<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.bnet.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on Breakthrough could lead to 732-mile electric car battery ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6791]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6791/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-06-20T02:11:19-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I've a better idea]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6791-95609]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I strongly believe that the US National Debt could be paid off, by building breeder reactors as a matter of National Security, an agency like the BPA or TVA (or Britain's defunct CEGB) owning them, and charging per kWh for the electricity just twice what the actual cost of producing it would be. It would be cheap enough, IMHO, to put wind turbines, oil, coal, and even gas out of business. Of course if we required oil, coal, and gas to be no more filthy than nuclear, even the present generation of nuclear would put them out of business.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6791-95609]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[SmartAlbert]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 13 Mar 2013 10:43:31 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Non-rechargeable, high Capacity]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6791-95627]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I have read that it is possible to use energy sources to provide a battery that although not traditionally rechargeable, can be refurbished as a fully charged unit. It was claimed that such a technology could be significantly more efficient than present practice.However, I do not think that wind turbines or any of the popular &quot;renewables&quot; could replace oil, gas, or even alcohol. Nuclear is theway to go, and coutries that have had  high rates of success with it did it as a nationally owned resource. In the USA, the only major mode of transportation that is oil-free is our nuclear powered capital ships, owned by a Government Agency, called the US Navy.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6791-95627]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[SmartAlbert]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 13 Mar 2013 10:35:45 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Thank you!]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6791-95615]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I, too, dislike the sloppy use of terms like &quot;exponential&quot; almost as much as I scoff at &quot;incredible&quot; and &quot;unbelievable&quot; and &quot;legendary&quot;. I'd replace every &quot;legendary&quot; with &quot;mythical&quot;, and the other two with &quot;implausible&quot; or &quot;improbable&quot;.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6791-95615]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[SmartAlbert]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 13 Mar 2013 10:28:27 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Not Appealing Enough]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6791-95607]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[The oil companies make a great pretence of backing solar, wind, and biofuels. I am quite sure that they have scientists smart enough to have reckoned, as I do, that these technologies are no threat to their business. But I do suspect that some of the &quot;environmental&quot; opposition to nuclear civilian power, is clandestinely encouraged by the fossil carbon lobby.If I were given the mission to put oil, coal and fractural gas out of business, I'd do it with Small Modular breeder reactors of the U-238 -&gt; Pu-239 type, and put enough money into Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors ( Th-232 -&gt; U-233) to have them deployed in perhaps ten years.If we don't, China will be taking care of the world's energy demands in fifty years, using technology thet the USA pioneered.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6791-95607]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[SmartAlbert]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 13 Mar 2013 10:23:51 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I Wouldn't call it hate]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6791-95606]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[The logical consequences of private megacorporate enterprise are quite obnoxious enough to cause oil companies to behave badly.  I can say that the self interests of oil companies are inimical  to leaving a decent world for our great grandchildren.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6791-95606]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[SmartAlbert]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 13 Mar 2013 10:15:50 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Exxon or Shell]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6791-91885]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Exxon's recent efforts to advance battery technology are in direct contrast to thier historic (and Chevon) efforts to shelve and / or agressively pursue legal infringment of owned technology.   Much has been written about big oil's suppression of alternative energy technology.  Not much was good.  Social / political pressures may now beginning to influence big oil ito being part of the solution and not being the problem.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6791-91885]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[rdrcfo]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2013 13:56:57 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Not sure where you live...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6791-76967]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[but where I live, a 10-20 mile range is just at the fringe of getting me to work from my home.  That's totally unacceptable for me and for thousands of people in the US. There's no public transportation option to get me from my house to my work, so that point is moot.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6791-76967]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[BrewmanNH]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 28 Aug 2012 08:07:42 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Hate is a false flag]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6791-70629]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Hate is a good word to remove reason from the debate.  There are some unhinged people out there, but by far the thick bell curve of oil opposition is not based on hate.  It's based on facts as they affect self interests.  If your drinking water comes from the Ogallala aquifer, you oppose Keystone.  If you own oil stock, you promote Keystone, and don't really care if there's collateral damage as a result of your investment unless you are held financially accountable for your disasters, which history shows us you are not.  If you've seem the incredible environmental disaster that tar sands wreaks, even if you don't live within contamination distance, and if you have any sense of stewardship for the planet and it's future, you oppose Keystone and this kind of dirty energy, and support technologies that replace the need for increased carbon extraction.It really isn't hate.  Accusations of hate are a not-so-clever tool to deny facts and deflect debate.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6791-70629]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[doctordawg]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2012 20:22:47 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Of course oil co's want to block this]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6791-70653]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Oil co's control bottleneck technologies to slow the speed at which disruptors can roll out into the market.  Of course they do this.  It's their mandate - to maximize stockholder equity.  If they were to expedite battery technology and decrease oil profits, they would be sued by their stockholders.  There is no good or bad.  There is only profit.  And if buying up disruptive patents and technologies in order to shelve them is unethical but profitable, they are bound by law to be unethical.  It's pure wish-thinking to believe otherwise.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6791-70653]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[doctordawg]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2012 20:09:11 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[thanks for sharing]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6791-50481]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Great!!! thanks for sharing this information  to us! sesli chat   sesli sohbet]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6791-50481]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[yarinsiz]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 24 Aug 2011 12:25:09 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Is it just me?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6791-48500]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Umm.. If the battery capacity is increased for current vehicles and all else remains the same, doesn't that mean the TIME to charge, say the Volt and Leaf, is also extended 1.5 to 3 times?]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6791-48500]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Xennex]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jul 2011 19:01:06 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Breakthrough could lead to 732-mile electric car battery]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6791-48422]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[A petrol or diesel engine is most efficient when running at a constant RPM. If the engine were linked to a generator which constantly charged the battery  &amp; an electric motor  was fed from the batteries.This might be a  better way of doing things  battery would never go flat because as soon as it went below a preset level the engine would start. The battery would give good acceleration  &amp; distance as always kept fully charged. If  the driver went too fast or up many hills (regenerative braking as well)  &amp; took too much power  the car would just  reduce speed  until  battery charge level caught up. Drivers would understand its either very fast for short time or standard speed all the time. In emergency  the constant RPM could be increased  with override switch  use very much more fuel  &amp; bring speed up to normal  or charge battery very quickly losing any economy of driving . battery could also be charged from mains power when available. The best of both worlds. No new technology needed  just rearranging it. If there were local power failures   the vehicle  could  connect to external  inverter  be run  stationary  &amp; power house or farm electrics.?? Ron angel  Design Eng elect.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6791-48422]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[ronangel]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jul 2011 23:00:12 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Big Problems Unaddressed]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6791-48049]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[1. You are referencing an infrastructure that is not all that prevalent in all urban areas, especially smaller cities, towns, and villages2. In Rural areas there is NO public transportation, and a 10-20 mile driving range may make for a one way trip, or worse, a multi-stop in the middle of nowhere and pray they have a way to charge or swap batteries.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6791-48049]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[DaemonSlayer]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sat, 23 Jul 2011 23:38:53 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Battery Swap for EV's]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6791-47660]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[There is one company that is rolling this type of methodology out that I bumped into &quot;better place&quot; (betterplace.com)--I realize not an industry standard.  I watched a video several months ago about their extremely ambitious roll out plans--I'm unconvinced they can achieve them but they might as well set the bar high and dream big.  Their test project with a set of Tokyo taxi cabs is quite interesting with the cabs running 8 hour shifts (if memory serves) and refueling through battery pack swaps in 60 seconds.  I do believe thats faster than pumping a full tank of gas. The point about the burden to the existing power system is well made, as well as factoring the losses through production, transmission etc.  However, I would suggest that is in-the-box or thinking that is limited in scope.  While your points are quite valid, true and I do actually agree with you, by focusing only on the negative aspects you forego the opportunities out there, especially combining opportunities.  Not to mention the ability to concentrate efforts on harm reduction to the power generation facilities rather than millions of cars running around.Speaking with a fellow from our local Board of Trade recently, he was familiar with a program in Denmark, I believe he said, where land, power and waste disposal are all issues.  To handle the waste they have built, or are building, an incinerator in town.  This will allow them to move waste easily to the facility, readily monitor the cleanliness, address the waste problem, and generate power (I would guess heating as well).  What would normally be a large eyesore that nobody would want near them will be upgraded to have an artificial ski slope with artificial snow around the stack.  Instant multi-purpose positive solution using today's available technologies. Is this a be all end all answer?  Of course not, but it IS one piece of the puzzle we need to make things better. My point being is that we can generate the additional power, address other issues at the same time, and improve the area with more attractions or attractive views.  It will not be easy, but if WE (not reliance on corporations or governments) have the will to make it happen, it can through continued pressure and demands for accountability.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6791-47660]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[allanhs]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jul 2011 11:34:58 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[@AlanLaRue good post..]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6791-47655]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Many hate the oil companies because they believe they'd be living near free if it weren't for them. So many advances thanks to oil companies.. look at modern composites and materials alone..]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6791-47655]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[gbrecke]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jul 2011 10:25:42 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[PHEV &amp;gt; BEV becuz...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6791-47661]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[The combination of rooftop solar panels with PHEVs is a better match than with BEVs because the battery pack is 1/3 the size. The household with this combo gains the means to more closely monitor (and conserve) household energy consumption, and gains the choice whether to drive or cut utility bills. Even if a PHEV (Plug-in Hybrid EV) affords only a 10-20 mile driving range on the battery, this limitation leads to driving less whereby more routine trips become possible without having to drive. Walking, bicycling and mass transit, (fundmental travel modes more energy efficient than an electric car), become more viable travel alternatives.  PHEVs offer many additional benefits/advantages over BEVs, but these conservation-oriented points are most important. We drive too much and there's no getting around that with a battery-electric or fuel cell car that allows us to pretend we can continue the bad habit.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6791-47661]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Sirkulat]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jul 2011 10:02:11 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Don't deceive yourself, as many do...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6791-47637]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[The people most excited about EVs seem to equate electrical energy with near free. If the Grid needs to double or triple in capacity, you will pay. Off peak power production is important to a modern grid, take it away with off peak EV battery charging and we'll spend billions more to cover peak loads. In the case of an EV, our engine is back at the power plant, and we insert a lot of extra losses between that engine and the rear wheels of the EV. Be realistic and measure all the losses.If we study most areas in North America, the Energy demand to heat or cool the car is often as great or greater than what it takes to power the wheels. We also need to defrost windows for safety, run wipers, headlights, and more. Minus 40F happens, so does 113F plus. There's also many areas with steep hills that will suck the guts out of a battery. Many EV fans measure efficiency in the middle and only the power to turn the wheels,(Enron Accounting Methods?) We need measure it from the real power source..starting back at the energy source where we typically dump in all those hydro carbons.A stack of Popular Science Magazines going back 50 years is a real education. All those break throughs ready for production that NEVER happened.IF EVs become popular, the State and FED will come out of the wood work to TAX you big time because all those road taxes are generally on top of a gallon of fuel at the pump, and they are significant.  Be a realist and figure in all those fuel taxes per mile because &gt;you WILL be paying them to keep the roads up, and support all the monkey business presently funded by this source of revenue.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6791-47637]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[gbrecke]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jul 2011 09:20:54 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[X-on]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6791-47600]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I think the days of big oil ( The word is quashing ) fuel savings is over. They now can pick their profit at will. That profit can come from anywhere. Remember they changed from petroleum to energy  I imagine a cheap or DIY energy source or system WILL be a target.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6791-47600]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[MagnetBoy]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 20 Jul 2011 23:49:02 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[PHEV &amp;gt; BEV]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6791-47610]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Yes, the future automobile drivetrain standard should be electric, and battery advancement is necessary.  However, only the plug-in hybrid drivetrain offers the advantages and benefits necessary to break our driving addiction. Advanced battery-electric vehicles will not save us from our stupid driving habit, as automobile-related business interest &quot;dealers&quot; know perfectly well.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6791-47610]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Sirkulat]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 20 Jul 2011 23:14:50 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Long time coming...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6791-47615]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[The trouble with speculation about battery technology is that without firm dates, it's all a bit pointless. Using Moore's law (the traditional technology uptick measure) it's unlikely that EV's are going to offer &quot;consumer happy&quot; batteries for another 10 - 15 years.It's essential that the car industry gets to grips with the idea of a single standardised battery platform and hot swapping them - so that consumers drive into a charging station dump their battery pick up a charge one and get gone. It's the only way to overcome consumer resistance at this stage of technology uptake.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6791-47615]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Nick Kellingley]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 20 Jul 2011 21:51:04 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

