Harvey Coachworks Blog

I am reposting an article posted by Felix Kramer of Calcars posted to the Calcars Yahoo Group. For those of you that are "luke warm" on global warming, please read this.

"The New World War II" below comes from Patrick
Mazza of Climate Solutions, the Pacific Northwest
think-tank. It's a provocative response to the
just-published climate report from the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

THE NEW WORLD WAR II
19 November 07
http://climatesolutions.org/?s=journal&aid=21

The alarm bell is gonging. The world's climate
scientists have now sounded a call to general
quarters - The world must now level off global
warming pollution, begin to reduce it within
seven years, and cut it up to 85 percent by 2050,
or set off the greatest catastrophes in the
history of the human race, and some of the
greatest in the Earth's geological record.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
the world's leading scientific body on global
warming and climate change, released its latest
scientific synthesis report over the weekend
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
. It came as the firmest statement yet that the
climate crisis is now upon us and immediate
action to dramatically reduce the fossil fuel
pollution causing global warming is crucial.

"Warming of the climate system is now
unequivocal," the scientists report. New heat
records continue to be made, sea level rise is
accelerating and tropical storms are
intensifying. If humanity does not quickly gain
control of its global warming emissions, a
quarter of more of the Earth's species are
threatened with extinction. Our own species is
threatened with water stress and accompanying
disruptions in food supplies. This Washington
Post article presents a good summary of the findings.

It appears global warming and its effects are
accelerating faster than expected, and even the
harsh new IPCC report might be too optimistic.
This Der Spiegel commentary notes details that
did not make it into the synthesis:
* Since 2000 carbon dioxide concentrations in the
atmosphere have been growing over twice as fast as the average in the 1990s.
* The Arctic ice pack surface reached a record
low in 2007, 23 percent below the previous record
in 2007. These images reveals the extent of ice loss.
* While Earth's oceans and plants have been
absorbing half of human CO2 emissions, it appears
their capacity to do so is declining.

The goal now is to hold temperature increases
below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, beyond which loss
of rainforests and polar ice becomes virtually
inevitable. And when rainforests release their
massive carbon stores into the atmosphere, while
sunlight-reflecting icecaps turn into solar
energy-absorbing blue oceans, climate change
begins to feed on itself. Ultimately, these
natural feedbacks could easily dwarf the effects
of human global warming emissions, creating an
utterly horrifying reality for our children's
generation and those that come after.

United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon,
addressing the IPCC meeting in Spain where the
findings were announced, said, "These things are
as frightening as science-fiction movies. But
they are even more terrifying, because they are real."

It is clear that we humans have already committed
our planet to a level of climate damage. Even if
we stay below the 3.6 degree threshold, the Post
article notes, "… the seas will continue to swell
for centuries from thermal expansion and
meltwater from ice caps and glaciers; the oceans
will turn more acidic; most coral reefs will
become lifeless expanses; floods and storms will
increase; and millions of people will be short of
the water they need, the report said."

As a climate activist now going into my tenth
year working on this issue, I have often pondered
why it is so hard for people to wrap their heads
around it. My conclusion is that it is so large
and encompassing it is out of scale with
virtually anything else we can
comprehend. Nuclear war or an asteroid strike
are comparable, but neither of those are everyday
affairs. Global warming is happening all around
us, as a result of the most mundane of our
activities - driving a car, turning on the
lights, buying stuff made and transported with
fossil energy. It's hard for us to see what's
happening because we are so enmeshed in it.

This sets up a great deal of cognitive
dissonance. We go about our everyday business,
head to work, take care of the kids, do the
shopping, while all the time our world plunges
towards catastrophe. In some ways we seem like a
global RMS Titanic, where the passengers danced
to the band while the captain ordered the boilers
stoked with more coal, trying to set a new
trans-Atlantic speed record - All the time, headed toward the iceberg.

Rather than playing out the voyage of those
unfortunate souls, let us be inspired by another
historic parallel, World War II and the people
who won it. Faced with deadly peril they rose to
the challenge with full commitment and
dedication. Individually they planted victory
gardens. Together they built the ships and
planes, and fought the fights needed to win. In
just the same way, we now must do all we can
personally to reduce our own emissions, while we
join together to make fundamental changes in our energy and economic systems.

Those broader changes will require a combination
of private sector innovation and public policy
leadership. Most crucially we need to set firm
legal limits on our global warming emissions with
targets and timetables to progressively reduce
levels. They must achieve or even better exceed
the targets laid out by the IPCC scientists. We
can no longer treat the atmosphere as a free dumping ground.

The changes required to meet the climate
challenge are truly as large as anything we have
undertaken since World War II. The scale can
seem overwhelming without taking into account a
hugely important and hope-inspiring fact - Since
the challenge originates from everywhere, we can
take significant actions to address the challenge
anywhere. Today, led by Seattle, U.S. cities
representing a quarter of the American population
have committed to try to reach Kyoto climate
treaty goals. States representing half the U.S.
population are at some stage of setting limits on
their own global warming emissions, including
economic giants such as California, New York and Illinois.

Northwest states including Washington and Oregon
are engaged in this process, with some
significant gains already booked. Arguably,
Northwest states and cities are several years
ahead of the curve as a result, already beginning
to level off global warming pollution. Each state
has made moves such as adopting standards for
auto tailpipe emissions, appliance and building
efficiency, and use of renewable electricity and
fuels. Now the challenge will be to continue
leading by enacting legal limits on pollution
that push the pollution curve downwards. A
Climate Action bill to advance this process will
reach the Washington Legislature in 2008.

The people of our parents' and grandparents'
"greatest generation" who won World War II, when
presented with a clear threat, rose in response
with an unprecedented devotion of resources, as
well as courage and commitment. As the climate
threat becomes just as clear, it is time for us
to rise to our generation's great challenge,
reduce global warming pollution, build clean,
prosperous economies, and leave a legacy to our
children and theirs of a habitable world in which
they too can prosper and thrive. It's up to us
to lay claim to our own generation's greatness. The time is absolutely now.

by Mike Harvey

In response to article by Warren Brown entitled The Benefits of Truth in Mileage published in the Washington Post on Sunday, Oct 21st, 2007:

It saddens me to read misinformed journalism like this. It often makes me wonder if certain factions of the media aren't on the automakers and/or oil companies payrolls. Questioning the resale value of a vehicle that gets better mileage than 95 percent of the cars on the road today, whether the estimates are accurate or not is preposterous.

Point 1. The fuel economy estimates put forth for the Prius follow the same rules as any other estimate for every other vehicle on the road. And if the new ways the EPA will adjust the real mileage of the Prius, than it will have the same effect on all models from all vehicle manufacturers. After all these adjustments, the Prius will still be more economical than 95 percent of the vehicles on the road today.

Point 2. The automakers (thank the Almighty) don't dictate the resale value of vehicles. The demand from consumers does. Of course the automakers would downplay the resale value of the Prius because they are in the business of selling new cars. As a person that has a pretty good understanding of how the Prius works, I can tell you there is no magic engineered in. With a litle effort, the battery pack from the Prius can be replaced with after market commercially available batteries today, and would in fact perform even better than a stock Prius. In fact, many folks are already modifying the Prius to run for longer range on all-electric (called PHEVs) and enhanced the performance so the Prius gets over 100 mpg in many documented cases. There is a nationwide non-profit and open source effort you can read all about at http://www.CalCars.org that has openly documented the efforts so far.

Ultimately, I believe Mr. Brown's perspective to be catering to an environmentally indifferent consumer that only cares about the resale value of the car they buy. Fortunately, the choice to buy a car is about more than the resale value once the purchaser is done with the vehicle. Today, hybrids are the best choice we have from automakers to reduce our carbon emissions. The suggestion to buy a high economy gas or diesel vehicle is short-sighted, and environmentally irresponsible. Are we to be beholden to foreign oil until the last drop is pumped out?

We all know automobile purchases are (for the majority of consumers) not investments but expenses. He severely underestimates the after market automobile industry that has always filled a void where one in fact exists and there is a demand. By the time this potential hybrid battery failures happens there will be millions and perhaps tens of millions of hybrids on the roads. I would predict that when the hybrid batteries begin to fail in these vehicles 5, 10, or 15 years down the road, someone will be opportunistic enough to engineer an after market replacement which I will also predict will most probably perform better than the stock batteries they're offering today.

The gross oversimplification Mr. Brown puts forth gives entirely too much credit to automakers, and not enough to the ingenuity of Americans in their garages. Automakers have proven time and again they will not do what's right for their customers or their planet (seat belts and catalytic converters case in point). Why would we ever expect them to step up now?

IThis blog is where we will keep a running status of the development of the two versions of the BugE the XR and the XRT.

First and foremost, the XR will be available in two different configurations.

• The 48v version will look very much like the Standard BugE with the exception of extended range (est. @ 150 miles per charge). This entails a 48v TS Lithium Ion battery pack with a Battery Management System and LiIon battery charger.



• The XRT 60v version will sport in higher speed rated wheels and tires, hydraulic front disc brakes, and 60v power train. The gearing will be adjusted to provide top end speed of 65 mph, thus requiring a slightly beefier base than the Standard and XR models.

Currently, the XR is available with an 8 week lead time. The primary reason for the additional lead time that our BMS source has a six week lead time. We are working on reducing this lead time and will update this blog as we progress.

The XRT is slated for production shortly after the new year. The whitetail (functional prototype) is in R&D working on the braking system and chassis modifications. Should be exciting=)

Stay tuned, Mike

Prior to my last trip to India, I was fortunate to have been instructed by a co-worker to read The World is Flat by Thomas L. Friedman. In the book, he describes serious economic factors that are shaping the global economy and the impact of those factors on America. At the time of reading, I was primarily focused on technological advances and their impact on the computer industry. In recent readings on global oil supply and consumption, it occurred to me that the impact of the factors Mr. Friedman described have a significant impact on the present and future energy market as well.

While it's true that the sky is not in fact falling, it is coasting downward at a noticeable rate. While oil production has reached is peak and is trending downward, Oil consumption is on the rise. We in the West have enjoyed virtually no competition in the oil demand markets for the first 100 or so years. That is changing. And who is the going to be the biggest oil consumer? Asia. Numerous estimates put Developing Asia's oil consumption in the 25% range by 2030. That will make Asia the number one consumer of oil. We in the West will be second. Regardless of who uses the most, the critical factor is the increased competition for a finite supply.

Whether it is Middle East oil, Canadian Sands oil, or oil from the Gulf, the fact is the supply is dwindling, extraction costs are rising, and the demand is rising. Anyone who has taken Economics 101 understands that basic Supply & Demand Economics dictate pricing. Prices will rise significantly - and most probably more significantly than our economy can absorb without avoiding a staggering recession.

The industrial expansion of India and China (1/2 the worlds population) over the next 25 years will change the market dynamics in the energy business, and most especially in the oil segment. It is a ridiculously short-sighted assumption to estimate oil reserves based on current oil consumption and demand. The demand will more than double, and consumption will be far greater than it is now. Asia understands that energy (specifically oil) is critical to its continued economic expansion and will compete mightily for it.

So, what should we do? I say we let them have it. Every drop. Even sell them ours if they want it. Hey, maybe we can export and make some money - novel idea. We would be foolish to compete for it when we can be developing alternatives. If we do not, the "bread and circuses" complacency in the U.S.will have us "overrun by the huns".

Originally posted on EV World Sept 2006

I’d like to offer some hope in the form of a history lesson regarding the mainstreaming of technologies that will enable cleaner more efficient vehicles in the near future. There is a dynamic that has proven itself repeatedly regarding the adoption of technologies in the auto manufacturing industry.

In response to my previous blog regarding the feasibility of onboard power generation and wheel motors, there have been many comments, some pointing to manufacturers, others offering other alternatives to my proposed approaches. As a result, I’ve done some fairly extensive reaching out to companies like PML, Freedom Motors, KaPower, and WhisperGen in search of the necessary components to build some prototypes. What I got back was a fairly consistent response is that the technology does exist, but manufacturing is impractical due to the lack of demand “at this time”. Whether it’s efficient flex-fuel motors, wheel motors, or longer range battery packs, what is delaying the introduction to market of these obviously superior technologies is there isn’t enough demand to implement a cost effective supply chain for many of these technologies and components. And I believe it is a dynamic we in the EV world have come to expect and accept. Many are hoping against hope that the large auto manufacturers will have a conscience, and do what’s right for our world, our country and our children. The fact is the automakers are in business to provide value to shareholders, and only have a conscience when it has a positive effect on the bottom line. They will not fund technologies that threaten their markets. In fact, they will do whatever they can to squash any threats to those financial interests. That has been proven time and again.

So how do we provide incentives the auto industry to do the right thing? Well, let’s review what has worked in the past; a little history lesson if you will. Let’s go back to the 80’s and the 90’s because this is when I personally experienced the effect and can speak with some authority on the subject. In the 80’s and 90’s I owned a chain of auto customizing shops which did a very good retail business. But what we also did was provide services to car dealers for things they could not get from the factory. From car stereos and alarms, sunroofs, vinyl tops and simulated convertibles, to window tinting, molding, striping, hitches, etc. It was very profitable business at the time. The services we provided helped the dealers differentiate their vehicles from the other dealers and give the customers what they were demanding.

In the mid 90’s the auto manufacturers, seeing the revenue they were losing to the aftermarket industry, began including these options in packages from the factory, and many of these options are considered standard in today’s vehicles. The lesson here is the aftermarket industry was hitting the car companies in the pocket, and that is what “incented” them to adopt these options. And at the end of the day we are talking about providing options to the consumers, whether it’s what color interior they like, or what kind of fuel they use, customers will demand options once they know they are possible.

So how does this apply to the current state of the EV/PHEV industry? While I’m not advocating we halt efforts to influence the car companies to do the right thing. But the lion’s share of our efforts should be targeted at providing aftermarket solutions that are practical to the consumers. With 250 million cars on America’s roads, that’s a huge opportunity. Those vehicles will not just go away. Someone needs to ensure the transition to cleaner technologies. The auto makers have proven they are in hurry to provide more reliable and cleaner products. Those who care and have a means to contribute should marshal their resources and target the development of feasible aftermarket PHEV and BEV applications. History has taught us that the resulting affect will be two-fold. First, it will educate the consumers about what is possible and consumers like options, so they will buy. Secondly, it will hit the automakers in the pocket, by making already sold vehicles viable longer and taking a segment of the market share away. They will respond accordingly, which is what we all want.

Ultimately, we can continue blaming the auto industry for not providing us with the products we want or we can take it into our own hands, and target the cars the auto makers care less about – the ones they have already sold. If we want more than just a bleeding-heart cause and truly want to effect change, we must not continue to waste our energy (pardon the pun) trying to influence those that are not listening. As history is the best teacher, targeting the aftermarket segment of the auto industry is an approach that has proven itself in the past, and where the EV industry and its advocates should direct the majority of their focus with laser-like attention.

Originally posted in EV World October 2006