Slashdot Mirror

This mileage goal sounds more drastic than it really is. According to Edmonds:

As a result, the new CAFE measurement â" the 54.5-mpg figure that's been in the headlines â" is based on the original, congressional-endorsed test that was mandated in 1975. Meanwhile, the revised, EPA-endorsed fuel economy test is the one reflected in the ratings posted on the window sticker in all new cars and trucks. The EPA rating is also the one used in automotive advertising, most car-buying guides and online car shopping and information sites, including Edmunds.com.

If you go by the official literature, window stickers, real-world experience, and so forth, it's easy to think "they'll never be able to hit an average of 54.5 MPG, that's asking too much." But those aren't the numbers that CAFE relies upon. In 2016, the CAFE standard will nominally require a 35.5 MPG average, but that corresponds to an EPA window-sticker rating of just 27 MPG.

That's right.. it's so stupid that Better Place raised $700 million to do it.

Thank you for pointing out how difficult it would be if they ran out. It's not like one switch station with 15 batteries could swap batteries for over 2500 EVs. and each station would cost 1/2 the cost of a gas station.. and the batteries could be swapped out in less time than it takes to fill a gas tank.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Place
http://www.autoobserver.com/2011/03/better-place-denmark-plan-gives-glimpse-of-battery-exchange-cost.html
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/05/better-place/
http://www.autoobserver.com/2010/04/battery-swap-program-begins-in-tokyo-with-taxi-company-demo.html

You're such a genius for pointing how wrong they are.

That's right.. it's so stupid that Better Place raised $700 million to do it.

Thank you for pointing out how difficult it would be if they ran out. It's not like one switch station with 15 batteries could swap batteries for over 2500 EVs. and each station would cost 1/2 the cost of a gas station.. and the batteries could be swapped out in less time than it takes to fill a gas tank.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Place
http://www.autoobserver.com/2011/03/better-place-denmark-plan-gives-glimpse-of-battery-exchange-cost.html
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/05/better-place/
http://www.autoobserver.com/2010/04/battery-swap-program-begins-in-tokyo-with-taxi-company-demo.html

You're such a genius for pointing how wrong they are.

http://www.autoobserver.com/2011/03/brc-fuelmaker-again-selling-phill-home-cng-fuel-station.html

Costs $3.5k to install so on top of a conversion you have to be doing some milage to make it worthwhile. Taxis possibly.

http://www.autoobserver.com/2011/02/towing-raises-new-issues-when-evs-are-involved.html

There was a study done (which I can't find right now) that indicated that all the safety features had 0 impact on the overall safety of the roads. Ultimately a human is hard-wired with a specific risk tolerance, all you do by adding safety features is make them behave in a manner that will bring the risk tolerance back to where they are the most comfortable.

I can't find the exact study, but a related conversation:

http://www.autoobserver.com/2011/05/focus-on-safety-how-driving-rates-on-the-risk-thermostat.html

You're being sarcastic, but this used to be true. Rapid changes in China's internal economic policy have created a growing "middle class" whose buying habits are much like those of American consumers. That includes a new interest in automobiles, as status symbols and otherwise, resulting in China becoming the largest car market in the world. That's right: China now buys more cars than anybody, and that wasn't true just a few years ago. 33 years ago there were only about a million cars in all of China. There are now four million cars on the streets of Beijing alone, and the Chinese bought 13.6 million cars in 2009. Americans only bought 10.4 million.

Would like to know where you got your numbers because if you had done a little more digging into U.S. sales you would have seen that most would conclude the current state of the U.S. economy is too blame. I did find the 10.4 million for 2009, but also found a 16.7 million for 2006, 3.1 million more than China in 2009. That info combined with the fact that the numbers for 2008 was 13.2 million and 2007 was 16.1 million you start see why I and many others might conclude that the Chinese economy is almost caught up to the where the U.S. economy was (and hopefully will be again..... hopefully)

If I had a login to motorintelligence.com like the forbes article above me I could probably give you an even more comprehensive picture, but this is all google could dig up for me in a few mins

"Saudi Arabia has led OPEC through the largest supply cut in its history to boost oil prices to the level publicly favored by Saudi King Abdullah, $75 a barrel." http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2009-09/09/content_8669671.htm

"Back in December, the blog analysed statements by King Abdullah, and concluded that Saudi Arabia had a 'target range' for oil prices of $75 - 100/bbl. Yesterday, this analysis was confirmed by Saudi Oil Minister, Ali Naimi, who said the world economy could now 'weather oil prices at $75 - 80/bbl'." http://www.icis.com/blogs/chemicals-and-the-economy/2009/05/saudi-confirms-75bbl-oil-price.html

"Saudi Arabia on Saturday cited $75 a barrel as a "fair price" for oil, the first time in years that the world's biggest exporter has identifed a target for crude prices.

Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi said oil prices needed to return to $75 to keep the more expensive new projects at the margins of world supply on track. His comments may come as a relief to consumer nations fearful of a return to $100-plus oil." http://www.cnbc.com/id/27967401

"Big Asian oil consumers India and Japan gave a cool response to Saudi Arabia's suggestion that $75 a barrel was a "fair" price for oil, saying cheaper crude was preferable during the worst economic crisis in generations." http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-191062480.html

"At a meeting of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) over the weekend, Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah reportedly said the "fair price" for petroleum is $75 per barrel." http://www.autoobserver.com/2008/12/saudi-king-suddenly-hopeful-for-75-oil-us-too.html

Can it change? Sure, and it has in the past, but it's pretty apparent that they've seen something in the $75 price point for a good while now.