesos to run per kilometer, compared to 350 Chilean Pesos per kilometer for internal combustion engine buses. We believe that we can deliver on both quality and safety.”


Electrification of transit buses in Chile has been driven by local advocates of vehicle electrification on the Metbus team as well as a nationwide desire to eliminate the need to import fuel. Chile’s Minister of Energy, Andrés Rebolledo, explained at the commissioning of the first two electric buses that, “the entry of these first two electric buses are great news for a country like Chile, since the transport sector represents one third of the energy consumption, and it imports practically all the fuel used for transportation.”

The new deal in Chile comes as the next in a long line of big deals BYD has landed in South America including a SkyRail line in the Brazilian city of Salvador and a deal for 200 BYD ⚡ garbage trucks also in Brazil that build on BYD’s expansion into the region with the electric bus factory in opened in Ecuador last year, among others.

The push into developing markets demonstrate just how competitive electric vehicles can be on a purely financial basis, without even taking into account the noise and emissions benefits they also bring to the table. On top of that, replacing diesel transit buses with fully electric ⚡ buses is a way for cities to clean up the air in urban areas which results in a healthier population over the long haul.   


Source: BYD | Automotive World

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/07/03/byd-lands-its-largest-order-to-date-in-the-americas-with-100-bus-deal-in-santiago-chile/
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14895
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Electric Vehicles
« Reply #424 on: July 05, 2018, 05:03:37 pm »
A Sinister Cellar 😈 👹 💵 🎩 Of The TSLA Short Story?

July 5th, 2018 by Guest Contributor

Originally published on EVANNEX.

by Charles Morris

The ongoing onslaught of anti-Tesla articles in the press surely stems from many sources, and yes, some of these are doubtless legitimate journalists who are simply describing the situation as they see it. However, it’s widely believed that much of the mud, especially the (seemingly hourly) articles that focus on financial and stock-market topics, originates with short sellers who stand to gain serious money if TSLA stock falls.

That’s obviously the belief of Elon Musk, who alternates between taunting the short sellers and vilifying them — he has a personal grudge against those who would sabotage his altruistic mission for financial gain. But are the short sellers really the ones stirring up all the FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt)? A recent series of posts by Tesla Motors Club member jesselivenomore presents compelling evidence that the shorts are following a tried-and-true playbook that they’ve used to attack other companies in the past.

Jesse relays the story (originally chronicled in The Divide by Matt Taibbi) of Canadian insurance company Fairfax Financial, which was listed on the NYSE in 2002. Jim Chanos, an investor well known in financial circles for exposing Enron, decided to bet against Fairfax. “Chanos evangelized his belief in Fairfax’s shortcomings, and by the end of 2002 a slew of other hedge fund titans followed suit,” jesselivenomore writes. In 2003, a report from investment bank Morgan Keegan asserted that Fairfax was insolvent, and the stock plummeted by 25% the next day.

“Extraordinarily, this report was written by a rookie analyst, John Gwynn, who just came from Trinity, one of the hedge funds who made a huge bet against Fairfax,” writes Jesse. “The collective hedge funds may have initially genuinely believed that Fairfax was corrupt or incompetent, but their even stronger belief was that enough bad press and market momentum would crater the firm. Chanos’s own words: ‘With a financial services company like Fairfax, it can all be self-fulfilling. If the market finally decides the glass isn’t half full anymore, the trouble starts… you can see the stock go into a waterfall.’” In this case, the waterfall didn’t flow. Questions surfaced about the accuracy of the Morgan Keegan report, and Fairfax shortly released a positive financial report that propelled the stock back up.

Over the next three years, Fairfax was dogged by accusations of fraud sent to rating agencies, regulators, and business partners. According to jesselivenomore, “Nearly all of these troubles could be traced back to Spyro Contogouris, a man hired by [Chanos and his allies] to ‘bring down Fairfax.’ Contogouris’s strategy would be to sink Fairfax by ‘closing access to the capital markets’ — cutting off its access to funding by undermining its reputation.”

By late July in 2006, Fairfax began to circle the drain — the stock price plummeted as rating agencies, the SEC, and even the FBI were knocking at the door. Rather than accept its fate, Fairfax filed a lawsuit, and this ultimately saved the firm, according to Jesse. “The detailed response about all the allegations spooked short investors who [had] jumped on the bandwagon with Chanos and the rest. According to discovery materials, some of these investors were all but assured that Fairfax was about to be busted by authorities at any moment and was sure to go out of business. So when Fairfax was gearing up for a long legal battle instead of just rolling over, it didn’t seem to be the behavior of a guilty company. The short sellers began to cover.”

And where are they now? During its near-death experience in 2006, Fairfax’s share price reached a low of $100. On June 15, 2018, the stock closed at an all-time high of $775.

Author Matt Taibbi chronicled how Fairfax tangled with short sellers in his book, The Divide (Image: Penguin Random House)

A few years later, it seems that Chanos and colleagues employed the same strategy against SolarCity. SolarCity’s original business model didn’t involve manufacturing solar panels — rather, it created a leasing model that made it feasible for homeowners to install solar systems. In essence, it was a financial company: as Jesse puts it, “an arbitrage firm that profited from the difference between their borrow rate and their leasing rate to their customers.”

It wasn’t hard to spin an arcane financial narrative that made this sound like a Ponzi scheme, or “a subprime lender.” When Chanos announced his short position in August 2015, his thesis was that SolarCity’s customers could stop paying their bills at any moment, as Jesse explains. “This [ignored] the fact that SolarCity customers had an average FICO score of 750, compared to below 620 to be considered subprime. Not to mention [that] defaulting on payments to SolarCity would make no financial sense, because reverting back to your utility would cost more.”

SolarCity and the entire solar industry did have real problems at the time, including uncertainty about demand, and about the renewal of the Federal Investment Tax Credit. Jesse concedes that SCTY stock would have gone down with or without short sellers. “But what Chanos was doing was exactly what he described in his own words about Fairfax — he was taking advantage of a bad situation, and using fear to create a ‘crisis of confidence.’”

Following the Fairfax playbook, Gordon Johnson, a solar analyst at Axiom Capital, initiated coverage of SolarCity with a Sell rating, and went on to publish a steady stream of pessimistic reports. When SolarCity became part of Tesla, Johnson shifted his bearish gaze thither. According to Jesse, Johnson’s TSLA price target of $99 is the lowest on the Street, and he is “constantly” on CNBC, repeating the popular (and demonstrably false) thesis that Tesla loses money on every car it sells.

According to Jesse, the same “bad actors” who tried to take down Fairfax and SolarCity are now targeting Tesla. He doesn’t object to short selling in principle, but believes that there is something more sinister at work here: ordinarily, speculators take short positions because they legitimately believe a company is in trouble. However, Jesse believes that most of the 40 million shares, or over $12 billion, currently betting against Tesla are controlled by raiders who are out to bring the company down by stirring up FUD and triggering a self-reinforcing downward spiral.

Lyndon Rive and Elon Musk discussing SolarCity (Image: The Drive)

Jesse makes his case with detailed play-by-plays of some of Tesla’s major stock moves over the past few years. The financially inclined can read his posts in their entirety, but to summarize, he points out that, whereas, logically, short interest should increase when the stock is high, this has not in fact been the case. Major spikes in short interest have coincided with specific events, including the SCTY acquisition, suggesting that there were coordinated attacks.

Predatory short sellers target financial and insurance companies, because they depend on the capital markets. Because Tesla is investing so much cash in future prospects — more than it can replenish from sales of Models S and X — it has become much like a financial company, and is vulnerable to short sellers and market sentiment (and market sentiment caused by short sellers). In Jesse’s view, the greatest threat to Tesla is not the legacy automakers or delays in Model 3 production. “It is the massive amount of capital betting against him steered by bad actors with malicious intent and an incriminating history.”

However, there’s a way out. If Tesla can start generating profit and positive cash flow, it will be able to finance its operations through earnings, and will be much less beholden to capital markets. “The way to break from the short sellers’ influence is by becoming self-sustaining,” writes Jesse. “When you no longer need to sell stock to survive, you don’t care how high or low your stock goes. When you no longer need to raise debt to survive, you don’t care which agencies short sellers can manipulate.”

This could be the reason that Tesla seems to have made achieving profitability a priority. Recent moves such as laying off large numbers of non-production employees and requiring Musk’s personal approval for major capital investments are aimed not just at stanching the flow of red ink, but at turning it black. “If Tesla becomes self-sustaining, the shorts would lose their effect and therefore lose their purpose. It is my hope that once this happens, the short interest will disperse and Tesla would be free from these attacks.”

Even if this comes to pass, Tesla will still need massive amounts of capital for the foreseeable future — 10 Gigafactories, the Semi, the Roadster and Model Y aren’t likely to be financed from earnings alone. “The difference is [that] when you are a self-sustaining company, you can raise capital on your own terms.”

Tesla is no ordinary company. Its mission is to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy and transportation, and there are plenty of extremely powerful players who don’t want that to happen. However the battle with the short sellers plays out, Tesla’s history will continue to be one of struggle against long odds.

Source: TMC’s @jesselivenomore via The Divide by Matt Taibbi

Related Stories:

Elon Slows Tesla Down … To Cut Out The Financial Trolls

Tesla Got Burned By Model 3 Reservations, No Semi Repeat — Tesla Bankwuptcy Explained, Part 1

Why Tesla Is A Potentially Very Profitable Company — Tesla Bankwuptcy Explained, Part 2

Tesla Cash Burn or Bonfire of the Analysts? — Tesla Bankwuptcy Explained, Part 3

Tesla Bankwuptcy — Final Chapter, 14.5

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/07/05/a-sinister-cellar-of-the-tsla-short-story/
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14895
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Electric Vehicles
« Reply #425 on: July 08, 2018, 02:30:04 pm »
CleanTechnica
Support CleanTechnica’s work via donations on Patreon or PayPal!

Or just go buy a cool t-shirt, cup, baby outfit, bag, or hoodie.


Tesla Has “The Potential To Become BMW”

July 8th, 2018 by Matt Pressman

Originally published on EVANNEX.

Wall Street is obsessed with Tesla Model 3 production numbers. To some degree, this is understandable. But, according to one disruptive Wall Street analyst, Tesla’s production numbers don’t accurately reflect the bigger picture for Elon Musk.


Tesla’s Model 3 (Image: Tesla)

When you pull back the lens a bit, it appears the vast majority of those covering Tesla [NASDAQ: TSLA] on Wall Street are missing the forest for the trees. Pierre Ferragu, at New Street Research, explains (via Markets Insider), “You have this army of analysts today who are speculating about whether Tesla [is] producing 500 or 700 cars per day today, but honestly who cares?”

Ferragu elaborates, “The production rate is increasing. If they are at 500, they’re going to get to 10,000 [per week] maybe at the end of next year. And if they are at 700, maybe [they] are going to get to 10,000 in the middle of next year. But on the enterprise value [for] Tesla, whether they are at 10,000 [per week] now or in six months, what is the difference on valuation? It’s nothing.”

Perhaps CEO Elon Musk is playing the long game. Ferragu argues, “You have to move on and look at what matters… [Elon Musk] tells the company and he tells the public: ‘We are going to ramp Model 3 in nine months.’ He actually knows that the probability they fail is very high, but he wants everybody to shoot for that.”

Tesla’s CEO Elon Musk (Instagram: thaddeus_ces)

Analysts (mistakenly) take Musk’s word at face value. Ferragu contends, “Sell-side analysts who don’t know the guy, who don’t understand the technology, who don’t understand what it is like to work at Tesla — they translate his ‘shot for the moon’ as ‘they missed it.’ Instead of translating it as ‘they started,’ they translate that into ‘they failed,’ which is a massive mistake. It’s just a wrong way of translating Elon Musk.”

An over-obsession with production stats could prove myopic. Other factors might foreshadow the future more accurately — e.g. Tesla’s competitive advantage, market share Tesla steals from legacy automakers, and how those companies respond.” Ferragu says, “For all these questions there is no research. That’s where I can make a difference.”

So should analysts ignore production numbers altogether? Not necessarily. Ferragu tells The Street, “a near-term cash crunch could prove to be a problem.” However, “You should not look at how many cars are produced. Instead you should look at how much money each vehicle is bringing in, and as Tesla ramps production, their free cash flow will improve dramatically.”

An overview of Tesla (Infographic: The Street)*

At this stage, Tesla is a boutique automaker with only three cars in production. However, plans are underway for more vehicles (see The Street‘s infographic above) and significant growth lies ahead. Ferragu concludes, “The long-term, five- to seven-year trajectory is the real story of Tesla… Tesla has the potential to gain a lot of share in the premium market. It has the potential to become BMW.”

Source: Markets Insider; The Street; *Editor’s Note: Regarding the infographic — to be precise, Tesla was actually the first American car company to make an IPO since Ford went public in 1956. In addition, here are much more accurate design renderings/images shown for the Model Y and Tesla Semi.

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/07/08/tesla-has-the-potential-to-become-bmw/

Agelbert COMMENT:

Excellent article! 👍 I will expand a bit on how I believe Musk plans for the future. Musk understands, like nobody at Wall Street seems to, that Catastrophic Climate Change is a death sentence for   🏴‍☠️  for human civilization. 🚩

 Musk wants to make vehicles that can help civilization have a fighting chance to deal with this increasingly hostile environment while our scientists 👨‍🔬 come up with some way, not available at present 😨, to stop the increasingly destructive GHG pollution caused biosphere degradation. 😓


That part of his calculus does not impress, or make much news for, the greed based crowd that defines "reality" as short term pecuniary profit. Those profit over planet cretins 😈 👹 💵 🎩 🍌 are not now, or ever have been, part of the reality based community. They are part of the problem.


What I am sayng is that Musk's line of EVs will soon include models that will be able to handle extremes in temperature 🌡️, wind 💨 and precipitation 🌪 , now guaranteed to increase in frequency and duration by Catastrophic Climate Change, that gas guzzlers 🔥, while actually making the climate more deadly, cannot.

The security of those driving Electric Vehicles is not simply about surving a wreck with another car. Musk understands that like absolutely nobody on Wall Street does. All Wall Street can do is invent false equvalences between a few Tesla battery fires and 174,000 gasoline fires a year. 👎

 Already, EVs can provide power to a home during grid failure from a storm without generating toxic fumes or GHG pollution. 👍 Don't expect Wall Street to ever mention the fact that EVs in general, and Tesla EVs in particular, have already saved lives this way, or EVER mention the average 500 Carbon Monoxide caused deaths a year in the USA that would NOT HAPPEN if homes were powered exclusively by batteries during a grid power failure.

Eventually, Tesla vehicles will be making the news because a family survives a flash flood that totally immersed the car, but did not flood the inside or stop it's motor from giving power to thedrive train. enabling the EV to exit the flooded area while ever gas guzzler vehicle turned into a coffin for the drivers caught in the flood.

Musk's business model incorporates the long term safety and security of humans in our civilization. His EVs are just one part of that reality based logic driving his present actions and future plans. Wall Street never gave a rat's ass about that, and never will.

Elon Musk understands what it means to be a responsible human being. Elon Musk, like every human in the reality based community, is like the one eyed fellow in a civilization still dominated by blind greedballs. The reality based community will win this fight or we are all dead.   


What it Means to be Responsible - Reflections on Our Responsibility for the Future  by Theresa Morris, State University of New York at New Paltz
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14895
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Electric Vehicles
« Reply #426 on: July 10, 2018, 07:25:03 pm »
CleanTechnica
Support CleanTechnica’s work via donations on Patreon or PayPal!

Or just go buy a cool t-shirt, cup, baby outfit, bag, or hoodie.


Shell Gets An Electric Vehicle Charging Network, Just In Time For New ZEV Challenge

July 10th, 2018 by Tina Casey

Earlier this week Royal Dutch Shell threw a curveball at the climate change denial movement by suggesting that the UK should shorten up its timetable for banning internal combustion engines, and today here comes the knockout blow from something called the ZEV Challenge. The newly announced global initiative aims to rally the purchasing power of governments and businesses to ramp up sales of electric vehicles and get the necessary infrastructure in place, too.

Photo: Formula E electric ⚡ vehicles.

Okay, so we’ve heard this one before. Basically the idea is that if fleet managers switch from ICE — internal combustion engines — to electric vehicles, their purchasing power will provide the economic footing for the auto industry to offer ZEV’s to individual consumers at more affordable prices. That hasn’t quite happened yet, so why do the ZEV Challenge folks think they’ve got the answer this time around?

C’mon People Now, Buy An Electric Vehicle

The folks at ZEV Challenge provided CleanTechnica with an embargoed press release to go with a press conference this morning, so we don’t have the link yet, but we do have the lowdown.

The effort is spearheaded by the multinational nonprofit organization The Climate Group and C40Cities, “a data-driven network of more than 90 megacities commited to climate action.”

Here’s the happy recap:

The ZEV Challenge is being supported by: The State of California, New York City, EDF Energy, LeasePlan and Unilever. In addition the cities of Paris, Milan, Copenhagen, Pittsburgh, Mexico City, and the regions of Australian Capital Territory and Navarra.

The ZEV Challenge will see states, regions, cities and international business use their purchasing and policy influence to massively accelerate the adoption of electric vehicles around the world.

Sweet!   


Duel Of The Corporate Titans

Not for nothing but if you’re wondering what’s up with Unilever — aka the brand home of Axe and Dove among other popular items — that leads into some interesting territory.

A few years back, CleanTechnica noted that the battle between sustainability and fossil fuels was not a lopsided duel between little happy hippies and corporate giants. It was quickly turning into a real slugfest between corporate giants.

Here in the US, you could measure the schism partly by the number of major companies bailing out  ;D of the powerful, fossil-friendly organization ALEC🐉🦕🦖, including the global powerhouses Google, Coca-Cola and Ford. The US Chamber of Commerce 🦖 has also come in for its share of hits due to its position 😈 on climate change among other issues.

With the support of Netherlands-based Unilever, the ZEV Challenge ramps up corporate-side action on electric vehicles to the next level:

This marks the first time some of the world’s largest states, regions, cities and businesses are uniting to show the global auto industry the full scale of demand that already exists for electric vehicles. It brings together existing, world leading programs, which up to now have been focused on separate sectors, to amplify their collective purchasing power and influence on the market.

So, That’s Why Shell Bought An EV Charging Station Network

That brings us back around to Shell. In 2016 Shell dedicated a new division for clean tech investment, and the company’s 2017 Annual Report took note of climate change risks. Shell has also diversified into EV charging stations, wind farms and solar farms, and it has pulled back its interests in Canada’s notorious tar sands oil fields.

Last March the company also published a scenario for a “low-oil” future, though it appears to be making up the gap by digging its heels deeper into natural gas. Be that as it may, the key idea is that Shell sees the future of internal combustion engines growing dimmer, and it jockeying for position as the “clean” fuel company for the future.

Earlier this week, The Guardian reported that Shell CEO Ben van Beurden suggested that the UK move up its 2040 timetable for transitioning to EVs (sure makes that charging station investment look good!):

“If you would bring it forward, obviously that would be welcome. I think the UK will have to go at a much higher speed than the speed the rest of the world can go.”

Helen Clarkson, the CEO of The Climate Group, pretty much said the same thing in today’s press release:

Quote
“It is time to talk about the endgame for the combustion engine and speed up the move from vehicles whose emissions pose health risks and a growing contribution to climate change. We want automotive companies to do more to help us get there.”

How Exactly Is This Going To Work? ???

Aside from putting the squeeze on automakers, the ZEV Challenge will leverage the Climate Group’s EV100 group of multinational companies, which is already committed to fleet electrification by 2030.

The Climate Group is also assembling the electric vehicle buying power of state agencies, regional authorities and cities in a new group called the Under2 Coalition. Though a new organization, Under2 already represents almost 40% of the global economy through its 200 member governments.

So, the wheels are already in motion. The challenge now is to rev up the transition to electric vehicles and make it go faster.

In that regard, Monday’s big electric vehicle announcement from the UK may be a little disappointing. The newly unveiled roadmap for its “Road to Zero” plan reaffirms the 2040 deadline for banning “conventional” gas and diesel passenger cars and vans.

The Climate Group favors a much tighter schedule that makes electric vehicles “the new normal” by 2030. 👍

CleanTechnica is reaching out to The Climate Group for some additional insights into the US situation so stay tuned for more on that score.

Follow me on Twitter.

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/07/10/shell-gets-an-electric-vehicle-charging-network-just-in-time-for-new-zev-challenge/

Agelbert COMMENT: This interesting. I hope Shell doesn't come up with am EV charging station "business model" where the charging station is powered by "natural" gas. 👎👎👎  It is important to remember that Shell just activated the largest floating structure ever built for the express purpose of extracting GAS from the ocean bottom. 😨




I 🕵️ do not trust Shell.

That Shell Prelude FLNG hydrocarbon producing monstrocity cost around 15 billion dollars to build and it is just now beginning to operate. Shell does not sink that kind of money without planning to get a return on their investment for several decades.

That said, if they are just hedging their hydrocarbon horsepoopy with some real renewable energy techology, good for them (and the biosphere).


Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14895
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Electric Vehicles
« Reply #427 on: July 11, 2018, 01:31:22 pm »
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14895
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Electric Vehicles
« Reply #428 on: July 14, 2018, 04:56:19 pm »


If We 🐉🦕🦖 😈 Cherry-Pick Data , Rely on Discredited Projections, and Ignore CO2… EVs Are Bad!

July 10, 2018  |  By Lynn Daniels Edward J. Klock-McCook

In a recent report and Politico op-ed, Jonathan Lesser of the Manhattan Institute purports to demonstrate that replacing internal combustion vehicles (ICVs) with zero emissions vehicles (ZEVs) will increase air pollution while having a negligible effect on climate change. This has sparked controversy by many within the electric vehicle industry—and the energy industry more broadly—because the research is demonstrably false. Conclusions are reached through misrepresentation and reliance on projections that are known to be consistently inaccurate. The same poor methods are applied to the economics of electric vehicles (EVs) and to questions about the profitability of, and public investment in, EV charging infrastructure. Nonpartisan institutions, including the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Electric Power Research Institute, have published accurate and reliable studies of these questions that found the opposite of what Lesser concludes, as have others cited by the Energy and Policy Institute. While those studies stand on their own merits, Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) analyzed this report and rebut inaccuracies here.

Lesser writes in his Manhattan Institute report that through 2050, “the net reduction in CO2 emissions provided by ZEVs is 896 million tons,” but then concludes that this nearly 1 billion tons of reduced CO2 “will have no impact on climate and, hence, no economic benefit.” The social cost of carbon is, in fact, well studied and easy to express in monetary terms. Lesser does not do so, but he does meticulously quantify the monetary damages associated with other pollutants—SO2, NOX, and particulate matter—for which ZEVs are supposedly worse than ICVs. He calculated the damages associated with those other pollutants using a flawed methodology and flawed assumptions, as explained below and as noted by CleanTechnica. His report then concludes that “total damages from SO2, NOX, and particulates associated with ZEVs are $2.84 billion (2017$), while damages from the same number of ICVs… would total $801 million (2017$),” a net difference of over $2 billion.

Lesser’s analysis ignores the associated monetary damages of CO2 emissions (i.e., the social cost of carbon). In other words, Lesser cherry-picked the pollutants that support his narrative (in this case, SO2, NOX, and PMs) and ignored the pollutant (CO2) that contradicts his narrative. A methodology that accurately accounts for all emissions results in a dramatically different result.

The Size of EV’s Climate and Pollution Impact

Lesser grounds his analysis in the US Energy Information Administration’s (EIA’s) long-term forecasts for the number of new ZEVs through 2050, how much electricity they’d use, and how much pollution that electricity would generate. But those EIA long-term forecasts are notoriously inaccurate, consistently underestimating renewables penetration and overestimating grid emissions. As noted by CleanTechnica and The Guardian, it’s apparent that these estimates, based on EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) reference case for both ZEV penetration and the mix of electricity generation sources, will nearly certainly overestimate ZEV emissions. As an example, the 2014 AEO noted that, in the 12 months between 2011 and 2012, solar and wind capacity grew by 137 percent and 27 percent respectively, but projected that in the five years between 2020 and 2025, they would grow by only 0.8 percent and 0.04 percent respectively. By 2017, actual wind capacity had already exceeded the 2014 AEO’s projection for 2025, while actual solar capacity was already more than triple the projection for 2025.

Lesser relied on AEO projections of CO2 emissions for the coming 32 years. But the AEO’s projections over just the most recent 22 years (for 2015, the latest year for which actual figures are available) were, on average, 20.4 percent too high for energy-related CO2 emissions, and 42.7 percent too high for coal consumption. In other words, using AEO projections to determine how much CO2, SO2, NOX, and particulates that the US electricity system will produce in the coming years will result in a significant overestimation.

A model developed by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) has predicted actual average emissions intensity over the last decade far more accurately. EPRI’s model predicts a 29 percent reduction in grid emissions intensity by 2030, while the AEO predicts it will be almost unchanged. As noted by Politico itself in 2015, given rapid coal plant retirements and the record-low prices for both wind and solar generation, the AEO scenarios seem implausible.

A recent EPRI report concludes that widespread adoption of electric vehicles, combined with a continued move toward cleaner electricity generation, will lead to modest decreases in particulates and ozone precursors, and to deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. An even more thorough cradle-to-grave analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that EVs “produce less than half the global warming emissions of comparable gasoline-powered vehicles, even when the higher emissions associated with BEV [battery-electric vehicle] manufacturing are taken into consideration.”

Even if we take Lesser’s numbers at face value, his report asserts that we should ignore roughly 1 billion avoided tons of CO2 because “this reduction is small.” (For reference, 1 billion tons of CO2 is the amount of CO2 removed by 25.6 billion urban trees over a 10-year lifetime or the CO2 sequestered in one year by an average US forest six times the size of Texas.) Which leads one to wonder: What amount of CO2 emissions would Lesser characterize as significant?

We were unable to reproduce Lesser’s analysis primarily because he combines emissions from petroleum refining with those from ICV operations without presenting the separate values for independent verification. Therefore, we used this methodology to compare reductions in CO2 emissions drawn from the EIA and EPRI projections for both CO2 emissions from electricity generation and ZEV adoption. This comparative analysis showed that from 2016 to 2050, reductions in CO2 emissions from ZEVs would be four times greater than the reductions projected using Lesser’s assumptions.

Accounting for the Social Cost of Carbon

Let’s dispense with the report’s argument that we do not need to consider the costs or benefits associated with 1 billion tons of CO2 reductions. We considered a range of values for the social cost of CO2. The lowest value we found is $11 per ton, as calculated by the EPA (taken from a cached version of the EPA website from January 2017 because the current administration removed it from public view), while the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences estimates $31 per ton (in 2010$), MIT examined four estimates with a central value of $21 per ton, and others have estimated upwards of $220 per ton. We apply a conservative range of values for the social cost of carbon of $11–$31 per ton (assuming a 3 percent discount rate) to the 1 billion tons of CO2 reductions obtained using Lesser’s assumption. This calculation yields monetary benefits from $4 billion to $11.2 billion, dwarfing the monetary damages from SO2, NOX, and PMs combined, calculated by Lesser to be $2 billion. Using our own comparative analysis based on more realistic ZEV sales projections and renewable grid penetration, the range of monetary benefits would be $15.5 billion to $43.5 billion.

EV Economics in States with High Electricity Prices

The report states that a key barrier to broad-based adoption of ZEVs is that the cost of ZEVs charging from a high-renewables grid reduces the fuel savings of ZEVs relative to ICVs because “states with the most stringent renewable portfolio standard (RPS) mandates also have the highest average retail electricity prices,” and that “higher electric prices reduce the ‘fuel’ savings of ZEVs relative to ICVs.” Lesser notes that the range of 2017 average electricity prices in some of these states (e.g., California, New York, New England states) are more than $0.18/kWh—high compared to a national average of $0.1225/kWh. Lesser omits proper context, however, by not including the equivalent $/mile cost of gasoline and converting $/kWh to $/electric-mile equivalent.

Using Lesser’s average ZEV efficiency for model year 2018 (0.28 kWh/mile) and the highest-cost electricity noted above ($0.1893/kWh in New England), the cost for electricity-as-fuel is $0.053/mile. Compare this to results from RMI’s recent Gas to Grid report: the most recent range of cost per mile for gasoline is between $0.09/mile and $0.13/mile. RMI’s report shows that the range of charging costs per mile for electricity-as-fuel is between $0.03/mile and $0.09/mile (for non-fast charging infrastructure). Gasoline would have to cost close to $1/gallon before an average 2018 ICV would cost as little to fuel as an EV. Therefore, fueling EVs on even the highest-priced grids costs roughly half as much as the lowest estimated cost of fueling gasoline-powered ICVs.

EV Charging Infrastructure Costs—Who Pays?

It is also worth rebutting many of Lesser’s assertions about the shared costs of EV charging infrastructure. It is curious that Lesser begins his analysis by noting that public dollars go toward a 30 percent tax credit on EV charging stations, estimating a total cost for these credits at $155 million through 2016. Later however, his analysis of the costs of a nationwide charging infrastructure notes only the total cost, making no effort to distinguish between costs covered by a tax credit, costs covered through utility investments, and costs covered by other means, such as municipal or state incentives, the private sector, and private citizens—leaving the reader with the distinct impression that these full costs will be borne by taxpayers and utility customers.

However, this depiction of the current reality leaves out important information about who is bearing those costs, and who can reasonably be expected to bear them in the near future. According to RMI’s Gas to Grid report, “with the exception of Tesla… EV buyers and a few charging companies are making nearly all of the investment needed to keep vehicle electrification moving forward… Utilities and automakers other than Tesla are arguably not bearing a… share of the investment risk,” so utility customers are not bearing the brunt of these costs. In cases where utilities are investing in electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE), Lesser argues that most EV drivers and users are wealthy, while the costs incurred by utilities disproportionately fall on lower-income families. We argue in Gas to Grid that, “the issue isn’t about cost-shifting so much as it is about timing. When nearly all drivers have EVs, the cost of charging infrastructure will be appropriately distributed among them” and “the real question isn’t about equity, but rather about who will provide the financing to build the infrastructure while the market matures… [until the] utilization rate of the charging infrastructure should make a reasonable business case possible for owning and operating it.” This is how similar conundrums have been handled in America’s recent past. Take, for instance, the “principle of line extension, in which all customers pay for extending the distribution grid, including new service for rural customers where the cost of providing that service is far greater than that for customers living in densely populated urban environments.”

This is a crucial nuance that we noted in Gas to Grid: EVSE “costs would only be shifted [onto taxpayers and utility customers] during the first part of the [EV] adoption curve. Once owning and operating charging stations is a sustainably profitable business in its own right, the need for public investment would be minimal.” Profitability of charging services is directly linked to the utilization rate of the chargers, which is a function of the number of EVs on the road. Thus, any considerations of the costs of EVSE borne by the public will be heavily dependent on the choice of projections for ZEV adoption rates. Just as the EIA projections that Lesser used for grid mix are demonstrably conservative, the EIA ZEV sales projections that Lesser used are some of the lowest available, implying that public investment will be needed to support EVSE for a longer time than other projections—for example, Bloomberg New Energy Finance’s 2018 Electric Vehicle Outlook—would indicate.

Lesser also argues that because of this allocation of costs across utilities’ customer bases, increased rates will disproportionately impact lower-income utility customers. We certainly don’t disagree with Lesser when he notes that most of the subsidies for EVs and EVSE are accruing to wealthier families. But this should not be viewed as an argument to end those subsidies, but rather to more appropriately design them. As noted in Gas to Grid, if “regulators see a need to protect low-income and rural households from the shared costs of building charging infrastructure while the market matures, rebates or other cost-relief mechanisms should be preferred to avoiding any public investment whatsoever.”

We also acknowledge the very real equity and access issues associated with families living in multiunit housing complexes. However, this particular point of Lesser’s is also not a compelling argument to do away with EV subsidies. Rather, this is a technology and business model challenge that requires the private sector (in partnership with utilities) to innovate. Further, solving these challenges will open up a huge market segment. In a recent report, Bloomberg New Energy Finance projects significantly more EV sales than EIA does, while limiting the addressable market to single-family households. If new business models can expand ZEV access for residents of multiunit dwellings (who represent 20.7 percent of the US population), EV adoption will grow even more quickly.

Lastly, the report argues that EVSE and ZEV adoption will only result in enormous costs for utility customers. This ignores analyses by M.J. Bradley & Associates in multiple states, and a study by Energy+Environmental Economics, all of which predict significant downward pressure on electric rates from widespread ZEV adoption. ZEVs have the potential to provide considerable benefits to the grid (e.g., demand flexibility, frequency regulation) and as a result, lower the cost of electricity. The benefits to utility customers are greatest when a utility adopts time-of-use pricing for EV charging, encouraging customers to do most of their charging at night when there is excess generating capacity available on the grid. In this way, a utility collects more revenue from electricity sales than the incremental cost of serving the load, thus generating net revenue. Under the rules of most state utility regulators, the bulk of such savings accrue to utility customers in the form of lower rates.

EV Subsidies in Proper Context

In addition to the flaws in Lesser’s analysis and methodology, his report is deceptive in the way that it presents the value of EV and EVSE subsidies and costs without proper context. What a casual reader might see as eye-poppingly large values when presented in total and out of context are significantly less so when viewed as costs paid out over time or in comparison with other taxpayer subsidies—for example, those for oil and gas extraction.

Lesser calculates that, during the period 2011–2017, $4.7 billion in tax credits have been used to subsidize EV sales, equivalent to $670 million per year. Lesser estimates the grand total of all subsequent subsidies on sales will be between $13 billion and $20.9 billion (not including the $4.7 billion already paid out), though these will also be amortized over many years. Using Lesser’s figures, it took from 2011 to 2017 for the EV industry to sell 722,806 vehicles across the 14 original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) that Lesser evaluates. The industry is at the early part of the adoption S-curve and it is difficult to project when adoption will become more rapid. But even with solid year-over-year growth, we might expect it to take several years to reach the point where most OEMs have met the 200,000 sales that would trigger the credit expiration. Even using an aggressive assumption that every OEM will meet this sales goal and all credits will expire in only five years, the subsidies would amount to between $2.6 billion and $4.18 billion annually, comparable to or less than the annual federal taxpayer subsidy of $4 billion provided to the oil and gas industry. A similar amortization of EVSE infrastructure costs would considerably reduce the sticker shock associated with Lesser’s estimated $84 billion required to install 600,000 Level-2 chargers nationwide.


EVs Are Not Bad—In Fact, They’re Incredibly Beneficial

Lesser’s analysis relies on projections that are recognized to be conservative; it ignores the positive carbon benefits of ZEVs; it misrepresents EVSE infrastructure investments; and it fails to provide adequate context so that ZEV subsidies, costs, and impacts may be compared to the status quo. At RMI, we believe that regardless of how you tweak the analysis or which projections you choose, ZEVs offer significant positive benefits in all scenarios. That’s why we’ll continue to collaborate with the industry to drive a shared, electric, and autonomous mobility future that is better for the planet, and the people on it.

https://www.rmi.org/if-we-cherry-pick-data-rely-on-discredited-projections-and-ignore-co2-evs-are-bad/
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14895
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Electric Vehicles
« Reply #429 on: July 16, 2018, 02:34:15 pm »
CleanTechnica
Support CleanTechnica’s work via donations on Patreon or PayPal!

Or just go buy a cool t-shirt, cup, baby outfit, bag, or hoodie.


The Copenhagen Wheel Was Worth The Wait: My First Ride

July 16th, 2018 by Jesper Berggreen

CleanTechnica’s own Derek Markham wrote about the Copenhagen Wheel from Superpedestrian on Treehugger recently, and Nicolas Zart has a bunch of technical details from the launch of the newest version last year, and last week I finally had the luck to try it out myself.

All things good comes to those who wait
The Copenhagen Wheel was unveiled on December 15, 2009 at the COP15 United Nations Climate Conference in Copenhagen. The project was conceived and developed by the SENSEable City Lab at MIT and was a showcase of what would be possible in the near future in terms of connectivity and sensors. The first prototypes even had sensors measuring air quality to help guide the rider to the cleanest route.

When I was in the e-bike business myself, I remember impatiently contacting MIT back in 2011 to hear when it would get to market. The first version went on sale in the US in 2013, and finally, long after I had given up making a living on e-bikes, it emerges here in Denmark.


As always, when some new and exiting e-bike tech comes to market, Carsten Obel at E-wheels.dk is quick to try it out. He has secured himself a small batch of the brand new Copenhagen Wheel, and I hurried right over and gave it a spin as soon as he had built his first test bike.

He had chosen a beautiful bamboo frame from Zambikes, fitted it with a carbon fork, leather handles and a comfy seat, and it just looks stunning. The whole bike weighs just short of 20 kg.

Here is a quick rundown on the specs of the Copenhagen Wheel:

Motor: US: 350 W, EU: 250 W

Top speed: US: 25 mph, EU: 25 km/h

Range: Up to 30 miles/48 km

Battery: 48 V – 279 Wh (5.8 Ah) Li-ion

Battery life: 1000 charge cycles

Charge time:
2 hours (80%), 4 hours (100%)

Hub weight: 16.8 lbs/7.6 kg

Wheel size: 26” and 700c

Brake type: Rim brakes only

Bicycle drivetrain: Single speed or 7/8/9/10-gear Shimano and SRAM

Wireless connectivity: Bluetooth Low Energy (4.0)

Smartphone OS: iOS 9 or greater, Android 4.3 or greater

Price: $1499

Looks and feels very high-tech

I only had a short time with the bike, but it was enough to get the I-want-one feeling. The build quality of the Copenhagen Wheel is superb. The shiny red metal enclosure seems very solid, and since the battery is inside the hub, there are no additional wires like we are used to on other systems. The arrangement of the spokes just looks unreal.


It is very easy to fit on a donor bike, but unfortunately it is for rim brakes only, which is a shame since disc brakes are becoming the norm. However, one thing that really stands out on this system is how the regenerative brakes function: you simply pedal backwards when you want to slow down and the force of regeneration is proportional to the speed at which you pedal. I know, it sounds odd, but it works surprisingly well. Regenerative braking works to a full stop and unless you need to brake hard you don’t use the brake levers at all, and thus it mimics the feel you get in one-pedal-driving in electric cars like the BMW i3.

Fully connected and built to share

The system is turned on with a switch on the hub itself, and is unlocked from an app on your smartphone which even has a proximity lock/unlock feature. Set the assist levels you want, and off you go. The readouts on the app are very clear and smooth color animations shows you the current operation, such as whether it is applying power or regenerating. All you need is a mounting device for your smartphone.


One clever detail in the app is the possibility to share your bike with others. Someone with the app installed can be invited by you to unlock the bike. Also perfect for ride-sharing programs in cities.

A strong contender

I have tried lots of different e-bike systems, and the BionX D-series is still the one with the most torque, but the Copenhagen Wheel is actually very powerful and I would rate it somewhere between the very popular Bosch crank Center systems and the BionX direct drive hub systems in terms of acceleration and hill climbing capability.

The author riding the coolest tech in town   

Overall, the ride was remarkably smooth, and I must admit I fell for it right away. The team at Superpedestrian has really done everything in their power to make this extremely advanced piece of technology “disappear” from your awareness when using it. Now it just has to prove strong enough for everyday use in all-weather conditions. One thing comes to mind though: in the freezing cold of nordic winters you have to take the whole bike inside to prevent battery damage.

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/07/16/the-copenhagen-wheel-was-worth-the-wait-my-first-ride/
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14895
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Electric Vehicles
« Reply #430 on: July 16, 2018, 05:44:41 pm »
The Pure Cycle Capacita eBike Is A Sleek Cargo Bike For Commuters

July 16th, 2018 by Kyle Field

The team at Los Angeles-based Pure Cycles that brought the Volta ebike to the world is back at it again with the launch of the Capacita cargo ebike on Indiegogo.


The Capacita changes the game by adding the ability to haul a significant amount of gear around in the front basket and on the rear rack, while still delivering a beautiful, streamlined bike that looks like it is from the future. Much like the Gazelle Easyflow that we recently featured, the Capacita is built to be more than just a weekender bike, with integrated features that extend the functionality of the bike beyond the task of just moving people around.

For example, the 175 pound | 79 kilogram carrying capacity of the rear rack and optional foot rests on either side means you can put a person back there — or a mini-person, for those looking to haul a family around. Another mini-mini-person can be put up front in a handlebar seat, making the possibility of carrying kids + cargo around on a bike a real possibility.

For me, the prospect of being able to put the kids on my bike for the ~5 minute ride to school from our home across roads that are not safe for them to travel on alone is exciting. It’s worth noting that the 175 pound | 79 kilogram carrying capacity only works as long as the total package stays under the bike’s 350 pound | 159 kilogram total carrying capacity (including all those Impossible Burgers and cotton candy from the store).



The Capacita’s 42V, 10Ah Samsung battery provides for up to 40 miles | 64 kilometers of range from its 350 watt rear hub motor, although that’s not likely to be the case if you’re hauling a full load of kids, cargo, or some combination in between. To accommodate the extra weight, the Capacita had its power bumped up to keep everything moving down the road with the same silky smooth ride as the Volta.

The aluminum-framed bike was designed to be adjustable in order to accommodate riders from 5 feet | 152 centimeters tall to 6 foot, 4 inch | 193 centimeters tall. This is accomplished thanks to the tag team effort from the adjustable seat and stem that extend the functionality of the step-over frame to a wider range of humans. The frame is wrapped up in some serious rubber, with massive 24 x 2.35 fat tires that also add a bit of cushion to the ride.



The Pure Cycle Capacita is available on Indiegogo right now for a price of $1,499 or 2 for $2,599, compared to the MSRP after the campaign of $2,499. The campaign also features the usual array of accessories, options, and manufacturer swag that can be expected on crowdfunding campaigns. Coming from a company that’s been through the crowdfunding racket before with its Volta, the prospect of forking over a large chunk of change like this is a bit more palatable.


https://cleantechnica.com/2018/07/16/the-pure-cycle-capacita-ebike-is-a-sleek-cargo-bike-for-commuters/
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14895
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Electric Vehicles
« Reply #431 on: July 17, 2018, 04:24:24 pm »
Rolls-Royce Electric VTOL Concept Means 5 People Flying At 250 MPH

July 17th, 2018 by Nicolas Zart


Read more:

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/07/17/rolls-royce-electric-vtol-concept-means-5-people-flying-at-250-mph/

Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14895
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Electric Vehicles
« Reply #432 on: July 19, 2018, 12:14:53 pm »
CleanTechnica
Support CleanTechnica’s work via donations on Patreon or PayPal!

Or just go buy a cool t-shirt, cup, baby outfit, bag, or hoodie.[/url

More Powerful 2019 Nissan LEAF Will Have 200+ Mile Range

July 18th, 2018 by Steve Hanley

Brian Maragno, Nissan’s director of EV marketing and sales, released some details about the upcoming 2019 LEAF while speaking at a press event regarding Nissan’s involvement in Formula E racing recently. The current version of the car has the new body style (which is a big improvement over the original) but retains the older car’s 40 kWh battery, 142 horsepower motor, and so-so 150 mile range.

2018 Nissan LEAF

Maragno said the 2019 LEAF will have a larger battery, and while everyone is assuming it will be 60 kWh, there has been no official confirmation of that. The car will feature an ‘E-Plus’ badge and will have a more powerful 200 horsepower motor. Maragno added that the larger battery simply makes it possible to have more power since the more robust motor would drain the smaller battery at a quicker rate.

According to a report in AutoGuide, Maragno said, “When you have a bigger battery with more capacity, it just opens up the door to be able to have more output,” he said. “A larger capacity battery lends itself towards two things. One is obvious: more range. The other one, which is maybe a little less obvious, but equally as true, is additional horsepower and output.”

In terms of range, most people are assuming 200+ miles, but that figure has not been confirmed by Nissan. If the battery is 50% larger, shouldn’t range be 50% more, all other factors being equal? The best anyone can say is the E-Plus should have at least 200 miles of range. Nissan is being coy about when the new car will be on sale. We know it will be sold as a 2019 model but no official release date has been disclosed by the company. It could appear as early as this fall or as late as next spring.

Maragno had lots to say about Nissan’s involvement in Formula E racing, however. “I mean, think about it. 320,000 cars globally, it’s quite a bit. So we’ve learned a ton. When I talk about the competitive edge that gives us, the competitive drive, we have a lot to bring to the table. So it’s really an exciting type of venture for us to get into because we think we could do really, really well with it. And of course it helps round out the EV ecosystem for us. It’s another piece of the puzzle if you will. It represents what we’ve been doing for a long time.” The Nissan LEAF first appeared in 2010.

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/07/18/more-powerful-2019-nissan-leaf-will-have-200-mile-range/
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14895
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Electric Vehicles
« Reply #433 on: July 27, 2018, 01:22:31 pm »
Green Car Reports

Tesla and its fans lash out at critics 🐉🦕 🦖commentary

By Eric C. Evarts

Jul 27, 2018

Page 1 of 2:

One of the most vocal critics of electric-car maker Tesla appears to have been silenced.

Known as Montana Skeptic, he wrote 138 articles over three years on the stock-tip website Seeking Alpha.

On Tuesday, he published what he says will be his final article after he claims Elon Musk called his employer and threatened to sue Skeptic over his articles.

It’s worth noting that Seeking Alpha allows authors to publish anonymously, under pseudonyms as Montana Skeptic had. The site requires authors to disclose any stock positions in the companies they cover; Skeptic’s disclosure indicated he held no position in Tesla during his first years of coverage, but that he had taken a short position within the last year.

Cheers and jeers

Some Tesla fans are now rejoicing.

It’s not just CEO Elon Musk going after Tesla critics.

Tesla fans and doubters all over the internet are lashing out with increasing frequency and vigor against almost any coverage of the company they view as insufficiently supportive or insufficiently critical, depending on which side they've chosen.

By drawing such arbitrary lines in the sand, Tesla's vocal critics and supporters have stymied the pace of progress. Worse, they've endangered free speech through intimidation campaigns directed at perceived enemies—when there are very few.

Last weekend, The Wall Street Journal auto critic Dan Neil also deleted his Twitter account after being inundated with criticism of his mostly enthusiastic but nuanced review of Tesla’s new Model 3 Performance sedan.

Montana Skeptic 👹 Tweet criticizing Dan Neil's Tesla Model 3 Performance review

Montana Skeptic 🦖 Tweet criticizing Dan Neil's Tesla Model 3 Performance review:

Quote
Tesla critics called Neil biased and unprofessional, or suggested that he had been influenced by the owners of The Wall Street Journal—namely NewsCorp, controlled by Rupert Murdoch, and the same company owns Fox News.


Those who know the Pulitzer Prize-winning writer or the newspaper’s editorial policies would doubt those claims.

As Jalopnik wrote, “Can a journalist criticize the company without being called a short or a pawn for Big Oil? Can they write something positive without being called a member of Elon Musk’s cult? Evidently not on both counts.”

Musk responded on Twitter Thursday morning expressing hope that Neil would reinstate his account.
 

Quote
Worth another retweet. Hope Dan Neil returns to Twitter. He left due to relentless attacks from short-sellers, who constantly peddle fear, uncertainty & doubt about Tesla. Dan won the Pulitzer & is considered by many to be the best car critic in the world. https://t.co/txW3DDJpth

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 26, 2018


Beyond big names

Things have gotten even worse for writers who lack Neil’s clout—perhaps especially for women.

In a May article in the Daily Beast 🦖, tech writer Erin Biba 😈 noted that female journalists routinely become targets of Tesla fans any time they criticize either Tesla or Musk.

In the article, she notes that every time she or any of several colleagues she interviews in the article mentions Musk on Twitter, they spend half of every day for weeks dealing with a flood of often obscene insults from Musk fans on email and Twitter.


Page 2:

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1117904_tesla-and-its-fans-lash-out-at-critics-commentary/page-2
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14895
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Electric Vehicles
« Reply #434 on: July 28, 2018, 12:08:19 pm »





Agelbert COMMENT: BYD (Build Your Dreams) understands that the key to get most people to switch to EVs is for most people to see the authorities driving EVs. The influence on the average citizen of seeing an EV prominently displayed at any time of the day or night cannot be underestimated.

Regardless of how the citizenry view police behavior, nobody thinks police vehicles are anything but the most reliable type of vehicle to own. ✨👍

This applies in any country on Earth. 🌞

I wish Tesla would move aggressively to give fleet discounts on Model 3 EVs to U.S. big city police. They can outrun most any car out there in a police chase so that alone will interest the police.

Also, the fact that they do not use gasoline, AND will have much lower maintenace costs than gas guzzlers, should interest 💵 😉 any municipality, not just the big cities.

For highway patrol cars, I am certain that Musk could EASILY come up with a 400 mile range lighting ⚡ fast modified Model S that would be the terror of speeders everywhere. 🏁 🧐

There is also much less routine police patrol workload with the autopilot. 👍😎

Once you've got the police AND most other municipality vehicle uses dominated by EVs, and bragging about all the money they save by running them, the public will begin buying EVs in droves.

As soon as EVs are perceived by the public as the BEST, it is game over for gas guzzlers and the hydrocarbon 🦕🦖hellspawn corporations that fight dirty to keep them in our polluted faces.

Positive Perception is not everything, but as any advertiser knows, it makes a GIANT difference. 

Come on Elon, start selling some EV fleets to U.S. cities!

Tesla now has the volume output to do that. Muncipalities have the financing power to buy these fleets so you get the money up front and Tesla has the cost benefit analysis data to convince them that it is a better deal than gas guzzlers.

ALL the mendacious propagandists constantly attacking Tesla products will evaporate as soon as the big cities have HUGE Tesla EV fleets.

Elon, of you don't do it, BYD will. 👀
« Last Edit: July 28, 2018, 01:13:25 pm by AGelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

 

+-Recent Topics

Batteries by AGelbert
October 18, 2018, 02:03:09 pm

Photvoltaics (PV) by AGelbert
October 18, 2018, 02:00:45 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
October 18, 2018, 01:19:49 pm

End Times according to the Judeo Christian Bible by AGelbert
October 17, 2018, 11:00:52 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
October 17, 2018, 09:16:57 pm

Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution by AGelbert
October 17, 2018, 05:56:33 pm

The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth by AGelbert
October 17, 2018, 05:43:54 pm

Hydrocarbon Crooks Evil Actions by AGelbert
October 17, 2018, 01:44:54 pm

Mechanisms of Prejudice: Hidden and Not Hidden by AGelbert
October 16, 2018, 06:46:06 pm

War Provocations and Peace Actions by AGelbert
October 16, 2018, 06:32:44 pm