New cars, or in this case... not.

[Ken_McE]

ikendu:
So, here's my thought... we should go to our local car dealers and ask "Do you have any vehicles I can charge up at home from my electric socket?". When they say "No", then we should say "Here's my home phone number, I won't be buying any new cars until you've got some that can be charged at home.

You're trying to create a market for a non-existant product??

Drizzle:
I haven't been following this the way you have but I am right now interested in buying a PHEV. With Hybrids out there already it seems like such a small step to add a plug-in receptacle. What's the hold up on it?

Well, with the Prius, the car is designed to never let the battery get more than half empty. (or is it 60%?) or more than, er 85%(??) full. This gives you a good life expectancy for the battery, which is a handy sales point. You also (at least with the USAn models) have no real control over how full or empty the battery is when you get home. I don't know if anyone has found a hack for this. It would be a delicate matter to run down the battery to almost nothing, but only when you were almost home. Pulling up at your house and only needing a few amp hours would make plugging in silly. Topping up the battery to 100% charge every night would cut down on its life expectancy.

tebore:
Not to mention that Wind/solar uses a huge amount of something we don't have a lot of ... land.

For wind, how about up on the Rockies? Pretty windy, and not a lot of houses up there. For sun, try the American southwest. Thousands of square miles of mostly empty out there.


I wish we could... get microwave transmission up to snuff then we can have an orbital solar panel beam power back down to us.

We could do that now. Don't know how the economics would work out. We probably won't get involved until the Japanese have it up and running.

drizzle:
I've heard of brand loyalty but c'mon, nothing short of a Jaguar? I can think of a dozen or more vehicles short of a Jaguar that I would own over a Prius...and I like the Prius, a friend of mine owns one.

I actually had that choice, (found a good deal on a Jag.) Also found out there's no one in this county that works on Jags. Went with the Prius. Figured either one would be fun.


Biker Bear:
The problem with that sort of technology is that while it doesn't put greenhouse gases into the atmosphere - it does "import heat" that wouldn't make it into our environment otherwise. Think about it - the power from a solar energy satellite is solar energy that otherwise would not get into our atmosphere.

Depends on how you work it. No reason we couldn't put them up in pairs. One powersat, one matching shadesat. As a fringe benefit we could use them to tamper with the weather.

 

[ikendu]

You're trying to create a market for a non-existant product [PHEVs]??

Yes. That's the basic notion. Ending our addiction to petroleum will very likely require us to shift a large portion of our driving miles from liquid fuels to electricity.

If we used every last acre of corn for ethanol, it would displace about 15% of our gasoline.

If we used every last acre of soy beans for biodiesel, it would displace about 6% of our diesel.

Switching miles to electricity is important enough that I am indeed trying to figure out how to create a market for a non-existant product.

 

[powernoodle]

cars are destroying our . . . climate.

Are cars making it too warm, or too cold?

"Signs of New Ice Age" - New York Times headline, September 18, 1924

"America in Longest Warm Spell since 1778 - Temperature Line Records a 25 Year Rise" - New York Times headline, March 27, 1933

"Scientists Ponder Why World's Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Seen as Inevitable" - New York Times headline, May 21, 1975

"Past Hot Times Hold Few Reasons to Relax About New Warming" - New York Times headline, December 27, 2005

Al Gore warns of global warming on coldest day in 50 years

 

[tebore]

ikendu:
tebore:
Not to mention that Wind/solar uses a huge amount of something we don't have a lot of ... land.

For wind, how about up on the Rockies? Pretty windy, and not a lot of houses up there. For sun, try the American southwest. Thousands of square miles of mostly empty out there.


I wish we could... get microwave transmission up to snuff then we can have an orbital solar panel beam power back down to us.

We could do that now. Don't know how the economics would work out. We probably won't get involved until the Japanese have it up and running.

At point one we're back to we can get the power, but no one lives there to use it. Transmission loss would be huge.

Last time I checked at microwave transmission for power it was at like 20% efficiency(that was when it was just a thought they decided to test) I have no idea what it's at now.

 

[ikendu]

Transmission loss would be huge.

Today's average loss to transmission is 8%

 

[ikendu]

Are cars making it too warm, or too cold?

Too warm. CO2 levels are now 25% higher than at any time in the last 650,000 years. CO2 traps heat. It is just a fact. The melting glaciers and arctic ice are testimony to this effect. The more ice that melts, the faster the ocean heats because the ice used to reflect sun light out into space. The now ice-less waters are darker and directly absorb even more heat faster. Global warming and arctic ice melt is no longer a theory. It is directly observable (as are the drowning polar bears).

I won't disagree that scientists have gotten some things wrong in the past. Leading French scientists thought that when the Suez canal was opened that the Mediteranian would rise 20 feet (it didn't). However, it doesn't mean that all science is wrong.

 

[turbodog]

Don't confuse them.

Fish, barrel...

Are cars making it too warm, or too cold?

"Signs of New Ice Age" - New York Times headline, September 18, 1924

"America in Longest Warm Spell since 1778 - Temperature Line Records a 25 Year Rise" - New York Times headline, March 27, 1933

"Scientists Ponder Why World's Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Seen as Inevitable" - New York Times headline, May 21, 1975

"Past Hot Times Hold Few Reasons to Relax About New Warming" - New York Times headline, December 27, 2005

Al Gore warns of global warming on coldest day in 50 years

 

[ikendu]

As for ...Biomass, ...it's not perfect.

I'm not looking for perfection, myself. I just want something that is better than using imported petroleum.

 

[drizzle]

drizzle:
I've heard of brand loyalty but c'mon, nothing short of a Jaguar? I can think of a dozen or more vehicles short of a Jaguar that I would own over a Prius...and I like the Prius, a friend of mine owns one.

I actually had that choice, (found a good deal on a Jag.) Also found out there's no one in this county that works on Jags. Went with the Prius. Figured either one would be fun.

Depending on where I lived I would make the same choice with respect to Jags but then I would pick from one of the other dozen.

This is of course just talking about the driving experience. There are all the other practical reasons to choose the Prius.

 

[Norm]

EVs and PHEVs are not the answer as one group might lead you to beleive. Think about it, power has to come from somewhere. To get more power you burn more coal and run more reactors. Or you can get more "Green" power by destroying more habitates by building more hydro stations.

The future is in Hybrids. Now you just gotta give me a $60k for a nice Lexus because frankly those other hybrids are boring, well not counting the trucks. With the Lexus you get the clean powertrain with non of the boredom.

Does anybody see anything wrong with this post? It just doesn't make sense to want to help save the planet by reducing green house gasses and then insist on a luxury vehicle that requires more resources to manufacture than something more basic. Most people in the world have no access to such luxuries, to few of us consume the majority of the worlds resources. If we had to get by on our share, you might be lucky and have a push bike to ride.

Interesting read.
http://dieoff.org/page43.htm

Norm

 

[McGizmo]

Many of you didn't sit in gas lines during the shortages in the early '70s. In CA, we had odd/ even days dictating when you could even get in the line (it depended on the last digit of your license plate). Back then if you wanted a nice small and fuel efficient car, you bought an import. Ford had a cool Cortina but that was for England and not here in the US. The domestic automotive industry and related industries have been slipping it to us for the last 50 years if not longer, as far as I am concerned. I see no reason they will change now unless under dire pressure to do so.

I would guess that when alternate energy vehicles do become readily available, it will be from outside of the US or outside of the present domestic auto industry. EV's make too much sense and on that reason alone, I would expect our present auto industry to look the other way.

If I sound bitter, I am! I think GM's handling of the EV1(2) program was a crime against our planet and an insult to any clear thinking person aware of the deal.

I hope to keep driving my GMC van (6cyl Vtec) until the day I can get a utility vehicle that has at the very least an electric motor that does more than start the damn engine. I have a cool electric scooter that is a mod of a Chinese built gas scooter by some clever folks from Germany. I am embarrased that Yankee Ingenuity has been replaced or squashed by Yankee Greed.

 

[Led_Blind]

AFIAK all hybrid vehicles have a half a@@ed approach to alternative energy. They are incorrectly maketed, use celebrity to sell and the poor consumer is stuck 6 months after purchase realising the shortfalls. (or perhaps the average consumer wont realise.... perhaps this is the goal)

Lets make the assupmtion that hybrids currently use electric and petrol...
1. As already mentioned you cannot plug them in...?!?!?! Why on earth not? No plug just means limited access to electrical energy to supliment 'normal' fuel. (Cynic says: is this due to preasure from the oil industry?)

2. You have a vehicle that uses electricity as an energy source, so where are the solar panels? One covering the entire roof will be sufficient to add an extra 15-20km\s per full day of sunlight. Parking in the sun would then be a bonus rather than a curse. Some may say cost is a factor but i cant see $1500USD as a real issue. I think the fuel savings over 1-2 years will easily pay this back. Is this more oil industry pressure?

OK i am ranting a little. A problem we face is large business and profit maximizing to squeeze a buck out of the consumer with out regard to people or environment. Sure the current breed of hybrids are very efficient, my point is they could be still more efficient. And for those city slickers that travel about 20Km to work and back there is the real possibility that no fuel will be needed. Oh no we cant do that, what about the poor oil industry(sarcasm intended)


Dear car manufacturer,
Please make me a hybrid car that allows mains charging. Also i would like all body panels coated in solar cells to allow charging during the day. I do not require the ditsy celebrety adverts, just pure facts with out the marketing spin. I will purchace one new once available.

Thankyou
Environmentally Concerned Motorist.

 

[drizzle]

Okay, I have the same comment for both of the previous posts. Companies don't "stick it to us", we stick it to ourselves. Companies make what people want to buy if they can. It's the most basic principle of economics. When it comes to cars there is such a large investment of time and money that they can't just switch everything immediately. But there is another aspect to this too.

McGizmo, I was in those lines in the 70's in Seattle and I never understood for years after why GM, Ford, etc didn't follow the lead of Honda and Toyota and make small efficient cars...until I moved to Chicago. I moved there in 1986, long enough after the 70's crises to allow the US makers to adjust. What I found was a very high percentage of big American cars. This is what people wanted and that's what GM and Ford gave them.

 

[McGizmo]

Drizzle,

To an extent, I agree with you but I believe Detroit back then was of the opinion that they effectively told us what we wanted and it wasn't until Toyota and Datsun came in, in addition to the VW that Detroit woke up and realized that some of us were not buying what they expected us to.

*We* didn't buy up all of the rail systems in CA and pave them over in the middle of the last century so that *We* would use our cars more, buy more tires and consume more fuel.

Show me an electric replacement for my van and I'll buy it. That's what I want. Are you familiar with the EV1 story? I understand that it is difficult to change over from one product to another. I also understand that if there is a better product and someone brings it to market, the market will respond. I suspect that within a couple years, I will see a utility vehicle that meets most of my needs. It may not be available in the US even but I suspect I will see it.

Companies make what people want to buy if they can.

If this were only true! How about companies make what people want to buy if they have to, to stay in competition. If it's not broken, no need to fix it. If it is broken, maybe we can just pretend that it isn't for a while.

 

[drizzle]

Are you familiar with the EV1 story?

I'm not. That's a hole in my learning I need to fill one of these days.

I completely agree about the companies changing only when they have to even if they could have before. Fear+Laziness=Status Quo.

Sheesh! I rewrote that last sentence about 4 times before it halfway made sense to me reading it back. Okay, off to bed before I post something that makes no sense at all.

 

[jtr1962]

*We* didn't buy up all of the rail systems in CA and pave them over in the middle of the last century so that *We* would use our cars more, buy more tires and consume more fuel.

Without commenting on the rest of this thread I think you said it all right there. Prior to the massive suburbanization of the US (IMHO the single biggest mistake ever made but that's for another thread) we had rail service to every rural town and trolley/streetcar/subway service to most places worth going to in our cities. Automobiles existed but auto ownership was far from universal and traveling by auto over any distance was arduous before the Interstate highway system. Of course, trolleys and subways didn't need tires, oil, or anything else that the auto industry produced so why not just buy trolley lines, let them fall into disrepair so they lose customers, replace them with "better" buses, and ultimately even stop the bus service so as to force people to buy and operate their own transportation? Better yet, let's push development of ever more remote places so that car ownership would go from a luxury to a necessity. Well, this is more or less what happened.

The real question shouldn't be why aren't we making electric cars but rather why aren't we doing the bulk of our traveling by foot, bicycle, subway, railroad, and high-speed rail, with perhaps a bit of maglev as well? And a smaller question would be why did we flock wholesale to a more energy intensive style of living where walking and biking largely aren't options due to the distances between everything? Fact is EVs are a good idea, but car travel in general is an inefficient use of valuable real estate. A six-lane expressway can move perhaps 6000 people per hour in each direction assuming the usual load factor of one per car (and only perhaps 25,000/hour under a best case scenario). A high-speed railway using half the space can move more people at three times the speed using far less energy. A dual-tracked subway can move 80,000 per hour in each direction while using no valuable above ground real estate at all. All modes of rail offer superior ride comfort, average speeds, and energy use compared to the automotive equivalent. And over distances of less than a few miles biking and walking could be more widely used except for the fact that few trips in suburbia are that short.

As far as I'm concerned we dug our own grave by some very poor decisions designed to enhance the profits of special interests. We'll be paying the price for a long time. My predictions-in time, perhaps two or three generations, we probably will be using mostly public transportation, and the suburbs will be largely abandoned. However, our competitiveness on the world market will suffer until those changes take effect.

 

[tebore]

Does anybody see anything wrong with this post? It just doesn't make sense to want to help save the planet by reducing green house gasses and then insist on a luxury vehicle that requires more resources to manufacture than something more basic. Most people in the world have no access to such luxuries, to few of us consume the majority of the worlds resources. If we had to get by on our share, you might be lucky and have a push bike to ride.

Interesting read.
http://dieoff.org/page43.htm

Norm

There's only something wrong if you don't know about the Lexus hybrid. It done up like a really nice prius. The only thing wrong with the prius is that it doesn't look like a traditional car. Nor can you take it on a track. The Lexus has a great power, economy and it's got everything a Lexus has.

 

[powernoodle]

it doesn't mean that all science is wrong.

I agree with your general thesis, and appreciate the good discussion.

I reject the claim, however, that there is even a scintilla of science supportive of either climate change or man's contribution to same. My thesis is supported by the predictable and repetitive flip-flopping of the anti-capitalist media, which as recently as the mid-70's was showing us pretty graphs of long-term temperature decline, pictures of the expanding ice caps presented by "scientists" in white lab coats, and so forth. The same specious claims are being made today - only in reverse - and these claims were demonstrably wrong.

Don't get me wrong. These doom and gloomers actually believe what they are saying when they say it. But whether admitting it or not, they are agenda driven rather than science driven. Their agenda being a backdoor assault on free markets and capitalism because the frontdoor assault was repelled by the actual real-world application of their doctrines. What a coincidence that the "solution" to these supposed crises always entails more gov't intervention and increasing restrictions on free markets.

As John Adams opined in his defense of the Redcoats after the Boston Massacre, "facts are stubborn things." The facts herein are that the climate change crowd's inability to agree on whether the thermometer is rising or falling leads one to the conclusion that their science (as well as their collective ability to read a thermometer) is lacking.

Sorry to stray, and again I appreciate the discussion and agree with your assertion that petroleum dependence will end some day - voluntarily or otherwise. And that a proactive approach to finding an exit can only be beneficial.

regards

 

[ikendu]

drizzle wrote:

I completely agree about the companies changing only when they have to...

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Yup.

When the telephone was offered to the telegraph company ...no interest.
When Xerox copiers were offered to the Multilith company ...no interest.

At least our camera film companies may have been about to break this cycle; Kodak has been fairly energetic in embracing digital cameras. We'll see how it works out for them.

In a capitalistic situation, why switch products if you don't have to? Dramatic changes in product offer the risk of cannibalizing sales from existing product lines or otherwise damaging revenue streams from spare parts, service, etc. Completely new products also require large investments and considerable risks.

I'm absolutely certain about this: most companies will not do anything just because it might be good for our country or economy or our environment. Companies only respond to the market or to regulation. If it were not for regulation, we'd still have lead in our gasoline, there'd be no seat belts, or air bags or catalytic converters.

So... this is my idea.

To stop petroleum from choking our country to death by getting the market to start demanding alternatives to our transportation.

If you are for light rail or electric subways or biking or walking then by all means, support initiatives like that in your area. New bike paths, bike lanes, new rail options, new subways, subsidized rail & subway fares to get them started, etc. Talk to your neighbors, write letters to the editor, heck ...run for county supervisor.

I'm for those things too but the issue I am working on for the moment is to get our millions of vehicles switched to renewable fuels that don't import petroleum; biofuels and increasingly renewable electricity. If some of you want to work on mass transportation, shoot, if you run in my area, I will even vote for you. I don't think it will be one thing that takes us to a better future. It will be a variety of things worked on by different groups and people.

Auto companies will only get serious about electric driven miles when they begin to sense there is a real market for such vehicles (or... if we were to regulate such vehicles). For the moment, I'd rather work on the market demand side of this issue. Although, in the case of seat belts, I'm not sure very many people would order them if they were merely options but a large group of people use them since they are standard in their cars. And... since they are standard, the cost of including them is driven very low due to 100% mass production.

 

[ikendu]

...a proactive approach to finding an exit can only be beneficial.

regards

Yup. We can agree on that.

There are so many reasons to stop importing petroleum. Even if you think that the glaciers disappearing and the arctic ice cap melting has nothing to do with our 200 year binge of burning fossil fuels ...there is still the economic and national security implications of being highly dependent on a material that we import 65% of the supply. And... for which we are pumping billions of dollars into hostile regions that fund terrorism and nuclear proliferation.

Wouldn't it be great that when you take money out of your wallet to pay for transportation that all of that money stayed here, in the U.S. funding local jobs and building our economy? I think it would. For the last four years or so I've been running on 100% soy biodiesel grown and processed by my neighbors in Iowa. When I buy a tank of 100% soy biodiesel, my dollars go to support my local economy, build better schools, better hospitals, pay the police and fire fighters, etc.

When I used to pay for gasoline, an awful lot of that cash went overseas. Part of it paid to train terrorists to attend flight school to learn how to fly 757s; not to land... only to fly. So... yes. So many reasons to stop using imported petroleum.