Fw: [BMBB] Obama Has Not Done Anything About NiMH Battery Situation
|
|
Bob Rice-2
|
Hey? Me too> Howcome WE Sheeple haven't heard anything about NMH's??????????Not to diss the guy, but where are his advisors, BECIDES Doug Korthof??
Bob 40 YEARS and counting for THE badd-ery? ----- Original Message ----- From: Remy Chevalier To: BMBB List Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 11:57 AM Subject: [BMBB] Obama Has Not Done Anything About NiMH Battery Situation The Obama Administration Has Not Done Anything About The NiMH Battery Situation by Josh Landess Rio Rico, AZ Thursday | July 02, 2009 http://evworld.com/blogs/index.cfm?authorid=51 As far as I know, the Obama Administration has done nothing whatsoever about the NiMH battery situation. For all of the energy and money they have put into promoting clean renewable domestically-produced energy and energy efficiency, when it came down to it, they have had nearly six months in office and have not taken a shot at even mentioning or discussing the Oil-Company-Stultified excellent tried-and-true energy storage technology. I was reviewing the specs of the Lithium-powered vehicles that are apparently coming to market over the next few months. In some cases coming "to market" is a bit of a stretch, but we'll see a few hundred vehicles on the road, here or there, basically in the hands of fleets... that sort of thing. ... Some of the specs are not actually that impressive, and some are. Whereas some NiMH-powered vehicles were traveling well more than 100 miles on a charge, at highway speeds, in the 1990s, the Lithium-powered offerings from Subaru and Mitsubishi from 2009 don't seem to be there, or seem to struggle to match those numbers. To form a counter-point, we know that a good Lithium-Powered car from Tesla or BMW or others would at least bring out the strengths that Lithium offers, such as excellent range and low weight. I'm a fan of Lithium vehicles, and I hope they'll work out. In the meantime, they are going to market with a prime proven-reliable competitor (NiMH-powered-vehicles) apparently not allowed to compete fully. As far as I've been able to tell in my research so far, no mention has been made by anyone in the Obama Administration (or by anyone in policy-making for that matter) of the NiMH Battery situation. You can't fix what you can't discuss. Perhaps they think they can just close their eyes and hope for the best and everything will be ok? Maybe some think that Lithium vehicles will be produced in the hundreds of millions without any economic issues relating to a lack of competition or insufficient resources? Cobasys has been financially dying on the vine in Michigan for a year or two or more, with its workers' future in limbo, and yet no policy-maker wants to talk about this? I thought policy-makers liked to talk about jobs? ECD and Chevron have been collaborating quietly to keep non-US companies from doing much with NiMH batteries suitable for highway-capable BEVs, and yet no policy-maker has anything to say about this? I thought they wanted to say they cared about energy policy and "energy independence". One specific idea perhaps worth pursuing would be to work to try to discover a White Knight to purchase financially troubled Cobasys. If this course were pursued, at least two important things would have to be kept in mind. First, we should not be naive: the joint venture owners of Cobasys might try to harm the company's battery production rights and business (even more?) if it is being pried away. Second, prying Cobasys from its owners would not by any means solve all problems. Cobasys has North American exclusive production rights to batteries of a certain type, I believe, but they are not the basic patent holders. So, the global licensing situation would still need to be addressed. A funny thing is that I hear some of the same arguments from both sides: Lithium batteries are too resource constrained we are told. Then again, Rare Earth Metal investing seems to be driven largely these days by the idea that we will have to turn to NiMH traction batteries whose rare earth element ingredients are also not the most abundant things around. What if this suppression of NiMH battery technology had occured in smaller batteries? What if the extraordinarily quick advances in laptops and cameras and cell phones had been held up by some artificial oil company nonsense? Would we have stood for it if we had been told that we had to wait for a laptop until Lithium Ion was worked out because NiMH batteries weren't available or weren't good enough? I see there is a new book on Amazon.com which seeks to address itself to the NiMH battery situation, and the EV situation. I haven't read it, so I can't venture an opinion, but I am mentioning it for EV fans. Two Cents per Mile: Will President Obama Make it Happen WITH THE STROKE OF A PEN? (Paperback) by Nevres Cefo There also seems to be a web page to petition the Obama Administration to do something about the NiMH battery situation. dcmonitor.com The web page in my view is a bit too focused on the idea that hydrogen is the false-promise answer being held up to us. I think we're going forward with Lithium Ion Batteries, and in the end they will work somewhat. Heck, if I were an auto designer, I'd probably have to favor designing in Lithium batteries over NiMh batteries. Yet, aren't automakers concerned with product durability and reliability and safety? Isn't NiMH technology in some ways more proven than LIthium technology in these areas for use in cars? A problem, as I see it, is that even assuming Lithium is in many ways superior to NiMH technology, competition is still significantly constrained and this is bad for all concerned and is likely further to delay the necessary cost-effective implementation of much-more-efficient and cleaner transportation. It's good to see Mr. Cefo out there trying to get the Obama adminsitration to step in and really make things happen on NiMH batteries. I'm not holding my breath for anyone (anywhere) in the Obama adminsitration to do anything. You can't fix what you aren't willing to mention. To this day, no policy-maker of prominence, in or outside the Administration, of whom I am aware, has so much as publicly mentioned the NiMH battery situation. Disclaimer: I have a modest indirect interest in the fortunes of companies that make all manner of traction batteries, including lead-acid, NiMH and Lithium-Ion. Originally published: July 02, 2009 __._,_.___ Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Database | Polls | Members | Calendar Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe Recent Activity Visit Your Group Give Back Yahoo! for Good Get inspired by a good cause. Y! Toolbar Get it Free! easy 1-click access to your groups. Yahoo! Groups Start a group in 3 easy steps. Connect with others. . __,_._,___ -- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam. SPAMfighter has removed 1594 of my spam emails to date. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len The Professional version does not have this message -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/private/ev/attachments/20090704/855d570e/attachment.html _______________________________________________ General EVDL support: http://evdl.org/help/ Usage guidelines: http://evdl.org/help/index.html#conv Archives: http://evdl.org/archive/ Subscription options: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev |
||||||||||||||||
Larry Gales
|
Why are you not much more outraged that the administration has done
nothing about the sodium nickel chloride (ZEBRA) and sodium iron chloride batteries than the NiMH? After all, at 120 and 110 wh/kg, respectively, they equal or outshine Lithium batteries, and far surpass NiMH (60-70 wh/kg), rival NiMH and Lithium in safety and long life, greatly outclass all other batteries in all weather capabilities, and radically lower cost ($120/KWH and < $100/KWH respectively, in mass production), and the iron chloride battery has unlimited resources (salt and iron), has no toxic or high cost materials, such as nickel and cobalt like the NiMH, has been in production for 10 years, and powering real production vehicles in Britain for several years? -- Larry On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Bob Rice <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hey? Me too> Howcome WE Sheeple haven't heard anything about > NMH's??????????Not to diss the guy, but where are his advisors, BECIDES Doug > Korthof?? > > Bob > > 40 YEARS and counting for THE badd-ery? > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Remy Chevalier > To: BMBB List > Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 11:57 AM > Subject: [BMBB] Obama Has Not Done Anything About NiMH Battery Situation > > > > > > > The Obama Administration Has Not Done Anything About The NiMH Battery > Situation > by Josh Landess > Rio Rico, AZ > Thursday | July 02, 2009 > > http://evworld.com/blogs/index.cfm?authorid=51 > As far as I know, the Obama Administration has done nothing whatsoever > about the NiMH battery situation. For all of the energy and money they have > put into promoting clean renewable domestically-produced energy and energy > efficiency, when it came down to it, they have had nearly six months in > office and have not taken a shot at even mentioning or discussing the > Oil-Company-Stultified excellent tried-and-true energy storage technology. > > I was reviewing the specs of the Lithium-powered vehicles that are > apparently coming to market over the next few months. In some cases coming > "to market" is a bit of a stretch, but we'll see a few hundred vehicles on > the road, here or there, basically in the hands of fleets... that sort of > thing. ... Some of the specs are not actually that impressive, and some > are. Whereas some NiMH-powered vehicles were traveling well more than 100 > miles on a charge, at highway speeds, in the 1990s, the Lithium-powered > offerings from Subaru and Mitsubishi from 2009 don't seem to be there, or > seem to struggle to match those numbers. To form a counter-point, we know > that a good Lithium-Powered car from Tesla or BMW or others would at least > bring out the strengths that Lithium offers, such as excellent range and low > weight. > > I'm a fan of Lithium vehicles, and I hope they'll work out. In the > meantime, they are going to market with a prime proven-reliable competitor > (NiMH-powered-vehicles) apparently not allowed to compete fully. > > As far as I've been able to tell in my research so far, no mention has been > made by anyone in the Obama Administration (or by anyone in policy-making > for that matter) of the NiMH Battery situation. You can't fix what you > can't discuss. Perhaps they think they can just close their eyes and hope > for the best and everything will be ok? Maybe some think that Lithium > vehicles will be produced in the hundreds of millions without any economic > issues relating to a lack of competition or insufficient resources? > > Cobasys has been financially dying on the vine in Michigan for a year or > two or more, with its workers' future in limbo, and yet no policy-maker > wants to talk about this? I thought policy-makers liked to talk about jobs? > ECD and Chevron have been collaborating quietly to keep non-US companies > from doing much with NiMH batteries suitable for highway-capable BEVs, and > yet no policy-maker has anything to say about this? I thought they wanted > to say they cared about energy policy and "energy independence". > > One specific idea perhaps worth pursuing would be to work to try to > discover a White Knight to purchase financially troubled Cobasys. If this > course were pursued, at least two important things would have to be kept in > mind. First, we should not be naive: the joint venture owners of Cobasys > might try to harm the company's battery production rights and business (even > more?) if it is being pried away. Second, prying Cobasys from its owners > would not by any means solve all problems. Cobasys has North American > exclusive production rights to batteries of a certain type, I believe, but > they are not the basic patent holders. So, the global licensing situation > would still need to be addressed. > > A funny thing is that I hear some of the same arguments from both sides: > Lithium batteries are too resource constrained we are told. Then again, > Rare Earth Metal investing seems to be driven largely these days by the idea > that we will have to turn to NiMH traction batteries whose rare earth > element ingredients are also not the most abundant things around. > > What if this suppression of NiMH battery technology had occured in smaller > batteries? What if the extraordinarily quick advances in laptops and > cameras and cell phones had been held up by some artificial oil company > nonsense? Would we have stood for it if we had been told that we had to > wait for a laptop until Lithium Ion was worked out because NiMH batteries > weren't available or weren't good enough? > > I see there is a new book on Amazon.com which seeks to address itself to > the NiMH battery situation, and the EV situation. I haven't read it, so I > can't venture an opinion, but I am mentioning it for EV fans. > > Two Cents per Mile: Will President Obama Make it Happen WITH THE STROKE OF > A PEN? (Paperback) > by Nevres Cefo > > There also seems to be a web page to petition the Obama Administration to > do something about the NiMH battery situation. > > dcmonitor.com > > The web page in my view is a bit too focused on the idea that hydrogen is > the false-promise answer being held up to us. I think we're going forward > with Lithium Ion Batteries, and in the end they will work somewhat. Heck, > if I were an auto designer, I'd probably have to favor designing in Lithium > batteries over NiMh batteries. > > Yet, aren't automakers concerned with product durability and reliability > and safety? Isn't NiMH technology in some ways more proven than LIthium > technology in these areas for use in cars? > > A problem, as I see it, is that even assuming Lithium is in many ways > superior to NiMH technology, competition is still significantly constrained > and this is bad for all concerned and is likely further to delay the > necessary cost-effective implementation of much-more-efficient and cleaner > transportation. > > It's good to see Mr. Cefo out there trying to get the Obama adminsitration > to step in and really make things happen on NiMH batteries. I'm not holding > my breath for anyone (anywhere) in the Obama adminsitration to do anything. > You can't fix what you aren't willing to mention. To this day, no > policy-maker of prominence, in or outside the Administration, of whom I am > aware, has so much as publicly mentioned the NiMH battery situation. > > Disclaimer: I have a modest indirect interest in the fortunes of companies > that make all manner of traction batteries, including lead-acid, NiMH and > Lithium-Ion. > > Originally published: July 02, 2009 > > __._,_.___ > Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic > Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Database | Polls | Members | Calendar > > Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) > Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format > to Traditional > Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe Recent Activity > Visit Your Group > Give Back > Yahoo! for Good > > Get inspired > > by a good cause. > > Y! Toolbar > Get it Free! > > easy 1-click access > > to your groups. > > Yahoo! Groups > Start a group > > in 3 easy steps. > > Connect with others. > . > > __,_._,___ > > -- > I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. > We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam. > SPAMfighter has removed 1594 of my spam emails to date. > Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len > > The Professional version does not have this message > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/private/ev/attachments/20090704/855d570e/attachment.html > _______________________________________________ > General EVDL support: http://evdl.org/help/ > Usage guidelines: http://evdl.org/help/index.html#conv > Archives: http://evdl.org/archive/ > Subscription options: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/private/ev/attachments/20090704/024adf07/attachment.html _______________________________________________ General EVDL support: http://evdl.org/help/ Usage guidelines: http://evdl.org/help/index.html#conv Archives: http://evdl.org/archive/ Subscription options: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev |
||||||||||||||||
evan foss
|
That would be because we have seen good working NiMH EVs with +140Mile
ranges and good Lithium EVs with +200Mile ranges. What I have never seen a Zebra battery powered EV that came close to ether. NiMH is actually being kept out of sight by Chevron, no one is actually suppressing Zebra. The only Zebra battery powered car I have seen to date was more an NEV than an a highway capable EV. Plus for all the talk about Zebra they loose a lot of their stored power in heat. As for the toxicity of Cobalt any EV battery should and would be recycled (just like lead acid) and there are a multiplicity of alternate alloys for use in the Metal part of NiMH. I don't care for Mr. Rice's grammar but I think he is on the money here. On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Larry Gales<[hidden email]> wrote: > Why are you not much more outraged that the administration has done > nothing about the sodium nickel chloride (ZEBRA) and sodium iron > chloride batteries than the NiMH? After all, at 120 and 110 wh/kg, > respectively, they equal or outshine Lithium batteries, and far surpass > NiMH (60-70 wh/kg), rival NiMH and Lithium in safety and long life, > greatly outclass all other batteries in all weather capabilities, and > radically lower cost ($120/KWH and < $100/KWH respectively, in mass > production), and the iron chloride battery has unlimited resources (salt > and iron), has no toxic or high cost materials, such as nickel and > cobalt like the NiMH, has been in production for 10 years, and powering > real production vehicles in Britain for several years? > > -- Larry > > On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Bob Rice <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> Hey? Me too> Howcome WE Sheeple haven't heard anything about >> NMH's??????????Not to diss the guy, but where are his advisors, BECIDES Doug >> Korthof?? >> >> Bob >> >> 40 YEARS and counting for THE badd-ery? >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Remy Chevalier >> To: BMBB List >> Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 11:57 AM >> Subject: [BMBB] Obama Has Not Done Anything About NiMH Battery Situation >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The Obama Administration Has Not Done Anything About The NiMH Battery >> Situation >> by Josh Landess >> Rio Rico, AZ >> Thursday | July 02, 2009 >> >> http://evworld.com/blogs/index.cfm?authorid=51 >> As far as I know, the Obama Administration has done nothing whatsoever >> about the NiMH battery situation. For all of the energy and money they have >> put into promoting clean renewable domestically-produced energy and energy >> efficiency, when it came down to it, they have had nearly six months in >> office and have not taken a shot at even mentioning or discussing the >> Oil-Company-Stultified excellent tried-and-true energy storage technology. >> >> I was reviewing the specs of the Lithium-powered vehicles that are >> apparently coming to market over the next few months. In some cases coming >> "to market" is a bit of a stretch, but we'll see a few hundred vehicles on >> the road, here or there, basically in the hands of fleets... that sort of >> thing. ... Some of the specs are not actually that impressive, and some >> are. Whereas some NiMH-powered vehicles were traveling well more than 100 >> miles on a charge, at highway speeds, in the 1990s, the Lithium-powered >> offerings from Subaru and Mitsubishi from 2009 don't seem to be there, or >> seem to struggle to match those numbers. To form a counter-point, we know >> that a good Lithium-Powered car from Tesla or BMW or others would at least >> bring out the strengths that Lithium offers, such as excellent range and low >> weight. >> >> I'm a fan of Lithium vehicles, and I hope they'll work out. In the >> meantime, they are going to market with a prime proven-reliable competitor >> (NiMH-powered-vehicles) apparently not allowed to compete fully. >> >> As far as I've been able to tell in my research so far, no mention has been >> made by anyone in the Obama Administration (or by anyone in policy-making >> for that matter) of the NiMH Battery situation. You can't fix what you >> can't discuss. Perhaps they think they can just close their eyes and hope >> for the best and everything will be ok? Maybe some think that Lithium >> vehicles will be produced in the hundreds of millions without any economic >> issues relating to a lack of competition or insufficient resources? >> >> Cobasys has been financially dying on the vine in Michigan for a year or >> two or more, with its workers' future in limbo, and yet no policy-maker >> wants to talk about this? I thought policy-makers liked to talk about jobs? >> ECD and Chevron have been collaborating quietly to keep non-US companies >> from doing much with NiMH batteries suitable for highway-capable BEVs, and >> yet no policy-maker has anything to say about this? I thought they wanted >> to say they cared about energy policy and "energy independence". >> >> One specific idea perhaps worth pursuing would be to work to try to >> discover a White Knight to purchase financially troubled Cobasys. If this >> course were pursued, at least two important things would have to be kept in >> mind. First, we should not be naive: the joint venture owners of Cobasys >> might try to harm the company's battery production rights and business (even >> more?) if it is being pried away. Second, prying Cobasys from its owners >> would not by any means solve all problems. Cobasys has North American >> exclusive production rights to batteries of a certain type, I believe, but >> they are not the basic patent holders. So, the global licensing situation >> would still need to be addressed. >> >> A funny thing is that I hear some of the same arguments from both sides: >> Lithium batteries are too resource constrained we are told. Then again, >> Rare Earth Metal investing seems to be driven largely these days by the idea >> that we will have to turn to NiMH traction batteries whose rare earth >> element ingredients are also not the most abundant things around. >> >> What if this suppression of NiMH battery technology had occured in smaller >> batteries? What if the extraordinarily quick advances in laptops and >> cameras and cell phones had been held up by some artificial oil company >> nonsense? Would we have stood for it if we had been told that we had to >> wait for a laptop until Lithium Ion was worked out because NiMH batteries >> weren't available or weren't good enough? >> >> I see there is a new book on Amazon.com which seeks to address itself to >> the NiMH battery situation, and the EV situation. I haven't read it, so I >> can't venture an opinion, but I am mentioning it for EV fans. >> >> Two Cents per Mile: Will President Obama Make it Happen WITH THE STROKE OF >> A PEN? (Paperback) >> by Nevres Cefo >> >> There also seems to be a web page to petition the Obama Administration to >> do something about the NiMH battery situation. >> >> dcmonitor.com >> >> The web page in my view is a bit too focused on the idea that hydrogen is >> the false-promise answer being held up to us. I think we're going forward >> with Lithium Ion Batteries, and in the end they will work somewhat. Heck, >> if I were an auto designer, I'd probably have to favor designing in Lithium >> batteries over NiMh batteries. >> >> Yet, aren't automakers concerned with product durability and reliability >> and safety? Isn't NiMH technology in some ways more proven than LIthium >> technology in these areas for use in cars? >> >> A problem, as I see it, is that even assuming Lithium is in many ways >> superior to NiMH technology, competition is still significantly constrained >> and this is bad for all concerned and is likely further to delay the >> necessary cost-effective implementation of much-more-efficient and cleaner >> transportation. >> >> It's good to see Mr. Cefo out there trying to get the Obama adminsitration >> to step in and really make things happen on NiMH batteries. I'm not holding >> my breath for anyone (anywhere) in the Obama adminsitration to do anything. >> You can't fix what you aren't willing to mention. To this day, no >> policy-maker of prominence, in or outside the Administration, of whom I am >> aware, has so much as publicly mentioned the NiMH battery situation. >> >> Disclaimer: I have a modest indirect interest in the fortunes of companies >> that make all manner of traction batteries, including lead-acid, NiMH and >> Lithium-Ion. >> >> Originally published: July 02, 2009 >> >> __._,_.___ >> Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic >> Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Database | Polls | Members | Calendar >> >> Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) >> Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format >> to Traditional >> Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe Recent Activity >> Visit Your Group >> Give Back >> Yahoo! for Good >> >> Get inspired >> >> by a good cause. >> >> Y! Toolbar >> Get it Free! >> >> easy 1-click access >> >> to your groups. >> >> Yahoo! Groups >> Start a group >> >> in 3 easy steps. >> >> Connect with others. >> . >> >> __,_._,___ >> >> -- >> I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. >> We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam. >> SPAMfighter has removed 1594 of my spam emails to date. >> Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len >> >> The Professional version does not have this message >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: >> http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/private/ev/attachments/20090704/855d570e/attachment.html >> _______________________________________________ >> General EVDL support: http://evdl.org/help/ >> Usage guidelines: http://evdl.org/help/index.html#conv >> Archives: http://evdl.org/archive/ >> Subscription options: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/private/ev/attachments/20090704/024adf07/attachment.html > _______________________________________________ > General EVDL support: http://evdl.org/help/ > Usage guidelines: http://evdl.org/help/index.html#conv > Archives: http://evdl.org/archive/ > Subscription options: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev > > -- http://www.coe.neu.edu/~efoss/ http://evanfoss.googlepages.com/ _______________________________________________ General EVDL support: http://evdl.org/help/ Usage guidelines: http://evdl.org/help/index.html#conv Archives: http://evdl.org/archive/ Subscription options: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev |
||||||||||||||||
John Garbarini
|
In reply to this post
by Bob Rice-2
Obama is Cheney's cousin; do you think he'll actually do anything, except for his masters? That's why the ballots were rigged to have him win in the first place: to make sheeople think he's going to create change. And that goes double (even triple) for health care reform, taxes, war, etc; (please excuse my rant) I'd like to start a battery factory, right here in my backyard, of Paterson, NJ. Any suggestions on how to do it? JG --- On Sun, 7/5/09, evan foss <[hidden email]> wrote: > From: evan foss <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: [EVDL] Fw: [BMBB] Obama Has Not Done Anything About NiMH Battery Situation > To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <[hidden email]> > Date: Sunday, July 5, 2009, 3:02 AM > That would be because we have seen > good working NiMH EVs with +140Mile > ranges and good Lithium EVs with +200Mile ranges. What I > have never > seen a Zebra battery powered EV that came close to ether. > NiMH is > actually being kept out of sight by Chevron, no one is > actually > suppressing Zebra. The only Zebra battery powered car I > have seen to > date was more an NEV than an a highway capable EV. Plus for > all the > talk about Zebra they loose a lot of their stored power in > heat. As > for the toxicity of Cobalt any EV battery should and would > be recycled > (just like lead acid) and there are a multiplicity of > alternate alloys > for use in the Metal part of NiMH. I don't care for Mr. > Rice's grammar > but I think he is on the money here. > > On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Larry Gales<[hidden email]> > wrote: > > Why are you not much more outraged that the > administration has done > > nothing about the sodium nickel chloride (ZEBRA) and > sodium iron > > chloride batteries than the NiMH? After all, at 120 > and 110 wh/kg, > > respectively, they equal or outshine Lithium > batteries, and far surpass > > NiMH (60-70 wh/kg), rival NiMH and Lithium in safety > and long life, > > greatly outclass all other batteries in all weather > capabilities, and > > radically lower cost ($120/KWH and < $100/KWH > respectively, in mass > > production), and the iron chloride battery has > unlimited resources (salt > > and iron), has no toxic or high cost materials, such > as nickel and > > cobalt like the NiMH, has been in production for 10 > years, and powering > > real production vehicles in Britain for several > years? > > > > -- Larry > > > > On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Bob Rice <[hidden email]> > wrote: > > > >> Hey? Me too> Howcome WE Sheeple haven't > heard anything about > >> NMH's??????????Not to diss the guy, but where are > his advisors, BECIDES Doug > >> Korthof?? > >> > >> Bob > >> > >> 40 YEARS and counting for THE badd-ery? > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: Remy Chevalier > >> To: BMBB List > >> Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 11:57 AM > >> Subject: [BMBB] Obama Has Not Done Anything About > NiMH Battery Situation > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> The Obama Administration Has Not Done Anything > About The NiMH Battery > >> Situation > >> by Josh Landess > >> Rio Rico, AZ > >> Thursday | July 02, 2009 > >> > >> http://evworld.com/blogs/index.cfm?authorid=51 > >> As far as I know, the Obama Administration has > done nothing whatsoever > >> about the NiMH battery situation. For all of the > energy and money they have > >> put into promoting clean renewable > domestically-produced energy and energy > >> efficiency, when it came down to it, they have had > nearly six months in > >> office and have not taken a shot at even > mentioning or discussing the > >> Oil-Company-Stultified excellent tried-and-true > energy storage technology. > >> > >> I was reviewing the specs of the Lithium-powered > vehicles that are > >> apparently coming to market over the next few > months. In some cases coming > >> "to market" is a bit of a stretch, but we'll see a > few hundred vehicles on > >> the road, here or there, basically in the hands > of fleets... that sort of > >> thing. ... Some of the specs are not actually > that impressive, and some > >> are. Whereas some NiMH-powered vehicles were > traveling well more than 100 > >> miles on a charge, at highway speeds, in the > 1990s, the Lithium-powered > >> offerings from Subaru and Mitsubishi from 2009 > don't seem to be there, or > >> seem to struggle to match those numbers. To form > a counter-point, we know > >> that a good Lithium-Powered car from Tesla or BMW > or others would at least > >> bring out the strengths that Lithium offers, such > as excellent range and low > >> weight. > >> > >> I'm a fan of Lithium vehicles, and I hope they'll > work out. In the > >> meantime, they are going to market with a prime > proven-reliable competitor > >> (NiMH-powered-vehicles) apparently not allowed to > compete fully. > >> > >> As far as I've been able to tell in my research so > far, no mention has been > >> made by anyone in the Obama Administration (or by > anyone in policy-making > >> for that matter) of the NiMH Battery situation. > You can't fix what you > >> can't discuss. Perhaps they think they can just > close their eyes and hope > >> for the best and everything will be ok? Maybe > some think that Lithium > >> vehicles will be produced in the hundreds of > millions without any economic > >> issues relating to a lack of competition or > insufficient resources? > >> > >> Cobasys has been financially dying on the vine in > Michigan for a year or > >> two or more, with its workers' future in limbo, > and yet no policy-maker > >> wants to talk about this? I thought > policy-makers liked to talk about jobs? > >> ECD and Chevron have been collaborating quietly > to keep non-US companies > >> from doing much with NiMH batteries suitable for > highway-capable BEVs, and > >> yet no policy-maker has anything to say about > this? I thought they wanted > >> to say they cared about energy policy and > "energy independence". > >> > >> One specific idea perhaps worth pursuing would be > to work to try to > >> discover a White Knight to purchase financially > troubled Cobasys. If this > >> course were pursued, at least two important things > would have to be kept in > >> mind. First, we should not be naive: the joint > venture owners of Cobasys > >> might try to harm the company's battery production > rights and business (even > >> more?) if it is being pried away. Second, prying > Cobasys from its owners > >> would not by any means solve all problems. > Cobasys has North American > >> exclusive production rights to batteries of a > certain type, I believe, but > >> they are not the basic patent holders. So, the > global licensing situation > >> would still need to be addressed. > >> > >> A funny thing is that I hear some of the same > arguments from both sides: > >> Lithium batteries are too resource constrained > we are told. Then again, > >> Rare Earth Metal investing seems to be driven > largely these days by the idea > >> that we will have to turn to NiMH traction > batteries whose rare earth > >> element ingredients are also not the most abundant > things around. > >> > >> What if this suppression of NiMH battery > technology had occured in smaller > >> batteries? What if the extraordinarily quick > advances in laptops and > >> cameras and cell phones had been held up by some > artificial oil company > >> nonsense? Would we have stood for it if we had > been told that we had to > >> wait for a laptop until Lithium Ion was worked out > because NiMH batteries > >> weren't available or weren't good enough? > >> > >> I see there is a new book on Amazon.com which > seeks to address itself to > >> the NiMH battery situation, and the EV situation. > I haven't read it, so I > >> can't venture an opinion, but I am mentioning it > for EV fans. > >> > >> Two Cents per Mile: Will President Obama Make it > Happen WITH THE STROKE OF > >> A PEN? (Paperback) > >> by Nevres Cefo > >> > >> There also seems to be a web page to petition the > Obama Administration to > >> do something about the NiMH battery situation. > >> > >> dcmonitor.com > >> > >> The web page in my view is a bit too focused on > the idea that hydrogen is > >> the false-promise answer being held up to us. I > think we're going forward > >> with Lithium Ion Batteries, and in the end they > will work somewhat. Heck, > >> if I were an auto designer, I'd probably have to > favor designing in Lithium > >> batteries over NiMh batteries. > >> > >> Yet, aren't automakers concerned with product > durability and reliability > >> and safety? Isn't NiMH technology in some ways > more proven than LIthium > >> technology in these areas for use in cars? > >> > >> A problem, as I see it, is that even assuming > Lithium is in many ways > >> superior to NiMH technology, competition is still > significantly constrained > >> and this is bad for all concerned and is likely > further to delay the > >> necessary cost-effective implementation of > much-more-efficient and cleaner > >> transportation. > >> > >> It's good to see Mr. Cefo out there trying to get > the Obama adminsitration > >> to step in and really make things happen on NiMH > batteries. I'm not holding > >> my breath for anyone (anywhere) in the Obama > adminsitration to do anything. > >> You can't fix what you aren't willing to > mention. To this day, no > >> policy-maker of prominence, in or outside the > Administration, of whom I am > >> aware, has so much as publicly mentioned the NiMH > battery situation. > >> > >> Disclaimer: I have a modest indirect interest in > the fortunes of companies > >> that make all manner of traction batteries, > including lead-acid, NiMH and > >> Lithium-Ion. > >> > >> Originally published: July 02, 2009 > >> > >> __._,_.___ > >> Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | > Start a new topic > >> Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Database | > Polls | Members | Calendar > >> > >> Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) > >> Change settings via email: Switch delivery to > Daily Digest | Switch format > >> to Traditional > >> Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | > Unsubscribe Recent Activity > >> Visit Your Group > >> Give Back > >> Yahoo! for Good > >> > >> Get inspired > >> > >> by a good cause. > >> > >> Y! Toolbar > >> Get it Free! > >> > >> easy 1-click access > >> > >> to your groups. > >> > >> Yahoo! Groups > >> Start a group > >> > >> in 3 easy steps. > >> > >> Connect with others. > >> . > >> > >> __,_._,___ > >> > >> -- > >> I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. > >> We are a community of 6 million users fighting > spam. > >> SPAMfighter has removed 1594 of my spam emails to > date. > >> Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len > >> > >> The Professional version does not have this > message > >> -------------- next part -------------- > >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > >> URL: > >> http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/private/ev/attachments/20090704/855d570e/attachment.html > >> _______________________________________________ > >> General EVDL support: http://evdl.org/help/ > >> Usage guidelines: http://evdl.org/help/index.html#conv > >> Archives: http://evdl.org/archive/ > >> Subscription options: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev > >> > >> > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/private/ev/attachments/20090704/024adf07/attachment.html > > _______________________________________________ > > General EVDL support: http://evdl.org/help/ > > Usage guidelines: http://evdl.org/help/index.html#conv > > Archives: http://evdl.org/archive/ > > Subscription options: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev > > > > > > > > -- > http://www.coe.neu.edu/~efoss/ > http://evanfoss.googlepages.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > General EVDL support: http://evdl.org/help/ > Usage guidelines: http://evdl.org/help/index.html#conv > Archives: http://evdl.org/archive/ > Subscription options: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev > > _______________________________________________ General EVDL support: http://evdl.org/help/ Usage guidelines: http://evdl.org/help/index.html#conv Archives: http://evdl.org/archive/ Subscription options: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev |
||||||||||||||||
|
Bob Rice-2
|
In reply to this post
by evan foss
----- Original Message ----- From: "evan foss" <[hidden email]> To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <[hidden email]> Sent: Sunday, July 05, 2009 3:02 AM Subject: Re: [EVDL] Fw: [BMBB] Obama Has Not Done Anything About NiMHBattery Situation That would be because we have seen good working NiMH EVs with +140Mile ranges and good Lithium EVs with +200Mile ranges. What I have never seen a Zebra battery powered EV that came close to ether. NiMH is actually being kept out of sight by Chevron, no one is actually suppressing Zebra. The only Zebra battery powered car I have seen to date was more an NEV than an a highway capable EV. Plus for all the talk about Zebra they loose a lot of their stored power in heat. As for the toxicity of Cobalt any EV battery should and would be recycled (just like lead acid) and there are a multiplicity of alternate alloys for use in the Metal part of NiMH. I don't care for Mr. Rice's grammar but I think he is on the money here. It's the MESSAGE, rather than the medium, but IF I dive in, it is too political, on here, to go off the deep end, I'll get yelled at? I forward stuff from the "Electric Vehicles for Sale" Yahoo group, of which I follow. Anything goes, over there. I feel that there ARE battery technologies out there, waiting to be "discovered"? Have at it! Grammar ? This isn't engrish 101?But STILL waiting for THE Battery;40 YEARS and counting! Bob On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Larry Gales<[hidden email]> wrote: > Why are you not much more outraged that the administration has done > nothing about the sodium nickel chloride (ZEBRA) and sodium iron > chloride batteries than the NiMH? After all, at 120 and 110 wh/kg, > respectively, they equal or outshine Lithium batteries, and far surpass > NiMH (60-70 wh/kg), rival NiMH and Lithium in safety and long life, > greatly outclass all other batteries in all weather capabilities, and > radically lower cost ($120/KWH and < $100/KWH respectively, in mass > production), and the iron chloride battery has unlimited resources (salt > and iron), has no toxic or high cost materials, such as nickel and > cobalt like the NiMH, has been in production for 10 years, and powering > real production vehicles in Britain for several years? > > -- Larry > > On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Bob Rice <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> Hey? Me too> Howcome WE Sheeple haven't heard anything about >> NMH's??????????Not to diss the guy, but where are his advisors, BECIDES >> Doug >> Korthof?? >> >> Bob >> >> 40 YEARS and counting for THE badd-ery? >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Remy Chevalier >> To: BMBB List >> Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 11:57 AM >> Subject: [BMBB] Obama Has Not Done Anything About NiMH Battery Situation >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The Obama Administration Has Not Done Anything About The NiMH Battery >> Situation >> by Josh Landess >> Rio Rico, AZ >> Thursday | July 02, 2009 >> >> http://evworld.com/blogs/index.cfm?authorid=51 >> As far as I know, the Obama Administration has done nothing whatsoever >> about the NiMH battery situation. For all of the energy and money they >> have >> put into promoting clean renewable domestically-produced energy and >> energy >> efficiency, when it came down to it, they have had nearly six months in >> office and have not taken a shot at even mentioning or discussing the >> Oil-Company-Stultified excellent tried-and-true energy storage >> technology. >> >> I was reviewing the specs of the Lithium-powered vehicles that are >> apparently coming to market over the next few months. In some cases >> coming >> "to market" is a bit of a stretch, but we'll see a few hundred vehicles >> on >> the road, here or there, basically in the hands of fleets... that sort of >> thing. ... Some of the specs are not actually that impressive, and some >> are. Whereas some NiMH-powered vehicles were traveling well more than 100 >> miles on a charge, at highway speeds, in the 1990s, the Lithium-powered >> offerings from Subaru and Mitsubishi from 2009 don't seem to be there, or >> seem to struggle to match those numbers. To form a counter-point, we know >> that a good Lithium-Powered car from Tesla or BMW or others would at >> least >> bring out the strengths that Lithium offers, such as excellent range and >> low >> weight. >> >> I'm a fan of Lithium vehicles, and I hope they'll work out. In the >> meantime, they are going to market with a prime proven-reliable >> competitor >> (NiMH-powered-vehicles) apparently not allowed to compete fully. >> >> As far as I've been able to tell in my research so far, no mention has >> been >> made by anyone in the Obama Administration (or by anyone in policy-making >> for that matter) of the NiMH Battery situation. You can't fix what you >> can't discuss. Perhaps they think they can just close their eyes and hope >> for the best and everything will be ok? Maybe some think that Lithium >> vehicles will be produced in the hundreds of millions without any >> economic >> issues relating to a lack of competition or insufficient resources? >> >> Cobasys has been financially dying on the vine in Michigan for a year or >> two or more, with its workers' future in limbo, and yet no policy-maker >> wants to talk about this? I thought policy-makers liked to talk about >> jobs? >> ECD and Chevron have been collaborating quietly to keep non-US companies >> from doing much with NiMH batteries suitable for highway-capable BEVs, >> and >> yet no policy-maker has anything to say about this? I thought they wanted >> to say they cared about energy policy and "energy independence". >> >> One specific idea perhaps worth pursuing would be to work to try to >> discover a White Knight to purchase financially troubled Cobasys. If this >> course were pursued, at least two important things would have to be kept >> in >> mind. First, we should not be naive: the joint venture owners of Cobasys >> might try to harm the company's battery production rights and business >> (even >> more?) if it is being pried away. Second, prying Cobasys from its owners >> would not by any means solve all problems. Cobasys has North American >> exclusive production rights to batteries of a certain type, I believe, >> but >> they are not the basic patent holders. So, the global licensing situation >> would still need to be addressed. >> >> A funny thing is that I hear some of the same arguments from both sides: >> Lithium batteries are too resource constrained we are told. Then again, >> Rare Earth Metal investing seems to be driven largely these days by the >> idea >> that we will have to turn to NiMH traction batteries whose rare earth >> element ingredients are also not the most abundant things around. >> >> What if this suppression of NiMH battery technology had occured in >> smaller >> batteries? What if the extraordinarily quick advances in laptops and >> cameras and cell phones had been held up by some artificial oil company >> nonsense? Would we have stood for it if we had been told that we had to >> wait for a laptop until Lithium Ion was worked out because NiMH batteries >> weren't available or weren't good enough? >> >> I see there is a new book on Amazon.com which seeks to address itself to >> the NiMH battery situation, and the EV situation. I haven't read it, so I >> can't venture an opinion, but I am mentioning it for EV fans. >> >> Two Cents per Mile: Will President Obama Make it Happen WITH THE STROKE >> OF >> A PEN? (Paperback) >> by Nevres Cefo >> >> There also seems to be a web page to petition the Obama Administration to >> do something about the NiMH battery situation. >> >> dcmonitor.com >> >> The web page in my view is a bit too focused on the idea that hydrogen is >> the false-promise answer being held up to us. I think we're going forward >> with Lithium Ion Batteries, and in the end they will work somewhat. Heck, >> if I were an auto designer, I'd probably have to favor designing in >> Lithium >> batteries over NiMh batteries. >> >> Yet, aren't automakers concerned with product durability and reliability >> and safety? Isn't NiMH technology in some ways more proven than LIthium >> technology in these areas for use in cars? >> >> A problem, as I see it, is that even assuming Lithium is in many ways >> superior to NiMH technology, competition is still significantly >> constrained >> and this is bad for all concerned and is likely further to delay the >> necessary cost-effective implementation of much-more-efficient and >> cleaner >> transportation. >> >> It's good to see Mr. Cefo out there trying to get the Obama >> adminsitration >> to step in and really make things happen on NiMH batteries. I'm not >> holding >> my breath for anyone (anywhere) in the Obama adminsitration to do >> anything. >> You can't fix what you aren't willing to mention. To this day, no >> policy-maker of prominence, in or outside the Administration, of whom I >> am >> aware, has so much as publicly mentioned the NiMH battery situation. >> >> Disclaimer: I have a modest indirect interest in the fortunes of >> companies >> that make all manner of traction batteries, including lead-acid, NiMH and >> Lithium-Ion. >> >> Originally published: July 02, 2009 >> >> __._,_.___ >> Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic >> Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Database | Polls | Members | Calendar >> >> Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) >> Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch >> format >> to Traditional >> Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe Recent >> Activity >> Visit Your Group >> Give Back >> Yahoo! for Good >> >> Get inspired >> >> by a good cause. >> >> Y! Toolbar >> Get it Free! >> >> easy 1-click access >> >> to your groups. >> >> Yahoo! Groups >> Start a group >> >> in 3 easy steps. >> >> Connect with others. >> . >> >> __,_._,___ >> >> -- >> I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. >> We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam. >> SPAMfighter has removed 1594 of my spam emails to date. >> Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len >> >> The Professional version does not have this message >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: >> http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/private/ev/attachments/20090704/855d570e/attachment.html >> _______________________________________________ >> General EVDL support: http://evdl.org/help/ >> Usage guidelines: http://evdl.org/help/index.html#conv >> Archives: http://evdl.org/archive/ >> Subscription options: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/private/ev/attachments/20090704/024adf07/attachment.html > _______________________________________________ > General EVDL support: http://evdl.org/help/ > Usage guidelines: http://evdl.org/help/index.html#conv > Archives: http://evdl.org/archive/ > Subscription options: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev > > -- http://www.coe.neu.edu/~efoss/ http://evanfoss.googlepages.com/ _______________________________________________ General EVDL support: http://evdl.org/help/ Usage guidelines: http://evdl.org/help/index.html#conv Archives: http://evdl.org/archive/ Subscription options: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev -- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam. SPAMfighter has removed 1608 of my spam emails to date. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len The Professional version does not have this message _______________________________________________ General EVDL support: http://evdl.org/help/ Usage guidelines: http://evdl.org/help/index.html#conv Archives: http://evdl.org/archive/ Subscription options: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev |
||||||||||||||||
AMPhibian
|
In reply to this post
by John Garbarini
Right, that's why Obama is making a bigger push for battery technology than any other president, and has cut wasteful spending on hydrogen. Please. He appointed Chu who actually looks at the practical science of available technologies instead of what the Bush/Cheney oil buddies want. Yes, that is real change. More to the point, Lithium is improving so quickly and the price is dropping so that both Zebra and NiMH are old news. They both have higher self discharge rates than Lithium, the Zebra consumes energy just to stay functional. No thanks. Getting into a long draw out legal battle over NiMH chemistry just isn't worth it.
|
||||||||||||||||
EVDL Administrator
|
In reply to this post
by John Garbarini
NO POLITICS. That is an ABSOLUTE on this list. Leave it at the door.
Foo, I was hoping that this thread would die quickly. I should have known someone would snap back. :-( Thanks, D David Roden EVDL Administrator http://www.evdl.org/ _______________________________________________ General EVDL support: http://evdl.org/help/ Usage guidelines: http://evdl.org/help/index.html#conv Archives: http://evdl.org/archive/ Subscription options: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev |
||||||||||||||||
| Free Embeddable Forum Powered by Nabble | Help |
