Slashdot Mirror


Bay Area To Install Electric Vehicle Grid

Mike writes "Recently San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland unveiled a massive concerted effort to become the electric vehicle capitol of the United States. The Bay Area will be partnering with Better Place to create an essential electric vehicle infrastructure, marking a huge step towards the acceptance of electric vehicles as a viable alternative to those that run on fossil fuels." Inhabitat.com has some conceptual illustrations and a map showing EV infrastructure, such as battery exchange stations, stretching from Sacramento to San Diego — though this is far more extensive than the Bay Area program actually announced, which alone is estimated to cost $1 billion.

13 of 388 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Any bets for the first major blackout? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Those were manufactured shortages thanks to the crooks at Enron, Duke Energy, and the sham Governor that was Gray Davis.

  2. Let's anticipate a common response by fm6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "You're just substituting one energy source for another. You're not doing anything about the energy shortage."

    Yes you are. It's a lot more efficient to have convert all your chemical energy into electricity at one central spot than to have millions of engines that the vehicles have to carry around with them. I believe the efficiency factor is something like 60%. Besides, there are non-chemical ways to generate electricity.

  3. funding by Lord+Ender · · Score: 4, Insightful

    State governments, especially California, just can't afford $1B projects. But the Feds sure can. Because they are trying to counter a deflationary spiral, they are printing money as fast as they can and giving it to banks.

    Compared to what they've been giving away, $1B is nothing. They really should consider throwing some of that over to CA. [It will create JOBS and reduce foreign oil dependency, Mr. Obama!]

    --
    A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
  4. Something for the Buck by clampolo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    At least spending a billion for this will produce something useful and will provide some jobs. It sounds like a bargain compared to $700+ billion to keep the bankers from having to move to smaller mansions.

  5. Wrong again by earlymon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've lived and worked in the Bay Area. Pollution from cars is a problem. Cars are a problem.

    Electric cars are not the answer. (I don't even want to imagine sitting in deadlocked traffic, heater or AC on, tunes playing, battery draining...)

    Mass transit is the answer - not just BART - REAL mass transit. I cannot stress enough that if one travels to Japan and sees for oneself how fucking cool and efficient the Japanese mass rail system is - billion dollar proposals like this would die at conception.

    Mass transit first - electric cars (if they're still needed, really) second.

    Fuck me, America - can we try fixing problems instead of fixing symptoms - just once?!?!

    --
    Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
    1. Re:Wrong again by earlymon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People like private transport.

      Because they don't know any other way?

      I like private transport - a lot. I just think that it has its place, and that place is no where near 100%. From my time in Japan, I'd say it's less than 10%.

      Because people do like going to the same places quite often - the music/bar district ('bout every town I've been in has had one), the university, the business district, the industrial areas, the shopping malls, the grocery stores. And with enough mass transit outlets, you can even get to Aunt Tillie's house pretty easily.

      I rode the Metro in the DC area - and freaking hated it. It was like riding with all of the grey people of Trantor - everyone's personal space invaded because of the cattle-car approach to it all.

      Mass transit doesn't have to be that way.

      We might not like each other at first face-to-face. I'd rather ignore you sitting or standing next to you on a train than have you driving next to me in murderous traffic. (The you in that sentence is strictly rhetorical.)

      --
      Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
    2. Re:Wrong again by earlymon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I cannot stress enough that if one looks at Japan on a map and sees for oneself how fucking small the Japanese island is, and how close together its population centers are...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Tokyo_Area

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Bay_Area

      I was discussing the Bay Area. You will note that it's size is comparable to the Tokyo area and has a lower population. I am not referring to the cross-country lines of Honshu island, I'm referring to the KEIO and JR lines.

      What I propose most certainly DOES fucking scale - very, very well. So, yes - by all means - let's use the right tool for the job and implement proven solutions from similar circumstances.

      --
      Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
  6. Re:Doomed by its creators by Gat0r30y · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because the same people who promote electric cars, are also the people that recoil from even the word "nuclear"... and thus ensure that while the rest of the world forges ahead in power generation technology, we are stuck with 30+ year old inefficient uranium-guzzlers.

    That's not true. Some of us promote electric cars, along with a renewable energy infrastructure which would include nuclear power, in a safe and responsible way.

    --
    Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
  7. Re:let's give an inconvenient answer by Belial6 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When my aunt stops getting checks from the government to NOT grow food on her farm, then I will start to worry about food shortages.

  8. Re:Any bets for the first major blackout? by philspear · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's also interesting that this happened less than a year after deregulation. Doesn't disprove deregulation in theory, but 40 years of regulation worked great, deregulation worked less than a year, the utility companies are, as you said, crooks.

    Deregulation is a nice theory though. Not quite as elegant as communism, but it's a nice idea.

  9. Re:the consumers just need to do their part by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They had to pry those EVs out of the hands of their owners because they were leasing them at a tremendous loss. The EV-1 program was done for research and to gain experience. The company subsidized every single lessee to the tune of something like 50%. When it became clear that the EV1 would never develop enough demand to be profitable, GM wasn't willing to continue massively subsidizing these people and supporting a miniscule fleet of cars simply out of the goodness of their hearts.

    --
    If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
  10. Re:Wrong again - yes, you are. by Bagheera · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Mass transit is the answer - not just BART - REAL mass transit. I cannot stress enough that if one travels to Japan and sees for oneself how fucking cool and efficient the Japanese mass rail system is - billion dollar proposals like this would die at conception.

    No. Sorry. Mass transit is part of the solution, but it is not the solution.

    The problem lies in the inherent difference between mass transit and public transit and most people don't recognize the difference.

    Mass transit focuses on getting mass number of people between various high density locations. These are your medium to heavy rail systems. For the Bay Area that's BART and CalTrain.

    In places like Japan, where they have high population densities, it works great. There's a reason places like Tokyo, Moscow, New York, London, etc., can have fantastically efficient mass transit systems: they have the population density to deal with it.

    Public transit on the other hand focuses on being a 'vehicle replacement' so people in lower density areas can actually give up their cars. This is taxies up through light rail. Fewer passengers, but more convenient and more versatile.

    Bay Area geography doesn't really favor Mass Transit. It's why BART basically sucks for commuting. With the exception of MUNI linking well to BART, most of the Public to Mass links suck.

    The whole electric car infrastructure is an expensive idea, and it talks to the whole "chicken and the egg" problem. Without infrastructure, electric cars are useless. Without electric cars, no one will build the infrastructure. This is actively solving the infrastructure problem ahead of the cars.

    Is it a good idea? Ultimately, yes. Is it the right idea? That's a lot harder to say. A massive bay area wide fleet of on-demand bio-diesel fueled hybrid shuttle buses might be better. But who's to say? Cars are a part of US culture partially because of our geography. We live in suburbia, which is inherently tied in with car culture.

    Unless your mass transit plan includes re-arranging US cities and how people live in this country, it will never be the solution.

    Cheers,
    Bagheera

    --
    Never attribute to malice what can as easily be the result of incompetence...
  11. Re:Why not bikes, for (*&%@'s sake??? by fugue · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They require more time

    Maybe. Over long distances of open highway during non-rush-hour, absolutely. Around town, false. In city, at distances under 5 miles or so, I'm usually faster than a car. Some of that is that a car might not be able to park very close to the destination...

    require your wmployer have a place to change

    Does your employer not provide a restroom?

    require you don't need to carry much

    Of course--but you should define "much". Panniers carry what I need most of the time, and some people use trailers for the really big stuff.

    are more dangerous*

    Completely, absolutely wrong. Or check the numbers yourself, but making claims that go against the evidence just makes you look like an idiot.

    can't pick up very many people

    Have you ever counted how many trips see no more than one person in the car? So use a car for the 10% of trips in which you need to pick up someone who doesn't have his own transportation. Would you like to drive and park on roads with 10% of the traffic that you see now?

    can't get groceries

    Bullshit. Where do you get these half-baked ideas? 95% of my grocery runs are by bike, to a store about 5 miles away. The only reason I tend to take longer than I do when driving is that I take a scenic route because biking is fun.

    impracticable in an emergency

    Can you be any more specific? Also, please take into account the fact that the more people bike instead of driving, the fewer emergencies there are.

    require good health.

    They also create it, in a bunch of ways, while cars destroy it both passively (no exercise) and actively (pollution, stress, accidents). How is this a problem? Also, as I noted, the Bay Area is largely flat, and therefore biking does not require especially good health after all.

    Just how fat are you, anyway??

    --
    "The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."