This is Herman's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Herman's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Herman
Recent Activity
You could eliminate >90% of the "toxic fumes" for 10% of the price difference per bus. The result of buying a few halo electric buses is that the net overall exposure to any school's bus riding population will be worse than a much larger fleet purchase of Propane buses. The longer that states and municipalities throw money at inefficient application of electrification technology (>$200k delta PER BUS, somehow oddly more or less matching the subsidy), the longer the economics will lag. And the accpetance of these things as "nasty details" is to tolerate corrosive and wasteful procurement behaviors. Those bureaucratic processes will never be 100% free of corruption -- human nature prevents it -- but waving off gross excess as a cost of "saving lives" is a bad judgment.
"How do low budget school districts afford these?" Largely they can't -- nor can a "high-budget" district, really. The exception is areas that have magnanimous incentives, like California's HVIP that awards US$220,000 PER BUS. https://www.californiahvip.org/eligible-technologies/#your-clean-vehicles Of course one of the reasons that there are so many rent-seekers in this business is that the taxpayer funds are so lavish. Currently EDI has an agreement with Adomani, whose sole job is to help districts understand incentive applications and line up the buyer with a dealer. For this vital job Adomani receives a cut. They are MANDATORY participants in the process for Blue Bird class C and D e-School Buses. BTW Adomani have no engineering talent on their staff of 14 people and will book $6M in sales in 2018 being an incentive middleman. Not enough for ya? The company, which is unprofitable and burns a couple $million cash on the $6M in sales, has a market capitalization of $50M and PLENTY of shares held by key execs (all former school bus salesmen). But by all means we should subsidize the hell out of them For The Children.
Energy per pax use in short duration flight with vertical flight phases is egregiously higher than ground transport.
Translation of McKinsey's point: We've written a paper that a couple of your company's Board members and without doubt some ambitious, scheming executives will bring to the fore in the next big Oparations review. You'll all be tasked to report on your progress in Digital Manufacturing. You can count on a shrill EA to one of the Group execs will be at the head of the DigiMan Initiative and yu'll have a whole NEW set of metrics to report. Need help? Well, not to toot our own horns but [HOOOOOONK] we here at McKinsey have the consulting staff to help for a few $M (to start). You'll see a partner 24 hrs from your first call (but never agin unti the next contract mod). We'll lay out a complex and plan to get you to an indeterminate milestone and immediately fly out a staff of new Junior folks (business class, of course) fresh out of B-school to begin billing right away. The end.
Once again, is a puzzlement. Over and over the most vocal critics of the global auto industry predict the ascendance of the EV, the death of current brands and the sweeping end of ICE. And soon, like by 2025. The prophets like Musk and Seba and Munger and.... etc lead the cry and insist on inevitability whose only analog is the smart phone, and even that sluggish by comparison. But how dare we all stand by and not subsidize, underwrite, loan, ad nauseam! Why? Why does anybody need to assist a tide that will transform, disrupt (add VC lingo of your choice) at unimaginable pace?
Is it becoming clear now that virtually none of the OECD countries will achieve Paris Accord targets? I mean, really: all the sturm und drang over US policy was fun and gave everyone the chance to bloviate righteously, but the central issue of the non - effectiveness of the whole bloody "treaty" went unmentioned and certainly unresolved.
"'Bandaids' we have put on the internal combustion engine over the last 50+ years" Depends on your perspective. The heart-pounding Chevy Camaro SS of 1968 had a horribly peaky 396cu.in. engine that developed a claimed 375hp V-8 in the golden days of unverified claimed crankshaft peak HP. With great skill it could be piloted 0-60 in 6 sec and drank premium leaded fuel at a rate of 12mpg avg, 8-10 in town, with a light foot. And BELCHED particulates, NOx etc. The bottom-of-the-line Camaro today is a 2L (122cu.in.) 4cyl rated at 275hp, but which propels a car only 275 lb lighter (and MUCH safer) than it's half-century old counterpart 0-60 in 5.4 sec. Much lower octane unleaded fuel is burned at less than half the rate (20city/30hwy) in a much more rigorous test than the ad hoc methods of yesteryear. Did I mention emissions are in some cases two orders of magnitude lower and engine life is much longer? Band-aids? I would love to get Band-aids like this. I'd be dead-lifting 1200lb.
CHINA?!? You a funny guy, Harv. "China and India are going to be the growth engines of the global refining industry as they are set to add the most refining capacity of all countries over the period 2018-2022, according to data and analytics company GlobalData." All the green efforts notwithstanding, China is on a path to burn more fossil fuels than you thought possible. BTW, HD: how 'bout Canada O Canada? How are you guys gonna do in the great Paris accord o' nations?
So about the same as other similar e-trucks built by solvent companies. Good to know before Workhorse enters BK protection.
Tony Seba already said that US consumer and business buyers of LDV's would not buy a single new fossil-fueled car by the time 2025 closes out. So I don't know what the problem is with all these naysayers. No, but seriously, folks: virtually NO OECD country will meet its Paris accord targets in 2025.
Waitwaitwait... "Tesla network", ready right now ("now" was 2017)., worth $30-40 share, said fawning analysts. So now GM is worth like $80, right? No? Every day is more evidence of the Tesla pumpery and all the old prayerful Teslacolytes lie shameful and silent.
How do you do this without building tents in your parking lot? Well, congrats anyway, VW. It's no Alien Dreadnought but OK for a dying business. /sarc
With the acquisition by Cummins, perhaps EDI will now be unburdened from the Adomani lampreys that plaster their names on EDI products.
SJC, yup, that's actually the most rational, since the running environment is unlikely to rquire AWD.
Insanely excessive power for this application. Look at Fisker's site: a vehicle concept roughly the size of a Sprinter that allows for standing passengers. Once you face reality and understand that top speed of 150km/h or more and 0-100km/hr acceleration in <7sec are beyond intemperate, the packaging "need" for in-wheel motors comes into question. A small 50kW e-axle front and rear with torque vectoring is plenty sufficient. and would not meaningfully affect internal space/floor height considerations. Honestly the more I see of the "new" Fisker, the more I expect to be seeing trailers for Fisker II: The Liquidation in the near future.
(1) 7M is a nonsense number. It presumes there is an immediately affordable set of energy solutions that does no harm whatsoever. The net excess death rate for the use of the present fuel mix is not knowable at all, and may even be negative. (2) What is the excess death rate in countries with limited access to dispatchable energy? (3) How much higher productivity occurs due to readily-available and affordable energy? (4) The protien content in grain is directly related to the abilty of soil and/or dry matter mass of the crop to maintain an adequate nitrogen content to maintain protein content. This, in turn, is related mostly to yield considerations (and resultant farmer behavior) than almost anything else. Moreover it's complete horsepoop to posit that plant husbandry will somehow become motionless in a future of higher CO2 concentration because apparently when CO2 goes up everything gets worserer and worserer. (5) See (4). But anyhow, Harvey, you still haven't gotten to the point: you make a specific economic assertion (saves money in 12 years) that's basically just whatever popped into your head that moment (must be the CO2 blinding your reason). Your only answer is that your assertions are world-saving and disagreement implies baby-hating villany. BS. By the way? Just by putting question marks at the end? of your assertions? as you often do? does not mean that you're excused? from actual reasoning?
Well, political nonsense rules on GCC once again. Here's how the discussion goes... (1) (a) Advocate for all-BEV anything or other perceived goodness says "it saves money"; (b) another states that bus companies have the audacity to charge slightly above fully-burdened cost for a feature not required by law (2) Rational view suggests (a) subsidized 12-yr "payback" that does not include cost of capital is not actually a payback, and (b) including the cost of additional features in a product price is not evil. (3) Trump!!! Reagan!!!!! Resist!!!!!!!! What a waste of bandwidth. GCC presents useful information; sadly there are people who can't contain their political zeal on ANY topic and thus they compulsively pollute the discussion.
One more time with this charging rate question… 300 miles (imperial units today, thank you) requires about 75kWh in a small and efficient vehicle at modest speeds and small HVAC demand. So 75kWh in 5 minutes = 900kW; with a 98% charging efficiency, that’s 918kW going into the connection. How will this happen? How will 18kW of waste energy be rejected at the small delta-T between the battery maximum and the atmosphere? (Obviously some sort of heat pump, I know, but this is a non-trivial implementation at such a power level.)
(1) "Costs less over 12 years". Yes, with no cost-of-capital in the calculation and inclusve of incentives that apparently fall out of the sky, this is true. Which means it isn't. (2) You found out that labor, hardware, warranty reserve and liability overhead to install 54 sets of restraints that are going to be subjected to mostly unobservable K-12 student damage for 200 days a year is under $200 each. That's a pretty good deal. I'd charge more if I were BlueBird et al.
Stupid Daimler running dozens of production intent vehicles in varied environments when they could just be visionary like Tesla and just sell beta prototypes to customers. Sad.
So where are the scammers Adomani in all of this? Notably absent, much to the better.
Major distribution centers for Walmart and Amazon already power their material handling equipment with hydrogen (no more propane or SLA's, no battery charging roms or battery spares and maintenance). They can make the change probably by just adding a couple of stations. FedEx has already acquired (and is running) H2-powered aircraft GSE (tugs, etc.) so it's not that big of a dela for them. I have not been a Hydrogen advocate, and I'm still a bit skeptical. But My skepticism is waning.