The concept of solar thermally generated electricity is not new. It has also been successfully tested. However, I question whether the technology yet exists to store either enough heat or electricity so that sufficient power will be available when solar heat is not available, i.e., at night or when there are clouds. There are ways to store heat and electricity, but they tend to be very expensive.

It is likely that economical storage methods will become available. The question is whether they are available right now.
Posted by: Frank Eggers

The Th!nk car looks very promising to me, except they won't sell you the entire vehicle. They sell the carcass and driveline, less the battery pack that they will be happy to lease you. They say it's so you don't have to worry about how long it lasts. Sounds kind of like buying a new washing machine and the salesperson trying to get you to buy the extended warranty. And just like the response I give the washing machine salesperson, to the fine folks at Th!nk, I will just say NO.
Posted by: Mark Chapmon

I believe in the basic premise of “Who Killed The Electric Car.” I think the take-away is that GM realized that there was no way on earth to make a profit with EVs, and dropped the project like a hot rock. Why they didn’t know that going in is anyone’s guess. I actually asked Chris Paine and Chelsea Sexton that very question at a screening of the film earlier this year; they didn’t have an answer either.

I’m not an expert on solar thermal, but as far as I have know, the best answer to the question of energy storage generated by this means is molten salt (which you can Google). Molten salt has a specific heat 30 times that of water—and again, the compound is obviously extremely common and inexpensive. A company called Ausra (Palo Alto, CA) will be unveiling a working model of this technology shortly, I understand.

To be fair, all this does require considerable expansion and re-enforcement of the grid, including high-voltage DC power transmission over long distances, etc. But the costs pale in comparison to staying on fossil fuels while our quality of life steadily deteriorates into the dirt—all so that a few rich people can get even richer.

Re: Obama, though I remain optimistic, I fear that the political process will force compromises that will moderate his ability to create the kind of change we all hoped for and so desperately need. In particular, I’m concerned about the appointments he’s made; if I were one people who campaigned for him based on his position on the war in Iraq, I’d be pretty steamed.

Re: Th!nk and other EV products/solutions that force the buyer into uncomfortable places (like Better Place), I’m reminded of Thomas Edison. When he was trying to change consumers’ energy paradigm from gas to electricity 130 years ago, he wisely didn’t want to alter people’s ways of thinking any more than he absolutely had to. This is why the original electric lights in people’s houses were wall sconces, even though he knew it would be easier to light a room from the ceiling. There were no ceiling gas lamps (for obvious reasons) and so he didn’t build ceiling electric lamps, simply so people would experience as little change as possible.

To me, the idea that this big-3 bailout could be effective is a joke. The arrogant thieves who lead the companies were headed down the drain even in the good times. Do we think they'll do better in the bad times? And with Congress forcing them to build cars that (in all honesty) won't make them any money? The idea is ridiculous.

Re: humanitarian CEOs, I’m continually astounded at people’s greed. I’ve done pretty well in business, but I certainly have never seen the attraction of making money by ruining our world and destroying the future of our kids. I’d rather not have to explain to St. Peter at the Pearly Gates that I had led a company, once the largest on the planet, that created enormous profits by covertly and deliberately ruining the earth’s oceans and skies, and that my life’s work made my country, once the world’s greatest, into a slave of sworn foreign enemies. I somehow don’t think he’d be too impressed.

Thanks again for the kind words. - Bill
Posted by: Bill Weaver

If the horrible happened, next in line is Biden (pro EV) and then Pelosi (pro EV). As for solar, using Bob Lutz numbers, the cost of moving a VOLT 20 miles @ 65MPH on grid tie solar is $0.54 As one writer already explained, simple measures like efficiency and insulation can handle the space conditioning side of energy consumption. 100 years ago the gasoline powered automobile and the diesel powered truck were embraced by the public because big cities were drowning in manure. Hopefully people will wise up now before they drown in pollution and debt!
Posted by: Richard Poor

The relevance of Mr. Weaver’s article becomes even more salient when you consider that the formula for building an EV should be really quite simple – people are building their own affordable versions across the country - out of spare parts – right now. And building an EV should be cost effective – in mass production. Yet auto manufacturers act like they are being asked to create a new kind of mathematics.

I predict the next series of “stall” tactics will revolve around cost issues. Why hasn’t any company tried to introduce a safe, affordable, city EV with a range of 50 miles? If battery costs (e.g., lithium ion/polymer) represent a major impediment to the introduction of affordable EVs as many have indicated – developing shorter range EVs designed for city errands and commuting would seem ideal – as they use fewer batteries – and would cost much less to build. Yet the corporate answer seems to be that “consumers want an EV that can travel 400 miles per charge”, and that consumers want it to do everything – including replacing their main vehicle at home. Do consumers really want this? Or are corporations trying to “create” this need – knowing that an affordable 400 mile battery is still years down the road? How many homes have only one vehicle in their driveway anyway?

If a genuine need exists for a longer range battery, then make 3 battery packages available – like 50 mile, 100 mile, and 200 mile packages. The first mp3 players didn’t require 100 continuous hours of playing time, a huge battery pack, and a cost of $1000. They started small – 10 hours of playing time – at a more affordable price. And they sold well. They continue to sell well. Different iterations now have much longer playing times, larger storage options, and are even more affordable.

A city range EV would be the perfect second (or third?) vehicle. My concern is that corporations will finally make EVs available – but people will be forced to buy a stripped-down entry-level hatchback, with a 400 mile range – for $40,000. I can think of no better way to ensure that people will be put off from purchasing an EV. When consumers scoff at this – the automakers will respond with the all-too-familiar “consumers aren’t purchasing Evs because there is no interest – there is no market”. If Apple sold the first Ipod for $1000 how much interest would have been generated in this product?

I believe there is a market for a mass produced, comfortable, safe, and affordable EV. If Mitsubishi makes their MiEV available to the public – for under $20,000 (as they have indicated) – my waiting will be over. But I have a feeling that the first legitimate EVs won’t come from North America or Japan. Like other affordable electronic goods - they will come from China, Korea, or Taiwan. And then the Big 3 will cry foul and ask for more bail out money.
Posted by: Michael Moland

Please watch all of this movie and see if you agree with him:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912

You can learn more about Jacque and his ideas at www.thevenusproject.com

i have no connection with Jacque other than finding his ideas very interesting.
Posted by: michael knight

I’d like to point out to the makers of the film that they seem to be suggesting that we as a civilization trade in one set of corruption (our current corporatocracy and greed/aggression/money-based world) for another. How do they propose to move to and sustain this “resource-based” economy? Who will decide what technologies we implement, how much food we grow, etc? These decisions are currently made by market forces, which, I freely admit, have become monstrously corrupt. But SOME force is needed; the resource-based world won’t happen by magic; someone or something would need to lead it and manage it. Aren’t they concerned about the idea that “absolute power corrupts absolutely?” Are they suggesting that it could it be achieved with the early 20th century idea of anarchy, i.e., that spontaneously generated micro-governments would emerge on an ad hoc basis?

Again, thank you for posting. Please feel free to share this with anyone who can speak to these issues and encourage then to write to me.
Posted by: Bill Weaver