PHUV, Inc.

[jpdm]

To add, Im also hoping LGUs, institutions and establishments ( utilizing the e-jeepeys should immediately come up with their own evaluations regarding the performance of the e-jeepney.

Their findings are the most credible basis if e-jeepneys are doing well.

Greepeace, on the otherhand, with their vast expertise, network and resources can do the same and come up with the latest assessment of the e-jeepney's performance.

My take, at this moment, the alleged idea that e-jeepney is not a good alternative to any other fossil fuel fed engines, as for my opinion, is simply mere speculation.

[ghosthunter]

To add, Im also hoping LGUs, institutions and establishments ( utilizing the e-jeepeys should immediately come up with their own evaluations regarding the performance of the e-jeepney.

Their findings are the most credible basis if e-jeepneys are doing well.

Greepeace, on the otherhand, with their vast expertise, network and resources can do the same and come up with the latest assessment of the e-jeepney's performance.

My take, at this moment, the alleged idea that e-jeepney is not a good alternative to any other fossil fuel fed engines, as for my opinion, is simply mere speculation.

IMHO, I doubt if these organizations would release honest-to-goodness evaluations on a project they promoted so openly to the media just to say it was a mistake that we didn't do all our "pencil pushing" and full product-cycle financial analysis.

For one, the so-called cost studies found on the "ads" are specifically designed to mislead the public regarding how "cost effective" the e-jeepney really is. Next, there is no definite "green" solution on how to recharge the battery packs beyond initiatives done by certain local groups. It simply means these weren't part of the plan and it was just thought of by someone at the last moment of planning. This also means such "power solutions" may not be ideal nor sufficient nor that eco-friendly when taken as a whole.

As for "the alleged idea that e-jeepney is not a good alternative to any other fossil fuel fed engines", unless you can give us the math to prove otherwise, the computations regarding the economics of the e-jeepney versus regular jeepneys stands as a reminder that someone out there is denying the awful truth. It also means the public has been taken for a ride, literally and figuratively.

Summarizing, it is simply down to your personal opinions/biases against the math.

[jpdm]

IMHO, I doubt if these organizations would release honest-to-goodness evaluations on a project they promoted so openly to the media just to say it was a mistake that we didn't do all our "pencil pushing" and full product-cycle financial analysis.

For one, the so-called cost studies found on the "ads" are specifically designed to mislead the public regarding how "cost effective" the e-jeepney really is. Next, there is no definite "green" solution on how to recharge the battery packs beyond initiatives done by certain local groups. It simply means these weren't part of the plan and it was just thought of by someone at the last moment of planning. This also means such "power solutions" may not be ideal nor sufficient nor that eco-friendly when taken as a whole.

As for "the alleged idea that e-jeepney is not a good alternative to any other fossil fuel fed engines", unless you can give us the math to prove otherwise, the computations regarding the economics of the e-jeepney versus regular jeepneys stands as a reminder that someone out there is denying the awful truth. It also means the public has been taken for a ride, literally and figuratively.

Summarizing, it is simply down to your personal opinions/biases against the math.

Well, I respect your opinion.

With all due respect, I rather wait for the NGOs like GRIPP or Greenpeace (if there will be doubts on the findings of the PHUV, Inc. or LGUs) to have their own evaluation if indeed the money they have thrown to this project is definitely worth it.

You should compare your math directly to the main proponents namely again, Greenpeace, GRIPP and PHUV, Inc.

Right now, my stand is , I will support this project and hopefully more locally made electric jeepneys will be used around the country.

[niky]

Well, I respect your opinion.

With all due respect, I rather wait for the NGOs like GRIPP or Greenpeace (if there will be doubts on the findings of the PHUV, Inc. or LGUs) to have their own evaluation if indeed the money they have thrown to this project is definitely worth it.

You should compare your math directly to the main proponents namely again, Greenpeace, GRIPP and PHUV, Inc.

Right now, my stand is , I will support this project and hopefully more locally made electric jeepneys will be used around the country.

Errh... Math is not an opinion. Math is cold hard facts.

Our math came directly from data supplied by the advertisement.

And mine gave the diesel jeepney an even bigger disadvantage in terms of fuel economy.

The diesel still won. Slightly, but it's still cheaper, when considering expendable costs alone. (and a battery that needs replacement every 500 cycles is an expendable) If you take into account number of passengers served, at an average of 20 versus 14 for the PhUV, that's 35 centavos per passenger-kilometer for diesel versus 50 centavos per passenger-kilometer for electric. The only difference is that the driver will only pay 22 centavos per passenger kilometer up-front, and will have to pay the rest after two years when the batteries conk out.

Electricity may be the way forward for transportation... but it still requires a big leap in either storage technology (and batteries have not had said quantum leap for decades... advances in battery life for electrical gadgets have been due to more energy-efficient electronics designs... not better batteries...) or battery production to become mainstream.

We're not pushing LPG for personal agenda, not like you believe... but because we've crunched the numbers for ourselves, and saw benefit in it. Unless and until our government figures carbon emissions reduction into the cost of our fuels, fuel prices will not be high enough to warrant switching to electricity. The economy isn't there.

We need to find solutions that both benefit the environment (as Greenpeace wants) and benefit the common Filipino. That's why the peso per kilometer equation is so important, and cannot be ignored.

Thus, unless the government gives equal subsidy to battery cost that it gives to diesel, or removes the diesel subsidy, electric cars will not be cost-competitive enough to wean the public off of fossil fuels.

Unlike GH, I'm not a total disbeliever in electricity... but I'm realistic enough to know that an electric car future is still a long ways off.

[ghosthunter]

Well, I respect your opinion.

As Niky said, math is NOT an opinion.

Unlike GH, I'm not a total disbeliever in electricity...

Actually I am not a total disbeliever of electric based transport system. It is just that, just like everything else, it has to have economic benefits when compared to the conventional systems before it can be practical.

Changing for the sake of change is not a solution when it is not practical nor gives good economic sense.

[jpdm]

Here's an interesting one.I actually think 5 km/l is very optimistic for our old jeeps. It's more like 4 km/l in traffic, due to all the stops and starts jeepneys do.

So... calculating from there...

65 kms - 4 km/l... 16.25 liters... or 0.25 liters per kilometer. At 29 pesos per liter... 7.25 pesos per kilometer. Add 1000 pesos for an oil change and filter change every 5000 kilometers... and that's 7.45 pesos per kilometer.

Diesel Jeepney total cost per kilometer: 7.45 pesos.

Not knowing current electric rates, I'll accept the 200 pesos at face value.

Electric cost: 3.076 pesos per kilometer

Consider the 500 cycle lifespan of the battery pack... and an estimated 65 kilometer range from each charge... you have an additional cost of 4.81 pesos per kilometer

Total cost (electric vehicle): 7.88 pesos per kilometer

This does not take into account the eventual overhaul of the jeepney engine, or the cost of tires. The jeepney, being heavier, will eat up its tires more and will require brake servicing more often.But... the e-Jeepney has a lower capacity, at 14 persons versus the 20+ person capacity of the regular jeepney, thus, less revenue. And you will eventually need to service the electric motor somewhere down the line, anyway. Thus, the tire wear and other expendables will likely balance out in the end. And we are not taking into account the diminishing range after the battery has done a few hundred deep cycles. But since we don't know these figures, we'll leave them out.

Are all variables here constant? In production, all fixed costs? Or are there variables here that vary?

When you arrived at these numbers, have did who consider hypothetical or estimated numbers ( current or assumed electricity or fuel cost?. actual cost of maintenance of diesel fed jeepneys against e-jeepneys?)

Are some of your numbers/ variables reflect actual cost of operations? How about the actual distance covered by diesel fed jeepneys or e-jeepneys?

IMHO, I doubt if these organizations would release honest-to-goodness evaluations on a project they promoted so openly to the media just to say it was a mistake that we didn't do all our "pencil pushing" and full product-cycle financial analysis.

So, where can we get credible evaluation of the real performance of the e-jeepney? from you? What makes you think your numbers are better than Green peace and the actual users? Because you think you know better math?Or you sense GRIPP and Greenpeace are up to something?

Is your computation cannot be contested?

For one, the so-called cost studies found on the "ads" are specifically designed to mislead the public regarding how "cost effective" the e-jeepney really is.

Says who? Based on your own assessment? Are these the findings of makati, Bacolod, Palawan and DLSU-D actual users or you alone made your own assumptions with your pencil pushing and your math?

Next, there is no definite "green" solution on how to recharge the battery packs beyond initiatives done by certain local groups. It simply means these weren't part of the plan and it was just thought of by someone at the last moment of planning. This also means such "power solutions" may not be ideal nor sufficient nor that eco-friendly when taken as a whole.

Says who? You? Is this the opinion again of the LGUs or people concerned who bought the e-jeepneys or this is based on your own assumption?

As for "the alleged idea that e-jeepney is not a good alternative to any other fossil fuel fed engines", unless you can give us the math to prove otherwise, the computations regarding the economics of the e-jeepney versus regular jeepneys stands as a reminder that someone out there is denying the awful truth. It also means the public has been taken for a ride, literally and figuratively.

i cant give you math. Its the math of the proponents, the users against your own math. If you can prove that your math is better than GRIPP, PHUV, INc., the users..then I will change my mind and support your idea.

Summarizing, it is simply down to your personal opinions/biases against the math.

Well said. Its your math against the NGos who started, launched and financed the program.

[quote]

Errh... Math is not an opinion. Math is cold hard facts.

Our math came directly from data supplied by the advertisement.

Per se, math is not an opinion. But math can be used or even manipulated to state an opinion. Thus, it is a tool in making an opinion.

BTW, why did you used the advertisement if ghosthunter made a statement that its overhyped and spurious?

And mine gave the diesel jeepney an even bigger disadvantage in terms of fuel economy.

Agree, your computation is different from the PHUV maker's computation. But you based your numbers on different variables and scenarios right?

The diesel still won. Slightly, but it's still cheaper, when considering expendable costs alone. (and a battery that needs replacement every 500 cycles is an expendable) If you take into account number of passengers served, at an average of 20 versus 14 for the PhUV, that's 35 centavos per passenger-kilometer for diesel versus 50 centavos per passenger-kilometer for electric. The only difference is that the driver will only pay 22 centavos per passenger kilometer up-front, and will have to pay the rest after two years when the batteries conk out.

Based on your math.

Electricity may be the way forward for transportation... but it still requires a big leap in either storage technology (and batteries have not had said quantum leap for decades... advances in battery life for electrical gadgets have been due to more energy-efficient electronics designs... not better batteries...) or battery production to become mainstream.

So, you are saying the components used in e-jeepney can possibly affect positively or negatively its battery life?

We're not pushing LPG for personal agenda, not like you believe... but because we've crunched the numbers for ourselves, and saw benefit in it. Unless and until our government figures carbon emissions reduction into the cost of our fuels, fuel prices will not be high enough to warrant switching to electricity. The economy isn't there.

No problem with that.

We need to find solutions that both benefit the environment (as Greenpeace wants) and benefit the common Filipino. That's why the peso per kilometer equation is so important, and cannot be ignored.

Of course thats why aside from being environmentally safe, the e-jeepney also considered the cost and savings that can be derived by Pinoy drivers.

Thus, unless the government gives equal subsidy to battery cost that it gives to diesel, or removes the diesel subsidy, electric cars will not be cost-competitive enough to wean the public off of fossil fuels.

Agree.

Unlike GH, I'm not a total disbeliever in electricity... but I'm realistic enough to know that an electric car future is still a long ways off.

How about the tesla car.

On the otherhand, a jeepney run by electricity is already here and is called the e-jeepney. All we have to do is let it prosper and make improvements to make it better instead of outrightly bashing it.

[niky]

Look at the numbers again.

The math I used for the e-Jeepney comes straight from the data supplied by the manufacturer.

So... what other variables do you want? Where are the cost calculations of your NGO? Why don't they show anything beyond the simple cost per kilometer in terms of current and diesel consumption? Why not take into account all expendables and cradle-to-grave considerations, since this is purportedly an ecological project.

It's not "based on my math"... it's based on their data. x+y=z. 1+1=2. I'm not the one who supplied "x" and "y". I just calculated for "z" based on what was provided. Do it yourself, and you'll get the same figures.

Your accusations and innuendo suggesting that I biased my math are laughable. In my math, I purposely gave the diesel jeepney worst-case scenario fuel consumption, and under-rated its passenger capacity. Many big Jeepneys can carry twenty four passengers (including the two in front and the driver... 27). The data given by the e-Jeep manufacturer states a capacity of 14. If you're accusing me of twisting my figures... I am. I'm skewing the variables to show the e-Jeep in the best light. If I skew the variables to favor the diesel jeep... assume light traffic, full capacity at all times and assume the driver turns off the engine at stops... the math will tip further in favor of the diesel.

My math may be incomplete, but it's less incomplete than theirs.

-

So, you are saying the components used in e-jeepney can possibly affect positively or negatively its battery life?

Are you really trying to understand what I'm saying? What I'm saying is that advances in battery life for gadgets over the past decade is due to more energy efficient microchip and gadget designs... not better batteries. In other words, the breakthrough in battery technology that we've been waiting for for the past twenty to thirty years still isn't here.

Of course thats why aside from being environmentally safe, the e-jeepney also considered the cost and savings that can be derived by Pinoy drivers.

Nope. The math is quite clear. Without subsidy, the costs incurred by the drivers will be just as much or more. That extra cost has to be shouldered by the government, or the project will fail in its second or third year.

Note: battery life is the reason why all previous releases of electric cars by major manufacturers have been leases... because the cost to the consumer for battery replacement and maintenance for a dedicated electric would be incredibly high... around $20-$30k dollars.

How about the tesla car.

What? A car that's heavily based on the Lotus Elise/Exige (licensed use of the bodyshell and basic structure), which weighs much, much more, has less range and offers similar performance to the top-of-the-line Exige at over twice the price? Yeah... the Tesla shows that people are now ready to buy exclusive electric hypercars. Those same people whose monthly incomes could feed a thousand families in the third world.

The Tesla has nothing to do with the viability of an electric vehicle infrastructure... it's merely a toy for the rich... and for some, a fashion statement. Look at me! I'm green! I've bought a sportscar that costs more than most American's houses! Whoopee! (my US house: worth $85k. The Tesla: worth $100k)

On the otherhand, a jeepney run by electricity is already here and is called the e-jeepney. All we have to do is let it prosper and make improvements to make it better instead of outrightly bashing it.

An honest and open critique is not bashing. When I say the Ssangyong Stavic is pig-ugly, that's bashing. When I say the Corolla is as boring as watching paint dry, that's bashing.

When I say that current electric vehicles, the e-Jeep included, are not cost-effective with current technology, that's an informed observation.

Learn to differentiate between the two.

I dearly want the PhUV project to succeed, but the e-Jeep is not a viable business model. Not by itself, and not without massive tax breaks.

[ghosthunter]

*JPDM,

You doubt the data that came directly from the e-jeepney information "poster" you posted?

I just did the math. No magic there. Plain algebra. Addition, multiplication, etc. "Pencil pushing" is what businessmen do when analyzing the cost/gain relationship of a project or business venture. In this case, I applied it using YOUR supplied data.

Do you doubt your own data? Do the math. Try to arrive at a different conclusion.

[jpdm]

Recent article about e-jeepneys etc..

[SIZE=4]Rise OF electric VEHICLES [/SIZE]

By Rissa Katrina M. Camongol
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 08:13:00 09/27/2009


MANILA, Philippines—There’s something about electric vehicles. They don’t use gasoline or diesel and therefore don’t pollute the air. They run without noise and are cost-efficient. If Filipinos are educated about the benefits of using these “plug-in” modes of transportation, they would be wondering why we haven’t caught up with the craze yet.

Going “green” is all the rage right now because of climate change due to greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. Global warming threatens not only the survival of the human species, but also of other living things big and small that call Earth home.

Serious efforts have been made to counter or at least minimize the adverse effects of global warming. Because emissions like carbon dioxide from fossil fuels are a major source of global warming, people have sought alternative sources of energy like solar, hydro and wind power.

They have also come up with electric vehicles.Four different kinds of electric vehicles now on the market were showcased at PowerTrends 2009, a renewable energy exhibition held on Sept. 9-10 at World Trade Center in Pasay City.

The e-vehicles displayed at PowerTrends—the e-jeep, e-car, e-bike and e-quad—are generally priced higher than their gasoline-powered counterparts.

E-vehicle makers, however, are after advocacy, not profits, says Karl Magsuci, business planning and development manager for EVnnovations Inc., distributor of the first Land Transportation Office-registered e-car in the Philippines. “What we’re doing right now is education and raising awareness,” he says.

All four e-vehicles have zero carbon emission.

Their batteries could be charged via a simple household electric socket. Plans to build a biogas-powered recharging station are in the works.
In some areas, like Puerto Princesa City and Boracay, plans to phase out gasoline-powered jeepneys are underway, with e-vehicles gradually being incorporated into their transportation system.

E-Jeepney

The e-jeep was first launched in 2007 in the cities of Makati, Puerto Princesa and Bacolod as part of the Climate Friendly Cities project of Green Renewable Independent Power Producers Inc.(GRIPP). It started its commercial run last year. GRIPP is a local consortium of environmental groups, including Greenpeace.


Tapped by GRIPP to produce the electric vehicle, the Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturers Association of the Philippines now assembles e-jeepneys through its business arm, Philippine Utility Vehicles Inc. (PhUV). The first prototypes were imported from China.


The e-jeep costs P650,000. It uses 12 6V 220AH batteries, which charge for eight hours at a cost of P150, says John Marasigan, PhUV assistant sales manager for electric vehicles. A fully charged e-jeep has a maximum range of 55 km and a top speed of 35 kph.


Thirty-five units of this 14-seater have so far been sold to a number of government and private institutions in the Philippines, 20 of which are in Makati, says Marasigan. They include De La Salle University in Dasmariñas, Cavite; Plantation Bay Resort in Cebu; the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas in Manila; the House of Representatives in Quezon City; and Embarcadero waterfront development in Legazpi City.

E-Quad

The e-quad, or e-tuktuk, marks its launching at PowerTrends 2009. With a seating capacity of six, the vehicle is designed as an alternative to tricycles in subdivisions, according to Marasigan. “It is ideal in subdivisions because there’s less noise,” he said. “Plus it can run in floods.” The e-quad sells for P300,000.

E-Bike

Twenty-five units of e-bikes have so far been sold by Philippine Utility Vehicles Inc. Ideal for use in beach and other recreational spots, most e-bikes can now be seen running in Boracay.
Selling for P27,000, the e-bike has a maximum range of 25 km and top speed of 20 kph. Its batteries require only four hours to fully charge, costing around P100.

What’s good about the e-bike is that once the battery runs out of power, the bike can still be used in the traditional way. By pedaling the e-bike, one does not only get good exercise, but also charges the batteries.

For inquiries about the e-jeep, e-bike and e-quad, contact John Marasigan of Philippine Utility Vehicles Inc. at 9365022 or 9308012, e-mail johnalfonsomarasigan*yahoo.com, or visit www.gripp.org.ph and www.ejeep.org. The office address is 2 Susano Road in Bo. Deparo, Novaliches, Caloocan City

[jpdm]

E-Vehicles displayed in PowerTrend last Sept. 2009

The following were produced by MVPMAP's Philippine Utility Vehicles, Inc. (PHUV, Inc.)

E-Jeepney


E-JEEPS are now in use in Makati, Cebu, Cavite and Legazpi.
By RISSA KATRINA CAMONGOL

E-Quad


THE E-QUAD vehicle is an alternative to the noisy tricycle.
By RISSA KATRINA CAMONGOL

E-Bike


E-BIKES are now running in Boracay.
By RISSA KATRINA CAMONGOL

The last one was made by a Bangalore-based manufacturer:

Reva


THE REVA e-car can cover 80 km in a single charge.
By RISSA KATRINA CAMONGOL

Problem is, the prices of all the e-vehicles are a little bit more expensive than gasoline or diesel fed versions.

[ghosthunter]

Ano ba talaga? Costing and range?

The e-jeep costs P650,000. It uses 12 6V 220AH batteries, which charge for eight hours at a cost of P150, says John Marasigan, PhUV assistant sales manager for electric vehicles. A fully charged e-jeep has a maximum range of 55 km and a top speed of 35 kph.

From earlier in this thread:

Taken from the e-jeepney official advertisements:
E-jeepney cost = P625,000
distance per charge = 65 km (120km maximum)
claimed operating time on a single charge = 6 to 8 hours
cost per full charge = P158
maximum speed = 40 kph

Bakit nag-iiba? Adjusting for real world pricing and real world performance?

Did the e-jeepney increased it's selling price by P25,000?
Did the e-jeepney decrease it's maximum operating range by 10 kilometers?
Did the e-jeepney reduce it's already turtle slow maximum speed by 5 kph?

[jpdm]

Ano ba talaga? Costing and range?

From earlier in this thread:

Bakit nag-iiba? Adjusting for real world pricing and real world performance?

Did the e-jeepney increased it's selling price by P25,000?
Did the e-jeepney decrease it's maximum operating range by 10 kilometers?
Did the e-jeepney reduce it's already turtle slow maximum speed by 5 kph?

I think I will be asking the same questions.

[niky]

E-Vehicles displayed in PowerTrend last Sept. 2009

The following were produced by MVPMAP's Philippine Utility Vehicles, Inc. (PHUV, Inc.)

E-Jeepney


E-JEEPS are now in use in Makati, Cebu, Cavite and Legazpi.
By RISSA KATRINA CAMONGOL

E-Quad


THE E-QUAD vehicle is an alternative to the noisy tricycle.
By RISSA KATRINA CAMONGOL

E-Bike


E-BIKES are now running in Boracay.
By RISSA KATRINA CAMONGOL

The last one was made by a Bangalore-based manufacturer:

Reva


THE REVA e-car can cover 80 km in a single charge.
By RISSA KATRINA CAMONGOL

Problem is, the prices of all the e-vehicles are a little bit more expensive than gasoline or diesel fed versions.

In the case of the REVA... a LOT more. The G-Car would have been more palatable if the proponent could have had it marketed for just 250k pesos... but I don't know if they're still around.

[smoothtalker197]

i like the ejeepney. pero the trend is towards lithium ion cells. iba tech kelangan nun kesa sa gamit ngayon para sa lead acid batteries. maybe phuv inc should put the ejeepney on hold muna and just pursue making phuvs using new efficient diesel engines and perfect the body, design, safety features etc first as well as the manufacturing process. pag mainstream na yung li ion cell batteries, saka na lang i revisit. they could do a technology transfer by then.

[KCMenteryo]

Where can I find the E-quad? Saan gawa ito? sa Pinas?

Regarding e-jeepney, we should also consider the source of electricity.
If it came from the coal fired power plant, diesel plant, etc... then we just transferred the location of polution into the plant.

Just my opinion!

[ghosthunter]

Where can I find the E-quad? Saan gawa ito? sa Pinas?

Regarding e-jeepney, we should also consider the source of electricity.
If it came from the coal fired power plant, diesel plant, etc... then we just transferred the location of polution into the plant.

Just my opinion!

Not to mention the lifecycle of the batteries. Twelve or more lead acid batteries per e-jeepney that require replacement every 1.5 years is a lot of toxic waste that need specialized handling.

[jpdm]

Where can I find the E-quad? Saan gawa ito? sa Pinas?

Gawa sa Pilipinas.

Check this:

For inquiries about the e-jeep, e-bike and e-quad, contact John Marasigan of Philippine Utility Vehicles Inc. at 9365022 or 9308012, e-mail johnalfonsomarasigan*yahoo.com, or visit www.gripp.org.ph and www.ejeep.org. The office address is 2 Susano Road in Bo. Deparo, Novaliches, Caloocan City

[Rev!t]

E-Jeepney


E-JEEPS are now in use in Makati, Cebu, Cavite and Legazpi.

nakakahiyang sumakay...
sobrang burloloy...
sana plain na lang, walang masyadong graphics...

[jpdm]

nakakahiyang sumakay...
sobrang burloloy...
sana plain na lang, walang masyadong graphics...ew

hehehe...

[jpdm]

From PHUV, Inc.
Courtesy of Romski123

Puerto Prinsesa e-jeepney (e-trike) patrol...