Re: [EVDL] Getting a bit OT - TS warnings ...
I'd like to offer an alternative view on some of your points. I'm deleting
some stuff that is good, but I have no alternate viewpoint for.
My first comment has to do with the human aspects. Assuming we should be
using human labor, and the earth's raw materials, to build transportation
devices at all (which is not a given, but outside the scope), who should we
employ? Employment raises standard of living. Who needs it most,
Americans, so they can drive BMW's instead of Chevies, or Chinese (or others
in cheap labor markets), so they stop starving? Granted there are
environmental concerns, but personally, I don't mind seeing some of our
production go over there if it can help feed some very desperate people. I
think the correct approach is to address the environmental problems "over
there", not by attempting to keep them in the stone age.
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Roden" <[email protected]>
To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 4:02 PM
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Getting a bit OT - TS warnings ...
I'd like to offer an alternative view on some of your points. I'm deleting
some stuff that is good, but I have no alternate viewpoint for.
My first comment has to do with the human aspects. Assuming we should be
using human labor, and the earth's raw materials, to build transportation
devices at all (which is not a given, but outside the scope), who should we
employ? Employment raises standard of living. Who needs it most,
Americans, so they can drive BMW's instead of Chevies, or Chinese (or others
in cheap labor markets), so they stop starving? Granted there are
environmental concerns, but personally, I don't mind seeing some of our
production go over there if it can help feed some very desperate people. I
think the correct approach is to address the environmental problems "over
there", not by attempting to keep them in the stone age.
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Roden" <[email protected]>
To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 4:02 PM
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Getting a bit OT - TS warnings ...
> On 16 Aug 2007 at 10:53, Bob Rice wrote:
>
> Anyway, for us "greenies," I think it's worth considering that imported
> batteries carry some extra environmental baggage.
>
> For one thing, environmental laws are not very strongly enforced in China
> (and probably Mexico and some other cheap-labor countries). Lead and
> chemical pollution is desperately, fatally high in some parts of China.
> So
> those who have a "green" side might want to investigate the environmental
> profile of the factories producing their batteries, be they lead or
> lithium.
That is a fact. The question is, is the correct solution to produce less in
third world countries, or fix the carelessness about toxic waste.
> The other consideration is the amount of embedded energy (most of it from
> petroleum and coal) that goes into imported batteries.
>
> If you buy USBMC batteries, they'll be shipped from CA or GA, whichever is
> closer. Presumably Trojan works similarly. But if you buy batteries from
> China, they're shipped literally halfway round the world in a freighter
> using fuel oil. Then they're trucked or rail-transported closer to you,
> and
> finally trucked again to you or your dealer.
>
> And that's not all. I've read that at least some of the lead batteries
> that
> are recycled in the US are actually shipped to China or South America for
> processing. (Someone correct me if this is wrong.) This burns petroleum
> and moves the recycling process to areas where environmental laws may be
> lax
> (see above).
I'll agree that additional transportation is not optimal, although container
ships no doubt could be run on Biodiesel to minimize the impact. But I am
in no hurry to say that the lack of enforcement of environmental policy
should be fixed by taking desperate people's jobs away. I think a better
solution is to fix the lack of environmental enforcement.
> Also, Chinese and South American manufacturing is generally less energy
> efficient than European and US manufacturing, so more energy may be used
> to
> produce the batteries there than would be used here.
Have you got a source for that? I've been in American factories (air
conditioned, lots of electrical automation machinery used to replace
expensive people) and a Chinese factory (not air conditioned, the employees
are used to the heat), far less machinery, the work is done by people
operating on biofuels, not electric robots.
> Then, the finished batteries are shipped back to the states, using still
> more energy and petroleum.
Shipped, yes, but it doesn't need to be with petroleum.
> So, while the dollar price is lower because of the low cost of labor, the
> energy cost of imported batteries is probably higher. I can't say how
> MUCH
> higher, as I don't have the time or access to research materials to
> calculate it. I do think it would be interesting, and I hope not
> dismaying,
> to factor this into (or, rather, out of) the energy savings of our EVs.
Producing anything has a cost to the environment. I have no data as to what
part of the cost to the environment of producing a battery the shipping is.
Melting the lead and molding the case may take more energy, and be more
difficult to do with bio fuels.
>> I'll pay more for my Grandkid's new toys to see " Made in USA" on
>> them. Bring them ON! I
>
> Maybe you would. But most people >say< this, then they turn right around
> and buy what's cheapest, just as they always have. That's why so many
> things are made in China - because people buy them. That, and the fact
> that
> it means more profit for the US company at a given price level, which
> stockholders demand. If you're the CEO, you get rewarded financially for
> this. Who can blame them?
I somewhat agree, but I'm in a position to have a lot of data on this. Once
a product becomes a commodity product, competition between companies and
retailers gets ruthless, and margin shrinks. Once one company goes overseas
to have it produced, "more profit" doesn't last long, prices drop. Other
companies then have to go overseas, or get out of the business. It doesn't
so much determine who makes a higher profit as it determines who operates
with the usual profit, and who gets out. It's a natural function of
Capitolism. The most efficient compete until it almost isn't worth the
trouble, the less efficient move on or die off. It provides most Americans
with a better standard of living, except the ones that lose their job to
outsourcing. It will cause a lot of grief until Chinese labor gets more
expensive, like Japanese labor did. It's already starting to happen in the
more industrialized cities. The bottom line is, for most companies,
outsourcing isn't about more profit, it's about survival. Only a shift in
global economics, or import duties, could change this.
> If you want more EV parts made in the USA, then don't buy imported EV
> parts.
> Simple as that. If you want EV parts to which less environmental damage
> can
> be ascribed, buy US-made or EU-made components rather than components from
> Asia. Equally simple.
That sounds like a protectionist attack to me. You don't know that imported
parts necessarily cause more harm, and if they do, the best solution may not
be to bring production back here. To me, a generalization like this says we
want our standard of living to be raised by artificially protecting our
market from global competition, we'll use the environment for justification.
Let the third world starve while we can afford to blow resources on bigger
cars, bigger electric bills, more toys...
> There are people manufacturing EV components in the US and some of them
> are
> right on this list. At least one of them bends over backward to patronize
> US suppliers.
>
> Again, I'm not saying this is the right decision for everyone, and I don't
> mean to offend anyone who puts price at the top of the decision tree.
> Everybody makes buying decisions based on his own situation. All I'm
> trying
> to do is provide some extra input for those decisions.
Here's another consideration, and it's not always about price. Manual labor
should be diverted to where the standard of living needs fixing. Generate a
higher standard of living in the US by creating more jobs, and what do
americans do with their extra money? I'd guess they tend to buy bigger
houses and cars, drive more, use air travel for vacations, buy more consumer
goods, use more energy in general. We're already by far the biggest energy
users, and way too high on the carbon footprint list. American's basic
needs, housing, food and health care, are pretty good already. We tend so
squander additional income in some pretty environmentally unfriendly ways.
Our recreational use of energy, boats, jet skis, taking a flight (carbon) to
Vegas (an environmental nightmare in itself), driving to the Super Bowl etc
makes me want to hurl already. Generate a higher standard of living in a
third world country, where does the money go? Generally they have a lot of
catching up to do in terms of basic health care and nutrition. Generally
they aren't squandering it in wasteful ways like we are. Is it morally
right to try to keep the jobs here on the basis of ecology, instead of just
addressing ecological problems over there where they need the jobs a whole
lot worse than we do? I'd guess raising our standard of living causes a lot
more environmental damage due to indiscriminate use of disposable income
than floating products across the ocean does. Just my guess.
>>
>> OK I'm getting off topic trying to make a point? Maybe A123 could make
>> them
>> here? Or a Thunder Sky branch plant HERE?
>
> Isn't Jukka talking about a possible Thundersky plant in Finland? If they
> can build one there, with Finland's famous high taxes and the EU's
> stringent
> environmental laws, surely we could build one here. All we need is
> someone
> with sufficient drive and connections - and lots of investors.
Realistically, who would invest in a factory here when the general concensus
is that manufacturing must be done somewhere else to be competitive? As far
as I know, only items that are not built in large quantity (the Chinese
don't bother with small market stuff), and items that need a lot of
attention from a lot of technical people (like high end semiconductor
manufacturing) can be competitively made here. If BEV's become more common,
what are now specialty parts will become commodity products, production will
go wherever it's the most cost effective, and prices will drop like a rock,
which makes BEV's more affordable, which is good for the environment. I'm
finding in my business that I've either got to continually change my product
line to stay out on the specialty market fringe where there isn't third
world competition, or get hooked up with third world manufacturing to remain
competitive as products become commodity products.
The alternative is protectionism, intentionally maintaining a difference in
standard of living that promotes energy squandering here, and starvation and
poor health care there. Personally, I vote for global competition, let those
people earn themselves a better life.
>
> David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA
> EVDL Administrator
I guess my thought is that building parts in China could reduce prices
enough to make BEV's more competitive and more common, which would easily
offset the environmental impact of shipping. Heck, a lot of our ICE cars
are shipped here from Asia, you're just offsetting that if you replace them
with BEV parts from Asia. There are environmental issues in Asia, they are
making improvements. But most environmental damage done in asia is done in
a desperate attempt to feed their people. A lot of ours is done for
recreation and self indulgence. Let's clean ours up before we point
fingers.
Marty
_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
