Neil Young's latest album is about his electric car
Neil Young's latest album, Fork in the Road, is entirely about his electric car, which he calls the Lincvolt.
The songs on the album are an emotional response to the current social and ecological questions facing the world’s population. Young has been an activist his entire career, and over the past few years has become involved in developing different fuel possibilities. Along with Johnathan Goodwin, their LINCVOLT project using alternative energy to power Young’s 1959 Lincoln Continental is now finished.
the latest
latest episodes
I hope that car is better than the album.
I suppose the concept behind an electric land yacht is: If alternative energy is good, I ought to use as much of it as possible!
If anyone would like to use the XML feed that contains all the data for the LINCVOLT vehicle, here you go:
http://www.lincvolt.com/xmlfeed2
-s
As a long time "super fan" of Neil's - I'm not looking forward to this album. How can the entire album be about his gee-whiz electric car. Neil is getting weirder and weirder and this time - not a good thing. The man needs to hang up his spurs.
The site had scant technical details that I could locate.
Does anyone know what exactly powers this vehicle, and in what proportions? Electricity? Petroleum? Natural gas? Biofuel? Propane?
#3 - agree with that. Although I haven't been a long-time fan. Neil should release this album free on the LINCVOLT site.
Jonathan @ 4 - Unicorn Farts and rainbows, maybe?
to make it fully believable it should be an electro album like "Trans" was.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_(album)
#3 - "Neil is getting weirder and weirder and this time - not a good thing."
seriously... you didn't think "Trans" was weird? and it was 27 years ago... him being weird isn't anything new.
And does it matter that the energy footprint to charge his electric car dwarfs that of gas and oil? "No, man, I'm drawing attention to the problem, so I get to be as wasteful as I want, just like Al Gore's private planes and Obama's super high thermostat at the White House."
The high priests always live better than the rest of us peons.
I think the album is fantastic. Neil has always gone with offbeat themes and experimentation; it's just the way he is. I've listened to the new release many times now, and love its raw energy and political satires. Dunno why people here are complaining, sounds like they're presuming before they actual listen and think.
Meh. Just listened to it. It's typical Neil - which is to say it's not typical - but why should I buy it? No melody.Sounded phoned in. It's no "Cortez the Killer" - now there's a song! It's no "Powder finger" or "Like a Hurricane". It might even make 'Greendale' look good. Three chords - sounds a little bit like 'Sister Ray' but 'Sister Ray' was recorded by Lou and the gang 40 years ago. If Neil wants to help with the bail out this record should be available for free download - otherwise he's just pissing in the wind.
@7 GADGETS123
It would if it were true. I'll steal a quote from the Tesla Motors site:
Don't electric vehicles actually just move pollution to another location? And therefore don't EVs still use oil?
No. Most electric power generation in the United States does not use oil. Coal, hydro, nuclear, solar, and natural gas are typical sources for generating electricity. Power generation plants, even coal burning ones, are inherently more efficient and less polluting than vehicles due to economies of scale and the ability to more efficiently remove pollutants from a smaller number of much larger fixed locations.
Also, an electric car is far more efficient than a gasoline car, so the amount of pollution generated by producing the electricity to drive an EV a given distance is much less than the pollution from the gasoline to drive an internal combustion car the same distance. Whereas a combustion engine car – even those powered by hydrogen, ethanol, and biodiesel – can make use of around 20 percent of the energy that it consumes, a battery electric car like the Tesla Roadster is able to put more than 80 percent of the energy it consumes to use in moving the car down the road.
Youngs' gone electric!
@7 Gadgets123: Show your math peon. Neil's engineering team has shown theirs and it seems to suggest quite the opposite.
"an emotional response to the current social and ecological questions facing the world’s population" .. that sounds spectacularly awful, like Melissa Etheridge awful.
Check out Neil on Charlie Rose, PBS, for more information about the LincVolt. And for all you meh-scoffers out there: at least he's showing alternative vehicles don't have to look llike a Prius, or a "FlexFuel" Yukon...
I don't care what Neil drives , I care what Neil plays!
I'm a longtime fan. I've been looking forward to seeing how the car would turn out and I am quite happy with what I have heard so far of the new album. Neil is still pushing the envelope after 40+ years, still exploring and experimenting from time to time while also returning to the tried and true; always keeping it real. Not many are in his class. I am happy to support his new album by purchasing a copy. He deserves to continue to make a living as a musician. All you whiners need to STFU!
He is having it built right here where I live in Wichita, KS. Its in the local paper quite a bit. Our city is a large aircraft industry and have lots of specialty shops to make many items. We have Boeing, Bombardier, Hawker-Beechcraft , Cessna main units here so lots of tech people to do such things. The guy building it has a shop right on main street.
The other day a little restaurant down the street had quite a deal...they had Neil Young, Harrison Ford in for getting his private jet worked on, and the dude from the Food Network all in having lunch.
gadgets, your continual flogging of the same political agenda is tedious.
1. Losses in generation. (Only about 40-50% of the energy in the fuel can be turned into electricity.)
2. Losses in transmission. (About 7%)
3. Losses in storage. (80-90% charging efficiency)
4. And finally, the 80% efficiency they talk about.
34% best case, 24% worst case.
From 1977s reactor, Motor City:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1mW31NPAfc
Neil's always loved his cars. In Canada, it's easy to appreciate transport.
Erroneous@~21: Always with the nay-saying. If we convert all our cars to electricity, and we generate our electricity from solar, wind, tides or other clean renewable energy sources, we stop creating greenhouse emissions that are choking the planet 100% and can become far more efficient with refinement over time. Wave of the future.
BTW, doing this with a Lincoln is a brilliant blend of old and new school; a proof of concept that shows it can be applied to any vehicle. Ever driven behind a turbo diesel for any length of time? They make me gag.
And where is your better idea?
South Park did it.
Yeah, and if we all had unicorns, none of this would be necessary because we could fuel our cars on their farts. Here in the real world, dense energy only comes from fossil fuels or nuclear. End of story. And converting either of those to kinetic energy is an inefficient and messy process.
There's nothing wrong with electric cars, they're just not magical.
My better idea is to start with a classic car that's already efficient: a Shelby Cobra or a Porsche 550 replica. Any large, heavy vehicle is going to be inefficient just by virtue of its mass. (And it'll handle like crap too.) And it's already been done.
"Here in the real world, dense energy only comes from fossil fuels or nuclear. End of story."
Going back to straw unicorns are we? Please support your assertion, or you're full of rainbow colored unicorn shit.
And the point is to show that electricity can fuel any 'ol vehicle, not just the "high performance" ones. What innovation have you driven lately?
Ernunnos,
When you say things like 'end of story', it decreases the likelihood of people taking you seriously.
All it ends up showing is that a gas-guzzling boat can be turned into a coal-guzzling boat with the addition of a bunch of technology. Technology that farther increases the initial price (and energy consumption) by several multiples, making it even more pointless.
I see. So we should all stop trying to innovate new solutions to the world's energy and climate crises. Good thinkin'.
always found hydro-electric pretty dense - and sustainable.
4 megawatt trial on wave power:
http://www.canada.com/Energy+projects+bring+millions+coast/1480019/story.html
I'm not sold on "dense energy" being the only solution in the near future. It seems to me that solar, tidal, wind, and geothermal energy can be converted into hydrogen, which is "dense energy". While I wouldn't want to store and consume hydrogen at my house, I don't see why having the coal burning points on the grid converted to hydrogen is a worse idea than nuclear power.
In any event, asserting that electric power == coal power, even though probably currently true, is a false correlation. There are many energy alternatives being sought (although maybe not as vigorously as one might hope).
http://www.physorg.com/news158848950.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/14/george-monbiot-smallpox-oil-supply
There are more reasons to go electric than energy efficiency alone. Older cars like this one don't even have catalytic converters, so they spew a lot more pollution per mile than a corresponding power plant would.
If the motor driving the car is twice (or more) efficient then one burning its fuel, you don't need an energy dense fuel source to go the same distance. When we burn that gallon of delicious energy dense gas, we're actually burning most of it to heat the area underneath the hood (requiring cooling systems which add weight and complexity) and move air out of the way of a metal shell. Well under 10 percent of that energy is actually being used to propel the passenger forward.
And if we're going to complain about the true energy cost of getting electricity into a battery, let's go back up the gasoline supply chain as well and consider all those supertankers, refineries, and trucks necessary to get the oil from out of the ground thousands of miles away into the tank of that gas powered car (at a -considerably- reduced ratio of input barrels to output barrels to boot).
I think Neil's on the right track but yeah, weight is your enemy if efficiency is what you strive for. I'd prefer the American mentality were able to incorporate pragmatism as something -besides- a sign of weakness and that sometimes a display of excess for its own sake is a Very Bad Idea. But it looks like he was making a statement about alternatives more than anything else, nothing wrong with that.
There's just no free lunch. We ate it all. From here on out, we'll be working for diminishing returns, and learning to lower our expectations. Rock stars with electric cars are just another distraction from the ugly truth.
"overhead of - tidal,- isn't a whole lot lower"
did you you read the link in #31?
"Long May You Run" -- perhaps one of Neil's better songs, is also about one of his cars... in that case, an old Hearse.
For a long time while listening to it, I thought the song was about a relationship. Though I wasn't sure what the whole "chrome heart" thing was all about.
http://www.google.com/corporate/solarpanels/home
Google got 6162 kWh out of 9212 solar panels in the last 24 hours. My understanding is that the average monthly consumption of a US household is about 936 kWh. That's about 8 google-sized panels per household yeah? I assume that making enough panels for 111 million households is a little ridiculous (although if materials and production weren't an issue- I'd seriously argue the advisability of investing in that vs propping up AIG)- but at what point does the idea become "worthy" of consideration?
I'm not an energy guy. The link in #31 cited a projected 4 MW of energy (and don't all projects meet projections?) - would that number be per month, or year, or day, or hour, or projected lifespan of the project? I assume there is some standard unit of time that is just assumed when you are discussing the output of an energy source.
yeah....
"We've been through some things together
With trunks of memories still to come
We found things to do in stormy weather
Long may you run.
Long may you run.
Long may you run.
Although these changes have come
With your chrome heart shining in the sun
Long may you run.
Well, it was back in blind river in 1962
When I last saw you alive
But we missed that shift on the long decline
Long may you run.
Long may you run.
Long may you run.
Although these changes have come
With your chrome heart shining in the sun
Long may you run.
Maybe the beach boys have got you now
With those waves singing caroline no
Rollin down that empty ocean road
Gettin to the surf on time.
Long may you run.
Long may you run.
Although these changes have come
With your chrome heart shining in the sun
Long may you run.
getting closer
http://www.reh-plc.com/
...met a guy who told a tale worthy of a true Rusty - though he wasn't -...they were kids on a canoe trip in Ontario, weeks out, serious distance and no comms. One of them contrived to break a leg or something, ugly, compound fracture? .. the detail escapes but the image of gore don't. Anyways, they make their way back to civilization-wards and guess who picks them up?
Yep. Neil.
1971 was a good year
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eh44QPT1mPE
1. Losses in generation. (Only about 40-50% of the energy in the fuel can be turned into electricity.)
2. Losses in transmission. (About 7%)
3. Losses in storage. (80-90% charging efficiency)
Interesting. I'm sure you have a source for this, so I won't even bother asking.
But it's odd that most don't include losses due to generation and transmission when they talk about gasoline cars.
Maybe they think oil derricks and tank trucks run on rainbows and unicorn farts?
... a classic car that's already efficient: a Shelby Cobra ...
The aerodynamics of a Shelby Cobra are just awful. Peter Brock had to come up with a completely redesigned body for them to be competitive in races where aerodynamics mattered like Le Mans or Daytona .
http://www.reh-plc.com/technology_ceto_tech.asp
now need to know industry time-to-wattage standard
, anyone?
uh-huh
"Confusion of watts and watt-hours
Power and energy are frequently confused in the general media. Power is the rate at which energy is used (or generated). A watt is one joule of energy per second. For example, if a 100 watt light bulb is turned on for one hour, the energy used is 100 watt-hours or 0.1 kilowatt-hour, or (60x60x100) 360,000 joules. This same quantity of energy would light a 40-watt bulb for 2.5 hours. A power station would be rated in watts, but its annual energy sales would be in watt-hours (or kilowatt-hours or megawatt-hours). A kilowatt-hour is the amount of energy equivalent to a steady power of 1 kilowatt running for 1 hour, or 3.6 megajoules.
Terms such as 'watts per hour', which are sometimes used in the media, are meaningless in practice (unless referring to change of power per hour).[8]
Often energy production or consumption is expressed as terawatt-hours per year. As one year contains about 8,765.82 hours, one terawatt-hour per year equals about 114,080 megawatts."
'Dense' energy storage is only necessary if you want to travel long distances quickly.
If you are travelling short distances you can refuel more often. If you travel slowly you use less energy.
If refuelling is sufficiently fast, the density won't matter.
#8,
Trans is the only Neil Young album I own. My theory is that it is about Transhumanism. The key I think is track 2 "Computer Age". From the lyrics:
"I need you to let me know there is a heartbeat.
Let it pound and pound
And I'll be flying like a free bird."
I think the cover art is fantastic because of its optimism. The left half of the picture depicts the future, and that is where the figure gets a ride. So I think Neil is saying that the future will be different, but not necessarily worse.
Regards,
Michael Smith
~
Neil is a true artist,
New ideas become new works.
Can't you find inspiration in that?
Erroneous: Still waiting for source links for all of your warm vapor assertions. Your lack thereof, and general attitude toward anyone with a differing opinion shows that you, in actuality, are the distraction from people getting creative and trying to find new solutions to the complex energy and climate challenges that we face going forward.
Neil Young has already helped to bring a lot more awareness of the issues we face through his courage and creativity. What have you done but try to discourage others from the attempt to tackle these problems that we all must face; the sooner the better? In such discussions previously, I have linked to a recent breakthrough in solar energy that you continue to ignore, which is already making a huge difference in the efficiency of solar energy production. This is far more than fairy dust, my friend, and there will be more innovations to come as people become more aware of the situation we are in, overcome their denial, and devote more resources to these new technologies. Why would you continue to be so discouraging if you are genuinely interested in solving the current crises? It appears you are not.
It is becoming increasingly likely, based on your comment history here that you are astroturfing on the payroll of Big Energy as you continue to try to shoot down any grass roots attempt to find solutions. Either that or you are bitterly obtuse. Either way, you have provided no reason to devote any more time or thought into your continued trolling.
The MIT discovery is interesting; thanks for posting it, I hadn't seen it before.
Regarding Neil Young, I like his music too, but celebrity involvement further convolutes the electric car issue, and the fact that Young has associated biz interests is less than ideal. I'm still curious as to what's truly fueling the vehicle, and I'd actually prefer unicorn farts to, say, biodiesel.
Hope/dreams/ingenuity/ideapower -- all crucial. But the greatest weakness of "green" is that it's still green; too easily spun. Highlighting the economic or ecologic reality of the latest green narrative often casts you as a gaia-grinch, when, really, a thorough initial debunking is a crucial first step toward a genuine solution.
This article from the Dallas Morning News last Saturday is an admittedly hyperbolic, funny example. The reporter focuses intently on the story of the lone inventor, a father of eight children, a son of migrant workers, who, inspired by the waters of the Washita River, in which he bathed every morning before going to school, came up with a way to power cars off of simple, everyday water. When he becomes rich off of his "patent-pending" idea, he's going to use the money to fill food banks, and help the needy. Dare to scoff? Jerk!
Nevertheless, Young's car is cool, especially to those who have aesthetic or cultural issues with the modern hybrid vehicles. Alt-fueled hot rod projects have been popping up more frequently in hotrodding forums, and now, A Famous Person Is Doing It Too. Neil Young's electric car probably isn't going to get 100 miles per gallon of electrons, but he's making a point that, if/when viable environmentally sustainable vehicle fueling methods exist, they can play nice with the valuable legacy of American car culture, which is increasingly attempting to reconcile greenness with coolness. Also, more importantly, you don't have to buy a brand-new heavily-marketed "green" vehicle, with the footprint associated with purchasing an entirely new product, to be green. You can take an existing vehicle, and do it yourself.
Interesting to see the Obama White House heating issue in this discussion. Nitpickery, but valid, like Neil Young chartering a $60,000 plane to fly home after concerts to work on his green car. Perhaps the Obama nitpick will draw attention to the fact that, GHG-wise, residential heating and electricity is comparable to road transport. Cars make a better target, as you are never stuck in traffic behind a house's heat exhaust pipe. While it blows smoke in your face.
One of the best stories i ever read.