So are people really going to hassle with plugging their car in and waiting for a charge on something they still have to fill full of gas or are they just going to take the easy road and pick something that gets similar gas millage? Also who
Well, if you're driving 40 miles or less a day, you'll almost *never* need to fill up. Thats the point. Do you drive more than 40 miles a day consistantly? I know i sure as hell don't, and a lot of other people do not as well. If you're driving 80 miles a day or more, you really need to think about public transportation, or getting a place closer to where you work!
Well, if you're driving 40 miles or less a day, you'll almost *never* need to fill up. Thats the point. Do you drive more than 40 miles a day consistantly? I know i sure as hell don't, and a lot of other people do not as well. If you're driving 80 miles a day or more, you really need to think about public transportation, or getting a place closer to where you work!
I said in a previous post that I drive 40-50 miles round trip if I don't make any stops and if I don't go back out after I get home, which I almost always do.
I'll explain why, skip this part if you don't care.
Thanks to our area being sandwiched by mountains and the Puget Sound sprawl can only go 2 ways. So take a normal city on flat ground in the middle of the desert shave off two directions E/W and stack them on top of N/S and thats what you have. It pushes the affordable homes well outside of the working areas. I could live closer to work, in a cardboard box without a yard, force my wife to stop taking care of your daughter and go back to work full time, live in the middle of a polluted city which you still need a car to get around and has one of the worst congestion issues and a dumb ass mayor too boot. Yes I'd do that to save some gas... I live as close as I can and the commute is pretty easy thanks to the hours I work, about 20-30min. I need a car that fits my needs, doesn't use gas and comes from a company that doesn't set itself up for failure.
I've taken the bus and I ride my bike. I also voted on traffic reducing measures. But they don't actually work for me, especially with the rain and darkness in the winter months. My commute would be greatly improved by light rail, but unfortunately all the traffic improvements such as light rail and adding more lanes has been focused on I-5 Everett to Seattle, not 405 Everett to Bellevue. So while it would improve public transit for one freeway the one I'm on won't improve any time soon.
If you drive less then 40 miles a day then you're lugging around gas and all of its heavy equipment. Even if you bleed the tank dry your still hauling a lot of mechanical equipment.
Why not get rid of it and improve its range to 60-70-80 miles and eliminate the need for gas? Again why call it electric when they're unwilling to give up gas? It couldn't be because their buddies, big oil, are pushing to still have a future stake in the auto market?
If Tesla can make a high performance 100% electric car that has a range of 220 miles and does 0-60 in 3 sec, and has plans for a more family friendly model for 30k built on the same principles, how can you not get behind it? It seems like a rock solid plan but because the American auto industry is so bloated we should keep it rolling around on its fat ass hoping it finds its feet again?
I'm all for giving Detroit a bailout loan, as long as it has a plan to move forward and become profitable.
Right now what I see:
- Ford looks like it doesn't have a clue and just wishes that people would forget this nonsense and just start buying cars again.
- Chevy, failed EV1, Volt that looks to under preform and have extra hoops for barely better gas millage. Will probably continue its half hearted electric car research as long as the government attaches strings to loans.
- Japan, making the most out of hybrids and technology. Leading the way currently with no clear runner up. They will probably be more apt to follow Tesla-like strategy then Detroit. Isn't gas in Tokyo over $4 even in the good times?
- Tesla, working on an affordable($30k) 100% electric car with a 190-220 mile range per day. Oil companies don't have their big greasy hooks in Tesla and can't control it. I'm sure this is the plan that Detroit would adopt if it wasn't hooked on oil.
I was talking about Washington state and the Puget sound area sorry should have been more clear. I was starting to explain my personal situation and how it influences my take on the overall discussion.
For me 100% electric car would have next to zero impact on the environment and the price of oil hardly effects the way we produce energy. According to the EIA Hydro is nearly 3/4's of PSE's energy the rest is from nuclear, solar, wind/thermal and natural gas. So I'm likely to invest in car that's 100% electric and covers the range I need. Detroit isn't working on that, they don't even see it as a viable option.
It's not 100% clean even if its 100% electric.
Other state where coal and gas still do effect electricity production, its more problematic. In some states it is possible to have 100% electric car and still have the cost of operating it flux with the price of oil. But its much less so in my state since our (PSE) energy companies heavy focus on renewable energy. So in some states the price of oil could effect the price to charge it, and the price to fill it. It will hurt even more if you need to keep gassing up the volt.
But what can we do to not get double dinged?
If other areas adopt the same energy plans even if they can't do hydro they can take advantage of other geographical advantages. Advantages Washington state doesn't have. But oil has big fat happy customers and if they'll do what they can to keep them around, including spend millions on bio fuel research.
But wait aren't bio fuels good?
They still pollute just from a non middle eastern source, slightly more sustainable resource, so its cool if they can swap out one pollution for another?
With corn being used as fuel and food we've had a hard time fulfilling our food obligations to people who desperately need them, as well as jacking up our prices here at home... way to go big oil!
"See corn didn't work lets drill baby drill! Those damn west coasters won't let us have the oil! They don't even use it!"
"How about we stop using oil as fuel?
"No we need more oil! MAWR! Even if we have to ring it out of rocks!"
"Ok pay to keep the rescue tug operational so your oil tankers don't cause a spill if they get in trouble"
"What spend a few million to save billions in a clean up? NEvAR!"
"And now you start to see why the west coast hates big oil and why their hooks aren't as deep and why we're a touch greener because of it"
Where's the money going? Why is it important for them to keep it flowing in their direction along traditional pipelines? Why are they influencing decisions so heavily one way, if they may not be the right choices? Why is it important to invest in a company that isn't tarred with big oil interests?
The bottom line as I see it, do you want big oil effecting the research and release dates along with price of fully electric vehicles while they attempt to extort every last penny they can from what they KNOW is a shrinking source? Do we want them to have their greasy hooks in our economy and our government? And if so for how long? Can we get those deep hooks out before they take us down with them?
Yes, we can.
As long as we don't allow them to sink them too deep.
I'll stop before I really get going... too late I think...
I enjoy what you have to say Vig. I am in complete agreeange about electric cars are manditory now. Its no illusion and no "conspiracy theory" that oil is, and will run out. Plain and simple. We must find a new means of transportation and electric is it. Nothing else even gets close to the effectiveness and environment friendly impact electric cars will have. Im sure down the road people will bash electric for something else like magnetic, or solar ect ect. But for now, this is a viable option! One that should have been adopted long ago, but these companies looked at there wallet and said "if it doesnt bring more cash now, fuck it" And now they are truly fucked. I laugh at them, and say this is what they get for not taking that initiative to do what was right instead of what made the most money.
I still want a electric car! and damnit, i will get a kit car if i have to. I know alota people were pumped about water powered cars, but that is a flawed design from the get go. We barely have enough fresh water to drink let alone power the millions of cars on the road. And no, nothing runs on salt water. They can barely siphon salt water from the ocean and purify it for drinking at a reasonable price (see posidon project). Electric is the way, untill a new technology hits, time to pony up and get behind it 100% and demand it.
Those that enjoy the great sounds of the gas powered motors, i encourage you to keep driving like madd! the faster we burn that stupid shit up, the faster we can move onto what we should be using already.
First, you need to get everyone on board with the same method. If someone is using a combustion generator hybrid and someone else is using hydrogen fuel cells and a third guy is trying to adapt home solar power for battery recharging, it's just a mess. Kinda like Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD, but a lot more expensive.
Second, you need to rebuild the national infrastructure to support the winner. If it's hydrogen, we need hydrogen stations nationwide to fill up. If it's batteries, we need recharging stations all over the place. You don't want to run out of juice on a road trip and find out that the nearest electric fueling station is 250 miles away.
Third, you need to retrain production and repair facilities everywhere. If your electric car throws an electromagnet, you want to be able to get to a mechanic for repairs, and ideally have a selection of them to get better prices and service. If the only place you can get repairs are at the dealerships, you face much higher prices and longer waits for repairs, as everyone else also has to go to the same place. Not ideal.
While I'm sure the oil giants don't want to lose their grip on the transportation industry to another fuel option, the problems run deeper than just money. I think the infrastructure issue in particular will be very challenging, as the switch to electric can't happen overnight. That means decades of gas stations fighting for space alongside electric stations, remote regions that offer little to no electric service and all for the inevitable technical problems you get when deploying any new technology. I think the oil situation will have to get much worse still before electric becomes a viable option for the every day driver...
Interesting points, very valid too.
To play devils advocate a bit more...
1st) Kind of a catch 22, whoever creates the infrastructure wins. No one can win until the infrastructure is created. No one is going to invest in infrastructure until there's a winner in their corner.
2nd) Considering the infrastructure issues. Most households are 2 car households more then likely one will be a gas/hybrid until the infrastructure is in place for fully electric. Making Volt/Prius a much more viable bridge to the future but still not the perfect solution to the problem. These would be the long range solution and the predictable daily driver would be the fully electric with the power station being in your garage?
Conveniently or not until the infrastructure really takes off dealerships could also act as charging stations also? The only real problem with "filling up" an electric car is charge time. Conceivably tax incentives could be give to parking lots, grocery stores public park and rides and businesses, so they could create charging stations for their employee's cars to use while they work.
So I guess buying a volt could be considered a step in the right direction even if it isn't the optimal one, yet. I still think I would buy from a company not so in bed with oil, or quite so bloated.
I doubt hydrogen is going to take off, there's still the issue of creating the hydrogen which it still takes far more energy and infrastructure to create then electricity. Isn't it potentially more dangerous in a crash or during transportation? What about those cars that run on compressed air?
3rd) I'm pretty sure dealers will take on repair and maintenance at a higher cost to the customers as part of a service plan at time of purchase, until the service industry catches up. Less moving parts less to maintain but still requires retraining.
Hydrogen takes energy to make because you have to break it off from what ever chemical its a part of. It could be produced cheaply and greenly yes, like a fill station next to a stream with either a wind farm or a solar farm to get the electricity to split the break off the hydrogen. But whats the point when your making all that power anyway why not just skip the hydrogen step and keep it just electricity?
Well imo ideal electric car has 4 motors in each wheel, you need to regenerate the braking energy from all 4 wheels anyway. So even if one or two of them break down you can still limp home.
Not to mention that with conventional new cars i doubt some backwater garage can do much or has any parts for it.
Also electric car has very few moving parts so servicing it is much less frequent and cheaper, thats apart from batteries that cost a fortune and if they age you should replace them.
Recharging isnt as bad as it might sound, the Lightning GT can supposedly charge up in 10 minutes, thats with 3 phase current i think but still.
I hear clean coal will take 10 years to implement... and many r crying that is a waste of time? I dunno seems like the Human Genome project breezed by in the same amount of time? and now we reap the benifits.
Thanks for the heads up on the affordable Tesla... I changed my mind again. Down with GM.
I still don't consider $30k affordable :P But I understand it would be for others. I want a $15k electric car, even if it's just a smart car sized car... but I know that's not very realistic given current battery technology/cost
I still think the govt should bite the bullet on this one an pony up the money for R and D. Most feasable idea would be to come up with the tech, then slowly make manditory for city cabs to be 100% electric. From there, you could slowly build out the infrastructure you need to support more and more cars.
It takes someone to pony up the cash, and look foward realizeing this isnt an immediate change, and isnt an immediate turn over profit. Who better at burning through billions than god ol uncle sam? Honestly this could generate a good number of jobs, might help eco a little.
friend pointed out to me yesterday, something i tend to overlook. Tons of things come from oil, plastics rubbers, ect ect. So it seems logical at some point when the substance becomes scarce that limits will be placed on who gets it, or how its spent. Joy riding around sounds like a good place to start cutting back. Just a thought.
http://www.anwr.org/features/oiluses.htm
Most of the things on that list can be recycled. But it doesn't even get into the chemicals like fertilizer & medicine both of which we can't live without which can't be recycled.
Just found out today that more people are being 'temporarily' laid off. Supposedly GM owes us $300M and my employer has to do something to survive until next January. That's when these people are suppose to return. The government needs to give the auto companies the (already approved) money now. Don't they realized that this problem feeds itself and the longer they wait, the worse it's going to get?
Should I also mention AIG's recent incident (again)? Apparently they spent more money for a 'conference' where they just played golf and shit instead. Now I know this isn't anything new for company conferences, but they are blowing borrowed cash at an unbelievable rate. It's no wonder why they were going bankrupt.
To top it off, they made the hotel swear to secrecy and wanted no signs posted. Reminds me of what I tell my kids... if you have to hide it, then you know you're doing something wrong. I'm tired of these fuckers and that money needs to be routed to companies who will actually put it to good use and keep people employed.
And now you know why I'm so skeptical that Detroit will use that money wisely or even be able to pay it back. If they're just looking to make their payroll and the money won't actually cover or come close to being spent on retooling, then its money down the tubes.
The way I see it:
60% chance we can spend the cash and lose it.
20% chance we can spend the cash and have it returned (if we put strings attached)
20% we do nothing, save our poultry money, turn this into a depression and use it to reboot the auto industry as we switch all of our mail trucks to Hybrids under a new company that is government sponsored and uses a fraction of the existing auto industry. Later they can branch out into selling those trucks to outside vendors like UPS DHL ect.
Also according to that article Bush would do a bail out now if the Dems would give up trying to force worker/human rights on south American countries. How dare they try to take care of humans in other countries by using diplomacy and trade instead of just invading and taking by force. Dem's wouldn't turn on any kind of Union even non-American unions so it will never happen.
Looks like it will happen but it won't be until after Bush lets them fail. So instead of a bail out its more then likely we'll see some kind of new company wipe the slate clean and raise from the ashes and make use of the infrastructure already in place.
I hope they call his bluff and force him into action. How petty and vindictive can he be? Even with 100% self serving interests he can't possibly want to be the president that sinks the auto industry? I think the string need to include the CEO's put up things they own as collateral. So they sell 4 of the 5 mansions they own, if things go south. They shouldn't be allowed to use stock in a failed company as collateral.
Again, spread the debt around but not the wealth. Individualism/capitalism in the good times, socialism in the bad times. Total bullshit, take the good with the bad and don't cry about. Mismanage your company and fail to adapt, be prepared to be out on the street.
As for the Unions breaking the backs of big industry I think that's total crap. How long did big industry break the backs of the little guys so they had to form unions? Again more reaping what they sew, if they treated their employees fairly they wouldn't have formed strong unions. Also many unions realize that when times are hard they have to give up things, things that don't always come back when times are good again.
I wonder if the unions would try and put some kind of a Disney storybook style buyout deal on the table?
I know what you're getting at, and I can see why you'd be concerned about giving them any cash. The only thing I can say is that they(the big 3) have a track record of paying of government loans. I don't expect to see the exec's on a beach in Maui. I have no doubt that they would spend some of that money on catch up bills, but money WOULD go to retool.
They understand the situation they are in, but they were too arrogant/slow to move in a different direction. That's the part that I don't like about the big 3. Like it was mentioned earlier, they kept insisting on building SUVs when the market no longer called for them. They have shifted their business plan, but now credit has dried up, so they can't even sell the cars to people who WANT to buy them.
I still think the govt should bite the bullet on this one an pony up the money for R and D. Most feasable idea would be to come up with the tech, then slowly make manditory for city cabs to be 100% electric. From there, you could slowly build out the infrastructure you need to support more and more cars.
It takes someone to pony up the cash, and look foward realizeing this isnt an immediate change, and isnt an immediate turn over profit. Who better at burning through billions than god ol uncle sam? Honestly this could generate a good number of jobs, might help eco a little.
Think about what all this would mean. You want the government to pony up the money to pay for R&D, but where does the government get that money? You and me. I for one don't want my taxes spent on creating new technologies when all the profits from those efforts go to the car companies and not back in my pocket.
Second, this sort of idea is one of the legitimate perils of socialism. Already we have social security in America, the banking system is on the way to being nationalized and many are hoping for nationalized health care. If you live in America, you know how inept our government can be - how much more of your life do you want to hand over to them?
Beyond that, nationalization is the death of competition and capitalism. Consider the Soviet Union. For decades, they attempted to compete with the United States in virtual every technological arena. Militarily, they did alright, but how about the rest? Did you ever hear of any great Soviet cars? Not so much. In fact, I'm hard-pressed to think of one major technical innovation that's come from a socialist government that's worth mentioning today. That's what comes when there is no incentive to compete.
If you ask the federal government to create a 'green' automobile engine using a renewable power source and they come back with a less-than-ideal option... there isn't an alternative, you live with the less-than-ideal option. Once the tax dollars are spent, you get what they give you.
Finally, even if we don't object to the cash being spent and we can be assured they'll deliver a top notch product, how long do you want to wait for it? An interesting example is the F-22 Raptor. Everyone recognizes it as the latest and greatest American fighter plane, just now replacing the aging fleet of F-15 and F-16 fighters. When did the design of the latest and greatest Raptor begin? In 1986. The prototype was finished and approved for production five years later, in 1991. When did Raptors officially begin deployment for service? In 2003. Just a quick 17 years after the project was begun, and 12 years after the prototype was approved. While we can assume that something simpler like an electric engine wouldn't take as long, the government never ever works as fast as the private sector.
I can recognize the importance of modernizing the auto industry, as so much of the economy depends upon it, but asking the American government to do that, and to do it with my money... Capitalism is the survival of the fittest. Ford, GM and Chrysler should adapt or perish, just like every other company in a free market society.
The Ansari X-Prize, awarded for achieving civilian space flight, was an entirely privately funded operation. It's the perfect example of capitalism: driving competition to achieve innovative results in exchange for significant financial compensation. Scale Composites met the challenge, putting a civilian astronaut in orbit for just $25 million. That's the American Way, and it's worked for more than 200 years.
I would rather have a University grant for developing the technologies. That way, at least some people are learning from the development, and it doesn't put the tech into any one manufacturer.
I guess i'm "ok" with giving the big three a LOAN but only giving it if they have a plan for how they will get it paid back by a date. Thats how banks do it, and as it seems our gov/we is/are now the proud owner/s of the banks why not use that system.
The problem is, say we give them x millions and they have to pay it back in x years. What happen if they don't pay it back in x years? Would we/the gov then own the company's... Then what would we do with it?
Sorry BP already bought into Bio Fuel research at Berkley to keep the hippies tied up with nonsensical research that ultimately ends in the demise of our planet. Once we stop polluting the green house effect will reverse bringing about a 3rd ice age.
But not before making BP wealthy enough to colonize Mars and start raping its natural resource... iron. They will use said iron to build a giant moon sized space station. They're still working on a name.
Giant-Iron-Moon?
No no. Needs to be Something-Star...
Giant-Iron-British-Star?
British-Imperial-Star?
Im with you in reguards to capitalism being the backbone of this whole deal. If they drown from there own ignorance, fine with me. What im not okay with is watching everyone bitch and moan about oil this and that, yelling at the govt to do something about it, but then denying A viable option. Like letting them spend the money to find the tech.
Im not saying lets put up a new building filled with govt employees creating this thing. Im saying give them the thumbs up to fund R&D. Just like u mentioned with the prize money for space travel. There needs to be money fronted for it to get the gears going, and uncle sam is currently the only one with the ability to borrow/approve such a number. Yes it comes from our pockets, but last I checked, I never approved for the billions being spent on a waist of time "war". Hell take 2 months of what they get, and pump it into someone finding a way for elec cars to be feasable!
American way isnt always right. Jumping out there and bashing ideas because they dont fit comfortably into the ideal "capital" way of doing things doesnt make them wrong. Many countries are social, and they do just fine. Less you remember russia was and still is a major super power. I honestly look to China or Japan to make and mass produce this first. At which time, the rest of the world will buy up the tech, and be a generation behind at all times.
Replies
Well, if you're driving 40 miles or less a day, you'll almost *never* need to fill up. Thats the point. Do you drive more than 40 miles a day consistantly? I know i sure as hell don't, and a lot of other people do not as well. If you're driving 80 miles a day or more, you really need to think about public transportation, or getting a place closer to where you work!
I'll explain why, skip this part if you don't care. If you drive less then 40 miles a day then you're lugging around gas and all of its heavy equipment. Even if you bleed the tank dry your still hauling a lot of mechanical equipment.
Why not get rid of it and improve its range to 60-70-80 miles and eliminate the need for gas? Again why call it electric when they're unwilling to give up gas? It couldn't be because their buddies, big oil, are pushing to still have a future stake in the auto market?
If Tesla can make a high performance 100% electric car that has a range of 220 miles and does 0-60 in 3 sec, and has plans for a more family friendly model for 30k built on the same principles, how can you not get behind it? It seems like a rock solid plan but because the American auto industry is so bloated we should keep it rolling around on its fat ass hoping it finds its feet again?
I'm all for giving Detroit a bailout loan, as long as it has a plan to move forward and become profitable.
Right now what I see:
- Ford looks like it doesn't have a clue and just wishes that people would forget this nonsense and just start buying cars again.
- Chevy, failed EV1, Volt that looks to under preform and have extra hoops for barely better gas millage. Will probably continue its half hearted electric car research as long as the government attaches strings to loans.
- Japan, making the most out of hybrids and technology. Leading the way currently with no clear runner up. They will probably be more apt to follow Tesla-like strategy then Detroit. Isn't gas in Tokyo over $4 even in the good times?
- Tesla, working on an affordable($30k) 100% electric car with a 190-220 mile range per day. Oil companies don't have their big greasy hooks in Tesla and can't control it. I'm sure this is the plan that Detroit would adopt if it wasn't hooked on oil.
What happens when the price of gas hits $10-50 a gal? Unless the utility I'm getting my electricity from uses gas, I'll hardly see an impact. A lot of our power comes from Hydro, then nuclear, then solar, then thermal and wind, then natural gas. Which except for Hydro most markets could adopt.
B
For me 100% electric car would have next to zero impact on the environment and the price of oil hardly effects the way we produce energy. According to the EIA Hydro is nearly 3/4's of PSE's energy the rest is from nuclear, solar, wind/thermal and natural gas. So I'm likely to invest in car that's 100% electric and covers the range I need. Detroit isn't working on that, they don't even see it as a viable option.
It's not 100% clean even if its 100% electric.
Other state where coal and gas still do effect electricity production, its more problematic. In some states it is possible to have 100% electric car and still have the cost of operating it flux with the price of oil. But its much less so in my state since our (PSE) energy companies heavy focus on renewable energy. So in some states the price of oil could effect the price to charge it, and the price to fill it. It will hurt even more if you need to keep gassing up the volt.
But what can we do to not get double dinged?
If other areas adopt the same energy plans even if they can't do hydro they can take advantage of other geographical advantages. Advantages Washington state doesn't have. But oil has big fat happy customers and if they'll do what they can to keep them around, including spend millions on bio fuel research.
But wait aren't bio fuels good?
They still pollute just from a non middle eastern source, slightly more sustainable resource, so its cool if they can swap out one pollution for another?
With corn being used as fuel and food we've had a hard time fulfilling our food obligations to people who desperately need them, as well as jacking up our prices here at home... way to go big oil!
"See corn didn't work lets drill baby drill! Those damn west coasters won't let us have the oil! They don't even use it!"
"How about we stop using oil as fuel?
"No we need more oil! MAWR! Even if we have to ring it out of rocks!"
"Ok pay to keep the rescue tug operational so your oil tankers don't cause a spill if they get in trouble"
"What spend a few million to save billions in a clean up? NEvAR!"
"And now you start to see why the west coast hates big oil and why their hooks aren't as deep and why we're a touch greener because of it"
Where's the money going? Why is it important for them to keep it flowing in their direction along traditional pipelines? Why are they influencing decisions so heavily one way, if they may not be the right choices? Why is it important to invest in a company that isn't tarred with big oil interests?
The bottom line as I see it, do you want big oil effecting the research and release dates along with price of fully electric vehicles while they attempt to extort every last penny they can from what they KNOW is a shrinking source? Do we want them to have their greasy hooks in our economy and our government? And if so for how long? Can we get those deep hooks out before they take us down with them?
Yes, we can.
As long as we don't allow them to sink them too deep.
I'll stop before I really get going... too late I think...
I still want a electric car! and damnit, i will get a kit car if i have to. I know alota people were pumped about water powered cars, but that is a flawed design from the get go. We barely have enough fresh water to drink let alone power the millions of cars on the road. And no, nothing runs on salt water. They can barely siphon salt water from the ocean and purify it for drinking at a reasonable price (see posidon project). Electric is the way, untill a new technology hits, time to pony up and get behind it 100% and demand it.
Those that enjoy the great sounds of the gas powered motors, i encourage you to keep driving like madd! the faster we burn that stupid shit up, the faster we can move onto what we should be using already.
First, you need to get everyone on board with the same method. If someone is using a combustion generator hybrid and someone else is using hydrogen fuel cells and a third guy is trying to adapt home solar power for battery recharging, it's just a mess. Kinda like Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD, but a lot more expensive.
Second, you need to rebuild the national infrastructure to support the winner. If it's hydrogen, we need hydrogen stations nationwide to fill up. If it's batteries, we need recharging stations all over the place. You don't want to run out of juice on a road trip and find out that the nearest electric fueling station is 250 miles away.
Third, you need to retrain production and repair facilities everywhere. If your electric car throws an electromagnet, you want to be able to get to a mechanic for repairs, and ideally have a selection of them to get better prices and service. If the only place you can get repairs are at the dealerships, you face much higher prices and longer waits for repairs, as everyone else also has to go to the same place. Not ideal.
While I'm sure the oil giants don't want to lose their grip on the transportation industry to another fuel option, the problems run deeper than just money. I think the infrastructure issue in particular will be very challenging, as the switch to electric can't happen overnight. That means decades of gas stations fighting for space alongside electric stations, remote regions that offer little to no electric service and all for the inevitable technical problems you get when deploying any new technology. I think the oil situation will have to get much worse still before electric becomes a viable option for the every day driver...
To play devils advocate a bit more...
1st) Kind of a catch 22, whoever creates the infrastructure wins. No one can win until the infrastructure is created. No one is going to invest in infrastructure until there's a winner in their corner.
2nd) Considering the infrastructure issues. Most households are 2 car households more then likely one will be a gas/hybrid until the infrastructure is in place for fully electric. Making Volt/Prius a much more viable bridge to the future but still not the perfect solution to the problem. These would be the long range solution and the predictable daily driver would be the fully electric with the power station being in your garage?
Conveniently or not until the infrastructure really takes off dealerships could also act as charging stations also? The only real problem with "filling up" an electric car is charge time. Conceivably tax incentives could be give to parking lots, grocery stores public park and rides and businesses, so they could create charging stations for their employee's cars to use while they work.
So I guess buying a volt could be considered a step in the right direction even if it isn't the optimal one, yet. I still think I would buy from a company not so in bed with oil, or quite so bloated.
I doubt hydrogen is going to take off, there's still the issue of creating the hydrogen which it still takes far more energy and infrastructure to create then electricity. Isn't it potentially more dangerous in a crash or during transportation? What about those cars that run on compressed air?
3rd) I'm pretty sure dealers will take on repair and maintenance at a higher cost to the customers as part of a service plan at time of purchase, until the service industry catches up. Less moving parts less to maintain but still requires retraining.
Not to mention that with conventional new cars i doubt some backwater garage can do much or has any parts for it.
Also electric car has very few moving parts so servicing it is much less frequent and cheaper, thats apart from batteries that cost a fortune and if they age you should replace them.
Recharging isnt as bad as it might sound, the Lightning GT can supposedly charge up in 10 minutes, thats with 3 phase current i think but still.
I hear clean coal will take 10 years to implement... and many r crying that is a waste of time? I dunno seems like the Human Genome project breezed by in the same amount of time? and now we reap the benifits.
Thanks for the heads up on the affordable Tesla... I changed my mind again. Down with GM.
It takes someone to pony up the cash, and look foward realizeing this isnt an immediate change, and isnt an immediate turn over profit. Who better at burning through billions than god ol uncle sam? Honestly this could generate a good number of jobs, might help eco a little.
friend pointed out to me yesterday, something i tend to overlook. Tons of things come from oil, plastics rubbers, ect ect. So it seems logical at some point when the substance becomes scarce that limits will be placed on who gets it, or how its spent. Joy riding around sounds like a good place to start cutting back. Just a thought.
Most of the things on that list can be recycled. But it doesn't even get into the chemicals like fertilizer & medicine both of which we can't live without which can't be recycled.
I saw this on google's news widget, thought it was a good read. I can't tell if the article is slanted toward Dems, or if that's just the way the situation is going.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/us/politics/11auto.html?em
Should I also mention AIG's recent incident (again)? Apparently they spent more money for a 'conference' where they just played golf and shit instead. Now I know this isn't anything new for company conferences, but they are blowing borrowed cash at an unbelievable rate. It's no wonder why they were going bankrupt.
To top it off, they made the hotel swear to secrecy and wanted no signs posted. Reminds me of what I tell my kids... if you have to hide it, then you know you're doing something wrong. I'm tired of these fuckers and that money needs to be routed to companies who will actually put it to good use and keep people employed.
The way I see it:
60% chance we can spend the cash and lose it.
20% chance we can spend the cash and have it returned (if we put strings attached)
20% we do nothing, save our poultry money, turn this into a depression and use it to reboot the auto industry as we switch all of our mail trucks to Hybrids under a new company that is government sponsored and uses a fraction of the existing auto industry. Later they can branch out into selling those trucks to outside vendors like UPS DHL ect.
Also according to that article Bush would do a bail out now if the Dems would give up trying to force worker/human rights on south American countries. How dare they try to take care of humans in other countries by using diplomacy and trade instead of just invading and taking by force. Dem's wouldn't turn on any kind of Union even non-American unions so it will never happen.
Looks like it will happen but it won't be until after Bush lets them fail. So instead of a bail out its more then likely we'll see some kind of new company wipe the slate clean and raise from the ashes and make use of the infrastructure already in place.
I hope they call his bluff and force him into action. How petty and vindictive can he be? Even with 100% self serving interests he can't possibly want to be the president that sinks the auto industry? I think the string need to include the CEO's put up things they own as collateral. So they sell 4 of the 5 mansions they own, if things go south. They shouldn't be allowed to use stock in a failed company as collateral.
Again, spread the debt around but not the wealth. Individualism/capitalism in the good times, socialism in the bad times. Total bullshit, take the good with the bad and don't cry about. Mismanage your company and fail to adapt, be prepared to be out on the street.
As for the Unions breaking the backs of big industry I think that's total crap. How long did big industry break the backs of the little guys so they had to form unions? Again more reaping what they sew, if they treated their employees fairly they wouldn't have formed strong unions. Also many unions realize that when times are hard they have to give up things, things that don't always come back when times are good again.
I wonder if the unions would try and put some kind of a Disney storybook style buyout deal on the table?
They understand the situation they are in, but they were too arrogant/slow to move in a different direction. That's the part that I don't like about the big 3. Like it was mentioned earlier, they kept insisting on building SUVs when the market no longer called for them. They have shifted their business plan, but now credit has dried up, so they can't even sell the cars to people who WANT to buy them.
Think about what all this would mean. You want the government to pony up the money to pay for R&D, but where does the government get that money? You and me. I for one don't want my taxes spent on creating new technologies when all the profits from those efforts go to the car companies and not back in my pocket.
Second, this sort of idea is one of the legitimate perils of socialism. Already we have social security in America, the banking system is on the way to being nationalized and many are hoping for nationalized health care. If you live in America, you know how inept our government can be - how much more of your life do you want to hand over to them?
Beyond that, nationalization is the death of competition and capitalism. Consider the Soviet Union. For decades, they attempted to compete with the United States in virtual every technological arena. Militarily, they did alright, but how about the rest? Did you ever hear of any great Soviet cars? Not so much. In fact, I'm hard-pressed to think of one major technical innovation that's come from a socialist government that's worth mentioning today. That's what comes when there is no incentive to compete.
If you ask the federal government to create a 'green' automobile engine using a renewable power source and they come back with a less-than-ideal option... there isn't an alternative, you live with the less-than-ideal option. Once the tax dollars are spent, you get what they give you.
Finally, even if we don't object to the cash being spent and we can be assured they'll deliver a top notch product, how long do you want to wait for it? An interesting example is the F-22 Raptor. Everyone recognizes it as the latest and greatest American fighter plane, just now replacing the aging fleet of F-15 and F-16 fighters. When did the design of the latest and greatest Raptor begin? In 1986. The prototype was finished and approved for production five years later, in 1991. When did Raptors officially begin deployment for service? In 2003. Just a quick 17 years after the project was begun, and 12 years after the prototype was approved. While we can assume that something simpler like an electric engine wouldn't take as long, the government never ever works as fast as the private sector.
I can recognize the importance of modernizing the auto industry, as so much of the economy depends upon it, but asking the American government to do that, and to do it with my money... Capitalism is the survival of the fittest. Ford, GM and Chrysler should adapt or perish, just like every other company in a free market society.
The Ansari X-Prize, awarded for achieving civilian space flight, was an entirely privately funded operation. It's the perfect example of capitalism: driving competition to achieve innovative results in exchange for significant financial compensation. Scale Composites met the challenge, putting a civilian astronaut in orbit for just $25 million. That's the American Way, and it's worked for more than 200 years.
The problem is, say we give them x millions and they have to pay it back in x years. What happen if they don't pay it back in x years? Would we/the gov then own the company's... Then what would we do with it?
But not before making BP wealthy enough to colonize Mars and start raping its natural resource... iron. They will use said iron to build a giant moon sized space station. They're still working on a name.
Giant-Iron-Moon?
No no. Needs to be Something-Star...
Giant-Iron-British-Star?
British-Imperial-Star?
They have some time to work out the kinks.
Im not saying lets put up a new building filled with govt employees creating this thing. Im saying give them the thumbs up to fund R&D. Just like u mentioned with the prize money for space travel. There needs to be money fronted for it to get the gears going, and uncle sam is currently the only one with the ability to borrow/approve such a number. Yes it comes from our pockets, but last I checked, I never approved for the billions being spent on a waist of time "war". Hell take 2 months of what they get, and pump it into someone finding a way for elec cars to be feasable!
American way isnt always right. Jumping out there and bashing ideas because they dont fit comfortably into the ideal "capital" way of doing things doesnt make them wrong. Many countries are social, and they do just fine. Less you remember russia was and still is a major super power. I honestly look to China or Japan to make and mass produce this first. At which time, the rest of the world will buy up the tech, and be a generation behind at all times.