Are hybrids worth the extra cost?
Quote: rxwineActually that should be easier to fix than shipping in thousands of gallons of gasoline everywhere and having it tanked underground all over a city. Parking meters with outlets?
It'll take 10-20 years for apartments to be retro-fitted for plug-in hybrid cars (even ones like the Volt that also regenerates via a conventional engine). Some places that have plug ins for block heaters (Alberta....) might be quicker to convert, I guess. I'm not sure what current a block heater connection draws though, likely to be a lot less than needed to power up a battery. And Alberta will take to the electric car the same well it'll take to Tofu-steaks and Macrame.
Quote: rxwineActually that should be easier to fix than shipping in thousands of gallons of gasoline everywhere and having it tanked underground all over a city. Parking meters with outlets?
So you are saying installing say 100,000 new charging stations per city is somehow more efficient than using the maybe few hundred gas stations that already exist? Not sure I follow that one. And I don't want the city having an excust to install more meters, either.
Quote: rxwineWell, the short run, it's never cheaper. But there's already generally power lines going along streets (traffic lights, street lights), and if they did some every time they start doing any type of maintenance work…the area where I live would already be done twice over in the last 5 years, by that measure.
So you also agree we should have let them drill in ANWR and offshore 10 years ago so more oil would be flowing by now?
Quote: rxwineWell, the short run, it's never cheaper. But there's already generally power lines going along streets (traffic lights, street lights), and if they did some every time they start doing any type of maintenance work…the area where I live would already be done twice over in the last 5 years, by that measure.
I can see it now. You turn on the plug-in on the meter with your credit card (you didn't think it would be free did you?) and I plug-in my car to your meter. You come out in the morning and your battery is still dead and I'm long gone. It is going to be great.
On a more positive note Vancouver, BC has passed a law that all new apartments and condos must have plug-ins for electric cars. Still the same problem with stealing your neighbors power though rather than use your own plug-in and have to pay.
Quote: NareedI think you're trying to debate the latest incarnation of Jerry's sock puppet.
I thought so. Oddly how can someone who obviously lacks personality have multiple ones.
Quote: kenarmanI can see it now. You turn on the plug-in on the meter with your credit card (you didn't think it would be free did you?) and I plug-in my car to your meter. You come out in the morning and your battery is still dead and I'm long gone. It is going to be great.
On a more positive note Vancouver, BC has passed a law that all new apartments and condos must have plug-ins for electric cars. Still the same problem with stealing your neighbors power though rather than use your own plug-in and have to pay.
Well, less likely to happen as each bay is normally reserved and the neighbour might start getting shitty when you plug in to his mains cord.
Quote: kenarmanI can see it now. You turn on the plug-in on the meter with your credit card (you didn't think it would be free did you?) and I plug-in my car to your meter. You come out in the morning and your battery is still dead and I'm long gone. It is going to be great.
Never had someone siphon gas? It's a lot faster than trying to steal electricity.
At least as great as the gas stealing with small portable pumps that was in the news here when the gas prices first started going up.
Quote: Wavy70I thought so. Oddly how can someone who obviously lacks personality have multiple ones.
Ah, well, your error lies in assuming he has many different personalities. He doesn't. He does have many different personas. You know, like masks. He dons one after another, which takes no effort at all.
Oddly, though, they all look the same, too :P
Quote: renoIt depends upon where you live, because some states are more dependent upon coal than others. But even in the heart of coal country (West Virginia), coal is not the source of 100 percent of their electricity. West Virginia gets about 73 percent of electricity from coal; the U.S. average is 49.7 percent.
Using the national average, let's compare an all-electric Tesla Roadster to an all-gasoline Toyota Corolla. If the Corolla gets 31 miles to the gallon, then over 100 miles the Corolla will consume 3.23 gallons of gas, which in turn produces 63.11 pounds of carbon dioxide. (A gallon of gasoline produces 19.564 pounds of carbon dioxide.) For every 100 miles of travel, a Tesla Roadster needs to be recharged with 31 kilowatt hours of electricity. (Only about 70 percent of that charge goes toward creating motion; the rest is lost due to inefficiencies in the charging process.) Generating a kilowatt hour of electricity produces a national average of 1.55 pounds of carbon dioxide, which means the Tesla vehicle emits 48.05 pounds of CO2 per 100 miles. In states that use the most coal, such as Wyoming, North Dakota, and West Virginia, the CO2 emissions per kilowatt hour are higher—so much higher, in fact, that the Roadster may emit just a few pounds less carbon than the Corolla when all's said and done. On the other hand, if you're a motorist in the Pacific Northwest, where hydroelectric power reigns, going with an EV is an even cleaner choice.
But carbon dioxide isn't the only pollutant spewing from that Corolla's tailpipe. Gasoline combustion produces far more methane and nitrous oxide than coal combustion. (On the other hand, coal gives us sulfur dioxide which in turn gives us acid rain.)
Bottom line: it's a lot easier to control emissions at a few power plants than at millions of tailpipes.
http://www.slate.com/id/2179609/
If we take your figure of 31 KWHR for 100 miles, which sounds reasonable, then that would more than double the amount of electricity that the average house is using even. if they only have 1 car. In my province BC Hydro allows 20KWHR / day on base rate and claim that is the average figure per household. If we had a massive acceptance of electric cars the current electrical distribution infrastructure which is already old and by and large maxed out would need 100's of billions of dollars for upgrades. Likely the only quick source of more power would be more coal plants changing the above carbon figures. There is never any quick fix for problems and single issue thinking always runs into the law of unintended consequences. Fuel cells are not any different since the electricity is still needed to produce the hydrogen, they are simply a different type of battery.
Quote: AZDuffmanSo you also agree we should have let them drill in ANWR and offshore 10 years ago so more oil would be flowing by now?
Yeah, but much of the time, the drill baby drill ideas seem to be supported by people who don't believe in doing much of anything else. They like to wait on doing anything now, but get right onto privatizing social security TODAY. Obama, I believe, was in the middle of some drilling rights legislation when BP showed its ugly head. So, you gonna vote for him?
Quote: rxwineYeah, but much of the time, the drill baby drill ideas seem to be supported by people who don't believe in doing much of anything else. They like to wait on doing anything now, but get right onto privatizing social security TODAY. Obama, I believe, was in the middle of some drilling rights legislation when BP showed its ugly head. So, you gonna vote for him?
Am I going to vote for someone who said he wants to run coal burning power plants out of business? Nope. Obama has NEVER supported drilling in ANWR and used any excuse to ban drilling.
Here is the thing--drilling is a proven way to find oil. Without drilling, no oil is found and you have to rely on imports. As to "doing anything else" well, go right ahead an DO it. No one is stopping you from investing in Tesla Motors or any alternitive fuel company. Just quit thinking it is the government's job to "get us off oil." We will "get off oil" when a smart, private inventor comes up with a way to get us off oil just as Drake "got us off horses."
BTW: Obama thinks cars still get tune-ups. Gas was $1.809 when he took office.
Quote: AZDuffmanHow will gas at $7 extend the range or performance or electrics?
If gas is more expensive, consumer demand for non-gas cars will increase. As demand increases, the size of the EV market increases. As the market increases, more manufacturers will enter the market. As more manufacturers enter the market, more money will be invested in battery R&D, more engineers will be working on the problem, and the prize (market $hare) will be bigger for the 21st century's new Henry Ford.
Perhaps there will never be any advances made in battery technology, perhaps 2011 was the year that battery technology reached its pinnacle, and no one ever built a car more sophisticated than the 2011 Nissan Leaf. But I doubt it. Much to the dismay of luddites everywhere, batteries will get lighter, cheaper, more powerful, and more efficient.
There are many different scenarios of what transportation might look like 50 years from now. But it is possible that in 2061 the U.S. vehicle market will be dominated by electric cars. Mr. AZDuffman, doesn't that scenario put a smile on your face? Instead, you seem pessimistic because in 2011 these cars work better in hot Florida than in cold Minnesota, pessimistic because in 2011 urban apartment dwellers still don't have a place to plug in. You're right. The 2011 product is outrageously expensive and the range sucks. The Leaf can only go 85 miles on a $5 charge. It's totally lame that these cars can't go 300 miles.
But think of it this way: in 1983, CD players were terrible (they skipped constantly) and outrageously expensive. In 1997, digital cameras were terrible (640x480 pixels) and outrageously expensive. But be a little patient! Because in the long run, technology improves and the price plummets.
Bottom line: electric cars have the potential to completely change the power dynamics of U.S. relations with $audi Arabia. Doesn't that put a smile on your face?
Quote: AZDuffman. Just quit thinking it is the government's job to "get us off oil."
Well, any government/ or President can indicate with fair credibility it's a national security issue to actually back drilling - or alternative energy development. So, you're wrong either way.
Quote: rxwineWell, any government/ or President can indicate with fair credibility it's a national security issue to actually back drilling - or alternative energy development. So, you're wrong either way.
Sorry, I am not wrong at all. Having the military be self-sufficent solves the national security issue. But backing electric cars for no reason despite their flaws is central planning or in other words socialism/communism. No thanks.
Quote: renoIf gas is more expensive, consumer demand for non-gas cars will increase. As demand increases, the size of the EV market increases. As the market increases, more manufacturers will enter the market. As more manufacturers enter the market, more money will be invested in battery R&D, more engineers will be working on the problem, and the prize (market $hare) will be bigger for the 21st century's new Henry Ford.
Fine, let private industry invest if EVs are so good. Quit subsidizing the purchases. And quit retarding drilling to raise the price of gasoline.
Quote:Perhaps there will never be any advances made in battery technology, perhaps 2011 was the year that battery technology reached its pinnacle, and no one ever built a car more sophisticated than the 2011 Nissan Leaf. But I doubt it. Much to the dismay of luddites everywhere, batteries will get lighter, cheaper, more powerful, and more efficient.
I've been hearing how great electric cars would be since the 1970s. The state of CA forced GM and others to waste BILLIONS because of mandates for them. Enough with the mandates and government-goals. If people want to walk home because their Leaf dies or else sit home all day while it charges let them buy one. Renault can lose billions if they like, but quit the subsidies. No reason for them.
Quote:But think of it this way: in 1983, CD players were terrible (they skipped constantly) and outrageously expensive. In 1997, digital cameras were terrible (640x480 pixels) and outrageously expensive. But be a little patient! Because in the long run, technology improves and the price plummets.
Bottom line: electric cars have the potential to completely change the power dynamics of U.S. relations with $audi Arabia. Doesn't that put a smile on your face?
Electrics have improves little in 100 years now. I am not confident at all. Physics is against it. Electricity does not like to be stored. Better to find a way to use the one TRILLION of shale oil we have here in the USA as well as billions in oil sands in Alberta.
Quote: AZDuffmanSorry, I am not wrong at all. Having the military be self-sufficent solves the national security issue. But backing electric cars for no reason despite their flaws is central planning or in other words socialism/communism. No thanks.
Well, that's not what I said. Energy (or consumption) policy is fundamental to national security. Where we get it, who we pay for it, and for that matter what those people do with that money. If alternative energy is part of that effort, electric or hybrid cars certainly fall under such an unbrella. Whether you say you're not wrong again, you'll still be wrong.
Quote: rxwineWell, that's not what I said. Energy (or consumption) policy is fundamental to national security. Where we get it, who we pay for it, and for that matter what those people do with that money. If alternative energy is part of that effort, electric or hybrid cars certainly fall under such an unbrella. Whether you say you're not wrong again, you'll still be wrong.
National Security does not include central planning. Nations that have gone that route ended up on the ash heap of history. Your saying I am wrong does not make it so. If you want to drive an electric and pay ten thousand more to buy a car with far less performance go ahead. But don't tell me it is for "national security" when we are not even tapping the resources we have. Don't ask me to subsidize it. And don't tell me it is for "the envrionment." I seriously wish I could know the real reason lefties like EVs so much as there is no rational reason to buy one.
What the heck are batteries for? Yes, it's chemical energy, and rechargeables die out over time, but they've been getting lighter and recharging technology has always been improving. So has wind and solar technology. America has an abundance of electricity and plenty of sources to create it, including coal and natural gas.
Physics was also against relativity 100 years ago. It was against gravitation hundreds of years ago. If Einstein hadn't discovered the photoelectic effect in his post office 106 years ago, where would we be today? There are discoveries out there just waiting to happen. Once someone figures out how to store electricity with little or no loss (perhaps a room-temperature superconductor) the problem of energy storage will be resolved.
What people don't understand is that the oil deficit cannot be made up in the United states through more production. America imports but 22 percent of its oil from the giant oil reserves in Canada. Mining shale will not reduce impact on foreign oil substantially. The only way to get off of foreign oil is to stop using oil. To stop using oil, you need another kind of car... an electric car.
Hybrids have been a good way of reducing gasoline usage and taking advantage of the natural forces through its drivetrain within the car itself to increase mileage. Auto manufacturers have upped the price of these cars (whether artificially or not) to make people make that value decision and to keep driving non-hybrids. If more people buy hybrids the price difference will decrease as economies of scale take effect.
Quote: AZDuffmanHow will gas at $7 extend the range or performance or electrics? How will it change the fact that people who live in apartments or park on-street have nowhere to charge?
We could easily get around the charging problem by having swappable batteries. Once your battery's charge is depleted, pull into a charging station and quickly swap with a fully charged pack. It'd take less time than filling your gas tank now. Battery centers like this would charge citizens a monthly fee, say $100/month for unlimited swappings. People would have contracts with different battery makers like we do cellphone contracts now. Maybe the Volt would have 35 centers in your town and charge you $100, but the Tesla company would only have 15 and charge $95, but the Tesla battery lasts for 400 miles.
Don't some cities like NYC already experiment with this business model with rental cars? Pay a monthly fee, call up 24 hours ahead and have a car waiting for you on such-n-such date? And I thought I remembered Denver having those green bicycles all over the city free for the using for those who belong to the 'club'.
Quote: boymimboElectricity does not like to be stored?
Nope, that is the reason battery power for EVs is so limited.
Quote:Physics was also against relativity 100 years ago. It was against gravitation hundreds of years ago. If Einstein hadn't discovered the photoelectic effect in his post office 106 years ago, where would we be today? There are discoveries out there just waiting to happen. Once someone figures out how to store electricity with little or no loss (perhaps a room-temperature superconductor) the problem of energy storage will be resolved.
When electricity was discovered, Edison didn't ask for subsidies for light bulbs. The POTUS didn't announce "we need to 'get off' candle wax." A better product was made by private industry and people bought it. EVs are anything but. They cost more and are more limited in use. Yet we have a government that subsidises their purchase for what reason? If someone wants to make an EV that is better than a gasoline car, more power to them. But quit asking for grants. Quit asking for subsidies. And government, quit making "goals" for number of EVs on the road.
Quote:What people don't understand is that the oil deficit cannot be made up in the United states through more production. America imports but 22 percent of its oil from the giant oil reserves in Canada. Mining shale will not reduce impact on foreign oil substantially. The only way to get off of foreign oil is to stop using oil. To stop using oil, you need another kind of car... an electric car.
First flaw is it need not be an electric car. Could be methanol. Could be bio-diesel. Could be natural gas. All of these things already do it better, faster, and cheaper than an electric. Second flaw is that even if we converted all cars to these things there would still be a huge need for oil and we still would need to import some. Finally, you give credit that there will be a breakthru in EVs (there have been few) and not oil drilling (there have been many.)
Quote:Hybrids have been a good way of reducing gasoline usage and taking advantage of the natural forces through its drivetrain within the car itself to increase mileage. Auto manufacturers have upped the price of these cars (whether artificially or not) to make people make that value decision and to keep driving non-hybrids. If more people buy hybrids the price difference will decrease as economies of scale take effect.
Hybrids are for people who cannot do math. You can get much of the benefit at far less cost by simple start/stop on the enging, similar to a golf cart and already in use in Europe. No sane manufacturer would go thru designing a hybrid and then keeping the price high to keep people in non-hybrids. They would maximize their revenue and hence profit by getting people to but the higher-priced but (supposedly) more profitable hybrid.
Quote: zippyboyWe could easily get around the charging problem by having swappable batteries. Once your battery's charge is depleted, pull into a charging station and quickly swap with a fully charged pack. It'd take less time than filling your gas tank now. Battery centers like this would charge citizens a monthly fee, say $100/month for unlimited swappings. People would have contracts with different battery makers like we do cellphone contracts now. Maybe the Volt would have 35 centers in your town and charge you $100, but the Tesla company would only have 15 and charge $95, but the Tesla battery lasts for 400 miles.
Don't some cities like NYC already experiment with this business model with rental cars? Pay a monthly fee, call up 24 hours ahead and have a car waiting for you on such-n-such date? And I thought I remembered Denver having those green bicycles all over the city free for the using for those who belong to the 'club'.
Zippy where do you get the idea that $100 / month would even cover the cost of the energy let alone the overhead and profit for the battery swapping station. An electric car is currently not a lot more efficient than a gasoline engine. The electricity must still be generated at the same or greater costs than it is now. If that business model was valid we would have gas stations selling unlimited gas for a flat monthly fee.
Quote: kenarmanZippy where do you get the idea that $100 / month would even cover the cost of the energy let alone the overhead and profit for the battery swapping station.....
That number is just as valid as claiming the Tesla Company battery can go 400 miles, but I notice you didn't question that. It's just a number I threw out there to start the conversation. I'm a big-picture guy. I don't know all the little methods we use to arrive at the final answer. Volume, volume, volume. If everyone uses these battery packs in 15 years, then why not $100/month? It's just a number. I expect companies will find a price that's profitable and acceptable to the public if this policy grows to fruition.
Quote: AZDuffmanNational Security does not include central planning. Nations that have gone that route ended up on the ash heap of history.
Man, I am sorry to hear that Britain is on the scrap heap of history.... :)
Quote: thecesspitMan, I am sorry to hear that Britain is on the scrap heap of history.... :)
Compare their place in the world in 1915, 1945, and today. The sun set on their empire long ago. Their auto industry is no more. If not for Thatcher they would have no industrial base left at all.
While I agree that governments should generally stay out of people's way, they consistently subsidize pretty much everything in order to influence policy and industry. You can't tell the government to stay out of the electric vehicle business while lauding them for subsidizing farmers or nuclear energy. Isn't giving tax breaks to large companies also a form of subsidy? Isn't running a trillion dollar deficit a huge subsidy to the American people?
In the case of the United States, its foreign policy is biased to a large degree based on the natural resources it needs. If Saudi Arabia wasn't a big oil producer, how would the United States reacted to the fact that 18 of the 19 terrorists on 9/11 were Saudi Nationals?
The United States will never triple its oil production due to shale or any form of drilling technology. The gas combustion engine will never be replaced either. However, I believe that any measure that reduces America's reliance on imports is a good thing. America needs a new manufacturing industry anyway. Energy prices and energy is near the top of everyone's concern, so let's have America solve the problem.
Hybrids are for people who think more about dollars when it comes to the choices they make. Life isn't about just the almighty dollar sign. The government relies on the individual to subsidize the government. And yes, car companies make people buy hybrids with extra options so that the price of its "base" hybrid is significantly much higher than the "base" gas model. The drivetrain on the hybrid is worth about $4K, experts say. For that drive train, you get about 8-10 more mpg. At $4/gallon and 12,000 miles / year on the road with the gas model getting 25mpg, you'll buy 480 gallons of gas and spend $1,920. The equivalent hybrid at 33.3 miles / gallon, you'll buy 360 gallons of gas and spend $1,440. So you save $480 on gas and won't recover the cost of the hybrid unless you own the car for 8 years. Financially, it ain't worth it.
Quote: boymimboBattery power if EV is limited not because it doesn't like to be stored, but because of capacity. I'm not convinced that they're even close to minuturizing the size of the battery. Look at computers 50 years ago compared to today.
Not a valid comaparrison. Computers are faster because they have fit more on a chip by miniturization and shortening the space the current needs to travel. Batteries, OTOH, are a chemical reaction. Unless a breakthru is made in battery chemistry you still have to have more chemicals to make more power. And until you can charge them in minutes at a "charging station" (like a gas station a fillup takes 3-5 minutes) it will not be practical to pull in and charge up. It takes how long to charge a computer or cell phone today, scale that up how much??
Quote:In the case of the United States, its foreign policy is biased to a large degree based on the natural resources it needs. If Saudi Arabia wasn't a big oil producer, how would the United States reacted to the fact that 18 of the 19 terrorists on 9/11 were Saudi Nationals?
Hardly news and hardly unique to the USA. It goes to all trade. "Bananna Republic" was not a name made of nowhere.
Quote:The United States will never triple its oil production due to shale or any form of drilling technology. The gas combustion engine will never be replaced either. However, I believe that any measure that reduces America's reliance on imports is a good thing. America needs a new manufacturing industry anyway. Energy prices and energy is near the top of everyone's concern, so let's have America solve the problem.
This is where I have the problem. Drilling capacity will not increase due to technology yet battery technology will? We are just scratching the surface of new drilling technology. Heck, I start a new job next week that was created because of it.
Quote: zippyboyThat number is just as valid as claiming the Tesla Company battery can go 400 miles, but I notice you didn't question that. It's just a number I threw out there to start the conversation. I'm a big-picture guy. I don't know all the little methods we use to arrive at the final answer. Volume, volume, volume. If everyone uses these battery packs in 15 years, then why not $100/month? It's just a number. I expect companies will find a price that's profitable and acceptable to the public if this policy grows to fruition.
Zippy it is not the battery cost or the efficiency of a swapping station that I am questioning but you don't seem to realize that an electric car still requires energy. It takes the same amount of energy to move a set mass the same distance regardless of the source of that energy. Unless you think that the cost of energy is going to trend down the cost of running an electric car will not decrease only the cost of purchasing one. A more efficient battery is still only storing energy created somewhere else not creating it.
The 1904 all electric Baker Stanhope had a top speed of 14 miles per hour.
The 1911 all electric Anderson Detroit Electric had a top speed of 20 miles per hour.
The 2011 all electric Tesla Roadster has a top speed of 125 miles per hour.
Quote: AZDuffmanElectrics have improved little in 100 years now. I am not confident at all.
Quote: kenarman
Zippy it is not the battery cost or the efficiency of a swapping station that I am questioning but you don't seem to realize that an electric car still requires energy. It takes the same amount of energy to move a set mass the same distance regardless of the source of that energy. Unless you think that the cost of energy is going to trend down the cost of running an electric car will not decrease only the cost of purchasing one. A more efficient battery is still only storing energy created somewhere else not creating it.
My suggestion had nothing to do with energy cost but everything to do with time saved. Someone else stated it was impractical to plug in a car for several hours during the day, or that people in apartments couldn't plug in their cars anywhere. So I was trying to come up with a solution where you wouldn't need to plug it in at all ever, just swap out the battery for these apartment dwellers.
Quote: renoThe 1904 all electric Woods Victoria had a top speed of 18 miles per hour.
The 1904 all electric Baker Stanhope had a top speed of 14 miles per hour.
The 1911 all electric Anderson Detroit Electric had a top speed of 20 miles per hour.
The 2011 all electric Tesla Roadster has a top speed of 125 miles per hour.
Not bad for what, $200,000?
Quote: AZDuffmanNot bad for what, $200,000?
So you agree that your earlier statement "Electrics have improved little in 100 years now" is incorrect and now you'd like to change the subject to discuss prices. Which means my next challenge is to convince you that in 1975 a Sony video cassette recorder retailed for $2,300 and over time VCRs got much cheaper.
By the way, I'm sympathetic to your complaint that government subsidization of technology development is sometimes wa$teful. But the U.S. government subsidized all sorts of technology R&D during the Cold War, and some of this technology eventually made profits for private industry and better lifestyles for private citizens. For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET
Lugging the weight of the electric motor around when you drive on a gas operated engine?
Advantage of an alternate "fuel" source in remote areas and perhaps better ability to run electric toys in remote areas?
There comes a time to not calculate the cost of lugging extra drinking water in the desert. You calculate only the cost of NOT lugging it around with you. If you go off into the wilds of Alaska any redundancy will only be a help and will be almost as valuable as being mosquito proof. Simplicity of operation? After all, it usually the doo dads that fail. Power windows and power mirrors need repairs but are not really considered luxury items these days.
Doing something for the environment??? Well, you can all dye your hair green and march up and down chanting Power To The People .. or is it Power to Photosynthesis nowadays? I think its pure hype. And if anyone really cared about global warming, they would stop generating all the hot air that is expelled while talking about it.
If you drove it and you like it, then buy it. If the 'extra' hybrid stuff is mainly hype, don't go for the hybrid model. If you make that break-even mark, so be it. Likely you will exceed it I think. Who knows. Some of those models run more miles without any repairs needed than could have been imagined years ago.
In Los Angeles, you would need the Hybrid because they are all trendy types there. You would also have to have it washed at least three times a week because the appearance of not doing well is the death knell for financing a project. No one much cares about actuality, just pretense there. I have an idea that in Las Vegas, no one much cares about anything but the bottom line.
Quote: AZDuffmanCompare their place in the world in 1915, 1945, and today. The sun set on their empire long ago. Their auto industry is no more. If not for Thatcher they would have no industrial base left at all.
Thatcher did a lot more centralization that she is perceived to have done. My point is much that the British Empire had many aspects of central planning, and the country keeps tumbling along just fine. Maybe it's no world power any more, but its remarkable that it ever was. Some centralization (socialism if you want) is useful and not an economic waste as some would have it.
Central Planning car production, not so much.
Quote: renoSo you agree that your earlier statement "Electrics have improved little in 100 years now" is incorrect and now you'd like to change the subject to discuss prices. Which means my next challenge is to convince you that in 1975 a Sony video cassette recorder retailed for $2,300 and over time VCRs got much cheaper.
No, I stand by my statement. Electrics still have the range problems they had 100 years ago. They still are not practical.
Yes, VCRs got better and cheaper. They are not reliant on batteries. They benefited from improvements in semiconductors. They didn't need governments in states like CA mandating people buy them or manufacturers make them. They did something useful that people liked and you could not get anywhere else. They were a smart purchase. Electric cars are none of this.
Quote: AZDuffmanNo, I stand by my statement. Electrics still have the range problems they had 100 years ago. They still are not practical.
Seriously? The 2012 Tesla Model S can go 300 miles between charges and has a top speed of 120 mph. A 1909 Baker Electric had a maximum range of 100 miles, and a top speed of 20 miles per hour.
The 2012 Tesla Model S retails for $50,000. You're arguing that the price will remain $50,000 forever, and I'm arguing that the history of technology suggests that the price will fall dramatically in the coming years.
Quote: renoSeriously? The 2012 Tesla Model S can go 300 miles between charges and has a top speed of 120 mph. A 1909 Baker Electric had a maximum range of 100 miles, and a top speed of 20 miles per hour.
In sunny southern CA maybe, bring it up here to the northeast and see how it does in the cold. I'd doubt it would make it 100 miles in wintertime.
Many are undocumented immigrants, that have had no formal drivers training and have not even been required to pass a driving test, and many have no insurance much less a drivers license.
Then you have your soccer moms on their cell phone in the war zone that is any school in the area, paying absolutely no attention to anything as far as I can tell, and yes they are self centered bitches with a power complex because they are bigger than you.
It's kill or be killed out there these days, and if you are one of those eco minded liberals that thinks you're going to save the planet by driving around in a shit box hybrid think again. The battery waste from a hybrid actually causes more ecological damage that a clean burning fossil fuel vehicle will not to mention the eco waste generated in the manufacturing process.
With today's technology emissions have been reduced here in Los Angeles by over 95% from the 70's, and new technology will replace the internal combustion engine eventually, when it becomes cost effective and affordable.
Did you know that Henry Ford's Model T was originally designed to run on Ethanol?
And yes, I am a superior driver compared to the majority here.
I have a safe vehicle, with newer tires.
My ABS brakes are well maintained.
Dual air bags.
5500 pounds of Detroit Steel (made in Austin Texas)
Over 35 years of driving and towing experience.
I obey ALL traffic laws. Then I never have to look in my rear view mirror.
I drive only 100% SOBER.
I will not drive when I'm tired. I'll sleep over or get a motel.
I have excellent 20/20 vision, and xlnt night vision.
I'm tested regularly.
I am a former pilot.
So yes, if you can say all these things then you might also be a better driver that the average idiot out there on the road.
How's that Mr. Wizard?
Shurely shiome mistook.
Quote: thecesspitYou never look in your rear view mirror? That makes you a good driver?
You need to understand that in the minds of 99.99999999999....99999% of all the world's drivers, there is only one good driver.
I've a coworker whose hobby seems to be collecting speeding tickets. When the authorities started actually taking them into consideration for refusing to issue drivers liscences, he learned to avoid speed traps. He seems to think the speed limit is a suggestion; and he thinks the same of red lights when he's in a hurry, too. I refuse to ride with him at all.
But if you hear him talk he's the best driver that ever lived, while everyone else is either an obstacle or a traffic hazzard.
Quote: CesspitYou never look in your rear view mirror? That makes you a good driver?
No Cesspit , it means I don't have to look to see if there is a police car behind me. It's a figure of ENGLISH speech.
Comprende?
Some people just think they are better drivers. Some KNOW it.
In addition to a driving test, I believe there should be a test for rudimentary intelligence. I'm sure that would help to clear the roadways, at least here in Los Angeles.
As far as Las Vegas, why do you think auto insurance (assuming you have any) costs three times as much in Las Vegas/Clark County as it does here?
It isn't all drunken tourists. What could it be?Member In Good Standing!
Quote: BenJamminQuote: CesspitYou never look in your rear view mirror? That makes you a good driver?
No Cesspit , it means I don't have to look to see if there is a police car behind me. It's a figure of ENGLISH speech.
Comprende?
Ahh, okay, no need to get tooo defensive, there was indeed a mistake, on my part of not understanding you allusion.
Seeing, as you know, checking the rear view and side-view mirrors is a sign of a good driver.
Quote:Some people just think they are better drivers. Some KNOW it.
Sadly, these two classes are completely indistinguishable.
Quote: AZDuffmanNot bad for what, $200,000?
Good news! Starting in November 2011, drivers in California, Oregon, Washington, & Hawaii will be able to purchase the all electric 2012 Mitsubishi i for $27,999. (If you include the $7,500 federal tax credit, the price drops to $20,500.) It takes 22 hours to charge the damn thing with a household plug, so realistically, the price is $29,999 after adding on the $2,000 quick charger which delivers a full charge in 7 hours.
The Mitsubishi i has a range of 62 miles per charge. Since about 75 percent of Americans live within 20 miles of their workplace, the car's range ought to be adequate for most commutes. The big mystery: how will the range be affected by cold weather? Mitsubishi plans to deliver the i to dealers in the Northeast in March 2012, so we'll find out soon enough. Tesla already sells electric cars in balmy Chicago, so apparently there's a market for these overpriced gadgets in places besides Hawaii.
Speaking of Tesla, you get what you pay for: the Tesla Roadster can do 0 to 60 in 4 seconds. The Mitsubishi i can do 0 to 60 in 15 seconds. (Yikes, even a Toyota Yaris can do 0 to 60 in 9 seconds.) But that's the difference between a $29,999 electric car and a $108,000 electric car.
To put it in perspective, the Mitsubishi is significantly cheaper than the Nissan Leaf ($36,000) or the Chevy Volt ($41,000). Americans are getting a bargain: Japanese drivers pay US$43,000 for the Mitsubishi i, and the price of gasoline is over US$6.50 per gallon in Japan.
Quote: renoThe Mitsubishi i has a range of 62 miles per charge. Since about 75 percent of Americans live within 20 miles of their workplace, the car's range ought to be adequate for most commutes.
Maybe so. But it is inadequate for many other things. Like going to the next town on business, or taking a trip, or in some places going to the other end of town and back. Therefore you'd need to have a second car for such things, or pay cabs, or endure public transportation, when the marvelous 62 mile range car can't get you there and back.
Quote: renoThe 1904 all electric Woods Victoria had a top speed of 18 miles per hour.
The 1904 all electric Baker Stanhope had a top speed of 14 miles per hour.
The 1911 all electric Anderson Detroit Electric had a top speed of 20 miles per hour.
The 2011 all electric Tesla Roadster has a top speed of 125 miles per hour.
Saw this article and it reminded me of this discussion. Seems range for the Volt is stuck where it was years ago.
Funny how so many of us said this before tens of billions of taxpayer dollars were wasted.
As to Toyota and others, if they want to waste their own money let them.
Quote: WizardSo, at the current price of $3 per gallon I would need to drive the thing 160,481 miles. I doubt I'm going to get that many miles out of it, so I think I'm better off getting the regular model.
I welcome all comments.
This oil boiler costs $3,117 which is the price of 869 gallons of heating oil. The house uses 800-1500 gallons of heating oil in a year. The lifespan of the boiler is 20 to 30 years. In the case of home heating the fuel cost in a single year exceeds the raw capital cost of a new boiler. Switching fuels can have a payback in two years.
But the economics of cars is totally different from that of heating houses. The fuel cost of cars is roughly 10% of the capitalization cost. The "cost saving" portion of the automobile engine has no resale value after 5 to 7 years.
My guess is that 20 years from now hybrids will still not "make sense" under the kind of financial analysis you are doing. But by then the social pressure may be huge.
I think that the real contribution of hybrids is that more and more people feel bad about buying a gas guzzling car purely for superficial reasons. They are opting to own a fuel efficient car.
The hybrid/green cars require more BTU's to produce that a Hummer. Shipping batteries half the way around the world in barges is not real efficient. Since when did we start naming snowstorms? Nemo! Heard on CNBC that this is the storm of the century. Isn't this the fifth storm of the century in the last five years? Weather Nazis. Just trying to freshen up discussionsQuote: pacomartinThis oil boiler costs $3,117 which is the price of 869 gallons of heating oil. The house uses 800-1500 gallons of heating oil in a year. The lifespan of the boiler is 20 to 30 years. In the case of home heating the fuel cost in a single year exceeds the raw capital cost of a new boiler. Switching fuels can have a payback in two years.
But the economics of cars is totally different from that of heating houses. The fuel cost of cars is roughly 10% of the capitalization cost. The "cost saving" portion of the automobile engine has no resale value after 5 to 7 years.
My guess is that 20 years from now hybrids will still not "make sense" under the kind of financial analysis you are doing. But by then the social pressure may be huge.
I think that the real contribution of hybrids is that more and more people feel bad about buying a gas guzzling car purely for superficial reasons. They are opting to own a fuel efficient car.
