Why don't we just tax gas like mad?

[quote name='pittpizza']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.[/QUOTE]

There are some around me that have like two rows of overpriced junk food and you seldom see anyone go in--people just pay at the pump and go.

We use enough gas that they can get buy on thin profits on gas since they only have a couple employees--if any since these places seem to always have the same one or two people (probably the owners) behind the counter.

Probably wouldn't be a huge problem though. But I just can't wrap my head around a battery swapping/charing industry ever being very viable--either for consumers or for businesses.

It's a pipe dream possible in a world were people all care about the environment more than their own convenience and wealth accumulation. A world that will never exist unless we see the total demise of capitalism and the values associated with it.

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']
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.
.[/QUOTE]

Problem is people could presumably just charge their batteries at home every night. Thus sales of "charges" or "Swaps" would be much less frequent than gas fillups. They're really only needed for people on long trips and not needed at all for the normal daily commutes, shopping trips etc.

So they'd sell less product, have fewer people entering the store to buy other stuff etc. Thus we have many fewer places to get a swap or recharge compared to how many gas stations we have now--and we're back to the inconvenience/limited range problem again.

Seems much easier to just keep hawking gas as long as possible (and hopefully improve and push hybrids) until another form of sellable fuel can just be swapped in for gas in the existing infrastructure.

I just can't see batteries ever getting past the range problem, and I just don't see battery swapping/charging stations being feasible from convenience or profit standpoints. Maybe I'm wrong, but just seems like a fucking stupid idea to me.
 
You are wrong dmaul, with appropriate subsidies and incentives capitalism could be tweaked to pull in favor of alternative energy.

[quote name='dmaul1114'] Maybe I'm wrong, but just seems like a fucking stupid idea to me.[/QUOTE]
You sound like the last guy to sell a buggy whip when internal combustions were taking over.

Just like the people in the saddle/bridle/stirrup/carriage/buggy-whip industry, people in the oil industry are going to have to adapt or die. The internal combustions were just better and evidently the world is starting to think there may be better ways than the internal combustion.

I'm not saying that it is going to be easy, or that people will just accept it, but I am saying that it needs to happen for the good of the everyone on this planet. Not just a change in whats under your hood either, a change in attitude and consciousness. I know I sound like a complete whack-job tree huggin' hippy, but I really feel that way.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']You are wrong dmaul, with appropriate subsidies and incentives capitalism could be tweaked to pull in favor of alternative energy. [/quote]

I think it can happen under capitalism. Just not in the form of 100% electric battery powered cars. It will be a more tradeable commodity. Some kind of clean fuel, be it hydrogen or whatever.

I agree things need to change, I just disagree that pushing electric cars is the way to go. Just too many limitations to batteries--again unless they can be self charging through solor panels, use of wind when driving etc to make recharges pretty much never needed.

Push hybrids, improve hybrids and develop a clean fuel source. That's the way the change will occur fastest, and the best way to help in the short term as well IMHO.

But we're coming from different fronts as you're willing to put environment first, and I'm not and never will be. I'm willing to help push green replacements for non-green things, but not when they cost more or cause inconvenience.

You're about saving the environment at all costs, I'm about finding ways to maintain the status quo while eliminating pollution to the greatest extent possible.

In short, we'll just have to agee to disagree here.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']You are wrong dmaul, with appropriate subsidies and incentives capitalism could be tweaked to pull in favor of alternative energy.


You sound like the last guy to sell a buggy whip when internal combustions were taking over.

Just like the people in the saddle/bridle/stirrup/carriage/buggy-whip industry, people in the oil industry are going to have to adapt or die. The internal combustions were just better and evidently the world is starting to think there may be better ways than the internal combustion.

I'm not saying that it is going to be easy, or that people will just accept it, but I am saying that it needs to happen for the good of the everyone on this planet. Not just a change in whats under your hood either, a change in attitude and consciousness. I know I sound like a complete whack-job tree huggin' hippy, but I really feel that way.[/QUOTE]

You sound like a smart guy. However, either you're lacking in the practical areas, or you're just ignoring them. I don't think anyone here is advocating against alternative forms of energy, but as we said before - you can't expect the economy to bend to the will of the more inclined.

Battery swapping stations replacing fuel stations? Not going to happen. Cost prohibitive. If the oil companies thought they could charge a huge surcharge on doing this, you think there would be as much negative reaction as they've shown? There's no profit to be made in that business model. Why? People aren't going to sit at a truck stop for 20 minutes for their battery to be changed when they can stop and eat for 45-85 minutes and have their battery charged.

And I'm not even convinced you could get the car companies to come together to make an easily replaceable power cell. Hell, Chrysler designed a car that you had to remove the drive wheel to change the regular battery. They aren't exactly known for making things easy on anyone but themselves. I'm more apt to say you would see VW, GM or Ford stations under that scenario than you would QT, Shell or BP.

You'll need to get shopping centers, workplaces and public works to adjust to being able to provide the power, and a way to make a profit on it (or at least, drive traffic to their existing profit lines). Gas stations exist in such abundance partly because, like dmaul said, you only need one person at a time to operate it. The oil companies don't pay that person to be there, the owner does. I can't imagine that owner wanting to pay 2-3 more people a shift, and especially overnight. Are we just going to refill from 6-10?

Not everyone wants, or is going to make sacrifices if it doesn't involve their wallet. The sooner you realize that, the more people you might convert. What's your initial reaction when something that's easy becomes harder, or more expensive? The average person looks for the easier or cheaper alternative.

And that, my friend, is why people drive a block to go to the next store. You keep wanting to change the world, but the world is not going to let you change it. Sneak up on it.
 
Dmaul, you're going to create a reason why an electric car won't work.

Range sucks.

Really? 200+ miles with existing battery technology isn't enough because once or twice a year somebody might have to drive 300 miles in one setting? Somebody would rather spend at least $8 per hour of running a gas car 365 days a year rather than spend $1 per hour of running an electric car 360 days a year AND RENT A CAR with full pussy magnet attachment for $500 (EDIT: LINK DELETED. BOO @ SESSIONS!) and $8 per hour of running a gas car for the remaining those remaining 5 days?

Before you agree, let's work the math. $500 (rental fee) divided $7 per hour (difference between gas and electric operating cost) equals 71.43 hours driving time per year. 71.43 hours driving time per year divided by 365 days per year equals 0.196 hours driving time per day. 30 miles per day (average commute distance) divided by 0.196 hours driving time per day would imply that the average person commutes at 153MPH.

Recharging time sucks.

Really? And swapping out batteries at the same speed as a gas refuel for a profit of 5-75 cents profit per KWH ($0.50-$7.50 per car) couldn't compete with a gas station that makes < 5 cents profit per gallon of gas because there would need to be an attendant pushing buttons? Quick! Somebody state there are no gas stations in Oregon and New Jersey. Or somebody try to convince me that gas in New Jersey consistently costs more than Kentucky.
http://www.newjerseygasprices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx
http://www.kentuckygasprices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx

Quick! Somebody tell me convenience stores only sell fuel.
http://retailindustry.about.com/library/bl/q3/bl_nacs071601.htm
I have to admit a mistake. Convenience stores sales were 60-65% fuel. Of course, the price of fuel has tripled in the past 6 years, but I'm sure people ate and drank 1/3 as much candy and soda 6 years ago, too.

...

65,000,001 years ago, a velociraptor named Ford was making a quick snack out of a shrewlike mammal with the odd name, Electric Car. As Ford finished up, he laughed at the assorted relatives of Electric Car scurrying away from him and thought, "Things will never ever change."
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']Not everyone wants, or is going to make sacrifices if it doesn't involve their wallet. The sooner you realize that, the more people you might convert. What's your initial reaction when something that's easy becomes harder, or more expensive? The average person looks for the easier or cheaper alternative.[/quote]

Absolutely true.

People will choose the path of least resistance that they are aware of.
 
Can you give me the links for the 200 mile range batteries? The one I looked at that converted the Acuras only got 180 and were 90k.

I also still say I don't think battery packs would be able to be changed that quickly. If there's a vid of it being done, please share.
 
I'm not creating reasons it won't work, the reasons are just there I regularly drive more than 200 miles one way, much less round trip, as do many others. And even those that do so left often want the freedom to do so whenever they what. Kind of a rip off to drop $20K plus on a car and be limited on how far you can drive.

And yes, if you could swap out batteries just as easily as you can fill up gas it would be a non-issue. But I have difficulty seeing that every happening for reasons discussed. The biggest barrier is that you say people often wouldn't drive more than the 200 mile (or whatever) limit. If that's the case, most people would just be recharging at home rather than at swap/charge stations. Thus there's no need to have nearly as many of these swap stations as we have gas stations. Thus the convenience is lost.

It's just too drastic a change to catch on in the mainstream. People aren't going to make changes any time soon (definitley not in our lifetimes) out of fear of global warming or other environmental issues.

They'll make changes if it is either more convenient or saves them money. They won't inconvenience themselves and/or pay more for the environments sake. Not on a large enough scale to make a difference.

Put out a cheaper fuel, that doesn't pollute and that they can buy at every gas station and you'll see gas engines go the way of the dodo very quickly. That technology is a ways off, but it's more feasible than widespread battery swap stations etc.

Again, electric cars have a place, and for people that only drive 200+ miles a couple times a year they're a good fit. But most people I know drive farther than that fairly often (once a month or more). Sure people could buy one electric car and one gas car or something (just rent gas cars) but that's just no the american way. The american way is maximize pleasure and minimize pain, and you aren't going to change that fast enough to save the whales and polar bears.

Again, push hybrids, improve hybrids and develop a clean, alternative fuel source that can be put in place of gas much easier and faster than battery swapping and people can continue to drive what they want and long and far as they want without hurting the environment.

Electric cars can be a small bandaid in the meantime, but I just can't see them ever being the type of car everyone owns unless they develop some 100% self charging solar/wind/whatever battery that just completely kills the fuel/auto energy industry.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I'm not creating reasons it won't work, the reasons are just there I regularly drive more than 200 miles one way, much less round trip, as do many others.

I hate insomnia.

You stated a few pages back:

"I get 300-350 miles a tank in my Mazda 3. Driving locally I gas up about twice a month."

Let's try this another way ...

1. How many miles do you drive in a month?

2. How many times do you put 200 miles on your car in one sitting in a month?

3. Define regularly. Once a day? Once a week? Once a month? Once a year?
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']Can you give me the links for the 200 mile range batteries? The one I looked at that converted the Acuras only got 180 and were 90k.

I also still say I don't think battery packs would be able to be changed that quickly. If there's a vid of it being done, please share.[/quote]

Before I attempt to prove a 201mi range car can cost less than $90K, let's hammer out a few details.

1. How old can the car body be? Considering they can last 20 years, there is a wide range available.

2. How many KWhs will be required to push the car 201mi? If you think 1, it is too low. If you think 70, it is too high.

3. Am I limited to Li Ion batteries or are NiMH on the table?

...

Regarding changing out batteries, companies that sell the equipment claim ...

The MTC Power Changer PCHE Series (Double & Triple Level)

The MTC Model PCHE Power Changers™ are designed for high-capacity applications requiring 20-250 battery changes per day. This battery changer is one of the most efficient machines on the market today.

http://www.sbsbattery.com/subpage_index.php?_subp_=68

250 battery changes in a 24 hour period means a maximum battery change time of 5 minutes and 46 seconds.


When I called them, "Bill" claimed under three minutes for a trained operator. I'm sure he is biased.

If you really need a video, buy A1010G Battery Changing Safety at [SIZE=+1][/SIZE] http://www.safetyadvantage.com/1000g.htm. It's only $100.

Preface any response about battery swapping times with the number of Hyster keys you have collected from your work experience.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Before I attempt to prove a 201mi range car can cost less than $90K, let's hammer out a few details.

1. How old can the car body be? Considering they can last 20 years, there is a wide range available.

2. How many KWhs will be required to push the car 201mi? If you think 1, it is too low. If you think 70, it is too high.

3. Am I limited to Li Ion batteries or are NiMH on the table?

...

Regarding changing out batteries, companies that sell the equipment claim ...

The MTC Power Changer PCHE Series (Double & Triple Level)

The MTC Model PCHE Power Changers™ are designed for high-capacity applications requiring 20-250 battery changes per day. This battery changer is one of the most efficient machines on the market today.

http://www.sbsbattery.com/subpage_index.php?_subp_=68

250 battery changes in a 24 hour period means a maximum battery change time of 5 minutes and 46 seconds.


When I called them, "Bill" claimed under three minutes for a trained operator. I'm sure he is biased.

If you really need a video, buy A1010G Battery Changing Safety at [SIZE=+1][/SIZE] http://www.safetyadvantage.com/1000g.htm. It's only $100.

Preface any response about battery swapping times with the number of Hyster keys you have collected from your work experience.[/QUOTE]

Well, let's do anything I would buy to transport my family. I'd buy anything with a decent warranty 2000 and later. Or, a brand new vehicle. It would have to be something with at least the space of a CR-V after the conversion.

As far as power output, I'm not familiar with how much does what. That's why I'm asking. The first source I looked at that provided conversion stated the 90k price, and I wasn't sure if that included the car.

The link you provided - what kind of batteries are they changing? I'm on my phone, so my viewing is limited.

Look, I get the impression that you think I'm poo-pooing the issue. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I often wonder how we can do things to conserve resources and give my children clean air. I'm supremely intrigued by hydrogen, electric and hybrid applications in cars, and especially semis. My issue is that the solution be economically and ecologically profitable, otherwise it's a waste of time.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']You stated a few pages back:

"I get 300-350 miles a tank in my Mazda 3. Driving locally I gas up about twice a month."

Let's try this another way ...

1. How many miles do you drive in a month?

2. How many times do you put 200 miles on your car in one sitting in a month?

3. Define regularly. Once a day? Once a week? Once a month? Once a year?[/QUOTE]

There's really no point in continuing to go in circles on this. You're never going to sell me on limited range electric cars. I'll never buy a car that has a limited range and that I have to plug in each night to charge up. I don't care enough about the environment to inconvenience myself to that degree--and nor do the majority of people. I will pay a bit more for a clean fuel car when they're out and the fuel is widely available as I do care to some degree about global warming etc.--just not enough to burden myself much.

But to play along with your game. The driving estimate is too low now that I actually work it out. I'm a bit over 5000 miles and I have had the car for not quite 5 months so I'm averaging a little over 1000 a month--not the 600-700 from my earlier esxtimate.

So..

1. Around 1000.

2. 2-3 times mininum of 200+ mile trips. My parents and high school friends are 270 miles away one way. My girlfriend is 500 miles away one way, and I'll probably start driving some rather than flying as I keep spending too much on plane tickets as we're both super busy so I can rarely book a trip more than a few days ahead of time. So my monthly average and number of 200+ trips will be going up.

3. Regularly would definitely be once a month or more. I might even say 6+ times a year. I'd pretty much have to never be driving outside a cars range to ever consider bothering with an electric car. I just like the freedom of being able to drive where ever I want whenever I want, and think I deserve that freedom if I'm shelling out the big bucks to own a car. And I think most people, especially in Amercia where cars are such a big part of our culture (something every teenager can't wait for etc.) feel much the same. That's a huge barrier to rechargable electric cars ever being the dominant form of transportation.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']There's really no point in continuing to go in circles on this. You're never going to sell me on limited range electric cars. I'll never buy a car that has a limited range and that I have to plug in each night to charge up. I don't care enough about the environment to inconvenience myself to that degree--and nor do the majority of people.
[/quote]

Thank the Lord you admitted this.

CocheseUSA, are you in the same boat as dmaul?
 
Thats the thing dmaul, you oughta care about the environment more. You oughta care enough to burden yourself.

I just don't get it really: people care so much about themselves, but not at all for each other or for the thing that provides them with every single thing in their lives: the earth.

I'm not saying you're wrong, in fact I agree that most people just don't give a shit enough.

The not giving a shit is what is wrong...IMHO of course.

Most everyone is FOC, and its why they make the point that they'll do it when and ONLY when it causes absolutely no inconvenience to them whatsoever. An extremely selfish and short sited outlook in my view.

Look, I don't expect everyone to be like me. Hell I'm not even that extreme, I ride dirbikes, snowboard, suck up power with videogames and large fish tanks etc. But I am at least cognizant of it, and give a shit, and look for other ways to make a smaller environmental footprint. Most don't even do this. The state of the planet necessitates that people and their attitudes and lifestyles change. Japan is starting to do this by lowering the amount of work their government heaters and AC units need to do. Fashion is actually changing over there to the point where short sleeved collared shirts is acceptable formal wear (b/c it's warmer in buildings).

This is the kind of outlook that I advocate, and if everyone just did a little bit, that adds up to a whole lot.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Thank the Lord you admitted this.
[/QUOTE]

I admitted it multiple times throughout the thread. Both for myself and trying to convince you that electric cars with limited range are a pipe dream as THE solution to pollution problems. Not enough people are going to make that kind of sacrifice for the environment.

To totally solve the problem we need cars that do what current cars do with no added inconvenience or cost to the user. Electric cars can be a way to reduce pollution some, along with hybrids etc.

But the final, long-term solution is to develop non-polluting cars that have no limitations over internal combustion gas engine cars so people can drive however they want without killing the planet. Be that hydrogen or some other clean fuel, huge innovations in battery technology (ranges in the thousands of miles, some way to have the car 100% self charge the battery etc.).
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Thats the thing dmaul, you oughta care about the environment more. You oughta care enough to burden yourself.

I just don't get it really: people care so much about themselves, but not at all for each other or for the thing that provides them with every single thing in their lives: the earth.

I'm not saying you're wrong, in fact I agree that most people just don't give a shit enough.
[/QUOTE]

It's simply human nature. Maximize pleasure, minimize pain.

People are willing to make some concessions for the environment, but a limited range car is a HUGE concession for many people. I'd almost argue that people that could use one with no problems probably don't need a car period, and could get by on moving a little closer to work an dusing public tranist and just renting a car when they occasionally need to drive somewhere.

Others are willing to take the hassle of having a limited range car they need to charge every night and make other arrangements if they need to go further than the range. But I don't think people are evil for not wanting to do so.

I look out for the environment in other ways. I don't buy a gas guzzler. I use energy efficient light bulbs. I set the thermostat more conservatively than I'd like. I recycle everything I can, and try to minimize use/waste in the first place. So I'm much more concerned and doing a lot more than the average person.

But I love the freedom to drive where ever I want whenever I want, and I'm never going to give that up for the environment or any other reason I can think of. I'll do what I can to support the development of cars that run on clean fuel/power that don't pollute and don't have any major limitations over gas cars. Be that electing people that support research on this front, dontating to such research etc.

But if that makes me an evil planet killer in tree huggers eyes, so be it. I view the extermists on that front as just as annoying as the people that don't give a shit. Both groups are hurting environmental reform. Reform lies in the middle in finding ways to live green without putting huge inconveniences on people.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Thats the thing dmaul, you oughta care about the environment more. You oughta care enough to burden yourself.

I just don't get it really: people care so much about themselves, but not at all for each other or for the thing that provides them with every single thing in their lives: the earth.

[/QUOTE]

I think more people care than you think. It's just a matter of where you draw the line.

To some people, recycling is enough. To others, buying a hybrid car is enough. While others feel that thinking of babies as "carbon footprints" is enough.

The point is, I think most people are conscious of this stuff to some extent. People don't want to live in filth, they don't want to breathe filth, they know they have to do certain things, their part, to prevent that.

But how far to take it is really dependent on the personal belief of how bad it really is. You clearly think things are more dire than I do. And that's fine.

And still, maybe neither of us are extreme enough. Maybe we need to start a campaign to encourage all of those that REALLY care about the environment to kill themselves, to start erasing carbon footprints. After all, think about how much CO2 each person exhales in their lifetime!
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Thank the Lord you admitted this.

CocheseUSA, are you in the same boat as dmaul?[/QUOTE]

I'd say the only person in this boat is myself.

I'd want to see the technology improve a bit before I made a big investment into it. If I could drive 6-8 hours on the interstate between charges, that would be ideal. (480-640 miles) While that seems like a lot, if you're going to have vehicles that are cheaper to use on a daily basis for the long-term, and cheaper to go places, you have to look at it like the 1950s: everyone and their dead relatives started taking car trips. So you need to be congnizant of that, and plan for it. I know I'd be pissed if I spent $50k on a car just to realize that I'd have to spend another $20k in order to upgrade my batteries in a year or two.

You need to design a car that is capable of doing this, because that's how the American family operates. We want to go places and spend our money. Best way to do that with kids is to drive.

I know in my situation, a car with a 200-mile range may not work for me. We drive to Atlanta usually once a month, approx 175 miles away. How is the 200-mile range calculated? Does it include copious A/C use (which in Georgia, is mandatory)? Possibility of traffic? Accessory (headlights, MP3 player/DVD player) usage? These are all questions I'd need to know before I'd consider one. While it is true that 200>175, I'd not enjoy the possibility of running out of juice on I-75/I-85 at 5pm on a Friday. Which is where I proposed the option of being able to charge at a restaurant or shopping center to get us to our destination without having to resort to a costly replacement (I'd say it would cost you at least $25 bucks to do so), or getting stranded.

On a daily basis? No. I don't drive anywhere near 200 miles at a time. Even in Atlanta, with traffic, I would probably only travel the equivalent of 30 miles one-way at outside limit. And that's a no-brainer if I can charge at work, still so even if I can't. I'm still plenty within the range either way. Even going to school at the moment (8 more weeks to go!), I'm only driving about 25 miles one-way.

But, if you're going to go full-bore into this, changing the culture about how we drive, you can't have the vehicle be limited in scope. A family isn't going to want to rent another, more capable electric vehicle because it can get 100 more miles on a charge than theirs can. They are also not going to want to keep a gas or hybrid if the electrics work the way we all want them to. And while I'm sure we all cringe when we see the one driver and no passengers in the Tahoe, there are still some of us who do have the carload of kids to pick up at the end of the day. In that respect, not only is it unfair to judge that person at the stoplight, it's also unfair (unreasonable, more apt) to expect them to keep a third, or fourth vehicle that is more damaging to the environment in their driveway for those instances. People buy those larger capacity vehicles because more often than not, it's less expensive to eat the fuel surcharge than to keep another one registered, insured and functioning. And the convienence? Absolutely. So when trying to envision a fleet of zero-emission electric vehicles out on the roadways, car manufacturers are not only going to have to incorporate cost, but function as well.

As far as 'doing more for the planet,' is it fair to ask anyone - business or individual - to be unjustly burdened with that cost? At what point do we see tangible benefits, and on the opposite side of the same coin, at what point to we ask people to give more than they can? Is it right to ask a one-earner family of four to spend $10-15K (whatever the actual amount would be) to convert their vehicle to electric? Because, that's the position I am in right now.

We own a CR-V, and a 2-door Honda Accord. These vehicles cost us a total of $1000. One is able to hold (safely) car seats, the other cannot. If our CR-V was electric, and was able to drive us to Atlanta safely? Absolutely. What's the cost? If we can't afford it, what are we supposed to do about it? If the vehicle can't make it all the way to Atlanta without a 4 hour charge midway or a fill-up equivalent cost to switch the battery, what benefit did that give to us? We could trade-in the Accord to get a vehicle that can seat my children, but that's again an additional cost, and we would still be hurting the environment because it would be at the very best a hybrid. Would electric owners get registration or insurance waived on other vehicles?

I'd still like to see the reasoning behind the estimated costs of KWh. Oil companies are already heavily investing in alternate energy sources. If their petroleum cashflow fell off, you don't really think they'd find a way to make it up? And who's to say our grids can handle the increased power load? How much money are we going to have to invest in solar farms, wind farms, tidal basins...in order to not only keep blackouts from occuring in SoCal, but to power our streets?

I just don't have this expectation that we can waive a magic wand making electrics appear, and everything will be rosy. There has to be a combination of habits and fuel sources changed, and neither is going to be cheap.

I would much rather the money be spent on developing commuter rail right now than government grants to make electric cars. While that also carries the duty of changing habits, you have less of an impact on the economy with a government entity building and maintaining an entity and persuing revenue in the long-term than you do individuals.
 
Very well said Cochese. That's pretty much my take on it as well. Limited range cars are a tough sell for the reasons you list. If the ranges get up to that 6-8 hour interstate with AC on range you mention, then they're more doable for sure. But it seems like those ranges are a ways off tech wise. And even then I have a hard time seeing them become the type of car everyone makes and owns at any time in the future. Putting in more fuel of some kind is always going to be quicker and easier than charging a battery, and easier to roll out given the current fueling infrastructure. And again, the less burden on end users, the quicker and more wide spread the change will be.

Also agree that money should go to communter rail and other public transit and to improving and promoting hybrids rather than devloping electric cars.

As I've said all along invest in those things short term, and more viable alternative fuel/power options for cars long term.

I just see it being easier, and quicker, to get alternative fuel cars on the market at current car costs (no added giant, expensive battery-just a similar engine running on different fuel) and to get a wide spread refueling infrastructure in place. That can be done faster than developing long range batteries with widespread recharging/swapping options IMO. And environmentally, it's a better option as you avoid the pollution associated with generating the electric to charge the cars.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I admitted it multiple times throughout the thread. Both for myself and trying to convince you that electric cars with limited range are a pipe dream as THE solution to pollution problems. Not enough people are going to make that kind of sacrifice for the environment.
[/quote]

The part that struck me was...

"I'll never buy a car that has a limited range and that I have to plug in each night to charge up."

I took this as you being too lazy to plug in an electrical cord.

Charging up a pure EV or a PHEV would take roughly the same effort as plugging in a lamp or a cell phone charger.

Do you believe that is too much of a sacrifice for the majority of the American people?
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']Oil companies are already heavily investing in alternate energy sources.[/QUOTE]

:rofl:

They invest. Heavily? Well, relative to what? Certainly not relative to their revenue or profits.

You want to see actual investment? Tax gas $5 a gallon.
 
If you need 6-8 hours of interstate driving in one setting before jumping onto the electric car bandwagon, we're back at the point of needing an electric car able to pull 2-5 tons and outrace a Porsche.

The best Honda CR-V model only gets 27mpg on the highway. Assuming the Honda CR-V is traveling 70mph, the fuel tank has to have a capacity of 16-21 gallons.

How big is that fuel tank?

http://www.crvownersclub.com/forums/t2516/
"I am the new owner of a 2005 CR-V LX. I know that the fuel tank has a 15.3 gal capacity."

Well, maybe the wind will push the car along for the last hour or so.

I like how DVD and MP3 players have to be powered internally by the car and are considered standard equipment. Before long, GPS autopilot and full prostate massage.

I assume the DVD player is to keep the kids quiet in their car seats. I must have strange kids because the one that doesn't wear a diaper can't go 6 hours without stopping to go pee and the one in a diaper will piss or shit through his diaper long before 6 hours is up.

...

I get it. In order for the electric car to replace the gas car, it has to do more than the electric car. People want the brass ring.

You don't have to try to convince me any further. You win.
 
[quote name='Koggit']:rofl:

They invest. Heavily? Well, relative to what? Certainly not relative to their revenue or profits.

You want to see actual investment? Tax gas $5 a gallon.[/QUOTE]

Right. My mistake.

This probably won't help my arguement either.

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']If you need 6-8 hours of interstate driving in one setting before jumping onto the electric car bandwagon, we're back at the point of needing an electric car able to pull 2-5 tons and outrace a Porsche.

The best Honda CR-V model only gets 27mpg on the highway. Assuming the Honda CR-V is traveling 70mph, the fuel tank has to have a capacity of 16-21 gallons.

How big is that fuel tank?

http://www.crvownersclub.com/forums/t2516/
"I am the new owner of a 2005 CR-V LX. I know that the fuel tank has a 15.3 gal capacity."

Well, maybe the wind will push the car along for the last hour or so.

I like how DVD and MP3 players have to be powered internally by the car and are considered standard equipment. Before long, GPS autopilot and full prostate massage.

I assume the DVD player is to keep the kids quiet in their car seats. I must have strange kids because the one that doesn't wear a diaper can't go 6 hours without stopping to go pee and the one in a diaper will piss or shit through his diaper long before 6 hours is up.

...

I get it. In order for the electric car to replace the gas car, it has to do more than the electric car. People want the brass ring.

You don't have to try to convince me any further. You win.[/QUOTE]


You are either ignorant, or didn't even read my posts earlier in a thread. I never said a gas vehicle can go 6-8 hours of interstate driving without stopping. I said an electric vehicle would, because it would be cost and time preventative to replace batteries like we fill up today. Or, OTHERWISE, be able to charge our vehicles at restuarants (change diapers) every few hours, and be able to get that much charge out of a 30-45 minute stop. Anything more is unacceptable.

I read your links about changing batteries. One was about forklifts, and the other I can't see any reasonable way how you could make the jump from what that says to being able to replace a standard electric cell on the go, and especially not in five minutes.

If you want to rethink your approach, now would be the time.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']The part that struck me was...

"I'll never buy a car that has a limited range and that I have to plug in each night to charge up."

I took this as you being too lazy to plug in an electrical cord.

Charging up a pure EV or a PHEV would take roughly the same effort as plugging in a lamp or a cell phone charger.

Do you believe that is too much of a sacrifice for the majority of the American people?[/QUOTE]

I was partly being facetious their. The part that is too much of a burden is the limited driving ranges.


[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']If you need 6-8 hours of interstate driving in one setting before jumping onto the electric car bandwagon, we're back at the point of needing an electric car able to pull 2-5 tons and outrace a Porsche.

The best Honda CR-V model only gets 27mpg on the highway. Assuming the Honda CR-V is traveling 70mph, the fuel tank has to have a capacity of 16-21 gallons.

How big is that fuel tank?
[/QUOTE]

Are you dense? The issue is that you can pull off the interestate at pretty much any exit and get gas and be back in your way in five minutes. Repeat as needed and you can drive unlimted distance.

With an electric car you have to be sure to get back home (or somewhere else) you can charge up or else your fucked and need to pay a tow truck to tow you somewhere you can charge.

Yes, in your pipe dream world of where there are battery swapping stations everyone there are gas stations now this wouldn't be an issue. But that's a pipe dream and will never happen. There's not enough money in it for the stations since people would just charge up at home the majority of the time and only need the swap stations occasionally--vs. needing to gas up all the time regardless of whether taking trips or just commuting to work and running errands.

The electric car just isn't a viable, long term solution. It could be useful for some who are perfectly fine paying for a handicapped car--and it could help limite pollution some short term just like hybrids can also help short term.

But long term it's much more feasible to develop clean burning alternative fuel so we can still have fully functional cars with unlimited driving ranges (with stops for refueling).
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']Right. My mistake.

This probably won't help my arguement either.[/QUOTE]


http://edition.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/04/29/britishpetroleum.profit.ap

115 million investment when they made 7.6 billion profit? You're right, that doesn't help you much. $115 million is 0.3% of their annual profit. 0.3% is faaaaaaaaar from a heavy investment.

Edit: LOL at that 115 million not even being all BP. So, what is it actually, a hundredth of a percent of their quarterly profit?
 
[quote name='Koggit']http://edition.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/04/29/britishpetroleum.profit.ap

115 million investment when they made 7.6 billion profit? You're right, that doesn't help you much. $115 million is 0.3% of their annual profit. 0.3% is faaaaaaaaar from a heavy investment.

Edit: LOL at that 115 million not even being all BP. So, what is it actually, a hundredth of a percent of their quarterly profit?[/QUOTE]

I missed where $115 million was small change. It's a huge investment, period. Haven't seen a bigger one, unless you care to link it up.

But, I know you're going to be hellbent on comparing donations to income. I make $0 a year. I donated $20 to autism research. Was that a huge investment?
 
I still haven't seen a legitimate, reasonable argument against what fatherofcaitlyn is talking about. It's mostly been uninformed and reactionary bullshit. I mean, he's backing up what he says with actual research and data, not just throwing shit out there and hoping it sticks.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']I missed where $115 million was small change. It's a huge investment, period. Haven't seen a bigger one, unless you care to link it up.

But, I know you're going to be hellbent on comparing donations to income. I make $0 a year. I donated $20 to autism research. Was that a huge investment?[/QUOTE]



Wtf. Only three things are possible.

(1) You're lying about making $0/year.

(2) You're lying about donating $20 to autism -- perhaps you donated somebody else's (mom's?) money to autism.

(3) You took out a $20 loan to donate to autism.


But more to your 'point' $115 million is small change for these guys. Super small change. Last year Exxon put $18 billion into finding oil and producing gas (source). Coincidentally, that article is criticizing Exxon for lack of alternative energy investments, and they make specific mention of a mere $100 million invested in research at Stanford. $100 million is nothing when they're investing 180 times that much just into continuing oil production. If you think $100 million is huge dollars, email USA Today and tell them to remove that slanderous article.

The fact is, oil companies only care about oil. The "investments" they make in alternative energy are charades. They want something to make movies and commercials about. They want to improve their image, and prevent backlashes. They want to have something to say when accused of being evil bastards. It's basically a marketing expenditure. It's how big oil tries to appeal to consumers. They invest $100 million, or 0.3% of their profits into a BS alternative energy stint, get back about half of it, and gain something to talk about in press releases and in commercials.


Look at BP's website: http://www.bp.com/home.do?categoryId=1
Now look at the facts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP#Environmental_record

Look at Shell's website: http://www.shell.com/
Now look at the facts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_Oil_Company#Environmental_record

Look at Exxon's website: http://exxonmobil.com/corporate/
Look at the facts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Mobil#Environmental_Record


Notice each of their own websites has a ton of environmental BS? Wildlife this, conserve that, less carbon here, blah blah. But then they have $15 billion in profits, $15 billion spent on maintaining oil production, and just a couple million in the activities they make commercials and press releases with.


For the record, my step dad works for Schlumberger, I know quite a bit about the practices of big oil from my 18 years in a household that discussed it often.
 
[quote name='evanft']I still haven't seen a legitimate, reasonable argument against what fatherofcaitlyn is talking about. It's mostly been uninformed and reactionary bullshit. I mean, he's backing up what he says with actual research and data, not just throwing shit out there and hoping it sticks.[/QUOTE]

None of his stuff is showing how you can drive an electric car wherever the fuck you want like you can a gas car with stops for gas every 300+ miles. Other than his pipe dream of battery swap stations being available everywhere you go.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']None of his stuff is showing how you can drive an electric car wherever the fuck you want like you can a gas car with stops for gas every 300+ miles. Other than his pipe dream of battery swap stations being available everywhere you go.[/QUOTE]

Buses and trains should be used for long distance travel. I don't really care about electric cars, to be honest -- if city grids were all on renewable energy and we drove high MPG cars we'd be fine. Electric would be best, sure, but it's not really necessary. Change is necessary, but the change doesn't need to be an EV1.

Back to my point, though, we shouldn't be driving places 300+ miles away in the first place. Driving with a few people in a car across country is extremely wasteful. There should be 100+ people in a train, bringing you to a station where you can either bus to your final destination or rent an efficient car.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']None of his stuff is showing how you can drive an electric car wherever the fuck you want like you can a gas car with stops for gas every 300+ miles. Other than his pipe dream of battery swap stations being available everywhere you go.[/quote]

He's also shown that this is in actuality a minor issue given people's driving habits. Then there's the continued advancement of battery technology that will likely lead to high-range electric cars given enough demand and capital to make the R&D worthwhile. The demand and possible capital generated by an increase in the use of electric cars will certainly cause the swap/charge stations that he talks about to start springing up, probably as just part of a typical gas station.

It's not a fucking pipe dream. It's a completely reasonable expectation given demand and capital.
 
[quote name='Koggit']Wtf. Only three things are possible.

(1) You're lying about making $0/year.

(2) You're lying about donating $20 to autism -- perhaps you donated somebody else's (mom's?) money to autism.

(3) You took out a $20 loan to donate to autism.
[/QUOTE]

None of the above.

But more to your 'point' $115 million is small change for these guys. Super small change. Last year Exxon put $18 billion into finding oil and producing gas (source). Coincidentally, that article is criticizing Exxon for lack of alternative energy investments, and they make specific mention of a mere $100 million invested in research at Stanford. $100 million is nothing when they're investing 180 times that much just into continuing oil production. If you think $100 million is huge dollars, email USA Today and tell them to remove that slanderous article.

The fact is, oil companies only care about profit. The "investments" they make in alternative energy are charades. They want something to make movies and commercials about. They want to improve their image, and prevent backlashes. They want to have something to say when accused of being evil bastards. It's basically a marketing expenditure. It's how big oil tries to appeal to consumers. They invest $100 million, or 0.3% of their profits into a BS alternative energy stint, get back about half of it, and gain something to talk about in press releases and in commercials.


Look at BP's website: http://www.bp.com/home.do?categoryId=1
Now look at the facts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP#Environmental_record

Look at Shell's website: http://www.shell.com/
Now look at the facts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_Oil_Company#Environmental_record

Look at Exxon's website: http://exxonmobil.com/corporate/
Look at the facts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Mobil#Environmental_Record


Notice each of their own websites has a ton of environmental BS? Wildlife this, conserve that, less carbon here, blah blah. But then they have $15 billion in profits, $15 billion spent on maintaining oil production, and just a couple million in the activities they make commercials and press releases with.


For the record, my step dad works for Schlumberger, I know quite a bit about the practices of big oil from my 18 years in a household that discussed it often.
Click to expand...

Fixed the bolded bit. Weren't you the person who said they knew all about working on an oil rig when it was actually your stepdad?

evan - the only thing I think is unrealistic about what he said was being able to change electric car batteries in five minutes. If the technology that allows me to charge up for another 3 hours on the road in 20 minutes comes about, then lets go ahead with it.

And I don't think we need to be pushing long-distance mass transit until we get our local MT systems operating. It's one thing for me to hop on a train to NYC and be able to take the trains anywhere, it's another to do the same in Dallas, Atlanta or anywhere else things are spaced so far apart.
 
[quote name='Koggit']
Back to my point, though, we shouldn't be driving places 300+ miles away in the first place. [/QUOTE]

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. If I buy a car I'll drive it how far I damn well please, and I wouldn't by a car that wasn't capable of doing so.

[quote name='evanft']
It's not a fucking pipe dream. It's a completely reasonable expectation given demand and capital.[/QUOTE]

It's a pipe dream. There's not enough money to be made in it, especially if he's right and most people's driving habits would be fine with the standard range and just recharging at home.

With that, there's not need for a swap station on every exit of the interstate and every few blocks in cities like there are gas stations now. It just doesn't seem feasible to me.

Get alternative fuel cars out there, and it's much more feasible to get that fuel in all/most existing gas stations in a pace to keep up with the demand of sales of such cars.

But until then, I'll keep buying reasonable fuel efficient gas cars and driving them how far I damn well please. I make plenty of other efforts to reduce my carbon footprint.
 
If/when electric cars become mainstream during my lifetime, I'll laugh when the hippies will start bitching about how disposing of >1,000 lb batteries per car full of environmental pollutants is destroying our environment... :)

Unless you have some miraculous new battery technology, we still need 1 to 3 thousand pounds of batteries per car to be able to store a reasonable amount of charge. Sure we can probably improve that by abou 25-35% in the next couple of decades, but that's still a large and unweildy battery... add to that the fact that the electricity used to power the battery is likely generated by burning coal and we might end up with the same or more amount of effective pollution/ environmental damage... :)
 
[quote name='Koggit']Back to my point, though, we shouldn't be driving places 300+ miles away in the first place. Driving with a few people in a car across country is extremely wasteful. There should be 100+ people in a train, bringing you to a station where you can either bus to your final destination or rent an efficient car.[/QUOTE]

Whatever you say, comrade.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']It's a pipe dream. There's not enough money to be made in it, especially if he's right and most people's driving habits would be fine with the standard range and just recharging at home.

With that, there's not need for a swap station on every exit of the interstate and every few blocks in cities like there are gas stations now. It just doesn't seem feasible to me.[/quote]

And yet there will be still be a market for it, as some people need that range. The stations will be created according to the demand. Mass-produced electric vehicles will probably be marketed and sold first to the urban markets where there is still a demand for personal automobiles. The buyers here will likely be those who live in the cities or nearby suburbs who don't need more than a 220 mile or so range every day. Obviously, as more and more electric cars are sold, battery costs will go down, R&D will go up, and range will almost certainly go up as well. There will also be more and more demand for swapping/charging stations, with the latter probably being the more common solution as most people probably won't need to fully recharge their battery and will instead need only enough juice to get home so they can plug in.

[quote name='dmaul1114'] Get alternative fuel cars out there, and it's much more feasible to get that fuel in all/most existing gas stations in a pace to keep up with the demand of sales of such cars.[/quote]

Alternative fuels are, to put it mildly, crap. Corn-based ethanol hurts the environment and raises the price of food. All hydrogen is is a storage medium for electricity, a much less-efficient one at that, so you would need more electricity to move the car the same amount than with a purely electric vehicle.

[quote name='BigT']If/when electric cars become mainstream during my lifetime, I'll laugh when the hippies will start bitching about how disposing of >1,000 lb batteries per car full of environmental pollutants is destroying our environment... :)

Unless you have some miraculous new battery technology, we still need 1 to 3 thousand pounds of batteries per car to be able to store a reasonable amount of charge. Sure we can probably improve that by abou 25-35% in the next couple of decades, but that's still a large and unweildy battery... add to that the fact that the electricity used to power the battery is likely generated by burning coal and we might end up with the same or more amount of effective pollution/ environmental damage... :)[/quote]

While a valid point, not really.

Even if the pollution levels between battery disposal and power generation evened out with the ones from driving a standard ICE car, there would still be the overwhelming benefit of not relying on oil. One cannot overstate how important this is to the welfare of our economy and our national security.

Since the electric car will likely take time to become standard, there is still time to build more nuclear plants. There's also wind and solar, which, given the greater demand that electric cars will put on the power grid and especially if there are more government mandates, will continue to develop and become more and more attractive to energy companies.

You also have to realize that a coal-based power generation unit that is rated for 520 MW (like Unit 9 at Trenton Channel) will, unless it's in an outage or something else is wrong, will always be producing 520 MW. It doesn't spin up or down or work harder based on demand. The only plants that do that are the peakers.
 
[quote name='BigT']If/when electric cars become mainstream during my lifetime, I'll laugh when the hippies will start bitching about how disposing of >1,000 lb batteries per car full of environmental pollutants is destroying our environment... :)

Unless you have some miraculous new battery technology, we still need 1 to 3 thousand pounds of batteries per car to be able to store a reasonable amount of charge. Sure we can probably improve that by abou 25-35% in the next couple of decades, but that's still a large and unweildy battery... add to that the fact that the electricity used to power the battery is likely generated by burning coal and we might end up with the same or more amount of effective pollution/ environmental damage... :)[/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NiMH#Environmental_impact

http://blogs.computerworld.com/node/3285

Basically, NiMH don't need toxic parts to be functional and Li Ion batteries aren't considered waste.

Regarding how much energy is necessary to push a vehicle, http://www.evalbum.com/ is a good source of amateur conversions. Of the minority that are completed, you can see power requirements for a vehicle are 8.1KWH to 45KWH for 60 miles.

As far as weight...

A typical 65lb 6V Lead Acid battery has 200Ah. Overall, an energy density of ~18.46W/kg.

NiMH has an energy density of 70W/kg. However, the 2000 Prius battery only has 1778.4W in its 50 kg frame. That's an energy density of ~35.56W/kg. It is hard to say if they are being as efficient as possible (~50% efficiency).

Li Ion has an energy density of 150 to 200 W/kg. Assuming it can be made as "efficient" as a Prius battery, that is an energy density of 75-100W/kg. Of course, that is bullshit. http://www.ultralifebatteries.com/datasheet.php?ID=UBBL10 claims 143Wh/kg. Unfortunately, they don't publish their price.

To power the 8.1KWH vehicle, you would need 439kg Lead Acid, 228kg NiMH and 57 kg Li Ion batteries.

To power the 74.88KWh vehicle, you would need 2437kg Lead Acid, 1266kg NiMH and 524kg Li Ion batteries.

Changing a vehicle's weight that much will have a huge effect on range and power requirements.

To summarize ...

1. There is no environmental impact for NiMH and Li Ion batteries for the batteries themselves.

2. There is a huge weight issue if using Lead Acid batteries, a moderate issue if using NiMH batteries and no issue if using Li Ion batteries.
 
[quote name='evanft']And yet there will be still be a market for it, as some people need that range. The stations will be created according to the demand. Mass-produced electric vehicles will probably be marketed and sold first to the urban markets where there is still a demand for personal automobiles. The buyers here will likely be those who live in the cities or nearby suburbs who don't need more than a 220 mile or so range every day. Obviously, as more and more electric cars are sold, battery costs will go down, R&D will go up, and range will almost certainly go up as well. There will also be more and more demand for swapping/charging stations, with the latter probably being the more common solution as most people probably won't need to fully recharge their battery and will instead need only enough juice to get home so they can plug in.
[/quote]

Like I said, I think electric cars are viable and there is a market for them. I just don't seem them as viable for a total replacement of gas cars. Just a viable replacement for people in cities/suburbs who only need a limited range car, or can afford to have one and a gas car for longer trips etc.

I just can't see most people, myself included, willing to pay what will initially be more given battery costs probably for a lmiited range car. For some it's not practical as they exceed the driving range often enough to need a regular car. And for others they just want the freedom and peace of mind from knowing they can gas up anywhere and not having to worry about getting back home or to one of these mythical charge stations.

I just don't think you'll ever get enough people make those kind of sacrifices just for the sake of the environment. There are other, easier ways to reduce one's carbon footprint even for those who do care some like myself.


Alternative fuels are, to put it mildly, crap. Corn-based ethanol hurts the environment and raises the price of food. All hydrogen is is a storage medium for electricity, a much less-efficient one at that, so you would need more electricity to move the car the same amount than with a purely electric vehicle.
Click to expand...

Doesn't mean hyrdogen can't be improved, or completely new clean fuels invented. That's what it will take to ever get to the point where gas/diesel vehicles are not the majority, or are not even produced anymore. Getting something that can drive just as far with no worries whatseover about being able to find more fuel. That's what it will take. Not hoping people in our lifetimes care enough on a mass scale to make large convenience or monetary sacrifices for the environment.

Maybe electric car technology can eventually get to that point, but I feel alternative fuels could get to that point faster assuming equal amounts of R&D.
 
Guys, why are we arguing over theoretical solutions? It's not our job to engineer the solution.

Personally, I think the answer is going to be in a super efficient hybrid. Who knows? The only thing we know for sure is that the demand for efficiency is going to increase as gas prices do, and with demand will come supply. No solution is ready for the task, but they'll get better when the demand is there.

It really doesn't matter what's a better solution -- hybrids, electric, biofuels, hydrogen. All that matters is that the solutions will be developed when the demand warrants it. Instead of waiting for oil to slowly climb over the next couple decades while we continue to burn it into our air and water, we should make the preemptive strike of taxing it now, and using that money to offset the cost of meeting the newly developed alternative energy demands.

The alternative -- letting capitalism play its natural course -- means we'll reach the same end result, but with more money overseas (instead of taxed and then being used to create American jobs) and our planet worse for the wear.
 
[quote name='Koggit']Guys, why are we arguing over theoretical solutions? It's not our job to engineer the solution.
[/QUOTE]


I don't know about anyone else, but I have a very creative mind. I see things in ways that a lot of other people do not. I often think about ways to solve problems that others cannot find. For me, perhaps talking with others would unlock that final practical piece where I could make a meaningful contribution. Who knows?

On a more tangible scale, it's nice to know what technologies to look out for, and what sectors those of us who might have the money to invest in should.
 
[quote name='Koggit']Guys, why are we arguing over theoretical solutions? It's not our job to engineer the solution.
[/QUOTE]


It's just interesting to debate what the best solution is.

For me that's have better hybrids, better public transit etc. short term. Maybe electric cars can be part of the short term solution. I'd be ok with higher gas tax as part of the effort to encourage the devlopment and purchase of higher MPG cars and more use of public transit, just not giganatic increases all at once as that just punishes the poor rural folk who have to drive to work (no public transit), need trucks for their jobs (contractors etc.) and are already struggling with gas costs.

Long-term, we need clean fueled cars IMO. Something people can drive with no limitations over current cars, break our dependency on oil etc. Maybe electric cars could be the solution, but it seems more far fetched than someone engineering some kind of cheap fuel that can be manufactured cheaply compared to gas and that doesn't pollute.

But that's clear as I've stated my view many times as has everyone on the electric car/put the environment 100% first side of the fence, so I think it's time to just agree to disagree on this.

I'll keep driving my decent MPG car, and hopefully buy an even more efficient one in 7+ years (end of my warranty) when I need a new car. And I'll keep recycling, conserving etc. and doing what I can on other fronts to reduce my carbon footprint while waiting for a "green" car that can do everything my current car can with no added inconvenience.
 
What about huge local gas taxes, then?

Since transit is funded locally that would make more sense anyway.

I wouldn't mind seeing $10/gal here in Seattle. Rush hour traffic here is stop-and-go even on the freeway, rarely exceeding 10 mph. With less cars (more bikers/buses/whatever) there would be less traffic, and people going 60 mph for 10 minutes would waste less gas than people going 10 mph for an hour.
 
I still have problem with taxes anywhere near that excessive. Something is hugely fucked up in any system where the taxes are more than the cost of the good being taxed!

I agree it would probably take that absurd of taxes/gas costs to get people to stop driving so much. But that doesn't mean it's right. And you still hurt people who have to drive to work for whatever reason--handyman that drives from job to job, person who must pick up the kids at a certain time from day care when they get off work etc. etc.

I just don't see using taxes to drive costs way up as being a reasonable/ethical approach to the problem. The right way to do it is to make public transit cheaper in places like DC where it's overpriced, make it cleaner and more convenient (more bus routes, more freqeuent buses/trains etc.) and keep working on getting MPG up in hybrids while researching alternative fuel/power options.

More impact can be had right now on the environment on other fronts by promoting conservation of electricity, recycling, reducing waste etc. etc.
 
[quote name='Koggit']What about huge local gas taxes, then?

Since transit is funded locally that would make more sense anyway.

I wouldn't mind seeing $10/gal here in Seattle. Rush hour traffic here is stop-and-go even on the freeway, rarely exceeding 10 mph. With less cars (more bikers/buses/whatever) there would be less traffic, and people going 60 mph for 10 minutes would waste less gas than people going 10 mph for an hour.[/quote]

Are you serious?

OK, let's put this to a vote. The price of gas around my parts is about $4/gallon after about 60 cents of tax. Let's propose a $3 federal tax plus $3 state tax on gas to get it up to about $10. I doubt you'd be able to drum up support among the democrats... this is not a progressive tax and may actually be considered regressive if we take into account the fact that the poor and middle class don't necessarily drive less than the rich and it would affect the wallets of the poor and middle class to a larger degree on a proportional basis... good luck!

You're basically trying to restrict driving to the rich. :applause:
 
[quote name='mofo1115']Algae is the way to go![/quote]

Somebody must have read that DOE study before they removed it.

Does this sound about right?

10,000 square mile salt marsh in the Mojave Desert with certain species of algae growing. The algae is 50% "oil" by volume. Once the algae is "milked", it can go back to growing more "oil".

Then, the "oil" is then processed to run in slightly modified diesel engines.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Somebody must have read that DOE study before they removed it.

Does this sound about right?

10,000 square mile salt marsh in the Mojave Desert with certain species of algae growing. The algae is 50% "oil" by volume. Once the algae is "milked", it can go back to growing more "oil".

Then, the "oil" is then processed to run in slightly modified diesel engines.[/QUOTE]

Might as well work a deal with El Toro to use their used oil. You can run it with no modifications on at least some motors.
 
It's a good thing Henry Ford and other pioneers of the internal combustion didn't listen to all the whiney bitches saying "but there will need to be a gas station every 200 miles!!!! THATS IMPOSSIBLE! People won't do it when they can just take their horses and carriages wherever they please"

Morevoer, most here seem unwilling or unable to listen to FOC's point that the range of electrics won't be limited b/c of battery stations replacing gas stations. Don't forget: this is also only that 1 or 2 times a year where you actually travel several hundred miles, by car, without stopping.

People keep coming up with perceived obstacle after perceived obstacle and he just keeps shooting them down.

The only one he can't refute is Dmaul's (and others) "I just don't see it happening..." or "People won't do it b/c it's inconvenient or too expensive", the latter of which does not have to be true. With some well placed subsidies or incentives (maybe we give subsidies to environmentally friendly cars instead of massive gas guzzlers as is the current situation), it won't cost more or be inconvenient.

Perhaps the most damning is the "I just don't see it!" argument b/c it is so fuckin illogical you simply can't get around it. It's what holds any new and better technology back: people are resistant to change, and lots of money is invested in keeping the current industries going.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']It's a good thing Henry Ford and other pioneers of the internal combustion didn't listen to all the whiney bitches saying "but there will need to be a gas station every 200 miles!!!! THATS IMPOSSIBLE! People won't do it when they can just take their horses and carriages wherever they please"

Morevoer, most here seem unwilling or unable to listen to FOC's point that the range of electrics won't be limited b/c of battery stations replacing gas stations. Don't forget: this is also only that 1 or 2 times a year where you actually travel several hundred miles, by car, without stopping.[/QUOTE]

You didn't just write that, did you? Did you actually form the thoughts before you touched the keyboard, or was it just a random punching of keys that happened to resemble thought and words?

Read what I write very carefully - I. Think. Battery. Replacement. Stations. Are. Not. Going. To. Happen.

Clear?

I don't believe that all the issues that would go along with it - labor, storage, time, expense - would make this a marketable idea. Period. If someone wants to believe it to be so, fine. But don't base an arguement around it, because there's no basis of fact about it. It's pure speculation. And in order to make it even managable, you'd have to get all the car companies to agree on a design to make them interchangeable. Hell, even within one car division I could forsee several different designs to accomodate different car designs. But to assume the various car companies could actually agree on one single design? Even with several designs - let's say you had one for every vehicle a manufacturer makes - that would be difficult to believe, and you'd still have the number of differing designs in the mid-teens, easily. You also aren't going to have the same power requirements in an Echo than you do a F-150.

How many batteries of each kind does a station store? What happens if they don't have one charged for you? Do you move on to the next one? I hope you don't believe that every single fuel station would turn into a battery station, because I can't see it happening by any stretch of the imagination. It's much more cost-effective to consolidate locations and have fewer, larger locations, even if the idea gained traction.

If, IF (and if being a key word, if you didn't already grasp it) the public decides to accept electric cars as their future, they are still going to want a car that can make that trip to Disney World once a year. I can't stress that enough, because fifty years of driving habits have told us the same thing - no matter what the economy, parents still want their kids to experience things like that. Maybe not to Disney every year, but they still make trips. Even at $3.69 a gallon. Hell, I see as many cars on I-20 here in Augusta passing through from Atlanta than I do local ones. From my experience, you seriously don't have a grasp on just how much people want or need to make trips that last more than 2 hours.

I can already see it now - 'You don't care about the environment!.' No. Not the case. I'm being a realist, and I suggest that you occasionally do the same, otherwise your impending marriage and career aren't going to last very long. People are still going to make trips. Now. At $4/gallon. At $6/gallon. At $10/gallon. The answer isn't going to be how, it's going to be how many. So for a majority of the consumer world, you're going to need a vehicle that is able to do those things. That's just a fact of life, I'm here to tell you. And because the car manufacturers aren't going to convince the public to not only spend more money on an electric, but to take the bus if they want to go more than 200 miles away, they have to realize that if they want (or even care) for the segment to take off, they have to build the technology to support it.

That technology should be, IMO, fast charging. Something that still has the familiarity of what they do now - gas n' go. Are charging stations going to be able to charge a full battery in five minutes? No. But I think the American public's willingness to take a 30 minute break every 2-3-4 hours and only spend a fraction of what they are now is more realistic than a fantasy of being able to switch batteries in five minutes and have it cost less than an oil change. That's all I'm saying.

Do you really think you're going to hire people, train them, pay them, pay for storage/pay for site cleanup of fuel tanks, pay for the equipment, pay for the electricity, pay for the paperwork for switching batteries (because if you get a dud, you'll need to track down the owner), switch the batteries, and do it all for about the same time and cost of an oil change? Is that what you're trying to tell me?

It may be outdated, but doesn't the Tesla battery system cost $50k? Or did at one point? How much is the insurance going to be to safeguard these things, and how much would a deposit be? Because they surely aren't going to let you plop down $30 in cash and walk away with a new one.

All I'm asking you to do is consider what all that involves. That's it. I don't want this to be done half-assed, and all the companies involved aren't going to want to do it that way either. You either make a commitment to do it from the start like I said - same batteries, same design, etc - or you try to gradually make the conversion to being able to charge places - if that technology exists or is being worked on.

Here's a question for you, and I hope you don't ignore the rest of the post to answer it: why would I be interested in buying an electric vehicle?

Let's consider the points that you and others have given:
1)There's no need for range - you should be driving less, or don't always need to do it (or some approximation thereof)
2)It will be cheaper in the long-run
3)You should do it for the environment

When you press those points (or similar) on me, I can only think of one response: why?

If my range is going to be limited, and it's cheaper long-term, and better for the environment, I already have a solution - a motorcycle. I mean, for $8k I can go a brand new Triumph that has a 160+ mile range, is cheaper than a car to insure, I can maintain myself, and fits next to my other two cars in my garage with no modification.

It's not a very hard decision - spend $8k plus around $50/month to insure and keep my family car that I can gas and go in five minutes, or spend $40k on an electric car (which I think is a low estimate) that either sacrifices range, or time/money on trips, costs more to maintain (theory, I'll be the first to admit that), and have to sell my vehicle that already does these things to a market that doesn't want it.

Is that the answer you want to hear? Most likely not. Is that the answer you're going to get from the American public? A resounding yes. I would wager money on it.

There's going to have to be one of two things happen in order for the American public to accept the way you're thinking:
1) Gas dries up/becomes $10/gallon
2) Car manufacturers figure out a way to substitute electric vehicles for what we have today, including convienence and relative cost

I pray that it's #2, but I'm not hopeful. If you want to prove me wrong, you have my undivided attention.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top