Agassi brought with him to a meeting with students in the Faculty of Industry and Management at the Technion two people who took resumes from the students who wish to work in the electric vehicle project
Shai Agassi met with hundreds of Technion students today, as a guest of the Faculty of Industrial Engineering and Management. He said that at the end of the year fifty electric cars will be driving on Israel's roads and there will be a thousand charging points. In about two years there will be half a million charging points in Israel and it will be the "biggest extension cord in the world".
According to him, Ehud Olmert was the only leader in the world who responded to the electric car challenge. He said to Eggsy: "I am with you on two conditions: first, prove to me that you have two hundred million dollars as an initial investment, and second - bring a big car company." When Xi brought two hundred million dollars in investment and the Renault-Nissan company, Olmert entered the picture with all his might. The second country after Israel to have electric cars will be Denmark. "Imagine Tel Aviv without noise and without pollution," he told the students. "The prices of the apartments on Ibn Gvirol Street will go up by leaps and bounds."
He brought with him two people who took resumes from the students. According to Agassi, he needs engineers from the fields of electrical engineering, planning and software.
36 תגובות
That's the idea... really true... and by Allah
I prefer Law A which is equal to everyone, direct, addresses the problem and only it
From Law B which concerns tax benefits for a specific company that..again. Belongs to the Ofer family.
Like a rebroadcast of the sale of the refineries, only this time a liquidation sale of an electricity company.
Really let the cat keep the cream...and the butter.
They sell the oil and its products, how are they supposed to be responsible for a process that will reduce their profits? They are here to nail it. And in addition to let them build a second national electricity grid in Shush. Probably at my expense too.
With this money it was already possible to build a chimney.
Eyal:
I was just pressed for time.
The reason why I talked about an internal contradiction is the following sentence in your response:
"Such issues should develop gradually in an evolutionary way and not in legislative revolutions."
This seems to me to be a contradiction in the sense that all in all - as you said in your last response, you are proposing Law A instead of Law B, so that it is not the actual legislation that bothers you, but what is the law that was decided upon.
Michael.. It's a shame you didn't find a place to expand.. Did the battery run out?
There is no internal contradiction, only a misunderstanding regarding the field in which it is appropriate and required to legislate:
Laws should be enacted. And need to deal directly with the reality they claim to change:
A tax on pollutant emissions that Agassi-Ofer's project could adapt to - yes
Tax benefits for the project of Agassi-Ofer only = blocking all solutions that might help.
Go ahead, do your job and respond. For this I pay...tax.
Why electric cars and not electric buses? Two birds in one shot.
Eyal:
I find no room to expand and will only point out the fact that your words include an internal contradiction.
An emissions tax is also imposed in the form of a law.
There is no disagreement between us about the goals. Increasing the quality of life, private and public.
Examining the alternatives and voting on one of them by a government body will never be simplistic and subject to a bias that is not in the interest of the general public.
Such issues should develop gradually in an evolutionary manner rather than in legislative revolutions. I expect the government to stick to its immediate goal. For example, an emissions tax that will be based on quantity, vehicle and location.
Such conditions will be able to support all possible technologies, including the sophisticated ones such as, simply not driving, cycling, not eating hummus, or any other solution that does not require the creation of a global battery industry, their creation and recycling.
Bias in favor of one technology = stopping the examination of the alternatives = degeneration
Eyal:
Carrots also have no technology and I guess you don't boycott them because of that.
Do you really not think that we should stop polluting the atmosphere or at least reduce the pollution?
Don't you understand that the subsidy is actually dealing with the problem that other things (such as the health and life of your children) are sold today at too cheap prices that do not reflect their true price?
A car with a cell phone model battery?
Another loss of the private citizen and his freedom in front of the octopus of the Ofer brothers and the generation of politicians who urinate outside the pool.
There is no technology here. The idea has been there for years. When it becomes economical, try to sell it to us on the shelves, and we will charge it at home. Why subsidize it against other solutions? Against turbo diesel hybrid engines?
Communication between cars will reduce the rate of accidents and with it their size and fuel consumption. Reducing the distance between them by computer control that will reduce drag and legislation to limit the momentum of vehicles in crowded areas (as in game theory - I don't want to die so I'll drive a Hummer) - these are issues for the government.
I would not like to rent a car from Mr. Agassi any more than I would like to rent clothes from him. It's also a matter of taste.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/shai_agassi_on_electric_cars.html
I call Shay Agassi's venture a cucumber on wheels,
Because it is the only green you will see in every story of a thousand and one nights and nothing more.
Only efficient public transportation (someone talked about efficiency, think how much fuel is needed to drive 30 people, compared to 30 cars driving), will change the situation.
Most people live in cities, there is no reason why there shouldn't be good transportation that serves everyone.
We have a knack for doing bombastic things, a millionaire came and told Olmert I am bringing 200 million dollars and also the Renault company (I don't know how much he paid her) and Mr. Olmert takes off his pants.
Gentlemen will give him franchises and land for stations and tax refunds, plow the land and the dirt contractors will be happy (remember how they dug up our land for the cable networks).
At the same time we have proven technology and millions of people from the East as well as in Europe have been riding electric bikes for many years.
It is necessary to close the city centers to cars and allow travel by bicycles and electric bicycles, everything will change.
Health - will improve (on Yom Kippur the percentage of pollution dropped by 90% due to the shutdown of motor vehicles.).
Security - will improve (no car bombs)
Economy - will improve (revitalization of city centers, travel expenses zero tolls)
Road accidents - will improve (the number of accidents will decrease, there are no cars)
partial list
Shay Agassi's initiative is most welcome even if it does not contain a technological change. In order to make a change, a government incentive is needed because the car manufacturers will be very hurt by such a move because an internal combustion engine is very complex and there is a good livelihood. This is a move that is political and social logistics. Battery technology is advancing nicely but not at the required rate. Mass production of batteries already exists today for the benefit of electric bicycles and scooters when most of the consumers are in China, where there are millions of electric vehicles, bicycles and scooters. I recommend using bike batteries for cars because the surges are low. I don't understand how they reached such high costs for the batteries (about 100,000 NIS). The cost of a lithium polymer battery for a bicycle is about 150 dollars when purchasing a large quantity. In my estimation, 20 such batteries are needed for a car and the calculation should be 3000 dollars per car. In summary, it is already possible Today, start using electric bicycles, scooters and scooters. The economy and viability are proven by the millions of Chinese who already ride these vehicles. Using the car will be natural and successful even without government help in the future.
emir:
And by the way - I think they were really wrong about Themarker.
The process of generating electricity and its use are not related to each other.
You sell *all* the electricity you produce to the electricity company and buy from them *all* the electricity you consume.
The more you produce (up to the ceiling) the more you will earn. Electricity will never cost you more than it costs others.
emir:
The government's idea is not so bad.
The intention is to encourage people to install photovoltaic cells so that if I install and you don't - I will profit and you will lose.
It's actually a kind of privatization process of electricity generation, only that instead of building more power plants (which would also cost money that would have been collected from the citizens and would probably create polluting plants) the citizens are given the opportunity to generate green electricity and profit from it.
Michael,
Speaking of which, there is another issue that is being handled by the media with inaccuracies: as we know, any citizen and business may install photovoltaic cells and sell the electricity produced to an electricity company at a price 4 times the price at which electricity is bought from the grid. It was said (TheMarker, Haaretz) that consumers install the cells for self-consumption and sell the excess to an electricity company. In light of the price ratio, it is complete folly to use even one watt-minute from the sun for self-consumption, and of course there is no point in installing expensive cells beyond the amount allowed to be sold to an electricity company.
Another point: who pays the difference between the price of the expensive electricity that the utility buys and the price it costs to generate electricity, say, from coal? Obviously, in the end, it's you and me, and it can add up to a lot, a lot of money. It's true that pollution has decreased, but are we willing to pay for this any price??
emir:
I got to the bottom of your mind but I wanted to illuminate another side of the subject.
In relation to nuclear energy - this is indeed the solution that can be applied the most, but I have no doubt that the efforts to replace it with a solution based on renewable energy will continue and will, in the end, yield a solution that is both effective and safe.
Michael,
It seems to me that you haven't gotten to the bottom of my mind as to what upsets me: you are right in that at the end of time, when we get rid of electricity generation from fossil fuels, a state of independence from the import of these fuels requires a sweeping transition to electric cars, and there are different opinions as to how many decades this will take.
However, what upsets me is the marketing trick that Agassi does by repeatedly claiming that the transition to his cars (which should happen in the next few years) will free us from fossil fuels.
As I wrote, the issue of alternative energies should be promoted without any connection to Agassi's project and there is no reason for Agassi's claim that thanks to his cars we will switch to energies from alternative sources.
By the way, the world is gradually coming to the opinion that the economic solution that can be implemented the fastest, bypassing all the problems associated with wind and solar energy, is based on nuclear energy. For your information, for years approximately 80% of the electricity in France is produced in nuclear power plants and the third largest export industry in France is electrical energy.
emir:
I don't follow the announcements on the subject but what you angrily quote is not nonsense.
Converting wind energy or sunlight into electricity will not free us from dependence on fossil fuel if we do not, at the same time, switch to electric propulsion (in electric cars or other electric vehicles).
Such liberation will only be achieved if all our power stations draw energy from renewable sources and all our means of transportation are electric.
There is indeed a lot of logic in the responses that question the success of Shai Agassi's electric car venture. First, we are already nearing the middle of November and I don't hear about 1000 charging stations and 50 cars that Xi promised by the end of the year.
However, there is a very infuriating element in Xi's arguments in favor of his venture and it is brought up again with increasing frequency. I mean the repeated statements that the transition to electric cars will free us from the need for imported fossil fuels. This is nothing but massive sandblasting in the eyes of the public. If it is indeed worth investing in power plants that utilize sun and wind, then this should be done regardless of the Agassi project. On the other hand, how does Xi intend to channel this energy exactly to his half a million charging stations? Of course, it is completely impractical to equip each such position with everything needed to utilize sun and wind. As for the resale of electricity from the batteries to an electricity company, this requires additional equipment such as converters from direct current to alternating current, and a suitable meter. And what about accounting?
Hushwwwwww:
Yes.
Does anyone of you have any idea how I can contact Shay Agassi?
A modern "combined cycle" power station like the one on the "Gezer" site, works on gas, and the efficiency is around 60%. But even the loading of the stamp itself, does not have 100% efficiency, which must also be taken into account.
What is the weight of the battery?
The battery is indeed a large battery weighing about 250 kilos, but at the gas stations there will be a small crane that will replace the battery with a new one in a few minutes (roughly the same time as refueling a full tank). The charging stations will be everywhere, first and foremost in the private house as well as in the existing parking spaces, for example a company parking lot will contain a charging point for each vehicle (this is not so different from the already existing meters for the most part).
The third world countries will want the batteries because they will be cheap and will last for 120 km instead of 150 km and they will still have enough life left.
To learn more, take a look at the following document: http://www.mot.gov.il/wps/pdf/HE_MADAN/RehevHasmali.pdf
The battery is not exactly a small battery that barely ignites the car
This is a monstrous battery the size of the vehicle which weighs about half the weight of the vehicle
Battery replacement will be done with heavy tools that consume electricity
And also space and logistics for hundreds and thousands of such tools
Gas stations 🙂 Hahahahaha…..
It will no longer refuel in 5 minutes
These are huge charging yards the size of football fields where the vehicles sit for hours and hours to charge
The charging stations need to be huge lots where thousands of cars can be charged at the same time.
Also in the charging process there is an emission of hydrogen gas
which can cause an unbelievable explosion in such a huge loading area.
Since these vehicles have to be refueled almost every day
Just going to the charging station will waste electricity every day.
Also leave the car somewhere else and take a taxi home 🙂 hahaha…
Third world countries will not want to be the garbage can of the world
And they will not be willing to accept the batteries not even for free
The transportation of those batteries abroad also requires a lot of oil
So that in the end they will be buried in the territories of Israel and completely destroy vast areas and it will be a natural disaster for generations.
Well, that's just the tip of the iceberg
The more we dig, it seems that this is a completely delusional dream.
Shay Agassi may be missing an opportunity to be completely "green" here..
Why use the national electricity grid?
Why not just make the charging stations that were green, that is, they use solar energy, wind, water, etc. depending on the area where it is set up..
For example, solar stations scattered in the Negev for passengers to Eilat.
In this way, there is no limit to the connection points of the national electricity grid, and thus a load is avoided on the grid, which is already reaching its limits.
In Agassi's lecture on the subject of the electric vehicle, it was stated that the vehicle will be able to travel up to 150 kilometers per charge (most people drive less than 100 kilometers a day) if necessary, then it will be possible to replace the battery at a gas station and get a charged battery.
When the battery technology improves, so will the travel distance, but you have to start sometime. Batteries whose capacity drops below 85% will go to use in less advanced countries or to organized recycling so that not everyone throws the battery away wherever they want (the battery does not belong to the individual but to Agassi's company). The payment for charging the battery will be made at the charging points and will be according to the number of kilometers the vehicle has driven. The charging points will carry out charging in coordination with the national electricity grid in order not to overload it too much and take advantage of the low hours. The power stations produce electricity more efficiently than a gasoline vehicle, so there is an advantage here. The price per kilometer should be less than the price of a kilowatt per hour (emphasis on say). In addition, with the ambition that electricity production in the country will start to move in the direction of solar energy, maybe a nuclear station, then the advantage is clear.
Another thing, the charging stations are two-way, so if there is a lack of electricity, it will be possible to use the vehicles as auxiliary batteries for the national electricity grid, not to the extent that you will empty the battery, but to reduce it by about 5%-10% during peak hours (to remind you, the battery is not yours and you only pay as much as you drive that way that you don't need to be interested in how many charge/discharge cycles it went through)
As for an electric car causing cancer, well that's a new thing I've never heard of and I don't see how you can get cancer from it unless you smoke in the car. It's like saying that an electric kettle causes cancer.
There are other problems with the electric vehicle (for example, turning on the air conditioner in a traffic jam), but in my opinion the idea is correct and will lead to a revolution in the automotive field and later also in the global political field.
A. , one might think you are a woman... 🙂
Something about Shai Agassi's conduct makes me feel that this is nothing more than media bloat and a company that, beyond riding the waves of a certain trend, has no real technological depth. And XNUMX.. I wish complete success for this venture, I would be happy to admit the failure of my intuition (although it has never failed).
Don't forget that our breathing adds carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and worsens the greenhouse effect.
Utility is a good thing
But we will leave the point that coal pollutes much more than oil
And batteries pollute our groundwater
And electromagnetic radiation of electricity causes cancer
I would be happy if you would publish an article that would explain how it is possible for electric cars to pollute less (when it is a coal-fired power plant).
I mean I understand that apparently there is a difference, I don't understand why...
After all, for this we need to build more power plants, and probably in Israel they will be coal-fired as well...
The explanations in the comments a little while ago do not satisfy me (sorry to the commenters, but I would really like an explanation from someone more "qualified"...)
Lol the prices in Ibn Gvirol are not high enough I understand?
Where are the numbers from?
According to Wikipedia, the efficiency of modern gasoline engines is 25-30%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency
The efficiency of power plants is 33-48%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_power_station
A difference of about 12% in total.
The important advantage is not so much in efficiency, but in the possibility of treating the infection in one place
The efficiency of a gasoline engine in a modern car is about 15%
The efficiency of an average Israeli coal-fired power plant is 40%
(after correcting losses in the electricity transport)
The stations must also work at night during off-peak hours when most of the charging will take place.
If all the cars in Israel switch to electric drive instead of coal, the pollution produced by the cars will decrease by about 60%.
What is the battery life?
Every few kilometers the battery must be charged and for how long.
Will the batteries cause more serious pollution of the soil.
Are electric cars carcinogenic?
Since most of the electricity produced in Israel today is from coal
Electric cars will cause an increase in air pollution.