First Name | Barrington |
---|---|
Last Name | Daltrey |
Email Address | basd1 @ fastbk.com |
Affiliation | |
Subject | failure to pursue electric vehicle mandate |
Comment | As a former EV-1 driver, I know that electric vehicles work. CARB staff knows that as well, based on the many whitepapers and other research they have produced. Were it not for GM's decision to terminate my EV-1 lease, crush the car and place it on a pyramid of crushed EV-1s in the desert of Arizona, I would still be driving an EV-1. The car was in essentially the same condition the day it left my garage as the day it arrived. But again, CARB knows this too. It knows that the necessary electricity was clean, efficient and cheap ($1.50 to charge the car). Toyota RAV-4 electrics are known to have achieved 100,000 miles on a single NiMH battery pack. And yet, those batteries are "no longer available" due apparently to Chevron's decision to sit on the patent(s). Would it not be appropriate to use an eminent domain type action to secure the use of these patents -- and batteries -- in this time of public need? Society created intellectual property rights solely to benefit the public and encourage invention of new technologies -- it was never intended that patents be used to prevent the public from having access to new technologies. Alternatively, CARB and government agencies could encourage "Open Source" patent develop in the future. The public funds a great deal of research, and then magically, the patents developed always seem be "belong" to private interests apparently unable or unwilling to put them on the market. In any event, as a purely political decision, CARB decided to run with the bamboozlement of the vehicle companies by which they assured us the future was all about fuel cells. Of course, this was part of the standard industry delaying tactic -- and we all knew it. The "grail" of better vehicles is always 10 years away. Better batteries are "10 years away." Fuel cell technology is "10 years away." Ten years away, so that in the meantime, it is unencumbered business as usual. In the meantime, Hummers, luxury pickup trucks and very large SUVs are the hardware du jour. This is not a "good faith" industry response -- it is laughing in the face of anyone who wishes to improve the environment (which to some degree is the vast majority of the public, despite their love for living-rooms on wheels). I understand the overall fuel mileage of the US fleet has gone down in the past 10 years. Simply discouraging these giant vehicles would do more for the economy and the environment than any of the other "just wait for fuel cells" nonsense that is used to divert attention from the real issues. The US need not import any oil -- if drivers merely made sane choices. Fuel cells, of course, never made any sense as a dodge away from intelligently designed electric vehicles. Why? Because fuel cell design is essentially a hybrid electric vehicle. It has a battery pack and electric motor for its drive system, and adds an exotic additional system to generate additional electricity. Functionally, no different then adding a small gas or diesel powered generation system. Even in its most wistful, forward-looking version, no proposed fuel cell generate sufficient "on-demand" electricity to accelerate the car, meaning that a battery powered motive system was always intended. Again, CARB staff knows all of this, since some of the very best studies and literature have been produced by CARB and/or are available from CARB. Somewhere between the CARB staff and the CARB actual board members, all pretense of intelligent decision-making evaporates and we enter a spin-zone of nonsense. Good heavens, let's get rid of all those domestic fireplaces and California will be safe for Hummers! It must be astoundingly difficult to work as a CARB staffer, knowing that your best efforts and research will go out the window because you do not have the support of the actual Board and the real decisions will be based on hackneyed political maneuvering. And, in a rather significant irony, many regulations raise the bar for entry into the vehicle business -- which prevents any but the established vehicle companies from offering new technologies in a production form. The saddest part of all this is that both the economy and the environment are suffering the consequences of leaving decision-making to industry "mavens" who think they (and manipulated "market forces") should decide the course. The short term gains for their individual stock portfolios is now translating into long term damage to their own companies and the US economy in general. Had CARB followed the path it charted in the early 90s, we would have perhaps avoided both a few wars and the impending economic meltdown. But, naturally, the new argument will be, "maybe we could have afforded these things back then -- but now it's economically impossible!" CARB has adequately established the consequences of lack of vision and constant nay-saying. Perhaps it's time for a new dynamic. |
Attachment | |
Original File Name | |
Date and Time Comment Was Submitted | 2008-03-08 07:48:36 |
If you have any questions or comments please contact Clerk of the Board at (916) 322-5594.