TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker or making a Paypal contribution here: paypal.me/SupportTMC

Two new bills to speed deployment of EVs

Discussion in 'Electric Vehicles' started by TEG, May 28, 2010.

  1. TEG

    TEG TMC Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2006
    Messages:
    17,250
    Location:
    Silicon Valley
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    Contact: Aaron Huertas, 202-331-5458

    TWO NEW PROPOSED BILLS IN CONGRESS WOULD "MOVE ELECTRIC DRIVE VEHICLES INTO THE FAST LANE," SCIENCE GROUP SAYS

    STATEMENT BY DAVID FRIEDMAN, UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS

    WASHINGTON (May 27, 2010) – Reps. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Judy Biggert (R-Ill.), Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.), and Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) today introduced the Electric Drive Vehicle Deployment Act of 2010, a bill that would help reduce U.S. oil dependence by funding programs to put hundreds of thousands of electric drive cars and trucks on the road over the next five years, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). Sens. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) are expected to introduce a similar bill later today. UCS will update the online version of this release after the Senate bill is released.

    The bipartisan House bill would establish new funding to support efforts in five communities to work with industry, electric utilities and other organizations to deploy electric drive vehicles, including plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, battery electric vehicles, and fuel cell electric vehicles. The bill also would help establish and expand recharging infrastructure for plug-in hybrid and battery electric vehicles. It does not expand support for hydrogen refueling infrastructure, however. The bill would augment funding currently available from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and energy bills passed in 2005 and 2007.

    UCS staff will review the Senate bill after it is introduced later today and will be available to discuss any differences between the two bills.

    Below is a statement by David Friedman, research director of UCS's Clean Vehicles program:

    "Electrifying our cars and trucks in the coming decades will be a key part the broad strategy needed to cure our oil addiction. It's gratifying to see lawmakers on both sides of the aisle working together on a smart, sensible policy. The oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico is just the latest reminder that we desperately need to end our addiction to oil. It threatens our economy, our national security, and our environment.

    "This bill would move electric drive technologies into the fast lane. It would boost funds for producing, buying and selling electric drive vehicles and electric recharging infrastructure and help overcome some of the other barriers to electric drive vehicles, such as outdated codes, standards and zoning requirements. By requiring a comprehensive plan from each community that applies for funding, this bill would ensure that an electric drive vehicle future is built from the ground up. If the Senate bill is sufficiently close to the House bill, it also would help kick electric drive technology into high gear.

    "This bill is an important contribution to the debate over comprehensive clean energy and climate change legislation. It should be integrated into broader climate, energy and oil saving efforts in a way that guarantees long-term funding for this ambitious and essential program. The bill also should be updated to ensure that it provides a level playing field for all electric drive vehicles and the necessary infrastructure to recharge and refuel them, including hydrogen and fuel cell vehicle technology."

    ###

    The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading U.S. science-based nonprofit organization working for a healthy environment and a safer world. Founded in 1969, UCS is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and also has offices in Berkeley, Chicago and Washington, D.C. For more information, go to www.ucsusa.org.
     
  2. vfx

    vfx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    14,792
    Location:
    CA CA
    They are against the EV rollout and are trying to dillute the bill. It's much better to concentrate on saturating communities with EV infrastructure than to just have two chargers in every town. If an area is rife with chargers then people will see them where they shop and work and will buy cars in quanitity. In towns with only a few chargers only the brave early adopters will buy -cutting sales off at the knees altogether. Those early pioneers will push for infrastructure and can use the other cities as example.
     
  3. vfx

    vfx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    14,792
    Location:
    CA CA
    I like the thinking here.
     
  4. EVNow

    EVNow Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    Messages:
    1,383
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Just imagine if we had spent $500B on EVs (and renewables/transmission) instead of on Iraq war :mad:
     
  5. roblab

    roblab Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2008
    Messages:
    2,022
    Location:
    Angwin (Napa Valley) CA
    "Battery innovators: The Senate version proposes $1.5 billion for research aimed at delivering a battery that can go 500 miles on a single charge. The Senate also proposes establishing a $10 million prize for whoever delivers a commercially viable battery with those specs. "

    I would hope that there's more to it than this. 500 miles on a charge depends on SO many things. How fast? How big is the pack? How big is the vehicle? How aerodynamic is it? I am quite sure Tesla could develop a car that would carry a double battery pack, and "viola!". Of course, it cramps the passenger space. But why would anyone think that an electric is limited to size/weight of battery? My RAV4EV had NiMH batteries, which weighed twice what the roadster pack weighs per kWh. Lead acid is 4 times the weight per kWh. Is that the max a car can carry? I don't think so. It is a matter of cost. Leaf goes for 100 (or less) miles per charge because they think that "will do", and car owners think they can't afford any EV that is more than $25K. Except for BMWs, MBs, Large Pickups, Large SUVs, etc, etc. Give me a break. It's like saying that you can't put a bigger gas tank than 20 gallon on a vehicle. They do it every day.
    Rob
     
  6. edo

    edo Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2008
    Messages:
    150
    I think I remember that it would have cost $200B at that time to put in enough wind (to eliminate oil imports? I think.) and the infrastructure to bring it around the country...
     

Share This Page