Germany targets one million electric (cars by 2020)

[jpak]

http://www.thegreencarwebsite.co.uk/blog/index.php/2008/12/01/germany-targets-one-million-electrics/

The German federal government has outlined its plans for a greener future - with plans to put one million electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles on to the roads by 2020.

According to figures produced by the European Automobile Manufacturer’s Association (ACEA) there was a total vehicle fleet of around 49.7million in 2006. Now Germany hopes to become a lead market for electric mobility and hopes that by providing electric cars from renewable sources it can create a sustainable form of mobility for the future.

A conference was held and attended by around 600 participants including executives from German car manufacturers, suppliers, utilities and research institutions. On display were some of the leading German manufacturer’s most exciting green car innovations such as the BMW Mini E, the Volkswagen Golf Twin Drive and the Daimler E-Smart. Lightweight vehicles were also showcased including the two-seated TWIKE and a battery-powered light duty commercial vehicle by EcoCraft.

The target set by the German government follows a series of green projects. In June it launched “Fleet test: electric drive vehicles”, a four-year project demonstrating plug-in hybrid electric vehicle fleets and vehicle-to-grid.

<not much more>

[GliderGuider]

1. The German automobile fleet is around 40 million vehicles

Assuming no fleet growth or contraction over the next 12 years (which may be optimistic if we stay in the global depression that's just starting), that amounts to a change-out of 2.5% of the fleet over 12 years, or about 0.2% per year.

If they pull out of the depression and growth resumes before then, these electrics will simply be added to the fleet (since it would presumably be expanding by more than 0.2% per year). If the depression causes a long-term industrial and economic contraction, as depressions are known to do, there may be no buyers for these electrics even if they get built.

The first scenario -- essentially one of stagnation -- seems to be the best case. Electric cars may have arrived on the scene too late to be much more than a technological curiosity. Thanks so much, GM.

Of course, for Climate Change a global depression with its accompanying industrial contraction would be a Very Good Thing Indeed.

[kristopher]

2. Aaah those Stupid Germans...

Just imagine how much time, money and energy they could save if they would only listen to you explain to them how useless are their plans to create a guaranteed demand that will result in an influx of capital investment in building battery factories. Just imagine their idiocy in actually taking concrete action that is certain to dramatically lower the final price of electric vehicles to the consumer. Hell, they probably even think that such a move is how a government responsibly manages markets instead of just letting the established energy structure dictate market conditions.


What a bunch of chumps and fools they must be; you really ought to write one of your brilliant tomes and send it to them so they can re-educate their economic planners.

(added on edit) Don't forget to point out how crazy they are to count the value of using these EVs with vehicle to grid technology as a way of adding grid stability to their wind power heavy electric generating system. Those fools think they can create a renewable energy grid. Make sure you share with them your ideas (as outlined in your tremendously insightful "Peak Oil" analysis) that nuclear is the only chance we really have.

[GliderGuider]

3. Here, breathe into this paper bag...

Calmer now?

OK, so point to one time I've ever said or even hinted that "nuclear is the only chance we really have." I've never said anything as stupid as that. You're beating up straw men again, my illustrious foe.

[kristopher]

4. Aside from the peaker manifesto you wrote?

Funny you would put it as "I've never said anything as stupid as that." I agree you go to great lengths to avoid such a direct statement, but it is the single point you routinely lead people to.

Show a single example where you've entered a discussion on nuclear with the same type of "everything is futile" tripe that you ALWAYS insert into discussions of renewables. When you join talks about nuclear you are inevitably a supporter of the technology. One example will do. And please, don't use the freeper logic of "Bush never said blah, blah blah"; we aren't quite so gullible as to believe that every message must be explicitly articulated.

[GliderGuider]

5. Try this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=167801#167806

Especially click through the the links I included in the linked post.

It's true that I'm not "against" nuclear power in the way some here are. By the same token I'm not "against" wind or solar either. I merely think that none of them will provide a solution to this mess. But as the links above show, I have said explicitly that nuclear power will not be part of the solution, if indeed any solution can be found.

I have different reasons for thinking that about each power source. For nuclear my reasons include the problems of public acceptance, capital requirements and lead time, along with a minor concern about maintaining reactor integrity during a widespread social collapse. I don't think that nuclear power is a terribly dangerous technology, but I do think it's a terribly dumb one. My objections to wind and solar have more to do with my perceptions of the short time remaining before widespread socioeconomic destabilization sets in, the scalability of the sources within that time frame, and the competition for capital dollars during a depression that also features low oil prices.

It's true that I have been more harshly critical in wind/solar threads than in nuclear ones. The reason is that there are plenty of nuclear nay-sayers here to carry that ball -- the negative side of side of the issue is very well represented. As a result I restrict my comments to the reasons I don't think it will happen, and tend to be more even-voiced about it. Wind and solar power, on the other hand, tend to be treated as sacred cows on this board, so my criticism has to a little more forthright in order to penetrate the cloud of self-congratulatory fog that surrounds the topic.

I think that we should continue with wind and solar build-out even though it won't save us. Every little bit will help, and decentralized technologies are certainly more resilient than centralized ones. Having more wind and solar electricity available will make some peoples' lives more comfortable during the coming troubles, and I've got nothing against that.

I don't think we should continue with the nuclear build-out because it's a stupid idea in the current economic/ecological/social climate. However, I don't think any of them can "save us" -- including nuclear power -- and I've said so.