Google Spends Money to Jump-Start Hybrid Car Development 352
slugo writes "Internet search giant Google (GOOG) hopes to speed the development of plug-in hybrid cars by giving away millions of dollars to people and companies that have what appear to be practical ways to get plug-in hybrid automobiles to market faster. 'While many people don't associate Google with energy, analysts say the fit isn't all that unnatural. Renewable energy, unlike coal or nuclear, will likely come from thousands or tens of thousands of different locations. Analysts have long said that one of the big challenges will be managing that flow into and out of the nation's electric grid, and that companies that manage the flow of information are well placed to handle that task.'"
I'm betting ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
... every Google Car will have Google Maps built in ... complete with Google ads based on your GPS derived location.
I would actually really like this. Google maps are usually VERY accurate (as opposed to the majority of in-dash navigation systems that I have used), easily updated due to "centralized" location, and come with traffic reports (at least in Phoenix).
I know this is doable with an in-car pc + an evdo card, but something from the OEM would be really great. I would whole-heartedly embrace a partnership between GM and google.
Re:I'm betting ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Back when MapPoint was the only game in town, Microsoft was still 2 years behind in map updates. Sure, the up-to-date construction information was nice but I'be been stuck in 2 states where there was no road in MapPoint and I had to resort to old school tactics by buying a map.
Re:I'm betting ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm betting ... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If Google can help create a car that runs on whatever and doesn't cost a shitload to power up, then let them put their software in it (would you rather have Window
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'm betting ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I'm betting ... (Score:5, Informative)
Don't get your hopes up; this is a google.org initiative, so I'm not sure they are looking to make money off it.
Re:I'm betting ... (Score:5, Insightful)
There's nothing wrong with trying to improve the world and make a profit at the same time, in fact, I'd go so far as to say that it's just about the best possible thing a proper capitalistic corporation can be doing. Beats the hell out of what most companies do... namely trying to make a buck by screwing over the planet and public.
Re:I'm betting ... (Score:4, Insightful)
google.ORG not google.com (Score:5, Informative)
X-Prize (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That would be more effective.
The X-Prize people are already doing it for autos (Score:2)
http://www.xprize.org/xprizes/automotive_x_prize.
right... (Score:2, Funny)
PHEV already exist (Score:5, Interesting)
* The advanced hybrid vehicle research center at University of California-Davis (founded and directed by CalCars advisor Prof. Andy Frank) has converted nine sedans and SUVs into PHEVs that have repeatedly won prizes in US Energy Department-sponsored "FutureTruck" competitions. Dr. Frank, widely known as the "Father of the Plug-In Hybrid," has been working on PHEVs for thirty years, and building them with students for more than a decade.
* CalCars produced the world's first plug-in Prius (the PRIUS+) in 2004. Since then a number of companies have emerged to offer conversions for sale to consumers and fleet buyers, and CalCars has worked to support a growing open-source conversion movement.
* In 2003-04, the US Marine Corps demonstrated a diesel-electric PHEV-20 HUMVEE. (The military likes the silent, zero-heat "footprint" in all-electric mode, and appreciates saving fuel that can cost well over $100/gallon to deliver to front lines.) This advanced Shadow RST-V (Reconnaissance, Surveillance and Targetting Vehicle PHEV, built by General Dynamics, uses lightweight lithium-ion batteries and motors in four wheel hubs. See details and photos and more descriptions.
* Long Island, NY has converted a city bus to a plug in hybrid with 40 miles of all-electric range. Many more heavy-duty vehicle conversions (including three recycling dump-trucks that will run in "silent" mode for pickups) are in progress.
Re:PHEV already exist (Score:4, Insightful)
The commercialization of plug-in hybrids is completely dependent on the ability to manufacture what are now top of the line lithium ion batteries for 40-70% less than they currently cost. I believe this is the focus of Google's money. 10 mill isn't going to get you anywhere with fuel cells (which have been 5 years away for 30 years).
Today's hybrids are not going to seriously dent our dependence on oil, plug-in hybrids absolutely could. Unless a major car company announces a release date for a retail plug-in by next year, I'm going to buy or build a Ford Escape plug-in conversion.
Re:PHEV already exist (Score:5, Informative)
Clearly, there is something lacking with getting a plugin Prius to market, but it isn't technical.
Oh boy oh boy oh boy!!!! (Score:5, Funny)
If microsoft made cars... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If Microsoft made cars, they wouldn't need jump-starting.
Oh wait...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Wait a minute... (Score:5, Insightful)
That doesn't make any sense at all. It makes so little sense, I can't even think of an analogy close enough to what they said to properly mock them.
Shedding a bit of light (Score:2)
If anybody can figure out how to coordinate the use of millions of hybrid-car batter
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:5, Interesting)
How about Red Hat? They make a Linux distribution, so certainly they must be good at distribution. How about Starbucks? They are used to distributing energy to people, so this should translate to hybrid cars. What about McDonalds? They...oh just stfu slugo.
Why does every Slashdot story contributor wander off into his own little world of conjecture? Can't we just stick to the story? If you want to comment on the subject, just put it as a reply. Oh yeah, because no one would see it after it got modded down.
It's there money but personally I would (Score:3, Insightful)
Better batteries and fuel cells.
an efficient car takes a lot of resources for different parts, so the research money gets spread thin amongst many different technologies.
Relax, it's just an opinion.
Wha? (Score:4, Insightful)
Which forces me to ask why "companies that manage the flow of information are well placed to handle that task"?
You'd think that the power companies, at most, would need to update their billing software. WTF does managing the flow of information have to do with a $1 million grant? Am I missing something else?
As an aside, one of the continuing problems with electric vehicles is battery temperature.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes: the need for the managers of a publicly held company to come up with a plausible rationalization to give their shareholders for spending $1 million on something that (a) isn't part of their business plan, and (b) isn't a standard philanthropic/charitable (aka tax deductible) cause.
Re:Wha? (Score:4, Funny)
Information = knowledge
Knowledge = Power
Power = Electricity
Therefore: Information = Electricity
Google will become the waterwheel of the 21st century.
Swi
I couldn't start my hybrid car... (Score:2)
Another way to save the planet... (Score:5, Funny)
Google-EV1 (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=ev1&start=0&ie=u tf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en- US:official [google.com.au]
Seems to me the oil companies are just making sure we keep using oil and make sure no competing infrastructure exists to provide vehicles with energy.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a lot closer to what happened to the EV-1 than some "oil company conspiracy".
All those lead-acid batteries might cause cancer. Funny, I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop on the Lithium-Ion batteries in hybrid cars. So far, nobody has done much of anything and there have been very few hybrids junked as end-of-life. I would expect someone to s
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Google-EV1 (Score:5, Informative)
In contrast, lithium is a fairly rare and expensive, volatile "metal" and is combined in lithium-ion batteries cathodes [nec-tokin.com] with other moderately rare elements from simple raw molecules through chemical and mechanical processes. It is therefore reasonable to expect that the process for recycling lithium-ion batteries would be substantially more productive, lucrative, and worthwhile.
Apples, oranges.
Plastics are somewhere in between the two. They are often created from a finite non-renewable resource (for which cost is increasing, but nowhere near the cost of lithium) but based on moderately long complex molecules using processes which usually aren't easily reversible. So often, like with paper, you can't go back to the source materials you used to create the plastic. Thus, as the price of oil increases through greater scarcity, plastic use will substitute with types or plastics that can be created without oil (and hopefully which also can be broken down more easily), or substitution will occur with other products that can be more cheaply produced or recycled (aluminium, cardboard, tinfoil hats...)
In the long run, the increasing price of oil will be good for the environment, although it will cause a lot of pain on the way as economies adjust to increasing average costs for energy.
It's nuketastic (Score:5, Insightful)
That's great and all, and I'm all in favor of utilizing the zillions of acres of rooftop in the US and around the world to accommodate solar cells. But if you're going to move the automobile infrastructure to electricity and away from petroleum, you're going to have to build more nuclear power plants.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nevermind that all this is miniscule and has little to no effect on global warming, you're making heat, stop it!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I wouldn't be so sure about that... many environmentalists are starting to consider nuclear power [washingtonpost.com] as a way to address global warming. I expect the movement towards nuclear power will continue as the climate change problem gets worse, unless some better power technology appears.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course we're going to have to build more nuclear power plants. Anyone who spends as much as a few hours looking at numbers and modeling scenarios (i.e. virtually no one) knows that. Even if you assume that Americans and Canadians can cut per capita energy usage in half (to the level of France or Japan), more nukes looks like part of the equati
Re: (Score:2)
Now, let's say you cover 2 square meters with panels (about the roof of a large car, or maybe roof + part of hood on a small car). Peak solar irradiance is
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Because the USA's industrial and residential power demands far outstrip what can be produced from reliable renewable resources without causing substantial environmental damage that the Greens find no more acceptable than nuclear power. That power demand is increasing, not decreasing, and failure to meet it will, as we saw in California a few years ago, cause brown outs, rotating black outs, and, eventually, deaths in the most vulnerable segments o
why not hydrogen? (Score:4, Insightful)
In iceland, there are hydrogen stations (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:why not hydrogen? (Score:4, Interesting)
Take this seriously for a minute (Score:4, Interesting)
The article is very long on fluff and does not give up a lot of details which makes it very hard to read between the lines or even to read much into the article. This is not something that aligns itself with Google's "core business" so one must ask why is Google doing this?
Almost everyone will agree that the folks at Google are smart. Frankly they have not comitted a lot of money. It could be that they are just funding this for the goodwill (and publicity) that they will gain. From the amount of money that they have pledged, this could be the only reason. Aligning yourself with an energy issue that everyone cares about is worth a million or even ten million to a company with the reach (and pocketbook) of a company like Google. Google is certainly doing "no evil" with this.
Going back to the part where I said the folks at Google are smart makes me think that this may be something a bit more. Something that they can justify simply for the goodwill and publicity that the effort generates but can maybe give them something more. It seems like this is how they almost always work. In this light, I am wondering if this is a "testing of the water" of the energy venture capital business. Low risk (with billions in available cash one or ten million is not a big wager) with huge potential rewards if the smart folks at Google pick the right project(s) to fund.
The smart people at Google come from a wide range of sciences and specialties. If you put the right people together to review the requests for funding, they stand a fair to middlin chance of picking the right one(s).
Google is indeed smart.
Better headline: Bubble 2.0 (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know about the rest of you, but I can't wait for the crash.
Re: (Score:2)
Crash? What gives you the idea there is going to be a crash?
Is it because Google isnt generating earnings at a rate of 70% Year over Year... no?
Is it because their rival search engines have had such good news [yahoo.com] lately... no?
Is it because $500 is a lot of money [yahoo.com]for a stock... no?
So out of curiosity, what bubble are you talking about? And do you have anything substantive other than the hot air coming out of your mouth to back it up?
Charge time is the issue (Score:4, Interesting)
One manufacturer (ZAP) is claiming their new ZAP-X car, based on a Lotus chassis, can get 350 miles with a charge time of 10 minutes using new nanotechnology batteries. Aerovironment (designers of the EV-1) has independently tested these batteries and claim they deliver as promised. But who knows, it could still be hype.
If Google can focus their attention on reducing charge times, then a lot of the problems associated with electric cars go away.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The max time spent: less than 15 mins.
Max effort spent: Lifting up the hose and inserting it into my car.
Anything beyond this effort is NOT likely to succeed because for 50 years that's what we have been trained to do.
Humans are loathe to accept change especially when it drasticall
A serious thought, for the moment... (Score:3, Insightful)
Coal fired power plants, which burn a non-renewable and expendable resource, release tons of "greenhouse gases" into the atmosphere. With Nuclear power, we know precisely where every single molecule of waste material goes, which is into a barrel, encased in ceramic, and stored away in a facility designed to last 5x longer than the radiological half-life of the waste material stored there.
The fear of nuclear energy has its rational sources. First is the environmental movement that fought against atmospheric testing of nuclear warheads during the cold war era. I applaud those efforts. What also happened is during this same period is we were taught what to do in case of a nuclear attack from Russia, which by every measure would have been horrific. Add in a 3 Mile Island and a Chernobyl and you've got an entire generation of Americans that has transferred the horror and fear of Nuclear weapons over to everything Nuclear. Fact is that 3 Mile Island, while it did release radon gas is not a catastrophe that even approaches the generational fear that it inspires and Chernobyl is a classic Soviet-Era f**k-up-cover-up situation. Its funny that nothing is ever said of the 100+ nuclear reactors currently in use in America, or that ALL of France is currently powered by Nuclear Power. With hundreds upon hundreds of plants in use throughout the globe running for all these years, all with nary an incident to report... What are we so afraid of?
Charging a battery takes electricity. Electricity that is generated from anything other than nuclear, wind, or solar power is a net negative on the 'greenhouse gases' scale. Of all those energy sources, the only one viable for long term is nuclear. Sorry, but it is a fact.
A renewable resource is one that can be replaced, like a tree. The lumber that is used to build houses, the wood that is used to make paper is all generated from (ghasp!) a renewable resource. What drives me nuts is that these multinational corporations that produce lumber and paper harvest it ALL from their OWN TREE FARMS. They own millions of acres of land where they methodically grow their trees on a rotational basis where they harvest the same spot every 20 years. Oh, and your Christmas tree; it is grown on a tree farm as well. To say that paper production or wood production depletes our natural resources is the same thing as saying that eating french fries depletes our national supply of potatoes.
I'm an expert (of sorts) in document printing, specifically with optical document security and printing of security papers. A small printing company I work with consumes 28 tons of paper every single day. They know exactly where the wood pulp comes from. You don't make paper from just any old wood pulp (although you could). The trees are bred and grown specifically for use in making paper. But some folks out there want you to believe that they are forever seeking a new rainforest to chop down to consume their insatiable desire for more wood pulp.
Uh, sorry folks, trees, yeah, trees are a renewable resource.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Uranium fuel, the size of a softball, will power a nuclear reactor for 20 years...
At this rate, we currently have enough uranium to power reactors until the projected end of our solar system.
Any questions?
Why not slot cars instead? (Score:3, Interesting)
Adding slots adds a few more benefits. Now that the car knows where the slot is, it knows where the road is so you can get on the highway and turn the driving over to the car. You can read, sleep or do whatever on your commute. You get the benefit of trains combined with the flexibility of cars.
Since the power source is not coal or gas, the air in the cities clears. If you ever have seen Los Angeles on a clear day, you know why people wanted to move there in the 30's - it's really, really pretty when you can see 60 miles. The cities would become attractive places to live again.
It just requires the will to electrify the roads and we can tell the Saudis to go to hell. Forget hybrids - give me slot cars instead.
Re:Why hybrids? (Score:5, Informative)
Batteries can be r-e-c-y-c-l-e-d.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Only the knock-off electrics or the ones cruising on 20 year old tech use lead acid. Heck a company in Texas makes a Li-ion battery pack and motor that can make a Mini cooper beat the crap out of a Z06 vette off the line ea
Re:Why hybrids? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why hybrids? (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/659/ [ecogeek.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And a metal tin with a mixture of petrol, petrol vapour and air is *what* exactly? From one of the linked video clips, the pressure in the tank is only around 4300psi (300 bar or so), which is about the pressure in a normal LPG tank when it's full.
Re:Why hybrids? (Score:5, Insightful)
Mmm, diesel hybrids.....
Aside from the battery issues, what is wrong with hybrids? AFAIK they're not particularly slow, ineffeicient (diesel hybrids can be pretty darn efficient), OR thirsty. I mean the whole POINT of them is that they are efficient (for city driving at least).
They're "complex" mostly because they're new and most mechanics don't know how to work on them. The idea is to get more out there and standardize them and make them less novel.
How are hybrids and evolutionary dead end if electric cars will eventually be the future? Hybrids will drive battery development, electric motor development, etc. Seems like a natural step to me. Where do you get off calling it a dead end.
Sticking with a purely combustion drive train the dead end.
-matthew
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They're "complex" mostly because they're new and most mechanics don't know how to work on them.
No, they're complex because there's two entire extra systems in there -- the alternator/motor and the coupling between the electric and gasoline power.
GM had an exhibit for awhile that placed all of the parts in a mainstream car, all of the parts in a hybrid car, and all of the parts in a hypothetical fuel-cell car. the first was a good twice the length of the second, which was a comparable length to the third.
Re:Why hybrids? (Score:4, Insightful)
Or, in less metaphorical terms, they are the bridging technology that makes the transition to electics possible when the battery technology improves. When the first really economical, environmentally reasonable battery comes along, it will face the chicken-and-egg problem of cars first or charging stations first. Hybrids wiil solve that.
Re:Why hybrids? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
"what hybrid car exactly have you been driving? at the very least they are more efficient than most of the cars on the road and certainly any SUV that people drive."
Sure, but not more efficient then a 3 cylinder gas powered car like the Chevy Sprint.
Cheaper to make, more efficient use of energy, cheap to maintain on
Re:Why hybrids? (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes and No. Most people can get away with one car and a bicycle or velomobile for their daily short commutes. adding electric assist would greatly improve your distance. Every wingle other country on the planet has more bikes on the roads than cars.
Americans are just too lazy and fat. They would rather drive 2 blocks to get ice cream instead of riding a bike or god forbid... walk there.
Cars ARE a necessary evil for trips over 10 miles. and even then I guarentee I can find at least 1000 people that will disagree with that and mention that public transit like busses and trains will get you there.
But I'm like you, I cant stand sitting next to some icky poor person or not look like I'm rich by pulling into work in my Mercedes.
so I ride in to work on a $4500.00 recumbent. I'm hoping to buy a velomobile [go-one.us] by the end of this summer for all weather commuting (yes even winter) simply with the money I am saving on Heath club membership, gas and insurance.
Side benefit, I stay in way better shape than everyone else, my cost to commute is zero, and I get to be even more smug than the prius drivers.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
battery acid is a mixture of H2SO4 and water, it doesn't wear out like you are suggesting, if there is H2SO4 and or water in it, it will work. furthermore, it can
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Diesel is a great start to help us get there in the meantime.
Re:Why hybrids? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why hybrids? (Score:4, Informative)
Have you ever driven a hybrid? Mine is plenty fast and gets great gas mileage.
I will say that the current cars are only the start, and the technology will get better with each new generation.
Re:Why even bother with Hybrid Cars (Score:5, Insightful)
Hybrids are more efficient. Non hybrids have no way of recapturing the kinetic energy of the vehicle. Hybrids can capture and store that energy for use later. Also, a car that is cruising on the highway that only needs 30 hp to maintain speed could get that from an electric motor. If you were to run the car off electric only, then switch to gasoline-engine only (and recharging what was used when running on electric) and repeating, you would get better mileage than just cruising on gasoline (also note, this would not be effective at saving energy for a diesel car). Another thing about hybrids is that they generally size the engine and motor to match an equivalent gasoline only offering. That is, the gasoline engine is sized smaller, but the total available power is the same. That results in increased efficiency. And yes, I know there are ones like the Accord where the hybrid offers better acceleration than any other offering, but those are not the highest sellers, nor what people think of with hybrids. But even then, they are more efficient than if there were an offering with a just petrol engine which matched the acceleration.
Add to that the plug-in hybrids (which could spend much of their lives as if they are electric-only), and you have some very efficient choices.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What am I missing?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You're not missing anything. 100% electric vehicles are where we're going, and it isn't batteries that are going to get us there, either. Hydrogen is way too hard to transport, store, and generate; ethanol requires the same wasteful tanker from here to there that gasoline does, plus puts an additional load on the food supply. Oil itself is far too useful to put in cars as fuel in any form for any longer than we absolutely have to.
A few years, maybe a decade, and ultracaps [ideaspike.com] will simp
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why even bother with Hybrid Cars (Score:5, Informative)
1. The grid can handle the new load.
Re:Why even bother with Hybrid Cars (Score:4, Interesting)
Non-hybrids have about a century of refinement behind their current performance.
Getting hybrids into the production stream can pave the way for better hybrids, gradually reducing the need to run the internal combustion engine for support. Until energy storage tech improves, the gas engine "crutch" is among reasonable workarounds.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why even bother with Hybrid Cars (Score:5, Informative)
At current, one of the biggest problems with making a mass-market electric car is that they take too long to charge up. You can easily make an electric car with a range that matches a car with a full tank of gas, but once that power is used up, it takes too long to charge up. Even if you build a car with lithium ion or lithium polymer batteries which charge faster than standard NiMH batteries (and are also more expensive and don't age as well) the charge time is still a decent amount of time. Plug-in hybrids could potentially solve this allowing you to run your car as an electric car for your everyday driving around stuff and then being able to run on gas in situations where you wouldn't want or be able to spend the time to charge up your car. This would provide a way to get electric cars on the road and in wide use without waiting for other technologies to develop (i.e. better batteries, smaller/denser ultracapacitors, hydrogen fuel cells, etc.).
Solar cells need a lot of work... and politics (Score:5, Insightful)
To achieve a goal of getting to 10% of PV power in one year, you'd need to put in 10% * 10 = 100% of current electrical power. That would require first doubling existing electrical generation capacity. Even a 2% PV goal requires 20% of current generation capacity which is still way too high (and 2% per year is hardly going to make any significant inroads - it would not even address growth).
Clearly PV will only ever work with a huge mindshift that goes away from curent silicon-based strategies to a new silicon-based strategy, or radically different strategy, with a far better payback. There are alternatives, but they lack funding and support eg. http://masseynews.massey.ac.nz/2007/Press_Releases /04-04-07.html [massey.ac.nz] This is not the only such different approach - there have been quite a few through the years.
The major labs are still focussed on silicon and high performance and fighting over conversion efficiency rather than $/W which is the important measurement for general usage. Until $/W is targetted as a primaray goal, these technologies will get nowhere useful.
Perhaps it is telling that many major oil companies (BP, Shell and others), with a vested interest in preserving the status quo, are directing a significant portion of the industry research.
Re: (Score:2)
If what I hear in my lunch clique is any indication, you're right. Oft mentioned is a documentary named "Who Killed the Electric Car?". Supposedly, GM already has some pretty impressive technology developed, but they canned it (even destroyed a number of cars that had already been built). At one point it was mandated by
Re: (Score:2)
SUprise, must people don't know google uses a cluster.
I wonder if the moved into some of the new mainframes. Some of which could run 90,000 machines in memory. Seems it would cost a lot less when power is considered.
Re:Google and energy (Score:5, Interesting)
Google has reduced the energy consumption at its giant data centers by more than 50 percent compared with "standard" data centers, using evaporative cooling for its servers and other means, said Urs Hoelzle, a senior vice president of operations. At the same time, he admitted, Google is growing so fast that its energy consumption each year is actually increasing.
Hopefully not (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hopefully not (Score:5, Insightful)
For those who like details, A123 batteries kill Tesla's argument that smaller batteries just die faster, and don't save money. Small A123 batteries will last longer than your car, and never need to be replaced. They also have way lower series resistance, and can push one of those tiny 300HP induction motors http://acpropulsion.com/ [acpropulsion.com] with as much current than they can take. There's simply no reason that a modern plug-in Prius couldn't leave a Porche in the dust (ok, accept for those small hard tires, and crummy handling). By plugging into the grid, we give ourselves the freedom to produce energy however makes the most sense, whether solar, hydro, nuclear, gas, wind, or (God forbid) coal, oil sands, and oil shale. And if this sounds like an add for A123, it turns out that they're simply the first to market among many who will shortly sell competing batteries. Google continues to show some real vision!
However, I have an issue with all this (Score:5, Insightful)
But yeah, Google doeas continue to show innovation.
The Problem with Trucks (Score:5, Interesting)
Cars are (relatively) low hanging fruit. You still need range, but in truth, if you can offer a car that for the first 40 miles runs off the grid and then switches over to gas, you have just made a car that will spend 95% of its time on the grid and make a dent in the problem. For a 'first 40 miles is on the grid' truck on the other hand doesn't even begin to touch the problem nor entice any trucking companies to buy your product.
I am not suggesting that shipping is not a major environmental problem. It is. That said, it is a problem that is much farther out of reach then the issue of personal transportation. To fix shipping, it is going to take a major technological breakthrough that really is not yet on the horizon. Cars on the other hand can be tackled with the tools of today and have a significant environmental impact.
Re:Hopefully not (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope you're being ironic. The US corn industry is the richest bunch of corrupt thieves in the country. They put the RIAA and MPAA to shame. Not only do they get government subsidies so they can undercut the world market price, but their competitors are kept out of the US market by tariffs. Ever wonder why "sugar" is spelled "high fructose corn syrup" these days?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I blame the "G
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps it was made for Saudi Arabia and it did not have the emissions systems of American Cars? My Cousin moved to California and had to spend a bunches of money to get her car up to CA standards and her mileage sucked thereafter.
I'm sure Detroit could improve their CAFE standards if they could dump the environmental requirements.