CleanTechnica is the #1 cleantech-focused
website
 in the world. Subscribe today!


Clean Transport NASCAR Workplace Charging

Published on February 7th, 2014 | by Tina Casey

37

Cue The Outrage, Part Deux: NASCAR Joins Obama Conspiracy To Make It Easier To Charge Your EV At Work

Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

February 7th, 2014 by
 
Now that the Obama Administration has successfully infiltrated its climate change agenda into the farming community with its so called Climate Hubs, the next target for climate indoctrination appears to be NASCAR, the National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing. We’re sure the folks at NASCAR are way to smart to fall for that trick…aren’t they?

On the other hand, just yesterday NASCAR’s Vice President of Green Innovation announced that the organization had signed on to President Obama’s EV Everywhere Workplace Charging Challenge, complete with a photo op at NASCAR Plaza in Charlotte, North Carolina.

So yes, NASCAR is in deep.

NASCAR Workplace Charging

Courtesy of NASCAR.

EV Everywhere

The broad goal of EV Everywhere is to transition the US auto market out of petroleum dependency and into electric vehicles. All else being equal, the Department of Energy anticipates that total US greenhouse gas emissions would drop by 60 percent if electric vehicles replaced their petroleum-fueled counterparts.

Perhaps with the ultimate goal of eventually sucking NASCAR into its evil scheme, when the Obama Administration launched EV Everywhere in 2012 it promoted the initiative as a race to see which nation will be first to produce EVs that are just as affordable as any other car. With American exceptionalism on the line, who could resist a challenge like that?

Workplace Charging

When Workplace Charging launched, the goal was to develop best practices models for other employers to adopt, without having to reinvent the wheel each time. It leverages the Energy Department ‘s resources and technical experience with private sector partners and other stakeholders to make it easier (and cheaper) for employers to install and maintain charging stations.


NASCAR isn’t the only one getting played. The Workplace Charging part was added to EV Everywhere last year, with 13 private sector partners already roped in, including 3M, Chrysler Group, Duke Energy (yes, that Duke Energy) Eli Lilly and Company, Ford, GE, GM, Google, Nissan, San Diego Gas & Electric, Siemens, Tesla, and Verizon.

Fast-forward barely one year later and the head count now stands at 55, representing 150 work sites and more than one million employees.

Workplace charging dovetails with EV Everywhere by embracing the convenience factor. For EV owners with access to home charging, workplace charging is a convenient battery range extender. For apartment dwellers and other EV owners who don’t have a home charging station, workplace charging can be a dealmaker.

We’ve already noting that the number of retail gas stations in the US has been plummeting while EV charging stations are skyrocketing. Who wants to drive out of their way and wait in line at the gas station when you can just slot into your spot at work?

As for the employer benefit, NASA is reporting “insane” numbers for reducing greenhouse gas emissions at Kennedy Space Center relating to employee commutes, relative to the cost of providing free electricity. For employers looking to reduce their carbon footprint, that’s translates into a cheap, easy way to bank up green cred (noting, of course, that the savings applies to the work site and does not reflect fossil fuels in the local grid mix).

NASCAR Goes Green

Come to think of it, who’s leading who? From its earliest days, the US auto industry and related motor sports have had innovation built into their bones, so it stands to reason that NASCAR would get in on the action when it comes to cutting edge EV tech.

Before signing on to Workplace Charging, NASCAR already had about 15 employee charging stations at various sites, and it used yesterday’s announcement to show off five more.

That’s nothing compared to NASCAR’s broader green initiatives, including numerous partnerships with its supply chain and federal agencies (here and here for example), along with renewable energy around the NASCAR circuit most famously at Pocono Raceway.

As for you Formula 1 fans, not to worry. Formula 1 is already nipping at NASCAR’s heels, with the first ever Formula E (for electric vehicle) series sanctioned by the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile is set for this fall.

Follow me on Twitter and Google+.

Psst, wanna keep up with all the latest EV news from CleanTechnica? Subscribe to our Electric Vehicle newsletter.

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.

Print Friendly

Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

Tags: , ,


About the Author

Tina Casey specializes in military and corporate sustainability, advanced technology, emerging materials, biofuels, and water and wastewater issues. Tina’s articles are reposted frequently on Reuters, Scientific American, and many other sites. Views expressed are her own. Follow her on Twitter @TinaMCasey and Google+.



  • Doug

    Politicalization of EV tech is counterproductive and unnecessary. Bad article.

  • Matt

    Ok instead of going over the same denier word battle with Steeple, should focus on the agreement. EV, LEDs, and winds has got cheaper faster than anyone predicted in 1990. So there is no reason for continued support of fossil fuel. The US should be trying to beat China in PV and wind installations. And pushing to make our building/biz more efficient than any where in the word. The saving on energy and the jobs created would be great US. And that great of Climate change believers and deniers alike!

    • Steeple

      Thank you, Matt. We should be installing these technologies, and encouraging countries like China and India to do the same. The economics seem to be there, and that is using technology to replace natural resources is the definition of conservation.

      • Bob_Wallace

        How many times have you been told that China and India are aggressively installing wind and solar? (The answer is several.)

        And how many times will you post as if you’ve never been told that?

        Is this a game you are going to continue to play?

        • Steeple

          Bob, you are interrupting the pleasant conversation which Matt and I are having.

          P.S. My advice to them is faster, please.

          • Bob_Wallace

            If you contact Zach he may be willing to sell you a private thread.

          • Gwennedd

            It is just a game that Steeple likes to play. He’s this site’s troll. Once in a while it’s nice to throw him a few crumbs, but since he likes to bite the hand that feeds him, maybe it’s time to stop with the crumbs. I’m seriously tired of playing the “argue with the troll” game. Been there seen that for the last 8 years. It accomplishes nothing.

  • Steeple

    One can be for Renewables and EV’s without swallowing the AGW meme. Renewables are coming into their own economically, and EV’s solve other problems than just emissions reduction. Notably, reducing our imports of OPEC crude. Rather than trying to continually start a fight, some people should be thankful that the appeal of these technologies is widening.

    • Bob_Wallace

      Yes, but that does not mean that climate change deniers should be given a gold star.

      If someone is unable to understand the data that supports human caused climate change then they should not be trusted to get anything right.

      • Steeple

        Keep the sanctimonious crusade going, Bob.

        • Bob_Wallace

          Spend some time and learn the science, Steeple.

    • http://electrobatics.wordpress.com/ arne-nl

      “One can be for Renewables and EV’s without swallowing the AGW meme.”

      Emphasis on the word ‘can’. In theory it is possible, but in real life the opposition to renewables/ev’s is mostly aligned with AGW denial and a broader denial of all environmental issues (eg fracking).

      • Steeple

        How do you reconcile the high implementation of renewables and ownership of Teslas in Texas vs that meme? Get out of the echo chamber and look around.

        • Bob_Wallace

          Texas has a lot of wind farms because Texas has excellent wind resources and wind makes money in Texas. Money speaks loudly in Texas.

          Texas, as you must know, has fought the introduction of Tesla showrooms. The people in Texas who want to own a Tesla are forced to put out extra effort in order to purchase one.

          Texas is not, by any means, our reddest state. That “honor” goes to places like South Carolina, Tennessee and Arizona. Texas is actually on the way to becoming a blue state and could switch as early as the next presidential election if there is an adequate Democratic get out the vote effort.

        • http://electrobatics.wordpress.com/ arne-nl

          The endless drumbeat of negative reporting on the Volt, Tesla and solar power (Solyndra!), etc. from the Fox News echo chamber is indeed rather hard to miss. Are you deaf?

    • sault

      One can’t be rational and accept that science can increase our understanding of the world while also denying that climate change exists. What don’t you understand, that CO2 traps heat or that human activity has increased its concentration by 40%? If you accept all this but still think climate sensitivity is much lower than scientists realize, you must present valid scientific evidence to back your claim up. Otherwise, you are just being illogical and unscientific in regards to your climate science denial.

      • Steeple

        I’m not getting into a debate with a mob on this.

        Suffice to say that the proponents of AGW have to been able to reconcile

        A) why atmospheric Carbon levels went up during the period of the mid 40′s to mid 70′s while temps decreased

        B) why their predictive models have failed of late

        C) how the role of other natural and cyclical factors such as solar activity, radiant cooling, absorption by vegetation, etc impact the overall global heat balance.

        Frankly, believing in a single variable relationship of Carbon concentration exhibits a gross simplification of how complex our climate functions, and the work done has been typical of data backfitting.

        • Bob_Wallace

          a) During and post WWII we pumped an amazing amount of coal smoke from dirty, inefficient plants into the atmosphere. This is when many of our cities in the US became almost unlivable. This is when we were killing our lakes and forests (and ourselves) with acid rain.

          Sulfur dioxide. Learn about it.

          Climate scientists call this the period of “Global Dimming”.

          b) Predictive models have not failed. Earlier or later. That is a climate change denier lie.

          Models have not been 100% accurate and were not expected to be 100% accurate. The process of modeling is to set up a model with what is known, test it against actual data, and then make adjustments to make the model more accurate.

          The inaccuracies in the model give clues as to where to look for new understanding of the details.

          c) Solar cycles, ENSO cycles, volcanic activity, changes in albedo, and other factors are included in most models. If you don’t know this then you are too poorly informed about climate science to have a valid opinion.
          No climate scientist holds that a single variable is at play. That’s just a stupid thing to suggest.

          You’re very, very badly informed.

          If you don’t wish to stay that way then get the hell away from places like Watts and Forbes which post blatant lies and spend some time on a site like Skeptical Science that will explain the science to you.

        • sault

          LOL…you say you’re not going to debate “with a mob” and then go right into promoting climate denier talking points. Your simplistic understanding of climate science is the biggest clue that you don’t even know what you’re talking about. If you think all climate scientists do is look at CO2 concentrations and determine, without any estimation ranges, what the temperature will be on an exact date, you are woefully ignorant.
          You need to read up on the fact that the Earth has tremendous thermal inertia, that natural cyclic climate forcings are still happening, and that human activity causes climate change that is superimposed on top of these cyclic forcings. Also, a lot more than CO2 comes out of our smokestacks loke aerosols, which cool the climate and have a much faster response time than CO2.
          You also need to realize that the only way climate models have failed is in the fact that they have UNDERESTIMATED many of the impacts of climate change from arctic ice melting, sea level rise and the disruption of weather patterns. And you also need to realize that climate models cover the ENTIRE globe while the temperature record does not include the polar regions where most of the warming from human activity is taking place.
          Sorry, but 99% of all scientific papers published in the last 20 years, 98% of all climate scientists, and EVERY SINGLE scientific organization on the planet agrees that human activity is changing the climate. How does it feel to be in the lunatic fringe?

          • Steeple

            Yeah, like I said I’m done trying to debate with mobs.

            In the end, it doesn’t matter if you convert me or not. Not that you are doing a very good job of it. Hint: a good first step would be a working model that wasn’t producing results in the low end/outside the band of a 2 sigma confidence band.

            If you really believe your case, it only matters that you convince the governments of China and India about the potential risks of GHGs. Fortunately, the improved economics of renewables makes the case for shifting away from fossil fuels an easier sell. The AGW Guilt meme hasnt been very effective with either of these two as we can all see.

          • Bob_Wallace

            Steeple: “98% of all climate scientist say that I’m spouting crap so what I’ll do is call them a mob and ignore what they have to say.”

            That you don’t know the Chinese government’s position on climate change just points out one more gap in your knowledge base.

            Here – this is straight from the government of China.

            http://www.ccchina.gov.cn/WebSite/CCChina/UpFile/File1324.pdf

            And here’s India’s plan…
            http://www.c2es.org/international/key-country-policies/india/climate-plan-summary
            Look, Steeple, we’re trying to tell you that there is a world of information that you are not accessing. You’re just posting junk due to your ignorance.

            Time to step up your game or decide to go hang out with the lunatic fringe.

          • Steeple

            Bob, the Chinese government is renowed for it’s truthfulness and accuracy in public disclosures. Do I really have to tell you that?

            Their emissions are projected to peak in 2027. Hope that doesn’t give you nightmares.

          • Bob_Wallace

            Steeple, I suppose you don’t know that the Chinese government has set multiple “five year plan” goals for wind turbine installation, met them early, and then set higher, more aggressive goals.

            A few years back China stated that they wouldn’t reach peak CO2 emission levels until 2030. More recently they reported that they are making faster progress than they expected and will reach peak emission sooner. They are now saying that they may reach peak by 2025.

            If you were reading from reliable information sites rather than denier sites you’d have a better knowledge base.

            What gives me nightmares are the numbers of otherwise adequately intelligent individuals who believe the denier media and refuse to learn the science.

          • Steeple

            That’s great news, Bob. So the Chinese air quality will only get worse over the next 12 years. Since they have such pristine air now, problem solved.

            Like I said, you need to be taking you message to Beijing and Delhi if AGW really so is important.

            Meanwhile, we can agree on the great progress being made in renewables, EVs and LEDs.

            Denier sites. That’s funny.

          • Bob_Wallace

            Yes, the overall air in China will likely get worse over the next few years before it gets better.

            Governments have to balance many conflicting problems. The Chinese government can no more afford to crash their economy in order to stop the use of coal right now than PBO can afford to crash the US economy by stopping the use of oil.

            The world, in total, has slowed the rate of emission growth. It will take a few more years to halt the growth and then start it falling.

            Denier sites and the people who visit them are pathetic.

          • sault

            “a good first step would be a working model”
            A good first step would be to make sure you’re doing an apples to apples comparison:

            Incomplete global coverage is a potential source of bias in global temperature reconstructions if the unsampled regions are not uniformly distributed over the planet’s surface. The widely used HadCRUT4 dataset covers on average about 84% of the globe over recent decades, with the unsampled regions being concentrated at the poles and over Africa. Three existing reconstructions with near-global coverage are examined, each suggesting that HadCRUT4 is subject to bias due to its treatment of unobserved regions.
            Two alternative approaches for reconstructing global temperatures are explored, one based on an optimal interpolation algorithm and the other a hybrid method incorporating additional information from the satellite temperature record. The methods are validated on the basis of their skill at reconstructing omitted sets of observations. Both methods provide superior results than excluding the unsampled regions, with the hybrid method showing particular skill around the regions where no observations are available.
            Temperature trends are compared for the hybrid global temperature reconstruction and the raw HadCRUT4 data. The widely quoted trend since 1997 in the hybrid global reconstruction is two and a half times greater than the corresponding trend in the coverage-biased HadCRUT4 data. Coverage bias causes a cool bias in recent temperatures relative to the late 1990s which increases from around 1998 to the present. Trends starting in 1997 or 1998 are particularly biased with respect to the global trend. The issue is exacerbated by the strong El Niño event of 1997-1998, which also tends to suppress trends starting during those years.”

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.2297/abstract
            Again, you’ve presented ZERO evidence to back up your claims while there is an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community that you’re WRONG. Sorry, but you can’t just make stuff up if you want to discuss the science. Either put up some valid proof or shut up.

          • Bob_Wallace

            Uh-oh.

            Now you’ve joined the mob….

          • Steeple

            I’ve got news for you. The AGW crowd is the group making the fantastic claims. Remember, bold claims require bold evidence. So advance a convincing case. Thats how the scientific challenge process works. The burden of proof is not on me

          • Bob_Wallace

            No, Steeple.

            The burden of proof is 100% on you.

            Climate scientists have clearly laid out the data in thousands of research papers. They’ve brought their data and made it public.

            So far all you’ve brought is hot air.

          • Steeple

            Hope you didn’t bet the house on IPCC’s model runs of 1990 or 1995. Already well outside of the statistically acceptable margin or error. Ignore the text and look at the graph of model runs.

            Science is about the ability to replicate results. Global temps are already in the far tail of the distributions expected from these numerous model runs. If temps flatline for another year or two, all of these model runs will have been violated.

            That’s not my definition of settled science. No, that would be an utter failure. Let’s revisit in 2 years and see where we are.

            http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/oct/01/ipcc-global-warming-projections-accurate

          • Bob_Wallace

            Steeple, it’s interesting that you try to tell us what science is when you actively refute it.

            The models of 25 years ago were not as accurate as one would wish, therefore climate change is disproven.

            Global temperatures have flat-lined for the last couple of years?

            Your ignorance is spread all over the table for all to see.

          • Steeple

            Well, just let me know when the good models come out. We’ll focus on those.

          • Steeple

            Oh look. “the hiatus could continue for the rest of this decade”

            http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-09/global-warming-slowdown-due-to-pacific-winds-study-shows.html

            Looks like those model runs are toast.

            Settled Science. Maybe not so much.

          • Bob_Wallace

            You know very well that what is being talked about is a slight decrease in the rate of troposphere warming. That the planet continues to warm with most of the heat going into the ocean.

          • http://electrobatics.wordpress.com/ arne-nl

            “bold claims require bold evidence”. Yes the bold evidence is there for all to see. But if you deny the melting polar icecaps, shrinking glaciers, rising see level, then it is clear no evidence at all can be produced to sway your position. The science is 100% clear on this, and that message has been consistent for more than a century. Only conclusion possible: your position is based on faith and faith alone.

            “debating a mob” Climate science deniers are the ones employing mob tactics. They persistently try to smear climate scientists and accuse them of fraud and conspiracy. All evidence-fee of course. But if you are a believer, you don’t ask for evidence. Asking evidence is dangerous because it suggests a lack of faith. The mob will turn on you. Their voices are loud, but they have nothing to say.

          • Steeple

            No, Arne. All of the things that you point out are evidence of Global Warming, but not necessarily driven by human activity. Remember, the ice caps have disappeared four times in earlier history without the effects of man. Why are you so sure that is the case now? The broken models don’t seem to be very convincing.

  • http://electrobatics.wordpress.com/ arne-nl

    But we got an infiltrator inside the NASCAR organisation: Leilani Münter. The plot thickens…

Back to Top ↑