Why don't we just tax gas like mad?
- Thread starter Koggit
- Start date
I saw part of it a while back, it was pretty good. Been meaning to check out the rest.
There certainly could be a place for electric cars, for people who only need one car to drive locally and can just charge it up at night etc. But they can't be the mainstream answer due to the inherently limited range of a rechargable battery powered car.
I have a hard time imagining an electric engine having the power to replace diesel powered tractor trailer trucks and other large trucks that emit so much pollution as well--but I may be wrong on their power capacities.
Hybrids work of course, but they still use gas and we need to find a way to get totally away from that. They're a good stop gap--if they can get the cost down. I'd have loved to have bought a Hybrid when I was buying a car last fall, but they just don't make much financial sense now and were out of my price range besides that point.
There certainly could be a place for electric cars, for people who only need one car to drive locally and can just charge it up at night etc. But they can't be the mainstream answer due to the inherently limited range of a rechargable battery powered car.
I have a hard time imagining an electric engine having the power to replace diesel powered tractor trailer trucks and other large trucks that emit so much pollution as well--but I may be wrong on their power capacities.
Hybrids work of course, but they still use gas and we need to find a way to get totally away from that. They're a good stop gap--if they can get the cost down. I'd have loved to have bought a Hybrid when I was buying a car last fall, but they just don't make much financial sense now and were out of my price range besides that point.
pittpizza
CAGiversary!
[quote name='dmaul1114']They didn't do all I said. From a quick google it would get between 60-100 miles per charge, but charges took up to 8 hours for full charge (80% charge in 2-3 hours).
What I'm saying is alternative power cars will never be viable in the mainstream until they can do everything gas powered cars are. I couldn't run errands sometimes in one charge on that since I"m sometimes bouncing all over the DC/Baltimore area, much less take a longer trip.
Again, cars will have to have unlimited range (with 5-10 minutes recharges/fill ups at easy to find locations like gas stations), look and act the same as current cars to work. Looks like the EV had the latter down, but not the former.
Electric cars will probably never be the answer. It will be some alternative power/fuel source that is cleaner and cheaper than gas that can be distributed at gas stations.[/quote]
I see what you're sayign Dmaul, but keep in mind that these were the EV1's capabilities 11 years ago! Imagine the capabilities if they had kept at it, and instead of hindering the advancmetn of alt. fuel technology, actually put effort into it. With improved batteries I have no doubt that it could do ALMOST everythign an electric car could do. And honestly, with the state of the planet today, almost ought to be good enough for everybody.
So what you can't drive to texas on a whim, you never do that shit with your gas-guzzler anyway. Very few people need to drive more than 100 miles a day anyway, and this is what that car could do over 11 years ago.
What I'm saying is alternative power cars will never be viable in the mainstream until they can do everything gas powered cars are. I couldn't run errands sometimes in one charge on that since I"m sometimes bouncing all over the DC/Baltimore area, much less take a longer trip.
Again, cars will have to have unlimited range (with 5-10 minutes recharges/fill ups at easy to find locations like gas stations), look and act the same as current cars to work. Looks like the EV had the latter down, but not the former.
Electric cars will probably never be the answer. It will be some alternative power/fuel source that is cleaner and cheaper than gas that can be distributed at gas stations.[/quote]
I see what you're sayign Dmaul, but keep in mind that these were the EV1's capabilities 11 years ago! Imagine the capabilities if they had kept at it, and instead of hindering the advancmetn of alt. fuel technology, actually put effort into it. With improved batteries I have no doubt that it could do ALMOST everythign an electric car could do. And honestly, with the state of the planet today, almost ought to be good enough for everybody.
So what you can't drive to texas on a whim, you never do that shit with your gas-guzzler anyway. Very few people need to drive more than 100 miles a day anyway, and this is what that car could do over 11 years ago.
I'm just saying, tons of people take road trips, have long commutes etc. They're not going to buy a car they can't do this in. People want the freedom, convenience and peace of mind of having a car that can get them wherever they need or want to go.
As such, electric cars will be limited to home bodies who never leave their home town and just fly etc. when they do, or people who care enough to own one electric car for local use and a normal car for longer trips vs. having just 1 car or 2 regular cars.
Again, there's a place for them, I just don't see them catching on as the eventually replacment to all gas powered cars and becoming the dominant form of automobiles. I'm fairly environmentally conscious as noted, and I'd never buy a car that I couldn't drive as far as I wanted with no worries about power/refueling options. So certainly people who aren't worried about the environment won't.
As such, electric cars will be limited to home bodies who never leave their home town and just fly etc. when they do, or people who care enough to own one electric car for local use and a normal car for longer trips vs. having just 1 car or 2 regular cars.
Again, there's a place for them, I just don't see them catching on as the eventually replacment to all gas powered cars and becoming the dominant form of automobiles. I'm fairly environmentally conscious as noted, and I'd never buy a car that I couldn't drive as far as I wanted with no worries about power/refueling options. So certainly people who aren't worried about the environment won't.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='dmaul1114']I'm just saying, tons of people take road trips, have long commutes etc. They're not going to buy a car they can't do this in. People want the freedom, convenience and peace of mind of having a car that can get them wherever they need or want to go.
As such, electric cars will be limited to home bodies who never leave their home town and just fly etc. when they do, or people who care enough to own one electric car for local use and a normal car for longer trips vs. having just 1 car or 2 regular cars.
Again, there's a place for them, I just don't see them catching on as the eventually replacment to all gas powered cars and becoming the dominant form of automobiles. I'm fairly environmentally conscious as noted, and I'd never buy a car that I couldn't drive as far as I wanted with no worries about power/refueling options. So certainly people who aren't worried about the environment won't.[/quote]
How thick are your glasses?
As such, electric cars will be limited to home bodies who never leave their home town and just fly etc. when they do, or people who care enough to own one electric car for local use and a normal car for longer trips vs. having just 1 car or 2 regular cars.
Again, there's a place for them, I just don't see them catching on as the eventually replacment to all gas powered cars and becoming the dominant form of automobiles. I'm fairly environmentally conscious as noted, and I'd never buy a car that I couldn't drive as far as I wanted with no worries about power/refueling options. So certainly people who aren't worried about the environment won't.[/quote]
How thick are your glasses?
CocheseUGA
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 33 (100%)
[quote name='pittpizza']I'd prefer one 40mpg car. We can't really have this discussion if you have no idea what electric cars and hybrids are (and have been for a very long time) capable of. Go watch Who killed the electric car? and then come talk to me about what they're capable of.
Also, who the hell drives a porche that can tow 5,000lbs? Nobody I know, and I know a lot of people. Whats with the unrealistic expectations? The overwhelming majority of people who drive gas-guzzling trucks and SUV's don't actually need them. I have no problem with those who do (be it commercial or otherwise). My issue is with the people driving hummers in the city. It's like "C'mon man, where is your
in conscience?"[/QUOTE]
Not an option. Pick one.
I'm talking about diesel work trucks, and yes, you can get all kinds of quick times out of a Cummins diesel or a Banks motor.
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']If you're waiting for an F350 that accelerates like a Porsche, I think you'll never buy a vehicle again (gas or electric).
Torque is not an issue in electric motors. They have more torque starting at 1RPM than gas engines.
http://www.teslamotors.com/performance/acceleration_and_torque.php[/QUOTE]
Show me a truck. One that's towing something, or hauling something.
Also, who the hell drives a porche that can tow 5,000lbs? Nobody I know, and I know a lot of people. Whats with the unrealistic expectations? The overwhelming majority of people who drive gas-guzzling trucks and SUV's don't actually need them. I have no problem with those who do (be it commercial or otherwise). My issue is with the people driving hummers in the city. It's like "C'mon man, where is your
in conscience?"[/QUOTE]Not an option. Pick one.
I'm talking about diesel work trucks, and yes, you can get all kinds of quick times out of a Cummins diesel or a Banks motor.
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']If you're waiting for an F350 that accelerates like a Porsche, I think you'll never buy a vehicle again (gas or electric).
Torque is not an issue in electric motors. They have more torque starting at 1RPM than gas engines.
http://www.teslamotors.com/performance/acceleration_and_torque.php[/QUOTE]
Show me a truck. One that's towing something, or hauling something.
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']How thick are your glasses?[/QUOTE]
What the is that supposed to mean?
All I'm saying is we need a clean, alternative fuel source that allows people to drive just like they do today minues the pollution and hopefully minus the high fuel costs.
Anything less isn't going to catch on. The vast majority of people aren't going to make very big sacrifices for environmental reasons. Thus the real solution is to stop oil and car companies from styming research and development into alternative fuel sources so we can speed up the development of a true clean replacement for cars that allow life to go on as usual.
What the
is that supposed to mean?All I'm saying is we need a clean, alternative fuel source that allows people to drive just like they do today minues the pollution and hopefully minus the high fuel costs.
Anything less isn't going to catch on. The vast majority of people aren't going to make very big sacrifices for environmental reasons. Thus the real solution is to stop oil and car companies from styming research and development into alternative fuel sources so we can speed up the development of a true clean replacement for cars that allow life to go on as usual.
Some are saying we can do everything that we currently do without hurting the environment, others are saying we don't need to do everything that we currently do. The two sides of each of the two arguments keep mixing up the points/counterpoints. It's a mess. Summary time.
The eco-friendly say:
(a) There's no reason anyone should be able to purchase an 8 mpg Hummer at a car lot. We need to get more eco friendly cars on the market, and have strict regulations against excessively wasteful vehicles.
(b) Changes must be made to the current, wasteful American lifestyle of spending 25% of your work day in a commute because that job pays 30% more -- or commuting 2 hours a day to have a bigger house away from the city. Yes, boo-hoo, you can't have your cake and eat it too, but your cake is covered in soot anyway -- and there are 7 billion other people to think about.
The eco-terrorists say:
(a) Eco-friendly cars suck! If it doesn't use more gas in a month than the average human (worldwide) uses in a year, it definitely isn't a good enough vehicle to warrant purchase.
(b) Yeah, sure, Europe gets by with commuting less and driving more efficient vehicles, but nobody's happy over there! They're miserable, we're so much better than that, destroying our planet makes me feel important, and feeling important makes me happy.
The eco-friendly say:
(a) There's no reason anyone should be able to purchase an 8 mpg Hummer at a car lot. We need to get more eco friendly cars on the market, and have strict regulations against excessively wasteful vehicles.
(b) Changes must be made to the current, wasteful American lifestyle of spending 25% of your work day in a commute because that job pays 30% more -- or commuting 2 hours a day to have a bigger house away from the city. Yes, boo-hoo, you can't have your cake and eat it too, but your cake is covered in soot anyway -- and there are 7 billion other people to think about.
The eco-terrorists say:
(a) Eco-friendly cars suck! If it doesn't use more gas in a month than the average human (worldwide) uses in a year, it definitely isn't a good enough vehicle to warrant purchase.
(b) Yeah, sure, Europe gets by with commuting less and driving more efficient vehicles, but nobody's happy over there! They're miserable, we're so much better than that, destroying our planet makes me feel important, and feeling important makes me happy.
I'm saying neither of those. I'm saying we do what we can for a and b under eco-friendly, while realizing not everyone is going to go along.
While the long term solution is to develop alternative fuel cars that allow people to drive just like they do today without killing the planet with pollution and oil dependency.
For me it's a balance of being environmentally conscious and enjoying life the way I like to live. I'd never do a two hour commute to have a house vs. an apartment, but I'll do my best to live work in a smaller city where a half hour commute will give me a decent house and suburban neighborhood to live in.
But even with that said, I realize most people aren't going to make that concession, and will keep on working in the city and sitting in traffic for 2 hours so they can have a house and a yard and live the American Dream. Thus the long term solution is to develop green cars that run on alternative fuel, and in the mean time to push hybrids as much as we can to limit damage in the years it takes to develop such cars and get them on the market, priced reasonably and with a fueling infrastructure in place if needed.
BTW, horrible use of the term eco-terrorists--since that term is used for the environmental groups like PETA and others, pretty much opposite of how you're using it. Though you're probably in one of those groups and used the term deliberately.
While the long term solution is to develop alternative fuel cars that allow people to drive just like they do today without killing the planet with pollution and oil dependency.
For me it's a balance of being environmentally conscious and enjoying life the way I like to live. I'd never do a two hour commute to have a house vs. an apartment, but I'll do my best to live work in a smaller city where a half hour commute will give me a decent house and suburban neighborhood to live in.
But even with that said, I realize most people aren't going to make that concession, and will keep on working in the city and sitting in traffic for 2 hours so they can have a house and a yard and live the American Dream. Thus the long term solution is to develop green cars that run on alternative fuel, and in the mean time to push hybrids as much as we can to limit damage in the years it takes to develop such cars and get them on the market, priced reasonably and with a fueling infrastructure in place if needed.
BTW, horrible use of the term eco-terrorists--since that term is used for the environmental groups like PETA and others, pretty much opposite of how you're using it. Though you're probably in one of those groups and used the term deliberately.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
I'm not convinced that the technology isn't there for electric cars.
I believe it to be a combination of vested interests in maintaining the status quo (oil industries), but also cost of electric cars.
At any rate, I'd love to see the itemized R&D into alternative fuel sources by oil companies. And then, of course, see how those sums compare to the marketing expenditures used to communicate their R&D into alternative fuel sources.
And I think it's a stretch to call PETA eco-terrorists. They're assholes and propagandists (like the Resistance Records types), but 'eco-terrorists' might be reserved for those who engage in violent, actual terrorist activity. Like the ALF or ELF.
I believe it to be a combination of vested interests in maintaining the status quo (oil industries), but also cost of electric cars.
At any rate, I'd love to see the itemized R&D into alternative fuel sources by oil companies. And then, of course, see how those sums compare to the marketing expenditures used to communicate their R&D into alternative fuel sources.
And I think it's a stretch to call PETA eco-terrorists. They're assholes and propagandists (like the Resistance Records types), but 'eco-terrorists' might be reserved for those who engage in violent, actual terrorist activity. Like the ALF or ELF.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']I'm not convinced that the technology isn't there for electric cars.
[/QUOTE]
+1
Me neither.
[/QUOTE]
+1
Me neither.
[quote name='mykevermin']I'm not convinced that the technology isn't there for electric cars.
[/QUOTE]
I just can't see sheerly battery based cars ever getting past the driving range limitations. Maybe if they come up with a very efficient way that the car can maintain a full charge while driving or something.
They can definitely be viable as a "local" car to get to work, and run local errands etc. At least for people who live in cities. It's tougher in rural areas where longer trips are more common.
But harder to see them as viable for long trips, long haul trucking etc.
Seems like a clean fuel source could be developed faster than an electric car that could overcome these hurdles. And again people want to know they can drive wherever they want without worrying about running out of power etc.
That definitely holds things back for sure. And it needs to stop. The government is going to have to fund research into alternative fuels. The auto and oil industries have no financial incentive to do so, and in fact have a ton of incentive to be sure private industries don't develop such products.
Agreed, though PETA is on the DHS's list of eco-terrorists--but I'm not sure they deserve to be. They were just the first that came to mind, ALF/ELF were on the tip of my tongue.
[/QUOTE]
I just can't see sheerly battery based cars ever getting past the driving range limitations. Maybe if they come up with a very efficient way that the car can maintain a full charge while driving or something.
They can definitely be viable as a "local" car to get to work, and run local errands etc. At least for people who live in cities. It's tougher in rural areas where longer trips are more common.
But harder to see them as viable for long trips, long haul trucking etc.
Seems like a clean fuel source could be developed faster than an electric car that could overcome these hurdles. And again people want to know they can drive wherever they want without worrying about running out of power etc.
I believe it to be a combination of vested interests in maintaining the status quo (oil industries), but also cost of electric cars.
At any rate, I'd love to see the itemized R&D into alternative fuel sources by oil companies. And then, of course, see how those sums compare to the marketing expenditures used to communicate their R&D into alternative fuel sources.
That definitely holds things back for sure. And it needs to stop. The government is going to have to fund research into alternative fuels. The auto and oil industries have no financial incentive to do so, and in fact have a ton of incentive to be sure private industries don't develop such products.
Agreed, though PETA is on the DHS's list of eco-terrorists--but I'm not sure they deserve to be. They were just the first that came to mind, ALF/ELF were on the tip of my tongue.
BigT
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Koggit']Some are saying we can do everything that we currently do without hurting the environment, others are saying we don't need to do everything that we currently do. The two sides of each of the two arguments keep mixing up the points/counterpoints. It's a mess. Summary time.
The eco-friendly say:
(a) There's no reason anyone should be able to purchase an 8 mpg Hummer at a car lot. We need to get more eco friendly cars on the market, and have strict regulations against excessively wasteful vehicles.
(b) Changes must be made to the current, wasteful American lifestyle of spending 25% of your work day in a commute because that job pays 30% more -- or commuting 2 hours a day to have a bigger house away from the city. Yes, boo-hoo, you can't have your cake and eat it too, but your cake is covered in soot anyway -- and there are 7 billion other people to think about.
The eco-terrorists say:
(a) Eco-friendly cars suck! If it doesn't use more gas in a month than the average human (worldwide) uses in a year, it definitely isn't a good enough vehicle to warrant purchase.
(b) Yeah, sure, Europe gets by with commuting less and driving more efficient vehicles, but nobody's happy over there! They're miserable, we're so much better than that, destroying our planet makes me feel important, and feeling important makes me happy.[/quote]
Your summary focuses on extremist views.
Do you really think that a significant portion of people purposfully buy gas guzzling cars just to up the environment?
What gives anyone the right to say that a person can live only in a radius of X miles around his or her work? What if someone gets laid off and has to change jobs? In the current housing market, it may take >1 year just to sell a house and move...
In Europe people drive less because everything is closer together. Plus, in many cities, public transportation is actually more convenient than driving... A lot of European cities have historic sections that were never designed to handle car traffic. As a result, the streets are very narrow and there is little space to park one's car. In the US, the situation is reversed... driving is very convenient, there is lots of parking, and public transportation sucks... let's see, I can get somewhere by driving ~85 on the freeway or I can walk 15 minutes to the closest bus stop, get taken to some semi-random location, and then walk another 15 minutes to my final destination...
The eco-friendly say:
(a) There's no reason anyone should be able to purchase an 8 mpg Hummer at a car lot. We need to get more eco friendly cars on the market, and have strict regulations against excessively wasteful vehicles.
(b) Changes must be made to the current, wasteful American lifestyle of spending 25% of your work day in a commute because that job pays 30% more -- or commuting 2 hours a day to have a bigger house away from the city. Yes, boo-hoo, you can't have your cake and eat it too, but your cake is covered in soot anyway -- and there are 7 billion other people to think about.
The eco-terrorists say:
(a) Eco-friendly cars suck! If it doesn't use more gas in a month than the average human (worldwide) uses in a year, it definitely isn't a good enough vehicle to warrant purchase.
(b) Yeah, sure, Europe gets by with commuting less and driving more efficient vehicles, but nobody's happy over there! They're miserable, we're so much better than that, destroying our planet makes me feel important, and feeling important makes me happy.[/quote]
Your summary focuses on extremist views.
Do you really think that a significant portion of people purposfully buy gas guzzling cars just to
up the environment?What gives anyone the right to say that a person can live only in a radius of X miles around his or her work? What if someone gets laid off and has to change jobs? In the current housing market, it may take >1 year just to sell a house and move...
In Europe people drive less because everything is closer together. Plus, in many cities, public transportation is actually more convenient than driving... A lot of European cities have historic sections that were never designed to handle car traffic. As a result, the streets are very narrow and there is little space to park one's car. In the US, the situation is reversed... driving is very convenient, there is lots of parking, and public transportation sucks... let's see, I can get somewhere by driving ~85 on the freeway or I can walk 15 minutes to the closest bus stop, get taken to some semi-random location, and then walk another 15 minutes to my final destination...
Yep, that's a huge part of it. US was a driving country with public transit tacked on, while europe was the opposite.
Like I said above, I live about 8 miles from my office. I can drive there in 15-25 minutes depending on whether or not it's rush hour, luck with traffic lights etc.
If I take public transit, it's anywhere from an hour to an hour and a half (suffered through it for a couple weeks when my old car died last year). It also costs more, was spending $20-25 a week on subway fare which is a lot more than gas for a 16 mile round trip 5 times a week in a car that gets around 30 mpg.
Like I said above, I live about 8 miles from my office. I can drive there in 15-25 minutes depending on whether or not it's rush hour, luck with traffic lights etc.
If I take public transit, it's anywhere from an hour to an hour and a half (suffered through it for a couple weeks when my old car died last year). It also costs more, was spending $20-25 a week on subway fare which is a lot more than gas for a 16 mile round trip 5 times a week in a car that gets around 30 mpg.
CocheseUGA
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 33 (100%)
[quote name='BigT']let's see, I can get somewhere by driving ~85 on the freeway or I can walk 15 minutes to the closest bus stop, get taken to some semi-random location, and then walk another 15 minutes to my final destination... [/QUOTE]
Huge, huge HUGE point. If we want to start having people drive less, the public transportation system in this country needs a complete overhaul. Make it at least halfway convienent for me to catch a train to another city, and have it not cost $200.
[/QUOTE]Huge, huge HUGE point. If we want to start having people drive less, the public transportation system in this country needs a complete overhaul. Make it at least halfway convienent for me to catch a train to another city, and have it not cost $200.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='CocheseUGA']Huge, huge HUGE point. If we want to start having people drive less, the public transportation system in this country needs a complete overhaul. Make it at least halfway convienent for me to catch a train to another city, and have it not cost $200.[/quote]
Train prices aren't low enough IMO. But I can get a privately-owned non-Greyhound bus ticket from DC to NYC for $30.
I agree that public trans needs an overhaul - my city's public bus transportation isn't very reliable.
Train prices aren't low enough IMO. But I can get a privately-owned non-Greyhound bus ticket from DC to NYC for $30.
I agree that public trans needs an overhaul - my city's public bus transportation isn't very reliable.
CocheseUGA
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 33 (100%)
[quote name='camoor']Train prices aren't low enough IMO. But I can get a privately-owned non-Greyhound bus ticket from DC to NYC for $30.
I agree that public trans needs an overhaul - my city's public bus transportation isn't very reliable.[/QUOTE]
I lost my license for 9 months and had to endure a 25 minute bike ride just to get to a bus stop. When I was at KSU, the bus ride to work took 3 hours and was a total of 15 miles...all because the morons who did the schedules had my bus get to the station five minutes after the one I needed left.
I agree that public trans needs an overhaul - my city's public bus transportation isn't very reliable.[/QUOTE]
I lost my license for 9 months and had to endure a 25 minute bike ride just to get to a bus stop. When I was at KSU, the bus ride to work took 3 hours and was a total of 15 miles...all because the morons who did the schedules had my bus get to the station five minutes after the one I needed left.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='dmaul1114']What the is that supposed to mean?
All I'm saying is we need a clean, alternative fuel source that allows people to drive just like they do today minues the pollution and hopefully minus the high fuel costs.
Anything less isn't going to catch on. The vast majority of people aren't going to make very big sacrifices for environmental reasons. Thus the real solution is to stop oil and car companies from styming research and development into alternative fuel sources so we can speed up the development of a true clean replacement for cars that allow life to go on as usual.[/quote]
You're myopic.
Today's battery technology is pushing range into 200+ range.
If battery packs for electric cars were combined into one or two large packs, they could be replaced with hoists in a matter of minutes.
The big hurdle to the electric car is paperwork.
For example, how much should a person pay if he or she is replacing a good battery pack with no charge for a good battery pack with a full charge? If a person goes to a competitor for a new battery pack because he or she wasn't within a normal refueling station, what are the fees?
The problems are on the order of ATM fees, not building the Giza pyramid with period tools.
is that supposed to mean?All I'm saying is we need a clean, alternative fuel source that allows people to drive just like they do today minues the pollution and hopefully minus the high fuel costs.
Anything less isn't going to catch on. The vast majority of people aren't going to make very big sacrifices for environmental reasons. Thus the real solution is to stop oil and car companies from styming research and development into alternative fuel sources so we can speed up the development of a true clean replacement for cars that allow life to go on as usual.[/quote]
You're myopic.
Today's battery technology is pushing range into 200+ range.
If battery packs for electric cars were combined into one or two large packs, they could be replaced with hoists in a matter of minutes.
The big hurdle to the electric car is paperwork.
For example, how much should a person pay if he or she is replacing a good battery pack with no charge for a good battery pack with a full charge? If a person goes to a competitor for a new battery pack because he or she wasn't within a normal refueling station, what are the fees?
The problems are on the order of ATM fees, not building the Giza pyramid with period tools.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='CocheseUGA']
Show me a truck. One that's towing something, or hauling something.[/quote]
Does the truck have to out run a Porsche?
Show me a truck. One that's towing something, or hauling something.[/quote]
Does the truck have to out run a Porsche?
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='CocheseUGA']I lost my license for 9 months and had to endure a 25 minute bike ride just to get to a bus stop. When I was at KSU, the bus ride to work took 3 hours and was a total of 15 miles...all because the morons who did the schedules had my bus get to the station five minutes after the one I needed left.[/quote]
Oh man that sucks. I guess at least you got some exercise out of the deal though - one of my pet peeves is ppl who don't treat the speed of commuting and the flow of traffic as a paramount imperative.
BTW I saw this report on TV about a guy who kayaks to work every day (he's a marine biologist who got a place on the Potomac river) Damn that's a cooool commute.
Oh man that sucks. I guess at least you got some exercise out of the deal though - one of my pet peeves is ppl who don't treat the speed of commuting and the flow of traffic as a paramount imperative.
BTW I saw this report on TV about a guy who kayaks to work every day (he's a marine biologist who got a place on the Potomac river) Damn that's a cooool commute.
paddlefoot
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 30 (100%)
I am all for the independence from anything that can be a burden on everyones daily life (oil), but the environmental issue is a tougher problem to solve than just switching to electric/hybrid powered vehicles.
The last reported EIA Annual showed that 49% of energy production came from coal. So carbon emissions would still be a problem, and would probably get worse. Your more shifting the burden onto another industry rather than solving the problem.
At least that's how it was explained to me.
The last reported EIA Annual showed that 49% of energy production came from coal. So carbon emissions would still be a problem, and would probably get worse. Your more shifting the burden onto another industry rather than solving the problem.
At least that's how it was explained to me.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='dmaul1114']
Seems like a clean fuel source could be developed faster than an electric car that could overcome these hurdles. And again people want to know they can drive wherever they want without worrying about running out of power etc.
[/QUOTE]
What's the difference between a clean fuel source and more efficient higher performing batteries?
Seems like a clean fuel source could be developed faster than an electric car that could overcome these hurdles. And again people want to know they can drive wherever they want without worrying about running out of power etc.
[/QUOTE]
What's the difference between a clean fuel source and more efficient higher performing batteries?
pittpizza
CAGiversary!
Wow, a lot has been said and I don't feel like quoting so I'll just make my points.
Myke and Camoor said that they're not convinced that the technology for electric cars doesn't exist. Good! You're right! The technology for them existed ELEVENIN YEARS AGO! Some very powerful forces found out that the proliferation of electic vehicles would take lots of money out of their pockets (GM/Big Oil), and this, coupled with other factors (they were "different" and limited in range (~100mi/charge)) ensured they could never get off the ground. GM distributed a few hundred and offered LEASE only with no option to renew or buy. They ate the value of all of them by refusing ot sell them and scrapping them instead. They didn't want them getting out. They didn't want word getting out and be compelled to sell a much less profitable product in stead of a much more profitable product.
FOC, I LMFAO at "Does the truck have to outrun a porche" b/c it was spot on. Cochese you seem to be setting unrealistic expectations for electric cars b/c you have your mind made up about them already. Electric motors are much more efficient no matter the size, and are already used extensively in industry. They last longer, run more reliably, cost less to maintain, and are environmentally friendly to boot.
Dmaul you make good points about the limitations, but they're not that bad. Another person made a good point about installing the infrastructure for electric cars not being insurmountable. It could have been done 5 times over by now if several things were different:
(1) The government would compel the car companies to develop electric cars (just like they did seat belts and the existing MPG standards).
(2) Some VERY powerful forces had not rallied against it so hard. Namely big oil and the big 3 car companies. I forget which but I know GM was responsible for the EV1 disaster.
(3) Americans were more willing to inconvenience themeselves in favor of helping the environment. Europeans are much more energy conscious than Americans (
Myke and Camoor said that they're not convinced that the technology for electric cars doesn't exist. Good! You're right! The technology for them existed ELEVEN
IN YEARS AGO! Some very powerful forces found out that the proliferation of electic vehicles would take lots of money out of their pockets (GM/Big Oil), and this, coupled with other factors (they were "different" and limited in range (~100mi/charge)) ensured they could never get off the ground. GM distributed a few hundred and offered LEASE only with no option to renew or buy. They ate the value of all of them by refusing ot sell them and scrapping them instead. They didn't want them getting out. They didn't want word getting out and be compelled to sell a much less profitable product in stead of a much more profitable product. FOC, I LMFAO at "Does the truck have to outrun a porche" b/c it was spot on. Cochese you seem to be setting unrealistic expectations for electric cars b/c you have your mind made up about them already. Electric motors are much more efficient no matter the size, and are already used extensively in industry. They last longer, run more reliably, cost less to maintain, and are environmentally friendly to boot.
Dmaul you make good points about the limitations, but they're not that bad. Another person made a good point about installing the infrastructure for electric cars not being insurmountable. It could have been done 5 times over by now if several things were different:
(1) The government would compel the car companies to develop electric cars (just like they did seat belts and the existing MPG standards).
(2) Some VERY powerful forces had not rallied against it so hard. Namely big oil and the big 3 car companies. I forget which but I know GM was responsible for the EV1 disaster.
(3) Americans were more willing to inconvenience themeselves in favor of helping the environment. Europeans are much more energy conscious than Americans (
[quote name='BigT']What gives anyone the right to say that a person can live only in a radius of X miles around his or her work? What if someone gets laid off and has to change jobs? In the current housing market, it may take >1 year just to sell a house and move...[/QUOTE]
Dude, no joke, I'm not going to reply to your bullshit. If you want to talk about an issue, talk about an issue. Nobody here has ever suggested that "a person can live only in a radius of X miles around his or her work." Don't be a tool.
[quote name='BigT']In Europe people drive less because everything is closer together. Plus, in many cities, public transportation is actually more convenient than driving... A lot of European cities have historic sections that were never designed to handle car traffic. As a result, the streets are very narrow and there is little space to park one's car. In the US, the situation is reversed... driving is very convenient, there is lots of parking, and public transportation sucks... let's see, I can get somewhere by driving ~85 on the freeway or I can walk 15 minutes to the closest bus stop, get taken to some semi-random location, and then walk another 15 minutes to my final destination...[/QUOTE]
Nobody is suggesting that the price of gas change without anything else changing.
The proposed gas tax, if you had read the topic, would be used to help expand public transportation, energy efficient personal vehicles, off-set the GHGs caused by those who drive, etc. The tax could be partially used to fund a carpooling rebate (5 people in one 25mpg car is just as good as 5 people in five 125mpg cars). The potential uses of the tax are endless, but the point is to reward conservation and punish waste, since oil usage has a profound impact on everyone.
Dude, no joke, I'm not going to reply to your bullshit. If you want to talk about an issue, talk about an issue. Nobody here has ever suggested that "a person can live only in a radius of X miles around his or her work." Don't be a tool.
[quote name='BigT']In Europe people drive less because everything is closer together. Plus, in many cities, public transportation is actually more convenient than driving... A lot of European cities have historic sections that were never designed to handle car traffic. As a result, the streets are very narrow and there is little space to park one's car. In the US, the situation is reversed... driving is very convenient, there is lots of parking, and public transportation sucks... let's see, I can get somewhere by driving ~85 on the freeway or I can walk 15 minutes to the closest bus stop, get taken to some semi-random location, and then walk another 15 minutes to my final destination...
[/QUOTE]Nobody is suggesting that the price of gas change without anything else changing.
The proposed gas tax, if you had read the topic, would be used to help expand public transportation, energy efficient personal vehicles, off-set the GHGs caused by those who drive, etc. The tax could be partially used to fund a carpooling rebate (5 people in one 25mpg car is just as good as 5 people in five 125mpg cars). The potential uses of the tax are endless, but the point is to reward conservation and punish waste, since oil usage has a profound impact on everyone.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='pittpizza']
Myke and Camoor said that they're not convinced that the technology for electric cars doesn't exist. Good! You're right! The technology for them existed ELEVENIN YEARS AGO! Some very powerful forces found out that the proliferation of electic vehicles would take lots of money out of their pockets (GM/Big Oil), and this, coupled with other factors (they were "different" and limited in range (~100mi/charge)) ensured they could never get off the ground. GM distributed a few hundred and offered LEASE only with no option to renew or buy. They ate the value of all of them by refusing ot sell them and scrapping them instead. They didn't want them getting out. They didn't want word getting out and be compelled to sell a much less profitable product in stead of a much more profitable product.
[/QUOTE]
Amen. I actually agree with this.
There really is no good excuse for not having electric cars mainstream by now. We are just lazy and resist change. Maybe now, $ will motivate people to switch to electric.
Myke and Camoor said that they're not convinced that the technology for electric cars doesn't exist. Good! You're right! The technology for them existed ELEVEN
IN YEARS AGO! Some very powerful forces found out that the proliferation of electic vehicles would take lots of money out of their pockets (GM/Big Oil), and this, coupled with other factors (they were "different" and limited in range (~100mi/charge)) ensured they could never get off the ground. GM distributed a few hundred and offered LEASE only with no option to renew or buy. They ate the value of all of them by refusing ot sell them and scrapping them instead. They didn't want them getting out. They didn't want word getting out and be compelled to sell a much less profitable product in stead of a much more profitable product. [/QUOTE]
Amen. I actually agree with this.
There really is no good excuse for not having electric cars mainstream by now. We are just lazy and resist change. Maybe now, $ will motivate people to switch to electric.
[quote name='thrustbucket']What's the difference between a clean fuel source and more efficient higher performing batteries?[/QUOTE]
Clean fuel source means you can drive however far you want and just stop to refuel quickly and keep going. Pretty much no change in driving routines from our current once the fuel is available and most gas stations.
Batteries still run out and have to be recharged, and that takes time and can't be done by pulling over for 5 minutes and refueling. Thus it limits driving range, peace of mind etc. The longer they last, the better it gets, but I don't see it every replacing fuel based cars unless you get batteries that last super long and can somehow be "flash" charged in 5 mins or less.
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']You're myopic.
Today's battery technology is pushing range into 200+ range.
If battery packs for electric cars were combined into one or two large packs, they could be replaced with hoists in a matter of minutes.
The big hurdle to the electric car is paperwork.
For example, how much should a person pay if he or she is replacing a good battery pack with no charge for a good battery pack with a full charge? If a person goes to a competitor for a new battery pack because he or she wasn't within a normal refueling station, what are the fees?
The problems are on the order of ATM fees, not building the Giza pyramid with period tools.[/QUOTE]
I guess it could work if instead of refueling you just stop at a battery place and swap out batteries quickly.....
I hadn't thought of that angle, not sure if that was what you were getting at but if so that's a fair point.
All I'm getting at is for me (and most people) to consider switching I need to be able to practice my same driving habits. So I need to be able to drive as far as I want with no worries as more fuel (or a fresh battery) is avaiable pretty much everywhere along the way.
[quote name='Koggit']Dude, no joke, I'm not going to reply to your bullshit. If you want to talk about an issue, talk about an issue. Nobody here has ever suggested that "a person can live only in a radius of X miles around his or her work." Don't be a tool.
[/QUOTE]
You came dangerously close to suggesting that by being so condescending about people who don't want to live in a dirty, noisy city, in a condo or row home and prefer to have a long commute to have a nice house, yard etc. There's nothing wrong with that. The industry just needs to change so long commutes don't kill the planet with pollution.
Clean fuel source means you can drive however far you want and just stop to refuel quickly and keep going. Pretty much no change in driving routines from our current once the fuel is available and most gas stations.
Batteries still run out and have to be recharged, and that takes time and can't be done by pulling over for 5 minutes and refueling. Thus it limits driving range, peace of mind etc. The longer they last, the better it gets, but I don't see it every replacing fuel based cars unless you get batteries that last super long and can somehow be "flash" charged in 5 mins or less.
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']You're myopic.
Today's battery technology is pushing range into 200+ range.
If battery packs for electric cars were combined into one or two large packs, they could be replaced with hoists in a matter of minutes.
The big hurdle to the electric car is paperwork.
For example, how much should a person pay if he or she is replacing a good battery pack with no charge for a good battery pack with a full charge? If a person goes to a competitor for a new battery pack because he or she wasn't within a normal refueling station, what are the fees?
The problems are on the order of ATM fees, not building the Giza pyramid with period tools.[/QUOTE]
I guess it could work if instead of refueling you just stop at a battery place and swap out batteries quickly.....
I hadn't thought of that angle, not sure if that was what you were getting at but if so that's a fair point.
All I'm getting at is for me (and most people) to consider switching I need to be able to practice my same driving habits. So I need to be able to drive as far as I want with no worries as more fuel (or a fresh battery) is avaiable pretty much everywhere along the way.
[quote name='Koggit']Dude, no joke, I'm not going to reply to your bullshit. If you want to talk about an issue, talk about an issue. Nobody here has ever suggested that "a person can live only in a radius of X miles around his or her work." Don't be a tool.
[/QUOTE]
You came dangerously close to suggesting that by being so condescending about people who don't want to live in a dirty, noisy city, in a condo or row home and prefer to have a long commute to have a nice house, yard etc. There's nothing wrong with that. The industry just needs to change so long commutes don't kill the planet with pollution.
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']You're myopic.
Today's battery technology is pushing range into 200+ range.
If battery packs for electric cars were combined into one or two large packs, they could be replaced with hoists in a matter of minutes.
The big hurdle to the electric car is paperwork.
For example, how much should a person pay if he or she is replacing a good battery pack with no charge for a good battery pack with a full charge? If a person goes to a competitor for a new battery pack because he or she wasn't within a normal refueling station, what are the fees?
The problems are on the order of ATM fees, not building the Giza pyramid with period tools.[/QUOTE]
I guess it could work if instead of refueling you just stop at a battery place and swap out batteries quickly.....
I hadn't thought of that angle, not sure if that was what you were getting at but if so that's a fair point.
All I'm getting at is for me (and most people) to consider switching I need to be able to practice my same driving habits. So I need to be able to drive as far as I want with no worries as more fuel (or a fresh battery) is avaiable pretty much everywhere along the way.
Today's battery technology is pushing range into 200+ range.
If battery packs for electric cars were combined into one or two large packs, they could be replaced with hoists in a matter of minutes.
The big hurdle to the electric car is paperwork.
For example, how much should a person pay if he or she is replacing a good battery pack with no charge for a good battery pack with a full charge? If a person goes to a competitor for a new battery pack because he or she wasn't within a normal refueling station, what are the fees?
The problems are on the order of ATM fees, not building the Giza pyramid with period tools.[/QUOTE]
I guess it could work if instead of refueling you just stop at a battery place and swap out batteries quickly.....
I hadn't thought of that angle, not sure if that was what you were getting at but if so that's a fair point.
All I'm getting at is for me (and most people) to consider switching I need to be able to practice my same driving habits. So I need to be able to drive as far as I want with no worries as more fuel (or a fresh battery) is avaiable pretty much everywhere along the way.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='dmaul1114']
Batteries still run out and have to be recharged, and that takes time and can't be done by pulling over for 5 minutes and refueling. Thus it limits driving range, peace of mind etc. The longer they last, the better it gets, but I don't see it every replacing fuel based cars unless you get batteries that last super long and can somehow be "flash" charged in 5 mins or less.[/QUOTE]
I think perhaps you have old fashioned misconceptions about innovations in battery technology then. Much like oil, battery company's conspire to keep you buying their old tech.
They are too numerous to list, but many battery tech's in the lab right now are anticipated to carry charges for days or weeks, and can be charged in 20 minutes. Yes, you'd still need new infrastructure for charging stations, but same with "alternative fuels".
Batteries still run out and have to be recharged, and that takes time and can't be done by pulling over for 5 minutes and refueling. Thus it limits driving range, peace of mind etc. The longer they last, the better it gets, but I don't see it every replacing fuel based cars unless you get batteries that last super long and can somehow be "flash" charged in 5 mins or less.[/QUOTE]
I think perhaps you have old fashioned misconceptions about innovations in battery technology then. Much like oil, battery company's conspire to keep you buying their old tech.
They are too numerous to list, but many battery tech's in the lab right now are anticipated to carry charges for days or weeks, and can be charged in 20 minutes. Yes, you'd still need new infrastructure for charging stations, but same with "alternative fuels".
[quote name='thrustbucket']I think perhaps you have old fashioned misconceptions about innovations in battery technology then. Much like oil, battery company's conspire to keep you buying their old tech.
They are too numerous to list, but many battery tech's in the lab right now are anticipated to carry charges for days or weeks, and can be charged in 20 minutes. Yes, you'd still need new infrastructure for charging stations, but same with "alternative fuels".[/QUOTE]
Like I said above (probably edited the post since you read/quoted) I can see that more with the notion of swapping dead batteries for charged ones etc. Still more hassle than a quick fill up to put in place I'd think. For an alternative liquid fuel, all fueling stations have to do is put in new tanks. For consumers nothing changes, so it would probably catch on faster.
But I'll concede that maybe batteries could work with a swap out system or some huge advancement in charging. And I already conceded the technology is there to have very viable cars for local daily use for people in metropolitan areas.
So I'm not against the idea. I just have a harder time seeing electric battery cars become the dominant form, it seems like a clean fuel would have an easier time of catching on for range and recharge/refueling issues as well as just being a less jarring change. The literature on diffusion of innovations (see the book by Everett Rodgers) is pretty solid on more minor changes spreading much faster than drastic changes which tend to fail or catch on very slowly.
They are too numerous to list, but many battery tech's in the lab right now are anticipated to carry charges for days or weeks, and can be charged in 20 minutes. Yes, you'd still need new infrastructure for charging stations, but same with "alternative fuels".[/QUOTE]
Like I said above (probably edited the post since you read/quoted) I can see that more with the notion of swapping dead batteries for charged ones etc. Still more hassle than a quick fill up to put in place I'd think. For an alternative liquid fuel, all fueling stations have to do is put in new tanks. For consumers nothing changes, so it would probably catch on faster.
But I'll concede that maybe batteries could work with a swap out system or some huge advancement in charging. And I already conceded the technology is there to have very viable cars for local daily use for people in metropolitan areas.
So I'm not against the idea. I just have a harder time seeing electric battery cars become the dominant form, it seems like a clean fuel would have an easier time of catching on for range and recharge/refueling issues as well as just being a less jarring change. The literature on diffusion of innovations (see the book by Everett Rodgers) is pretty solid on more minor changes spreading much faster than drastic changes which tend to fail or catch on very slowly.
CocheseUGA
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 33 (100%)
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Does the truck have to out run a Porsche?[/QUOTE]
No, but it does have to be able to haul 5-10k and be able to reach safe highway speeds by the end of a ramp.
[quote name='pittpizza']
FOC, I LMFAO at "Does the truck have to outrun a porche" b/c it was spot on. Cochese you seem to be setting unrealistic expectations for electric cars b/c you have your mind made up about them already. Electric motors are much more efficient no matter the size, and are already used extensively in industry. They last longer, run more reliably, cost less to maintain, and are environmentally friendly to boot.
[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying it to start shit. If it's out there, show it to me.
It's not the public that needs an education, it's the people who are in charge of the public transport. Places like Cobb County, GA (Marietta, Kennesaw). They've not allowed MARTA to enter the county for 30 years because they're afraid of a certain element coming into the county.
[quote name='thrustbucket']I think perhaps you have old fashioned misconceptions about innovations in battery technology then. Much like oil, battery company's conspire to keep you buying their old tech.
[/QUOTE]
They aren't misconceptions, they are the knowledge that the general public has available to them. Tesla is fantastic. I have two kids, so that's meed on that route. Where's the electric car for the masses? Will we finally get it when Nissan comes to play?
I am 100% for the option of electric, at a minimal front-end impact on the consumer. But I need to be able to carry myself, my wife, my two kids (maybe a third), and our stuff. There are no cars in production that do that for me. That's my point.
No, but it does have to be able to haul 5-10k and be able to reach safe highway speeds by the end of a ramp.
[quote name='pittpizza']
FOC, I LMFAO at "Does the truck have to outrun a porche" b/c it was spot on. Cochese you seem to be setting unrealistic expectations for electric cars b/c you have your mind made up about them already. Electric motors are much more efficient no matter the size, and are already used extensively in industry. They last longer, run more reliably, cost less to maintain, and are environmentally friendly to boot.
[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying it to start shit. If it's out there, show it to me.
It's not the public that needs an education, it's the people who are in charge of the public transport. Places like Cobb County, GA (Marietta, Kennesaw). They've not allowed MARTA to enter the county for 30 years because they're afraid of a certain element coming into the county.
[quote name='thrustbucket']I think perhaps you have old fashioned misconceptions about innovations in battery technology then. Much like oil, battery company's conspire to keep you buying their old tech.
[/QUOTE]
They aren't misconceptions, they are the knowledge that the general public has available to them. Tesla is fantastic. I have two kids, so that's me
ed on that route. Where's the electric car for the masses? Will we finally get it when Nissan comes to play?I am 100% for the option of electric, at a minimal front-end impact on the consumer. But I need to be able to carry myself, my wife, my two kids (maybe a third), and our stuff. There are no cars in production that do that for me. That's my point.
[quote name='CocheseUGA']
I am 100% for the option of electric, at a minimal front-end impact on the consumer. But I need to be able to carry myself, my wife, my two kids (maybe a third), and our stuff. There are no cars in production that do that for me. That's my point.[/QUOTE]
That's my point as well. To catch on whatever replaces the gas engine in cars has to be extremely accessible.
And that means being cost effective at the front end, driving as well (speed, power etc.) to fit the needs of various users, be large enough for large families, have driving range equal to a tank of gas in a non-gas guzzling car and have easy recharge/swapping stations so people can drive wherever they want.
Otherwise they'll only appeal to people who care about the environment more than their own convenience, and those people are a very small minority.
I am 100% for the option of electric, at a minimal front-end impact on the consumer. But I need to be able to carry myself, my wife, my two kids (maybe a third), and our stuff. There are no cars in production that do that for me. That's my point.[/QUOTE]
That's my point as well. To catch on whatever replaces the gas engine in cars has to be extremely accessible.
And that means being cost effective at the front end, driving as well (speed, power etc.) to fit the needs of various users, be large enough for large families, have driving range equal to a tank of gas in a non-gas guzzling car and have easy recharge/swapping stations so people can drive wherever they want.
Otherwise they'll only appeal to people who care about the environment more than their own convenience, and those people are a very small minority.
[quote name='Koggit']And what's your solution? You admit change is needed, hate a $5 gas tax, but have yet to state any other solution.[/QUOTE]
I alluded to it above.
Government agency research, funded with government dollars, into developing cars that run on alternative power/fuel.
The private sector isn't going to do it as there's much more money to be made in oil/gas.
Get the technology developed, sell it to private companies to produce, and help push it into the mainstream with tax breaks on purchases etc. If it's alternative fuel, give incentives to gas companies to switch or new fuel stations to open.
In the meantime, push hybrids, improve public transit etc. to reduce current pollution etc.
Change is needed, but it takes time and a lot of pushing from non-capitalistic sources when change involves less profit in the long run in the form of non-limited fuel sources.
I alluded to it above.
Government agency research, funded with government dollars, into developing cars that run on alternative power/fuel.
The private sector isn't going to do it as there's much more money to be made in oil/gas.
Get the technology developed, sell it to private companies to produce, and help push it into the mainstream with tax breaks on purchases etc. If it's alternative fuel, give incentives to gas companies to switch or new fuel stations to open.
In the meantime, push hybrids, improve public transit etc. to reduce current pollution etc.
Change is needed, but it takes time and a lot of pushing from non-capitalistic sources when change involves less profit in the long run in the form of non-limited fuel sources.
[quote name='dmaul1114']I alluded to it above.
Government agency research, funded with government dollars, into developing cars that run on alternative power/fuel.
The private sector isn't going to do it as there's much more money to be made in oil/gas.
Get the technology developed, sell it to private companies to produce, and help push it into the mainstream with tax breaks on purchases etc. If it's alternative fuel, give incentives to gas companies to switch or new fuel stations to open.
In the meantime, push hybrids, improve public transit etc. to reduce current pollution etc.
Change is needed, but it takes time and a lot of pushing from non-capitalistic sources when change involves less profit in the long run in the form of non-limited fuel sources.[/QUOTE]
You're naming potential uses for the tax. Yet you don't support the tax. Let's do this point by point, for emphasis.
[quote name='dmaul1114']
Government agency research, funded with government dollars, into developing cars that run on alternative power/fuel.[/QUOTE]
Where's this government research funding come from? What "government dollars" are you referring to?
[quote name='dmaul1114']
The private sector isn't going to do it as there's much more money to be made in oil/gas.
[/QUOTE]
That's precisely the point. Just as tariffs on cheap imports encourage domestic business, taxes on cheap oil products would encourage alternative energy business.
[quote name='dmaul1114']Get the technology developed, sell it to private companies to produce, and help push it into the mainstream with tax breaks on purchases etc. If it's alternative fuel, give incentives to gas companies to switch or new fuel stations to open.[/QUOTE]
As mentioned above, what's funding this research?
Further, what's funding these tax breaks?
Where is the funding for incentives coming from?
[quote name='dmaul1114']Get the technology developed, sell it to private companies to produce, and help push it into the mainstream with tax breaks on purchases etc. If it's alternative fuel, give incentives to gas companies to switch or new fuel stations to open.[/QUOTE]
Again, with what funding? I mentioned these in the OP, as projects funded by the tax.
Seriously, I just don't understand what you expect. It's like you're proposing free houses and Porches for everyone. Wouldn't that be awesome? Instead of collecting taxes, how about the government just give us free houses and Porches every year? That'd be better than being taxed, wouldn't it?
You can't squeeze blood from a stone. Government funding is not completely elastic.
Government agency research, funded with government dollars, into developing cars that run on alternative power/fuel.
The private sector isn't going to do it as there's much more money to be made in oil/gas.
Get the technology developed, sell it to private companies to produce, and help push it into the mainstream with tax breaks on purchases etc. If it's alternative fuel, give incentives to gas companies to switch or new fuel stations to open.
In the meantime, push hybrids, improve public transit etc. to reduce current pollution etc.
Change is needed, but it takes time and a lot of pushing from non-capitalistic sources when change involves less profit in the long run in the form of non-limited fuel sources.[/QUOTE]
You're naming potential uses for the tax. Yet you don't support the tax. Let's do this point by point, for emphasis.
[quote name='dmaul1114']
Government agency research, funded with government dollars, into developing cars that run on alternative power/fuel.[/QUOTE]
Where's this government research funding come from? What "government dollars" are you referring to?
[quote name='dmaul1114']
The private sector isn't going to do it as there's much more money to be made in oil/gas.
[/QUOTE]
That's precisely the point. Just as tariffs on cheap imports encourage domestic business, taxes on cheap oil products would encourage alternative energy business.
[quote name='dmaul1114']Get the technology developed, sell it to private companies to produce, and help push it into the mainstream with tax breaks on purchases etc. If it's alternative fuel, give incentives to gas companies to switch or new fuel stations to open.[/QUOTE]
As mentioned above, what's funding this research?
Further, what's funding these tax breaks?
Where is the funding for incentives coming from?
[quote name='dmaul1114']Get the technology developed, sell it to private companies to produce, and help push it into the mainstream with tax breaks on purchases etc. If it's alternative fuel, give incentives to gas companies to switch or new fuel stations to open.[/QUOTE]
Again, with what funding? I mentioned these in the OP, as projects funded by the tax.
Seriously, I just don't understand what you expect. It's like you're proposing free houses and Porches for everyone. Wouldn't that be awesome? Instead of collecting taxes, how about the government just give us free houses and Porches every year? That'd be better than being taxed, wouldn't it?
You can't squeeze blood from a stone. Government funding is not completely elastic.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
If there were a reasonably priced electric car with a 200-mile limit, I'd buy one tomorrow. I use the Washington Metro to get to and from work (yes dmaul, it's way, way too expensive, due to mismanagement and the dumb way it was constructed), but it's inconvenient for a lot of people. I think if you build it (a reasonably priced electric car with a decent range) they will come.
[quote name='Koggit']You're naming potential uses for the tax. Yet you don't support the tax. Let's do this point by point, for emphasis.
[/QUOTE]
I never said I didn't support a higher gas tax. It just can't be absurdly high. You can't make it so high that you have a strong impact on the quality of life of the working poor in rural areas who have to drive to work as there's no public transit options.
As for where else to get the money, get out of Iraq, give less money to other countries, repeal Bush's tax cuts on the wealthy, trim excess spending in various pork projects etc. etc. The government has plenty of money to fund things like this in their coffers already, they just have to eliminate waste and budget more responsibly.
[/QUOTE]
I never said I didn't support a higher gas tax. It just can't be absurdly high. You can't make it so high that you have a strong impact on the quality of life of the working poor in rural areas who have to drive to work as there's no public transit options.
As for where else to get the money, get out of Iraq, give less money to other countries, repeal Bush's tax cuts on the wealthy, trim excess spending in various pork projects etc. etc. The government has plenty of money to fund things like this in their coffers already, they just have to eliminate waste and budget more responsibly.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='dmaul1114']
I guess it could work if instead of refueling you just stop at a battery place and swap out batteries quickly.....
I hadn't thought of that angle, not sure if that was what you were getting at but if so that's a fair point.
All I'm getting at is for me (and most people) to consider switching I need to be able to practice my same driving habits. So I need to be able to drive as far as I want with no worries as more fuel (or a fresh battery) is avaiable pretty much everywhere along the way.
[/quote]
Bingo.
The idea is that you would drive into a garage whenever your battery is near "E".
The first tech yanks out a large battery out of the front of your car. The second tech yanks out a large battery out of the back of your car.
Each tech puts their dead battery on a rack or conveyor belt where it will be recharged over the next 1-48 hours.
Each tech grabs a fresh battery off of chargers and puts it into your car.
If we're playing NASCAR, dead to charged batteries are a minute away. If we're playing Wal-Mart tech with a GED jacking off, dead to charged batteries are five minutes away.
How the dead batteries are recharged is irrelevant to the discussion.
I guess it could work if instead of refueling you just stop at a battery place and swap out batteries quickly.....
I hadn't thought of that angle, not sure if that was what you were getting at but if so that's a fair point.
All I'm getting at is for me (and most people) to consider switching I need to be able to practice my same driving habits. So I need to be able to drive as far as I want with no worries as more fuel (or a fresh battery) is avaiable pretty much everywhere along the way.
[/quote]
Bingo.
The idea is that you would drive into a garage whenever your battery is near "E".
The first tech yanks out a large battery out of the front of your car. The second tech yanks out a large battery out of the back of your car.
Each tech puts their dead battery on a rack or conveyor belt where it will be recharged over the next 1-48 hours.
Each tech grabs a fresh battery off of chargers and puts it into your car.
If we're playing NASCAR, dead to charged batteries are a minute away. If we're playing Wal-Mart tech with a GED jacking off, dead to charged batteries are five minutes away.
How the dead batteries are recharged is irrelevant to the discussion.
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Bingo.
The idea is that you would drive into a garage whenever your battery is near "E".
The first tech yanks out a large battery out of the front of your car. The second tech yanks out a large battery out of the back of your car.
Each tech puts their dead battery on a rack or conveyor belt where it will be recharged over the next 1-48 hours.
Each tech grabs a fresh battery off of chargers and puts it into your car.
If we're playing NASCAR, dead to charged batteries are a minute away. If we're playing Wal-Mart tech with a GED jacking off, dead to charged batteries are five minutes away.
How the dead batteries are recharged is irrelevant to the discussion.[/QUOTE]
I could see that working. Whether it's more viable than a clean fueled car (be it hydrogen or whatever) is hard to say without seeing specific proposals on how the infrastructure could be put in place for both options.
As long as people can stop pretty much anywhere and recharge or refuel in 5 mins or less as they can with gas, either system would be fine. Jjust a matter of which infrastructure is realistic to be adopted relatively quickly. Swapping batteries may not generate enough revenue for gas stations to stay around in similar numbers, vs. them just switching to dispesnsing a new type of clean fuel.
But maybe it could, especially if you're swapping your near dead battery for a new charged one rather than just moving battery from front to back of car. Seems like it would have to be that way. Dropping off your battery to be recharged would still only work for local travel. Just swapping out everytime would be totally flexible assuming no limiations on where you can do so. Concern would be getting crappy battery swapped in for a good battery so a key will be having strict regulation on the stores to not swap in batteries that are in limited capacity or in having battery technology that can be charged to 100% of intitial life infinitely (or nearly so).
The idea is that you would drive into a garage whenever your battery is near "E".
The first tech yanks out a large battery out of the front of your car. The second tech yanks out a large battery out of the back of your car.
Each tech puts their dead battery on a rack or conveyor belt where it will be recharged over the next 1-48 hours.
Each tech grabs a fresh battery off of chargers and puts it into your car.
If we're playing NASCAR, dead to charged batteries are a minute away. If we're playing Wal-Mart tech with a GED jacking off, dead to charged batteries are five minutes away.
How the dead batteries are recharged is irrelevant to the discussion.[/QUOTE]
I could see that working. Whether it's more viable than a clean fueled car (be it hydrogen or whatever) is hard to say without seeing specific proposals on how the infrastructure could be put in place for both options.
As long as people can stop pretty much anywhere and recharge or refuel in 5 mins or less as they can with gas, either system would be fine. Jjust a matter of which infrastructure is realistic to be adopted relatively quickly. Swapping batteries may not generate enough revenue for gas stations to stay around in similar numbers, vs. them just switching to dispesnsing a new type of clean fuel.
But maybe it could, especially if you're swapping your near dead battery for a new charged one rather than just moving battery from front to back of car. Seems like it would have to be that way. Dropping off your battery to be recharged would still only work for local travel. Just swapping out everytime would be totally flexible assuming no limiations on where you can do so. Concern would be getting crappy battery swapped in for a good battery so a key will be having strict regulation on the stores to not swap in batteries that are in limited capacity or in having battery technology that can be charged to 100% of intitial life infinitely (or nearly so).
CocheseUGA
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 33 (100%)
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Bingo.
The idea is that you would drive into a garage whenever your battery is near "E".
The first tech yanks out a large battery out of the front of your car. The second tech yanks out a large battery out of the back of your car.
Each tech puts their dead battery on a rack or conveyor belt where it will be recharged over the next 1-48 hours.
Each tech grabs a fresh battery off of chargers and puts it into your car.
If we're playing NASCAR, dead to charged batteries are a minute away. If we're playing Wal-Mart tech with a GED jacking off, dead to charged batteries are five minutes away.
How the dead batteries are recharged is irrelevant to the discussion.[/QUOTE]
That's nice in theory, but aren't batteries fairly weighty? Would you need to operate a hoist to remove the batteries and replace them?
[quote name='dmaul1114']I could see that working. Whether it's more viable than a clean fueled car (be it hydrogen or whatever) is hard to say without seeing specific proposals on how the infrastructure could be put in place for both options.
As long as people can stop pretty much anywhere and recharge or refuel in 5 mins or less as they can with gas, either system would be fine. Jjust a matter of which infrastructure is realistic to be adopted relatively quickly. Swapping batteries may not generate enough revenue for gas stations to stay around in similar numbers, vs. them just switching to dispesnsing a new type of clean fuel.
But maybe it could, especially if you're swapping your near dead battery for a new charged one rather than just moving battery from front to back of car. Seems like it would have to be that way. Dropping off your battery to be recharged would still only work for local travel. Just swapping out everytime would be totally flexible assuming no limiations on where you can do so. Concern would be getting crappy battery swapped in for a good battery so a key will be having strict regulation on the stores to not swap in batteries that are in limited capacity or in having battery technology that can be charged to 100% of intitial life infinitely (or nearly so).[/QUOTE]
If the system worked, I would guess it would be like the propane cylinder exchange you see outside every convienence store - $10 for a swap, $50 for a new, filled unit.
But, I don't think the system would work like that. How many batteries would an average gas station need to have on hand? How much storage would that take up? Would you have to build special buildings to hold charged batteries? How much would a fill-up be after factoring in cost of electricity and labor?
I think you're more likely to see eat-n-charge stops than you are replacement stations. Places where you can go shop or eat when your vehicle needs juice. If you buy something, then the charge would be free, or heavily discounted. If not, you pay full price plus a convienence fee.
I think you'd also see some form of photovoltaic paint or panels on vehicles to aid in charging, especially on interstate trips. With the way that sector is advancing, it's forseeable that you wouldn't even have to plug your car in if you did an 8-hour stint at work on a sunny day.
The idea is that you would drive into a garage whenever your battery is near "E".
The first tech yanks out a large battery out of the front of your car. The second tech yanks out a large battery out of the back of your car.
Each tech puts their dead battery on a rack or conveyor belt where it will be recharged over the next 1-48 hours.
Each tech grabs a fresh battery off of chargers and puts it into your car.
If we're playing NASCAR, dead to charged batteries are a minute away. If we're playing Wal-Mart tech with a GED jacking off, dead to charged batteries are five minutes away.
How the dead batteries are recharged is irrelevant to the discussion.[/QUOTE]
That's nice in theory, but aren't batteries fairly weighty? Would you need to operate a hoist to remove the batteries and replace them?
[quote name='dmaul1114']I could see that working. Whether it's more viable than a clean fueled car (be it hydrogen or whatever) is hard to say without seeing specific proposals on how the infrastructure could be put in place for both options.
As long as people can stop pretty much anywhere and recharge or refuel in 5 mins or less as they can with gas, either system would be fine. Jjust a matter of which infrastructure is realistic to be adopted relatively quickly. Swapping batteries may not generate enough revenue for gas stations to stay around in similar numbers, vs. them just switching to dispesnsing a new type of clean fuel.
But maybe it could, especially if you're swapping your near dead battery for a new charged one rather than just moving battery from front to back of car. Seems like it would have to be that way. Dropping off your battery to be recharged would still only work for local travel. Just swapping out everytime would be totally flexible assuming no limiations on where you can do so. Concern would be getting crappy battery swapped in for a good battery so a key will be having strict regulation on the stores to not swap in batteries that are in limited capacity or in having battery technology that can be charged to 100% of intitial life infinitely (or nearly so).[/QUOTE]
If the system worked, I would guess it would be like the propane cylinder exchange you see outside every convienence store - $10 for a swap, $50 for a new, filled unit.
But, I don't think the system would work like that. How many batteries would an average gas station need to have on hand? How much storage would that take up? Would you have to build special buildings to hold charged batteries? How much would a fill-up be after factoring in cost of electricity and labor?
I think you're more likely to see eat-n-charge stops than you are replacement stations. Places where you can go shop or eat when your vehicle needs juice. If you buy something, then the charge would be free, or heavily discounted. If not, you pay full price plus a convienence fee.
I think you'd also see some form of photovoltaic paint or panels on vehicles to aid in charging, especially on interstate trips. With the way that sector is advancing, it's forseeable that you wouldn't even have to plug your car in if you did an 8-hour stint at work on a sunny day.
Yeah, those are the issues I see as well.
Just seems that a new fuel that could be dispensed in pretty much the same manner would be much easier and more practical to deliver as the same stations could dispense after replacing tanks and pumps. That's much easier than having to put a totally new infrastructure in place to swap and/or charge batteries, as you note that would require a lot of storage, hoists etc. It's not impossible, but a more radical change would probably be much harder to get put in the mainstream quickly.
It's really ust a matter of whether a viable, clean fuel can be developed in a timely manner. If it can, then I see that as a more viable option than totally battery powered cars. Hybrids that run on clean fuel would probably be the ideal. Then you could conserve the new fuel and save money by having electric power at times just like in current hybrids--but minus the pollution of running on fossil fuels.
Also, with battery cars, you have to factor in all the electricity used to charge the batteries and all the pollution produced from burning coal etc. to produce that electricity. Cars that run on hydrogen or some other clean alternative fuel would both get rid of fossil fuel pollution and also not require the generation of extra electric and the pollution from producing it that would be need to recharge millions of batteries daily.
Just seems that a new fuel that could be dispensed in pretty much the same manner would be much easier and more practical to deliver as the same stations could dispense after replacing tanks and pumps. That's much easier than having to put a totally new infrastructure in place to swap and/or charge batteries, as you note that would require a lot of storage, hoists etc. It's not impossible, but a more radical change would probably be much harder to get put in the mainstream quickly.
It's really ust a matter of whether a viable, clean fuel can be developed in a timely manner. If it can, then I see that as a more viable option than totally battery powered cars. Hybrids that run on clean fuel would probably be the ideal. Then you could conserve the new fuel and save money by having electric power at times just like in current hybrids--but minus the pollution of running on fossil fuels.
Also, with battery cars, you have to factor in all the electricity used to charge the batteries and all the pollution produced from burning coal etc. to produce that electricity. Cars that run on hydrogen or some other clean alternative fuel would both get rid of fossil fuel pollution and also not require the generation of extra electric and the pollution from producing it that would be need to recharge millions of batteries daily.
pittpizza
CAGiversary!
Dmaul you keep pointing to the fact that it has to do everything an internal combustion car does and I agree with you to an extent.
Still, I fear there is an unwillingness to inconvenience themeselves for the good of the environment by most that is really hampering advancement of environmentally friendly alternatives. Most simply don't give a shit enough to actually change anything about their lifestyles. For most it seems the only motivation to go green is self interest: cheaper, easier, more conveneint. I've said it before in this thread but money is the universal motivator, and the more expensive oil gets (takes us back to a higher tax) the more motivation there is to go green.
My point is that there needs to be a cultural change, and we are starting to see it. Awareness is coming around and people are starting to give a shit. Not just in the cars we drive but the applainces we use, how long we stand in front of the fridge withe the door open, the settings on our themostats, the packaging of our products, the public transportion, the buildings we live/work in. There is a lot more to it than cars, and oil is used for a lot of other uses besides cars.
Moreover, the technology for good electric cars is here, and was here 11 years ago. You know how far away we are from hydrogen or other technology? Decades. We need an answer now, and the quickest, easiest, most affordable one is electric cars IMO.
Cochese I doubt the size of a hoist or the power sucked up by the actuators would be any more than that necessary to pump 15 gallons of fuel.
Still, I fear there is an unwillingness to inconvenience themeselves for the good of the environment by most that is really hampering advancement of environmentally friendly alternatives. Most simply don't give a shit enough to actually change anything about their lifestyles. For most it seems the only motivation to go green is self interest: cheaper, easier, more conveneint. I've said it before in this thread but money is the universal motivator, and the more expensive oil gets (takes us back to a higher tax) the more motivation there is to go green.
My point is that there needs to be a cultural change, and we are starting to see it. Awareness is coming around and people are starting to give a shit. Not just in the cars we drive but the applainces we use, how long we stand in front of the fridge withe the door open, the settings on our themostats, the packaging of our products, the public transportion, the buildings we live/work in. There is a lot more to it than cars, and oil is used for a lot of other uses besides cars.
Moreover, the technology for good electric cars is here, and was here 11 years ago. You know how far away we are from hydrogen or other technology? Decades. We need an answer now, and the quickest, easiest, most affordable one is electric cars IMO.
Cochese I doubt the size of a hoist or the power sucked up by the actuators would be any more than that necessary to pump 15 gallons of fuel.
CocheseUGA
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 33 (100%)
[quote name='pittpizza']Dmaul you keep pointing to the fact that it has to do everything an internal combustion car does and I agree with you to an extent.
Still, I fear there is an unwillingness to inconvenience themeselves for the good of the environment by most that is really hampering advancement of environmentally friendly alternatives. Most simply don't give a shit enough to actually change anything about their lifestyles. For most it seems the only motivation to go green is self interest: cheaper, easier, more conveneint. I've said it before in this thread but money is the universal motivator, and the more expensive oil gets (takes us back to a higher tax) the more motivation there is to go green.
Moreover, the technology for good electric cars is here, and was here 11 years ago. You know how far away we are from hydrogen or other technology? Decades. We need an answer now, and the quickest, easiest, most affordable one is electric cars IMO.
Cochese I doubt the size of a hoist or the power sucked up by the actuators would be any more than that necessary to pump 15 gallons of fuel.[/QUOTE]
If change isn't going to be as painless as possible, it's not going to happen. It's a simple fact that groups like Sierra Club continue to ignore. The best way to facilitate change is not by changing people, it's changing the ways they can get to the same result. By result, I mean to work, to home, etc. Not pollution.
Hydrogen cars are here, the Honda FCX is supposed to go on sale next year.
It may take the same power to do that, but you're missing the labor aspect. With gas, a guy comes every week and fills the tanks, and pumps do the rest. With the removal of batteries, that's a labor-intensive job, one that you have to hire additional people to do.
Still, I fear there is an unwillingness to inconvenience themeselves for the good of the environment by most that is really hampering advancement of environmentally friendly alternatives. Most simply don't give a shit enough to actually change anything about their lifestyles. For most it seems the only motivation to go green is self interest: cheaper, easier, more conveneint. I've said it before in this thread but money is the universal motivator, and the more expensive oil gets (takes us back to a higher tax) the more motivation there is to go green.
Moreover, the technology for good electric cars is here, and was here 11 years ago. You know how far away we are from hydrogen or other technology? Decades. We need an answer now, and the quickest, easiest, most affordable one is electric cars IMO.
Cochese I doubt the size of a hoist or the power sucked up by the actuators would be any more than that necessary to pump 15 gallons of fuel.[/QUOTE]
If change isn't going to be as painless as possible, it's not going to happen. It's a simple fact that groups like Sierra Club continue to ignore. The best way to facilitate change is not by changing people, it's changing the ways they can get to the same result. By result, I mean to work, to home, etc. Not pollution.
Hydrogen cars are here, the Honda FCX is supposed to go on sale next year.
It may take the same power to do that, but you're missing the labor aspect. With gas, a guy comes every week and fills the tanks, and pumps do the rest. With the removal of batteries, that's a labor-intensive job, one that you have to hire additional people to do.
[quote name='pittpizza']Dmaul you keep pointing to the fact that it has to do everything an internal combustion car does and I agree with you to an extent.
Still, I fear there is an unwillingness to inconvenience themeselves for the good of the environment by most that is really hampering advancement of environmentally friendly alternatives. Most simply don't give a shit enough to actually change anything about their lifestyles. For most it seems the only motivation to go green is self interest: cheaper, easier, more conveneint. I've said it before in this thread but money is the universal motivator, and the more expensive oil gets (takes us back to a higher tax) the more motivation there is to go green.
My point is that there needs to be a cultural change, and we are starting to see it. Awareness is coming around and people are starting to give a shit. Not just in the cars we drive but the applainces we use, how long we stand in front of the fridge withe the door open, the settings on our themostats, the packaging of our products, the public transportion, the buildings we live/work in. There is a lot more to it than cars, and oil is used for a lot of other uses besides cars.
[/QUOTE]
I agree 100% with that. People aren't going to inconvenience themselves just for the good of the environment. At least not on a large enough scale to make a difference in global environmental conditions. j
And I can't bitch at them as I'm not willing to inconvenience myself to that extent. I go through the hassle of recycling everything I can, paying more for energy efficient light bulbs (though those pay for themselves in time), turning the thermstat at more energy efficient levels than I used to etc. But my car has to do everything it does now and cost the same or I'm not making a change. That's just more than I'm, and the majority of people, are willing to sacrifice. Given I don't plan on having kids as I hate the little bastards, I don't have a great stake in the future. Just a conscience that wants to see the planet preserved, but I do have limits on how much I'll sacrifice on that front.
I know that frustrates you and others who put such high priority on the environment, but that's just the reality of the world that you have to live with. Of course you should attempt to change views, but views on the grand scale won't change as fast as alternative fuels could be developed and put in place. The vast majority of people will never make the kind of sacrifices required from only owning limited range electric vehicles, even if gas prices keep skyrocketing. People will just drive the same cars, but minimize trips as best as possible.
I agree alternative fueled cars are a long time away still. The short term solution is to push hybird cars and continue improving them to get the fuel efficiency way up. Electric cars could help and should be put out as part of the short term solution, but there not going to sell well enough to make a huge difference as most people have no interest in a car with a limited range IMO. They'll sell to people that just need a car to zip around the city and who are very environmentally concious. That won't sell to the average joe unless you have some kind of grand battery charging/swapping infrastructure like discussed above. And that would probably take longer to get in place than the development of hydrogen or other fuels.
Better public transit should be part of the short term solution as well. Reduce travel times and prices however possible to get more people to use them.
[quote name='CocheseUGA']If change isn't going to be as painless as possible, it's not going to happen. It's a simple fact that groups like Sierra Club continue to ignore. The best way to facilitate change is not by changing people, it's changing the ways they can get to the same result. By result, I mean to work, to home, etc. Not pollution.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly. That's the only way to get mass change. People aren't going to make big sacrifices that inconvenience themselves just for the environment's sake. Being a little more conservative with the thermastat is one thing, changing from a car with unlimited range to one with limited range is another.
Change is fastest when it has benefit to the person. Like energy efficent lightbulbs. They cost a bit more, but they last much longer, put out the same quality (or better IMO) of light, and save money in power bills. Being green sells some, but the cost effectiveness is what's really speeding their adoption.
For cars, we need something costs the same or less up front, has cheaper fuel and adds no inconvenience to the consumer if you want to see juoe six pack lining up to ditch their gas cars for something new on a big enough scale to really solve the pollution problem.
Still, I fear there is an unwillingness to inconvenience themeselves for the good of the environment by most that is really hampering advancement of environmentally friendly alternatives. Most simply don't give a shit enough to actually change anything about their lifestyles. For most it seems the only motivation to go green is self interest: cheaper, easier, more conveneint. I've said it before in this thread but money is the universal motivator, and the more expensive oil gets (takes us back to a higher tax) the more motivation there is to go green.
My point is that there needs to be a cultural change, and we are starting to see it. Awareness is coming around and people are starting to give a shit. Not just in the cars we drive but the applainces we use, how long we stand in front of the fridge withe the door open, the settings on our themostats, the packaging of our products, the public transportion, the buildings we live/work in. There is a lot more to it than cars, and oil is used for a lot of other uses besides cars.
[/QUOTE]
I agree 100% with that. People aren't going to inconvenience themselves just for the good of the environment. At least not on a large enough scale to make a difference in global environmental conditions. j
And I can't bitch at them as I'm not willing to inconvenience myself to that extent. I go through the hassle of recycling everything I can, paying more for energy efficient light bulbs (though those pay for themselves in time), turning the thermstat at more energy efficient levels than I used to etc. But my car has to do everything it does now and cost the same or I'm not making a change. That's just more than I'm, and the majority of people, are willing to sacrifice. Given I don't plan on having kids as I hate the little bastards
, I don't have a great stake in the future. Just a conscience that wants to see the planet preserved, but I do have limits on how much I'll sacrifice on that front.I know that frustrates you and others who put such high priority on the environment, but that's just the reality of the world that you have to live with. Of course you should attempt to change views, but views on the grand scale won't change as fast as alternative fuels could be developed and put in place. The vast majority of people will never make the kind of sacrifices required from only owning limited range electric vehicles, even if gas prices keep skyrocketing. People will just drive the same cars, but minimize trips as best as possible.
I agree alternative fueled cars are a long time away still. The short term solution is to push hybird cars and continue improving them to get the fuel efficiency way up. Electric cars could help and should be put out as part of the short term solution, but there not going to sell well enough to make a huge difference as most people have no interest in a car with a limited range IMO. They'll sell to people that just need a car to zip around the city and who are very environmentally concious. That won't sell to the average joe unless you have some kind of grand battery charging/swapping infrastructure like discussed above. And that would probably take longer to get in place than the development of hydrogen or other fuels.
Better public transit should be part of the short term solution as well. Reduce travel times and prices however possible to get more people to use them.
[quote name='CocheseUGA']If change isn't going to be as painless as possible, it's not going to happen. It's a simple fact that groups like Sierra Club continue to ignore. The best way to facilitate change is not by changing people, it's changing the ways they can get to the same result. By result, I mean to work, to home, etc. Not pollution.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly. That's the only way to get mass change. People aren't going to make big sacrifices that inconvenience themselves just for the environment's sake. Being a little more conservative with the thermastat is one thing, changing from a car with unlimited range to one with limited range is another.
Change is fastest when it has benefit to the person. Like energy efficent lightbulbs. They cost a bit more, but they last much longer, put out the same quality (or better IMO) of light, and save money in power bills. Being green sells some, but the cost effectiveness is what's really speeding their adoption.
For cars, we need something costs the same or less up front, has cheaper fuel and adds no inconvenience to the consumer if you want to see juoe six pack lining up to ditch their gas cars for something new on a big enough scale to really solve the pollution problem.
[quote name='CocheseUGA']If change isn't going to be as painless as possible, it's not going to happen. It's a simple fact that groups like Sierra Club continue to ignore. The best way to facilitate change is not by changing people, it's changing the ways they can get to the same result. By result, I mean to work, to home, etc. Not pollution.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly. That's just the reality of the world that environmentalists need to accept.
Most people don't care enough to make the kind of sacrifices that would be required from only owning electric cars with limited range. Thus they are just not going to sell on a grand enough scale to solve the pollution issue.
Sure if you get the kind of battery swapping/charging infrastructure we've talked about above in place they may. But making that gignatic change to infrastructure would certainly take longer than it would to develop hydrogen or other fueled cars and have this fuel present in most gas stations.
IMO, for the short term the solution is to push hybrids hard (tax breaks for buying them expanded, give companies incentive to make all their vehicles hybrid), improve the MPG of hybrids etc. Let people drive they way they do, while emitting less pollution until alternative fueled cars can be rolled out on a grand scale. Public transit should also be improved--lower costs, shorten travel times anyway possible etc.
Electric cars should also be put out, as they can help to some extent as there will be a market for them. Just not a large enough one to make much difference on their own. But still helps to have them out there for people who are fine with a limted range vehicle.
But people just need to accept that drastic change that inconveniences people with the only benefit being for the environment will never happen on a large scale. I know that frustrates environmentalists, but them's the apples they have to deal with.
I can't bitch, as I don't care enough to make the sacrifices of ditching my car that I can drive anywhere for any distance for a limited range electric car. Hell, I don't plan on having kids as I hate the little bastards, so I don't have much stake in the future relative to other people. I do have respect for nature and thus I'm willing to do things to help preserve the planet. I recycle everything I can, keep the thermstat set more conservatively than I'd like, use energy efficient lightbulbs etc. But I don't care enough to make te sacrifice required by having an electric car.
I also don't think rising gas costs will do much. People may drive a bit less, which is good, but I don't think you'd see many people lining up to trade their gas cars for a limited-range electric car. The freedom of cars to drive anywhere is a huge part of american culture.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly. That's just the reality of the world that environmentalists need to accept.
Most people don't care enough to make the kind of sacrifices that would be required from only owning electric cars with limited range. Thus they are just not going to sell on a grand enough scale to solve the pollution issue.
Sure if you get the kind of battery swapping/charging infrastructure we've talked about above in place they may. But making that gignatic change to infrastructure would certainly take longer than it would to develop hydrogen or other fueled cars and have this fuel present in most gas stations.
IMO, for the short term the solution is to push hybrids hard (tax breaks for buying them expanded, give companies incentive to make all their vehicles hybrid), improve the MPG of hybrids etc. Let people drive they way they do, while emitting less pollution until alternative fueled cars can be rolled out on a grand scale. Public transit should also be improved--lower costs, shorten travel times anyway possible etc.
Electric cars should also be put out, as they can help to some extent as there will be a market for them. Just not a large enough one to make much difference on their own. But still helps to have them out there for people who are fine with a limted range vehicle.
But people just need to accept that drastic change that inconveniences people with the only benefit being for the environment will never happen on a large scale. I know that frustrates environmentalists, but them's the apples they have to deal with.
I can't bitch, as I don't care enough to make the sacrifices of ditching my car that I can drive anywhere for any distance for a limited range electric car. Hell, I don't plan on having kids as I hate the little bastards, so I don't have much stake in the future relative to other people. I do have respect for nature and thus I'm willing to do things to help preserve the planet. I recycle everything I can, keep the thermstat set more conservatively than I'd like, use energy efficient lightbulbs etc. But I don't care enough to make te sacrifice required by having an electric car.
I also don't think rising gas costs will do much. People may drive a bit less, which is good, but I don't think you'd see many people lining up to trade their gas cars for a limited-range electric car. The freedom of cars to drive anywhere is a huge part of american culture.
CocheseUGA
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 33 (100%)
Yes. And many times, as much as people don't want it to be true, people have a choice to make:
Pay more to save the environment, and hurt myself economically.
or
Pay the same and not help the environment.
What do you think the vast majority is going to choose?
Good example: we just bought a car from my parents. A 2002 CR-V. Gets worse gas mileage than the Jetta we are turning in off-lease next week.
We could have continued to pay $200 a month for four more years to get marginally better gas mileage, or we could have payed $1000 to purchase the less-efficient (but with more room) CR-V. Can you guess which one we chose?
And even if you compare apples to apples, you're more often than not faced with something like this:
2008 Ford Escape XLT vs 2008 Ford Escape Hybrid
(the XLT is the closest in trim level to the standard features the Hybrid has)
19925 vs 27935
You're getting 34/30 with the hybrid, 26/20 for the regular I4, and you can tow 500 more pounds. It's a 200 gallon difference over 12k miles, which is what you get on most leases.
Let's look at a long-term justification of whether or not to get this hybrid. If you drove 12k miles a year just in city mpg (which is the greatest difference), it would take you 10 years to recoup the additional upfront cost of buying the hybrid with the money you save via better gas mileage. And we're not even considering the additional financing charge on $8k.
Just in case anyone doesn't believe me:
12k miles a year = 600 gallons for the regular, 400 for the hybrid
200 * $4/gal gas = $800/year savings
$8010 = hybrid premium upfront.
No, it's not an electric. But until someone comes out with a car that you can equip both ways, this is the best comparison we have. And I think it's relevant in terms of why people aren't willing to spend more to help themselves in the long-term, or help the environment without having a tangible benefit to themselves.
Pay more to save the environment, and hurt myself economically.
or
Pay the same and not help the environment.
What do you think the vast majority is going to choose?
Good example: we just bought a car from my parents. A 2002 CR-V. Gets worse gas mileage than the Jetta we are turning in off-lease next week.
We could have continued to pay $200 a month for four more years to get marginally better gas mileage, or we could have payed $1000 to purchase the less-efficient (but with more room) CR-V. Can you guess which one we chose?
And even if you compare apples to apples, you're more often than not faced with something like this:
2008 Ford Escape XLT vs 2008 Ford Escape Hybrid
(the XLT is the closest in trim level to the standard features the Hybrid has)
19925 vs 27935
You're getting 34/30 with the hybrid, 26/20 for the regular I4, and you can tow 500 more pounds. It's a 200 gallon difference over 12k miles, which is what you get on most leases.
Let's look at a long-term justification of whether or not to get this hybrid. If you drove 12k miles a year just in city mpg (which is the greatest difference), it would take you 10 years to recoup the additional upfront cost of buying the hybrid with the money you save via better gas mileage. And we're not even considering the additional financing charge on $8k.
Just in case anyone doesn't believe me:
12k miles a year = 600 gallons for the regular, 400 for the hybrid
200 * $4/gal gas = $800/year savings
$8010 = hybrid premium upfront.
No, it's not an electric. But until someone comes out with a car that you can equip both ways, this is the best comparison we have. And I think it's relevant in terms of why people aren't willing to spend more to help themselves in the long-term, or help the environment without having a tangible benefit to themselves.
Yep, that's the issue. Not many people are going to pay to save the environment. Not on a great enough scale to make the difference.
And similarly, people aren't going to switch to limited range cars even if they cost the same or less on a great scale IMO.
We have to work to reduce pollution while not forcing people to change more or change their driving habits.
First is work on getting hybrids to be cost effective, rather than costing a several thousand dollar premium as they can help in the short term. Long-term is getting clean cars that do everything gas cars do for the same or less cost.
That's realistic change. Anything else is a pipe dream. The masses aren't going to turn into environmentalists who will sacrifice convenience and money for the good of the planet. That's just not human nature.
And similarly, people aren't going to switch to limited range cars even if they cost the same or less on a great scale IMO.
We have to work to reduce pollution while not forcing people to change more or change their driving habits.
First is work on getting hybrids to be cost effective, rather than costing a several thousand dollar premium as they can help in the short term. Long-term is getting clean cars that do everything gas cars do for the same or less cost.
That's realistic change. Anything else is a pipe dream. The masses aren't going to turn into environmentalists who will sacrifice convenience and money for the good of the planet. That's just not human nature.
pittpizza
CAGiversary!
[quote name='CocheseUGA']
It may take the same power to do that, but you're missing the labor aspect. With gas, a guy comes every week and fills the tanks, and pumps do the rest. With the removal of batteries, that's a labor-intensive job, one that you have to hire additional people to do.[/QUOTE]
Good point! Thanks for pointing out that it will create jobs too. Look at that, going green actually HELPS the economy, go figure.
It may take the same power to do that, but you're missing the labor aspect. With gas, a guy comes every week and fills the tanks, and pumps do the rest. With the removal of batteries, that's a labor-intensive job, one that you have to hire additional people to do.[/QUOTE]
Good point! Thanks for pointing out that it will create jobs too. Look at that, going green actually HELPS the economy, go figure.
[quote name='pittpizza']Good point! Thanks for pointing out that it will create jobs too. Look at that, going green actually HELPS the economy, go figure.[/QUOTE]
Or it could hurt it by putting a lot of service stations out of business as they can't stay afloat selling a cheaper product that requires more employees to run.
Could go either way. I can't imagine battery swapping every catching on if it has the same costs/profit margin as gas, so then places that dependent on gas sales (i.e. that didn't do repairs or have a convenience store attached) would go under.
Or it could hurt it by putting a lot of service stations out of business as they can't stay afloat selling a cheaper product that requires more employees to run.
Could go either way. I can't imagine battery swapping every catching on if it has the same costs/profit margin as gas, so then places that dependent on gas sales (i.e. that didn't do repairs or have a convenience store attached) would go under.
pittpizza
CAGiversary!
[quote name='dmaul1114']Or it could hurt it by putting a lot of service stations out of business as they can't stay afloat selling a cheaper product that requires more employees to run.
Could go either way. I can't imagine battery swapping every catching on if it has the same costs/profit margin as gas, so then places that dependent on gas sales (i.e. that didn't do repairs or have a convenience store attached) would go under.[/QUOTE]
I don't think there are any. I haven't seen one in the past 10 years. EVERY single one, without exception, has a store or a service station or a newstand or something like that. This is the only opportunity for them to make money since very very very very little of that $3.79 goes to the store.
Could go either way. I can't imagine battery swapping every catching on if it has the same costs/profit margin as gas, so then places that dependent on gas sales (i.e. that didn't do repairs or have a convenience store attached) would go under.[/QUOTE]
I don't think there are any. I haven't seen one in the past 10 years. EVERY single one, without exception, has a store or a service station or a newstand or something like that. This is the only opportunity for them to make money since very very very very little of that $3.79 goes to the store.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='dmaul1114']Or it could hurt it by putting a lot of service stations out of business as they can't stay afloat selling a cheaper product that requires more employees to run.
Could go either way. I can't imagine battery swapping every catching on if it has the same costs/profit margin as gas, so then places that dependent on gas sales (i.e. that didn't do repairs or have a convenience store attached) would go under.[/quote]
Silly Sith, current gas stations don't rely on gas sales.
They rely on the huge markup for candy and other goods.
Milk costs $1 more per gallon. A 40 cent candy bar at Wal-Mart costs 70 cents at the Quik E Mart.
However, let's assume we can't sell overpriced consumables at a battery swapping station.
Hmmm. Gas costs $4 per gallon. It requires 2 gallons of gas to push a car with 35MPG for 1 hour (70 miles). A comparable electric car requires 10 KWH to do the same thing.
So, that means the battery swapping company can charge 80 cents per KWH to be competitive with YESTERDAY'S gas prices. Coal power costs 10 cents per KWH, Nuclear power can cost 5 cents per KWH. Landfill gas costs 16 cents per KWH, Wind power costs 5-20 cents per KWH and Solar power costs 40-80 cents per KWH.
That dog won't hunt.
Could go either way. I can't imagine battery swapping every catching on if it has the same costs/profit margin as gas, so then places that dependent on gas sales (i.e. that didn't do repairs or have a convenience store attached) would go under.[/quote]
Silly Sith, current gas stations don't rely on gas sales.
They rely on the huge markup for candy and other goods.
Milk costs $1 more per gallon. A 40 cent candy bar at Wal-Mart costs 70 cents at the Quik E Mart.
However, let's assume we can't sell overpriced consumables at a battery swapping station.
Hmmm. Gas costs $4 per gallon. It requires 2 gallons of gas to push a car with 35MPG for 1 hour (70 miles). A comparable electric car requires 10 KWH to do the same thing.
So, that means the battery swapping company can charge 80 cents per KWH to be competitive with YESTERDAY'S gas prices. Coal power costs 10 cents per KWH, Nuclear power can cost 5 cents per KWH. Landfill gas costs 16 cents per KWH, Wind power costs 5-20 cents per KWH and Solar power costs 40-80 cents per KWH.
That dog won't hunt.
bread's done