Slashdot Mirror
White House Wants 1M Electric Cars By 2015
coondoggie writes "The White House has outlined a wide-ranging plan for putting one million of what it calls 'advanced technology vehicles' on the road by 2015. Most observers would say that is a good start, but is it reasonably doable? The next White House budget will include a number of investments and enticements to make the goal achievable in theory. Of course, not all of the provisions are likely to make the cut."
Most observers would say that is a good start, but is it reasonably doable?
First of all I realize you just copy/pasted the first paragraph from the article but "most observers" sounds a bit like weasel words and I didn't see where in the article anyone was calling this a "good start" nor can I think of anyone who would say that. This (like a lot of them) is a pretty polarizing issue and I'd bet "most people" are going to end up claiming it to be a waste of taxpayer money or too little too late. Not a whole lot of moderation out there these days in political views.
Secondly, sure it is achievable and you don't even have to raise taxes. Shift some of the oil subsidies toward this initiative. If you're afraid of losing jobs in the oil industry, include stipulations of domestic job creation and opportunities on these investments. I think Obama already promised to shrink oil subsidies down so that over the next decade $20 billion is saved by the taxpayer -- why not use that for this? Whether or not it's going to actually achieve a desired effect, now that's the real debate. Not whether or not it's 'doable.'
My work here is dung.
to the flying cars we were promised 10 years ago. We are supposed to be in the future now, but no flying cars is kinda weak sauce
The world is how you make it
Why does the White House need (sticks pinky to mouth) ONE MILLION electric cars?
www.clarke.ca
to match?
Provide me w/ a chance to fold the solar cell garage into a home improvement loan and it becomes a lot more affordable, and having the solar cells eases the strain which charging so many electric vehicles would add to the electric grid.
William
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
electric golf carts advanced and road safe. Mission accomplished.
Well, I think it is doable. How many hybrid vehicles are there on the road now? I'd imagine quite a few.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
Are there even 1 million people working in the White House who will drive them?
There won't be a million people left in the country who can afford them in 2015!
I'm referring to the Mayan Apocalypse of course, the economic recover is totally working.
That will get demand to outstrip capacity, and automakers will adjust production to compensate. Leave diesel off the tax for now so the trucking industry won't be destroyed in the process. Presto, lots of new electric cars on the roads. If that doesn't happen, the highway trust fund will be flush enough with cash to take care of just about any road infrastructure need.
If we're serious about Middle East dependencies and carbon footprint, then we need to act serious.
A gallon of gas is equivalent to ~34kWh of electricity. At the relatively cheap rate of 10 cents per kWh, that means $3.40 in electricity costs to replace a gallon of gas. Plugging in seems to have no price advantage over filling up, and has the extra problems of range and charge time. That seems like a hard sell for the average driver. I'm certain in the future this will change, but pushing for volume before the tech and market conditions are ready may not be a good idea.
So how are they going to do it when the current "legal" electric cars cost so much that only the rich can afford them (Yes $40,000 = rich mans car)??
Are they going to subsidize them so that $20,000 credit goes to everyone that buys one? so that means we all pay for them while we make rich fat cats richer on the public teat?
Are they going to force manufacturers to sell them for reasonable prices?
OR will they repeal a lot of the STUPID automotive safety regulations that are in place to keep foreign cars out of the USA market and increase the prices of the ones that are here by adding a ton of un-necessary crap?
How the hell is the white house going to accomplish this without making significant changes to current automotive and import laws?
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
And who does Obama think he is, a czar from old pre-Soviet Russia? Electric cars will succeed or fail based on their utility to actual customers, not because of some cockamamie subsidy scheme.
Dog is my co-pilot.
If he has to fly anywhere, he takes a 747 (Airforce one) and an accompanying cargo plane for all of his gear and support infrastructure.
He takes Marine One (a helicopter) from the WhiteHouse to the airforce base where Airforce One resides.
How about he sets an example and tries to reduce his "carbon footprint."
I suspect that would result in a million new bicycle commuters a lot quicker than a million electric cars. I am all for it.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
WTF is the government doing telling us what cars it wants us to buy? No wonder they suck at their real job... they're too busy wasting time with crap like this.
If it’s done right there would not be any strain.
You can have the car charge during off peak hours. i.e. at night. This would add little strain to the infrastructure. Electricity also tends to be cheaper then. [Once again, off peak hours]. You just need to make it easy for the consumer so the plug it in when they come home put it does not start charging until 2 a.m.
I think that Siemens even research using car batteries as a distributive back up power source. Now that would require some upgrades to our gird.
They have to foist impossible numbers yet again via bogus public relation stunts like this legislation? Does anyone remember the past 38+ years since the oil/gas shortages of OPEC when they had less than 30% importation to the US of our daily use, and now we are 56% foreign oil dependent? Americans must suffer ADHD at a low and high level, personal and governmental. The current administration is saying what? That they are going to fund research for alternative fuel systems/consumption models and products? With what? Americans want convenience, and nothing about alternative fuel is convenient to the consumer.
This will result in a million diesel cars a lot faster than a million electric cars.
Where are they going to _park_ 1 million cars in, at, or near the white house?
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
I'd love an all-electric vehicle.
Except for a couple of things (I think).
I drive a hybrid car now, and in the LOVELY Minnesota winter, the batteries just DIE. I'm not kidding, they've had to be replaced. Even when they work my mileage almost halves in the winter. This makes me a it worried about an all-electric vehicle. A surprise "Hey your vehicle's range just dropped form 100 miles to 50 miles with no notice!!!!" is NOT a good thing.
Second, I want to be able to plug the thing into a regular ol' outlet.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
Companies need to make a compelling (yet affordable) electric car for me. That probably means the government needs to provide subsidies/incentives of some sort, because until there are buyers, there won't be models available, but until there are models available, there won't be buyers.
The Leaf could be the best car in the world, but it's fuuuuuugly and too small. The Volt is nice looking, yet is priced like a BMW 3 series, but probably assembled like, well, a GM product.
Hello, Honda, Toyota, Ford.......are you listening? Build me a 4 door hatchback (like a Mazda 3, or Ford Focus) electric vehicle with a decent power and range for under $30k and I'll sign the purchase agreement right now.
I want an electric car. I don't want a Leaf or a Volt (for the reasons above). I'll buy one once there are more compelling models to chose from.
Maybe not $5 per gallon but I agree with your point. Way too many huge SUV's / large trucks in my area. Nowadays people get them as a defensive measure because "everyone else" has a huge vehicle. It's trending larger and larger every year; I'm not going to be surprised when dump trucks become the norm... unless you make it prohibitively expensive to do that.
Right now it's "in season" here and the parking lot is full of huge SUV's from out-of-state... and most of those people are single or retired so it's not even a "need to pack the 5 kids in the truck" thing (which is a whole 'nother issue). And before someone says "they need a big truck to haul stuff", I've never seen a Porsche Cayenne used for hauling lumber nor do these little old ladies with Escalades likely need to haul large items either.
There's a big difference in those that need a commercial truck for work to haul big things and everybody else. Just like there are HOV lanes for encouraging carpooling, and handicapped tags for those which need it, maybe a work exemption to the tax for those who really need the big trucks would make sense. There's got to be a way to make it not affect those in need while giving a disincentive to those who want to drive tanks.
Or maybe that's all too complicated and ripe for abuse so just up the gas tax and let the people sort it out.
Really. Roads are paid for by taxed gas. The more gas you use, the more you pay for road improvements. It would be logical if you had metered power for charing cars that was taxed for road repairs. However I hold the much lower view of what they will want to do is to place GPS units on the cars so they can tax them by actual mileage. This then opens the door for insurance companys to track you, to be billed and ticked for speeding and general government oversite into your life. Such as "that is 4 trips to McDoanlds this week, keep it up and we will charge more for health care." Then with the foot in the door, they will go after adding GPS to regular cars and trucks.
Beyond that the "greeness" of the cars are up for debate. Considering what it takes to make a battery, what to do with them when they go bad, and how much of a toxic trouble they are in an accident. Then we can talk cost. An electric car starts at $40,000 and will need $5,000 or more in new batteries every 5 or 6 years. Add in the fact that the "power" the car uses comes from a power plant that burns coal or crude. All you have done is moved where the carbon footprint takes place at.
I find it hard to get excited by something that seems to cost more, lowers my standard of living, is no better for the environment, and takes away freedoms that I currently enjoy. All in the name of trying to NOT change the temperature of the plant when there the one thing we know is the temperature is going to go up and down like a yo-yo over time no matter what.
vi +
Up the gas tax five dollars for passenger vehicles
Or we could not do that and keep our economy going. My view is that there's a very good chance that oil prices will go up in the not so distant future. That will be the time to switch from oil-based fuel to one of the alternatives we have already cultivated. I see no reason to rush things.
Because that would also require an installation that may not fit your place? Let's say the front of your house aims north and you live in Seattle. Your house would cover the sun most of the time.
It's a great idea but requires a lot more of planning than just a guy installing an electric plug at your place.
Which makes me wonder why many apartment complexes haven't installed solar panels on top of the carports they rent. At least some of those receiving the most sunlight during a year.
Everybody knows that the Republican Borrow and Spend technique is the only fiscally responsible choice. Paying down debt is un-American. Only a deadbeat pays principle. And how dare he tax rich people on parity with the poor! The poor exist to make the lives of the rich better! Damn him for creating more jobs in two years than Bush the Lesser created in four, maybe eight. And meeting 84% of his election promises in two years? That's a some sort of Kenyan Konspiracy!
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
50 years of political "investing" have left us with a record deficit added on, every year, to our already staggering debt.
Isn't an "investment" supposed to, you know, pay off?
More seriously, this is the problem with government "investing," as economists have understood for centuries. Politicians are "investing" *other people's money.* They don't have the same incentive to pick and choose their investments as you do. And the government lacks the price-signaling information that the free market does. This is why money is far better left in the hands of the people. Private-sector investments are far more likely to actually create wealth, leading to economic growth, creating jobs, etc. etc.
- aj
This is irresponsible government at it's most dangerous. Improvements in infrastructure and and economy must be driven by the market; forcing a "solution" into the hands of the populace merely pulls resources away from actually solving the problem. Yes, we have an energy problem; however, I'm still not convinced that electric cars are really any better for the environment or even energy consumption. Yes, they use less energy at the plug, but that's not what matters. The total energy consumption over the lifetime of the vehicle is the factor of interest here. Do you have any idea how much energy it takes to make a fucking battery from bare minerals? I certainly don't, but I can tell you that it's reflected in the cost of a battery. In case you didn't know, batteries are much, much more expensive than gasoline per unit of energy.
And I want a Pony
Difference is I cant take your money to pay for my pony.
Emissions reduction, and conversion of the fleet to non-petrol is the point. It isn't about saving you money in the short term. Since we have arguably passed peak oil, and since we will need that oil for plastics and medicine, it is _vital_ that we stop burning it for transportation.
My Prius, for example, is tuned for emissions. That means that the gas mileage is "very good" by default, but there are times when the total system could be better for mileage but instead of laboring the engine it revs the enginge and "saves the extra". That conversion from mechanical to electrical to chemical potential, and its eventual reconverstion from chemical potential to electrical and then to kinetic energy is lossy. Very lossy. But it is "better than" belching up partially burned hydrocarbons from a laboring engine.
Efficiency isn't about your wallet. Neither is greater good. Its about your lungs, and your ability to get medicine and clean water in for the rest of your life.
Besides...
My gas costs more than 3.40 a gallon today.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
It's trending larger and larger every year
Citation? If you bother looking into it, you'll see that SUV and light truck sales are way off from years past.
There's got to be a way to make it not affect those in need while giving a disincentive to those who want to drive tanks.
Yes, it's called "tax loopholes," and it requires a huge new IRS bureaucracy, puts a giant paperwork burden on the very people (usually, small businesses like landscapers, dog groomers, carpenters) that you want to "protect," and of course - by way of supporting that giant new layer of administrative recordkeeping, fraud prevention, etc., means more people working for the government who don't actually produce anything, but for whom taxpayers get to pay, right on through their retirement. Yes, please, I want more of that.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I find my (small) truck to be extremely useful. I find cause to move stuff at least once a month. I was originally planning on getting a Hi-Jet mini-truck, but its not allowed to be imported with the full 4-5 gears and can not be licensed in some states and in others it isn't allowed on the highway. Settled for the smallest Dakota instead.
Upping gasoline prices to stimulate the purchase of new vehicles sounds like something that the marketing droids at Ford or GM would come up with. Here is where that logic falls flat: it incorrectly assumes that motivation to purchase a new car is the ONLY thing stopping people from buying them. For the vast majority of Americans, this is not the case. I personally - and virtually all of my friends and relatives - are not in a position to purchase a new car. In addition to not having enough credit to justify a $80,000 car loan for a Tesla Roadster, as a mobile DJ, I need a car like my Volvo station wagon to haul my gear around. I don't need a box truck or a trailer yet, but my five cylinder wagon accurately fits my needs. How many parents would be capable of squeezing their three kids into a Chevy Volt to the point where they could ditch their Honda Odyssey?
All that plan would do would slip us right back into a recession as my spending money at Applebees/AMC Theaters/Steam that recently started getting spent are baked back into my already high gas bill, as is the plan for everyone else. The thing is, even if the government were to cut the cost of a Tesla in half via gas subsidies, it still wouldn't fit my DJ gear. While I wouldn't have to pay $150 a week in gasoline anymore (I pay between $65 and $90 now), I'd be paying at least that in the high-interest auto loan, so all I see is my expenses going up with my ability to actually buy one of these cars going down. Bonus points: my local power plant burns oil, so the amount of pollution happening will largely shift.
I would, however, be all for the government giving me whatever money is in my Social Security fund at present as a down payment for one of these vehicles, allowing me to opt out of Social Security, and be perfectly fine with never receiving any social security benefits, because I already know I'm too young to ever see it anyway. This way I get to at least use the few grand that's in there in a way that will benefit everyone now.
By getting the rich to buy enough to bring the price down. Thats how.
At one point the Ammana Radar Range cost thousands of dollars, now a microwave oven can be had for $150. Same for DVD players and Gawd knows how many other things.
The rest of your post is equally poor in reasoning and understanding.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Build me a pure electric vehicle that is 100% equivalent to my Toyota Tacoma (which I expect to last me 15-20 years) and you have a deal.
This includes the ability to double the vehicle's range by carrying just the weight and size of 2 jerry cans.
Otherwise, kindly EABOD and DIAF.
this is basically wrong. people get SUV's because it's an alternative to getting a van for a family.
that's not about security or defensiveness, it's that a SUV can house about the same number of people more comfortably and is preferred over a minivan - more storage notably.
So sure, SUV guzzles gas blah blah blah, but when you add 4 people into a SUV plus all the crap you can carry in it versus 4 people in an economy car with the far less crap you can carry in it, those things make a difference.
My dad said we should add 10c per gallon to the gas tax every year, in 1991 after the first Gulf War. If we had done that we would have gas prices comparable to Europe and thus have the more efficient vehicle fleet they have. Putting a huge tax on gas will get you voted out of office in the next election, put a slow but steady tax in and it will just change buying habits over time.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
That will get demand to outstrip capacity, and automakers will adjust production to compensate. Leave diesel off the tax for now so the trucking industry won't be destroyed in the process. Presto, lots of new electric cars on the roads. If that doesn't happen, the highway trust fund will be flush enough with cash to take care of just about any road infrastructure need.
If we're serious about Middle East dependencies and carbon footprint, then we need to act serious.
While I agree with your point in principle, the downside to higher gas taxes is that it 'fuels' (pardon the pun) the tea-party and drill-baby-drill political movements. And having those folks in power sort of negates all of the benefits of having electric cars in the first place.
Here we go creating artificial markets again - have we learned nothing about what works in government and what doesn't?? Instead, tax the oil - and watch the alternatively fueled vehicles market grow organically.
That's fine. Current diesel cars are cleaner than petrol cars. They also get about 25 to 50% more MPG, meaning they are cheaper to own. Also, the diesel engine is simpler and therefore inherently more reliable than the petrol engine.
Hoist Number One and Number Six.
Just pass a law for every family to buy an electric car. Like was done with health insurance in the Affordable Care Act. And think of the green jobs that will be created installing charging stations in every home. And all the replaced, polluting gasoline cars that will be off the road. Win-win!
You need to move stuff once or twice a month? Rent a truck from Home Depot for $30 for an hour and a half.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
You all ready can. If you can prove that installing solar will save you more over the lifetime of the loan than what it adds to the loan you can get additional money at the loan time (either re-finance or purchase) to cover the installation cost. And with all the rebates\tax incentives for installing solar you can bring a $20K solar install down to about 12-14K. So it doesn't add much to the monthly payments of a 30 year load any way so its easy to say that the $300 that you will save on an electric bill will be covered by the solar. Now you would be better off doing this regardless of the electric car.
I understand why Obama wants this:
1) Bolster national production, create jobs, increase personal spending, more taxes coming in -- all good things.
2) Decrease the amount of pollution being polluted by drivers. -- Also, good.
I don't understand what we're doing with all these cars that people stop using. I know my GF gave up her Ford Explorer to get a Mazda in the Cash for Clunkers deal... but where did it go? Are the metals being recycled so that we can produce this new generation of eco-friendly vehicles in the most green way possible? Or maybe to cut costs?
Or is it crushed somewhere... rusting? Maybe it was shipped over-seas to be scrapped and its parts to be melted down and recycled under horrible working conditions.
I think that part... the origins of the resources for building these newer electric cars and the after-story of our throw-away cars is more important than getting more than getting X miles per Y tons of carbon per year.
The problem is, with the cost of electric cars, who would be able to afford one? The only way for Obama to guarantee that any number of electric cars are in use around the US is to give them away.
Someone in another thread brought out the statement that if the government gave everyone a new electric car to use and all the gasoline cars were then off the road, the entire electric use of the country would go down. The reasoning behind this was that refining gasoline uses an incredible amount of power. As I have not done the study however, I cannot say if this is accurate.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
That would also boom the diesel car and pickup truck market.
Leave diesel off the tax for now so the trucking industry won't be destroyed in the process.
Here's the thing - if we're serious about cutting carbon emissions and oil dependency, a lot of the trucking industry needs to be on the long-term chopping block. If you want to transport goods in a way that minimizes the use of fuel, you'd do something like:
1. Put everything in standard shipping containers so you can easily shift it between different transport methods.
2. If it's coming from a foreign country or island territory, ship it to a convenient port.
3. Take it from the port via rail to the rail yard nearest its destination, unless its destination is near enough to the port that that's closer than any rail yard.
4. Truck it from the rail yard or port to its destination.
There's absolutely no good reason for trucks to have to transport things long distances. The reason it's common now has a lot to do with the highway system externalizing the cost of building and maintaining long-distance trucking's transport network. To fix that, you'd need to go for higher diesel taxes.
I am officially gone from
Rather than keep progressing down this road, lets take away all incentive via tax.
Taxes should be for nothing more than funding the common govt functionality, and most of it should reside a the state level, since the state is closer to its citizens and can more efficiently fill their needs in a more targeted way.
But lets take ALL tax breaks away that try to iinfluence behavior. Stop child credits. Stop house deductions...get rid of all deductiions really...lets get to more a a fair or flat type (type, I'm game for some mods, not the strict definition) of tax where everyone just pays their fair share. We'd have more tax income coming in, and everyone would likely end up paying less in total taxes.
Lets to to where we use taxation ONLY to fund the govt, and lets get the govt out of the business of trying to tell me how to live and run my life!
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I see charge time as a major problem.
With gasoline, when I'm low on fuel, I can stop, fill up, and be on my way again in 5 minutes.
Can I do that in an electric vehicle?
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
I just heard on the news in the break room, that while the US still just barely has the top credit rating...they tell us that if we don't get the deficit under control pronto, they're gonna drop our credit rating.
Man, you think things are bad now...wait till THAT shoe drops.
I'm no economist but my take on things is: good. If that happens, the sooner the better because 1) we're not going to ever stop spending until it happens and 2) the longer we keep spending, the more exacerbated it's going to be when that "shoe drops." So do it now and get it over with, it's time for us to swallow our own medicine/reap what we've sewn/<bad metaphor here>.
... four or five years ago? I spoke with him again over Christmas and he had exactly the same warning for me. Well, when does it hit?
I do get a kick out of these "oooh boy, you just wait" style omens when it comes to the economy. A long time ago my uncle set me straight about how China is artificially keeping the yuan low compared to the dollar so they can sell us cheap crap and undercut any American company. He was all "long run this" and "crisis that." He promised me one day Wal-Mart was going to find itself on top of this massive infrastructure across the country with no cheap Chinese goods to fill its shelves with because the USA and other nations had wised up and stopped this market manipulation. That was
The fact is, countries should not be investing in our money market. We're no "habitual defaulter" like Greece but we're being very stupid with our money and we should pay for that. You might be surprised to hear an American say this but: stop investing in us. Don't reward stupidity. Don't let us keep our perceived worth artificially high via bogus credit ratings. It's just as dangerous as China's artificially low yuan.
Our deficit is the greatest shame in my eyes and the blackest mark on my generation. Starting with Reagan, continuing through every president and transcending political lines, it has gotten completely out of control. Social Security is a ticking time bomb. Our patchwork on the financial and housing crisis is also a ticking time bomb. We're on borrowed time here and I have the gut feeling we would be better off paying sooner rather than later.
My work here is dung.
I'm not going to be surprised when dump trucks become the norm...
Already been done http://www.motortrend.com/auto_news/112_news040921_inational/index.html
FAIL. I'm a non-smoker, and so is all my family (gives me a headache as an allergic response). So when I was growing up I was quite perplexed why my dad was so vehemently AGAINST increases in taxes on tobacco. He explained that increasing taxes on something that was undesirable as a society has the effect of entrenching that item because you are dealing with two selfish motivators that increase dependence on the item and the practise.
First, users of the undesirable item will rationalize that their use of the item is funding a noble cause (government, education, environmental cleanup) through the revenues generated by their usage. This enables them to continue in the vice which in this case is dependence on foreign oil.
Second, an increase in tax revenues related to the item fuel political dependence on that revenue and demotivates the discontinuance of the use based on a reduction in revenues. Some small countries derive over 50% of their tax revenue based on tobacco as an industry. In these countries the politicians are quite beholden to the tobacco interests. An increase in governmental revenues based on oil usage will create a reliance on that consumption in order for those governmental entities to be properly funded.
The other outcome is that it works! and dependence is deterred through the tax. Again, the ones to suffer will be those that are now dependent on that revenue stream. In one instance, I've seen politicians tie an increase in a tax that would benefit schools by penalizing the users. They then cut other funding related to housing taxes that benefited the schools. When the deterrence worked the schools were now under-funded and had to cut programs and teachers.
Just what are you trying to accomplish here?
In my mind the big problem here is not that the US is so dependent on oil, but that we are so dependent on CARS! A million new electric cars means a million consumers of energy. We need a end to unsustainable transportation with a change in our car hungry culture. Regardless of the technology used, an adopted public transportation system is always more efficient in resources than one that proposes a million cars with a single passenger in them.
And for what it is worth, just cause the president says you won't get groped boarding on the high speed train doesn't make it so nor does saying so remove it as a potential target from terrorists. By my count, trains are are more favored target than planes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Madrid_train_bombings
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/world/europe/29russia.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings
You might as well cut out the middle man:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/panasonic-kei/5036172390/
A million new voters, more like.
Trucks don't rent for $30. If I was allowed to own a Hi-Jet mini-truck, I could have a truck that gets 60 to 90 miles to the gallon and I could still use it for all my daily driving. In the meantime I drive a truck that gets about average gas mileage compared to a passenger car and I don't have to spend extra money any time I need to move something.
Agreed.
I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
Probably more like 200,000 new bicycle commuters, 700,000 new bus users, and 100,000 new unemployed.
But you can do that now.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
...electric car is not going to waste 70%...
Sure it will. In fact it will waste even more. The fossil-fuel fired steam turbines which drive power plants are about as efficient as an auto engine. SO 70% waste there. Then another 30% waste due to electrical resistance (impedance because its AC) of the long-distance power lines. Then another 30% lost to internal resistance of the battery when charging and discharging, then another 10% due to the electric motor.
In fact, it takes about three gallons of fossil fuel at the generating station to replace one gallon used by an automobile.
Until we convert to an All-Nuclear generating capability in the US, plug in cars are a horribly wasteful and deceptive distraction from REALLY cutting down on our use of imported Oil. OPEC loves them because it will make us import and burn substantially greater amounts of their oil.
Sure they do, for a hour or two. Home Depot was running a $19.95/hr special for a while and the first hour comes with a free 15 minutes. They still do the 75 minutes before second hour starts but the price is up just a little.
Nice troll faggot.
Settled for the smallest Dakota instead.
I had one of those that averaged 12mpg. I thought I was being economical for buying a mid size truck, but it was every bit as bad as a full size. Even a compact Toyota doesn't do much better than about 15mpg.
Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
I've lived in the area, other than going away once for 3 years and once for 5 years, since 1977. I didn't intend to indicate this was true in all areas.
i drive a pickup, and thank god with the New England winter.
i'd like to see an electric car that can plow 2' of snow
you can't take into account just software developers that drive to/from work everyday
3 kids should fit in a Volt just fine. If not stop feeding them so fucking much. My parents had two kids and we always had Corollas, and those were a good bit smaller back then.
According to Volkswagen they plan to have the XL1 available worldwide by 2013 at a cost under $25k. If that happens I can see commuters opting for that without much effort. Its a little weak power wise but more than sufficient for travel from suburbs to city and back and at around 300 mpg at least for me the fuel savings would more than make up for the price. The Chevy volt also looks fairly promising though no where near the same efficiency and its supposed to be available nationwide by the end of this year. I really dont see 1 million purely electric cars but very efficient hybrids are definitely on the way and there is plenty of interest without subsidies.
This. Trucking gets use subsidies in the form of roads that rail can't match. This means our rail system sucks.
You say that like it's a bad thing....
BMW X1 20d gets ~38mpg combined, Nissan Juke with a 1.6L gas engine with direct fuel injection and turbo gets max of 27mpg combined even though it's the lighter car. The reason I can't get the more efficient vehicle in the US this year? BMW doesn't think there's demand for an efficient diesel vehicle in the US (and they may be right). Our massively subsidized cheap gas is causing more efficient solutions to be squeezed out of the market.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Ok, sure, so now I need a whole lot of batteries in my house to store the electricity that is generated all day.
Except I live it Pittsburgh. We get about the same amount of sunshine as Seattle. Not practical here. I'd rather just rely on the grid and update the grid to have more nuclear generation.
I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
It's trending larger and larger every year; I'm not going to be surprised when dump trucks become the norm... unless you make it prohibitively expensive to do that.
When CAFE standards killed the station wagon, people started buying Suburbans for family cars and the SUV was born. Now that CAFE is going to kill the SUV, I wouldn't be surprised if people started converting dump trucks. I've already seen a few International commercial trucks converted to luxury pickups.
Money really won't be the issue. Some trucks and SUVs are already over $60k. Taxes won't stop those people.
Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
Mine is typically in the high 20s, mid 20s if I drive aggressively. Perhaps there was something wrong with yours?
One million electrics on the road is do-able, *if* the government does a "Cash for Clunkers" again. You all forget that this was a wildly successful program two years back. In fact, if the government was willing to partially subsidize my purchase of an Electric Car, I'd probably buy one... My only problem is that I don't currently have a clunker to trade in.
The government is going to have to Jump-start an electric car program, no doubt. Manufacturers are hesitant to make them because they percieve no market, but if there's a "forced" market, then they will build 'em. And if people start buying them they will make better and better models.
I think they are going to have to make electrics a new class of vehicle. For example, they should be exempt from having airbags and other heavy safety features that weigh the car down. They should also be allowed in HOV lanes regardless of number of passengers. Motorcycles, for example, *are* like that. Also, in States like NJ, which only perform emissions tests, Electrics obviously should be exempt from inspection.
In other words, pile on so many plusses to having such a car that people might forget about the range limits and other problems.
It's a good thing to start forcing over this change, otherwise, we will all be hurting when gas is $12 a gallon. But to do it, and do it properly, electricity needs to come down in price. That means more nuclear, more renewable sources. America needs to seriously invest in electric infrastructure if Obama is truly serious about having a one million electric cars on the road by 2015.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
It's as if nobody ever took high school physics! It doesn't matter if you power it with fossil fuels, bio-diesel, electricity, or a nuclear reactor, as long as you are moving ~3000 lbs you are going to expend a tremendous amount of energy; there is no sense in using 3000 lbs to move ~300 lbs of meat. Not to mention 3000 lbs is inherently dangerous at any speed due to kinetic energy, which is why around 3000 people die every month in car accidents. And in case things didn't make enough sense as it is, 1/3 of all trips are 3 miles and under, which hardly requires thousands of pounds of steel and machinery. If we were to approach this as a problem we actually wanted to solve, well, maybe we'd actually solve it, because it's not quantum rocket surgery: ultralight autonomous vehicles--lower moving mass, less energy spent in +/- acceleration, and a drastic reduction in drag. I really don't want to become convinced that my home country has the barely functional mentally retarded in majority, but it gets harder every day.
money is in my Social Security fund at present
LOL.
Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
Now there is a loophole so big you could drive a truck through it.
No matter where you go, there you are.
Opinion: The true long-term way forward is oil-free fuel (all-electric) at the point of use, but this needs a higher order of support than hybrid technology. A cynical view is that this [article/policy] might only practically contribute to the subsidy of hybrid cars, which maintains oil industry interests. This interest could be safeguarded by spacing the charging stations at intervals greater than is practicable for electric-only vehicles (which have shorter range).
How is stopping the export of US Dollars not fiscally responsible. Reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Reduce our need to base our troops where foreign oil is produced. Consumers save money by using electricity instead of gas. Consumers spend more money at wally world. Ooops forgot that this will just cause the money to go to China instead.
Excellent post. We should tax the living hell out of giant SUVs and trucks (in addition to upping gas prices and tax penalties for vehicles with low fuel economy). They added tax for "luxury" vehicles in the 90s...why not broaden the definition and tax the crap out of unweildy SUVs and trucks (with exemptions for people who use them primarily for work).
Getting a larger vehicle out of safety concerns is stupid and short-sighted. It's hard to be safe in a vehicle that does not drive safely. People with this mentality have probably never experienced car control in a well crafted vehicle as compared to some random GM Giant SUV that couldn't maneuver around an obstacle if given 30 seconds reaction time.
SUVs (and trucks) are the bane of Texas suburbia. I'll never understand why middle and upper middle class Texans consider an unsafe, poor-handling work vehicle to be a status symbol.
I'll take my chances in my Mazda. Chances are higher the SUV guy will be in a ditch than me colliding with SUV guy. Even then, given Austin traffic, if I collide with SUV guy, it will probably be at about 15 mph.
Very true. As a bonus, the resale value on my Jetta Diesel would triple in about 5 nanoseconds, and I could afford to buy a really nice bicycle with the profit. :)
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
4x4, 5.9L, Quad Cab, 5,900 pounds empty weight. I wasn't expecting much but the actual mileage was shocking. I sold it the month before gas went from $2 to $4 a gallon. Strangely, my brother has a Ram 1500 with the same drivetrain and it gets better mileage.
Some day I'm going to buy another Dakota QC and transplant a 3.9L Cummins turbodiesel. That will be the perfect truck.
Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
What's missing from the analysis is the size and shape of the electrical load these vehicles would represent. It won't all be off peak, and anyway a plant running off-peak has the same kWh carbon footprint as peak.
For new plants to be online by 2015, we are probably talking gas-fired combustion CTs. These are almost certainly cleaner than an internal-combustion engine, but what is the real savings in carbon? What are the real costs?
I am only aware of the most general estimates of the impact of electric vehicles on the generation infrastructure and on electric rates. Does anyone have anything specific?
nt
...We'd have more tax income coming in, and everyone would likely end up paying less in total taxes.
suggests that math is not your strong suit. If more taxes are coming in somebody is not paying less.
Putting a huge tax on gas will get you voted out of office in the next election, put a slow but steady tax in and it will just change buying habits over time.
I think it is even more palatable to the people to cut the government subsidies first.
Electric vehicles make sense for the post office. Short trips w/ a central area for recharging. It would take some money though, which neither the Feds or the USPS have right now. Some agencies are using hybrids but there must be other areas as well. National parks, at least the southern ones or Washington DC monuments may be candidates. The states should look into it as well....
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
You may think it goes to roads, but in most states there isn't a separate fund - it goes into the general fund, out of which the DOT budget gets apportioned. It's kind of like lottery money going to schools. They keep saying it does, but the school budgets don't seem to be growing as fast as lottery revenue. Why? Because as the lottery money rolls in, the contribution from the general find gets cut back. It's a tax - it goes to fund everything. It has a purpose, but not a 1:1 relationship to expenditures.
Could more electric cars mean a drop in revenue? Perhaps. Remember that there's a tax on electricity too, and that goes into the general fund as well. It's a fools argument. Governments will adjust.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
It's trending larger and larger every year
Citation? If you bother looking into it, you'll see that SUV and light truck sales are way off from years past.
Declining sales figures have nothing to do with the fact that SUVs and trucks keep getting bigger. Look at the current generation Toyota Tacoma. It is bigger than the previous generation Toyota Tundra (which is the bigger of the two models). The Ford F-150 currently is as big as the last model F-250. The Subura Forrester has gone from being a station wagon to being a full blown SUV. As the guy above correctly points out, the current models are indeed trending larger.
While I haven't researched it at an academic level, I do take great interest in all things with 4 wheels and internal combustion engines, and I can't think of a single current model that is smaller than its previous model.
Yes, it's called "tax loopholes,"
He's not advocating loopholes, which are UNINTENDED ways of getting out of paying taxes. He is proposing tax CREDITS, and I agree it is a good way to dis-incentivize needless SUV sales.
and it requires a huge new IRS bureaucracy, puts a giant paperwork burden on the very people (usually, small businesses like landscapers, dog groomers, carpenters) that you want to "protect," and of course - by way of supporting that giant new layer of administrative recordkeeping, fraud prevention, etc., means more people working for the government who don't actually produce anything, but for whom taxpayers get to pay, right on through their retirement. Yes, please, I want more of that.
Or, they could just, you know, file their taxes like a small business owner does now and claim the tax credit we are proposing by proving the truck is part of your business. I'm not sure how this would have ANY impact on the current processes that small businesses follow when filing their taxes.
Ah, mine is the 3.6L, RWD, short wheelbase, single cab. Its not a lot of truck, but its enough for me (quadcab can wait till I need to tote kids around regularly). So that probably explains most of that mileage difference.
Taxes are always used to encourage or discourage behavior, for the "good of society". It just depends on which political influences are in power at the time.
Credit for having kids? (Good for society) Credit for owning a house, versus renting? (good for society, generates local taxes, promotes ownership, blah blah), credit for buying a Chevy Volt? (good for society by decreasing dependance on foreign oil, fossil fuels).
I'm having a hard time thinking of a tax that exists that isn't either a reward or a punishment for citizens' behaviour.
Wow... the white house is going to need a MUCH BIGGER parking lot!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
If we're serious about Middle East dependencies and carbon footprint, then we need to act serious.
First, I would debate that are not dependent on Middle East oil. Canada and Mexico alone provide the US with about 39% of our crude oil. When you compare that to roughly 20% coming from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Kuwait, I think we're more dependent on the countries we border than any other state.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Another +1.
There's no reason cargo should be trucked across more than 2 state/provincial borders. Ever.
Rail for long distances, trucks for short.
---
"I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
How refreshing to hear someone talk about the "slowly boiled frog" as though it were a good thing, for a change.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Reality changes because you hope it will. They hope green technologies such as electric cars and high speed rail will create more jobs than efficient oil-based transportation. So it must.
A gallon of gas is equivalent to ~34kWh of electricity...
Gasoline is used in internal combustion (IC) engines in a Carnot or similar thermal cycle, limited in efficiency by the high and low temperature limits and the production of waste heat. 34KWH produced as electricity for use in an electric vehicle has a much higher efficiency conversion, limited by incidental heat production in the electric motor and conversion efficiencies in charging and discharging the battery. (This is why you see "100+ MPGE - Miles Per Gallon Equivalent - at 10 cents/KWH.) Since a large coal thermal electricity plant can be more than twice as efficient as the IC auto engine there is a substantial net gain in efficiency, and other electricity sources avoid much of the downside of coal. Alternative low pressure nuclear (with thorium rather than uranium fuel) addresses many of the problematic issues with nuclear, and solar/wind/geothermal is even better, since a smart grid can manage the recharging to fit variable production and demand profiles.
I'm not the OP, but the nearest Home Depot to me is over an hour's drive away. The nearest car rental place is still a good 30 minute drive and I'm sure you won't find a $19.95 special, or even a $30 special there. I think I'll stick to my pickup truck; which, thanks to tax breaks, cost less to purchase than a car and is more enjoyable to drive to boot.
Probably right around the same time that subsidies did. I don't want to pay extra income tax or higher interest rates to pay for wars in the Middle East in order to keep oil prices stable, but lots of voting drivers disagree, and think we should all pay to subsidize gasoline, instead of drivers having to pay for oil security in proportion to how much gasoline they use.
Right or wrong, 10th amendment or not, many decades ago Americans decided that cars and their fuel was an issue too important to be left to the free market and that the federal government should play a direct role in regulating how much of it people use and who pays for it. Don't like it? Start voting for people who say they'll repeal all that. But since we're talking about a platform that gets less than 1% of the vote, I think it's pretty fair for a president or people in congress to throw more taxes into the mix. Not that it's right, just that it's fair since obviously nobody minds it very much and everyone votes in favor of it, time after time without any of that pendulum effect that is sometimes seen in other political issues.
I've been hearing a lot of that kind of talk lately. I like it. But the terrible irony is that so often, the people who say it, then turn around 180 degrees and vote for Republicans. So we get even higher deficits and more wars, than the relatively spendthrift Democrats. Wake me up when someone who talks about small government actually votes for small government bills or signs/vetos based on small government. Even Reagan couldn't do it, and that man talked the talk better than anyone.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
I haven't heard even the tea party talk about changing our foreign policy which is the biggest subsidy to the oil companies so it's easier to make the change on the demand side.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
but we don't always get what we want...
The debt to GDP ratio may be the highest since the 1940s but in the 1940s the debt was OVER 100% of the GDP. I do not think we can go as high because we've foolishly messed up many other factors as we shifted towards corporatism ("right") since then; just go read some of the initiatives of the past on the "right" and see how they'd be called communists today. WE CAN HANDLE A LARGER DEBT and anybody saying otherwise is ignorant or dishonest, one only needs to look at history for proof. Like I said, I don't think we could go as high but we are not even close.
Also, a repeating theme going on is how the IMF, World Bank, and well, the bankers in general are pushing our policies around like they've done to 3rd world nations for the last century--- except now they are not helping our nation by screwing millions of poor nations they are doing it to us; before one could argue we were the masters and they are biting our hands except I think they in many ways always were the master and simply have enough power and influence they no longer require our help.
Since we no longer have the power we used to have, perhaps we can't do as many things as we did in the past. There is a chess game going on and you are all mere pawns.... I suppose you should enjoy your lowly position because the more you know, the more helpless you feel.
I got sick of people when they complained about jobs during the heathcare fight not realizing it is the single biggest problem for this economy. Next is the insane military industrial complex. Plus 1/3 are hopeless idiots (death panels etc.) We couldn't get sanity from an all DFL situation we are not going to do better now when the other side is hijacked by that idiotic 1/3.
The USA pays its bills, there is no legit reason to drop the credit rating; its a power game.
No, I'm not some spending freak but all the propaganda is so 1 sided on this issue and people just thoughtlessly follow the herd. The ONLY time debt should be acceptable is during bad times.... We can't even admit we've been in a depression just barely avoiding a big depression which is still possible and has not been prevented, only averted temporarily. Sure, Ron Paul people probably are correct about the Fed but you can't fix that problem without a massive collapse during the transition which is why it is impossible before a big collapse. Say you gave the gov back its constitutional power to manage money, today that wouldn't differ much since the banks run so much of our government for themselves. Plus, we've ruined our economy where the majority of it is now finanicial gambling not small business like it was 10 years ago - if you fix the banking and the markets to work properly again and serve their purpose, you'll remove almost half our economy and take away much of the reason for having dollars.... and we have too any dollars thanks to those decades of forcing the world to buy oil in dollars. (And people wonder why we kiss the ass of Saudi Arabia...)
Realistically, none of this issues are worth your time - the system does not function and as a result it is unable to do an adequate job solving any problems-- they prefer to placate and push the buck onto the next politician. (Like how Greenspan jumped ship then played dumb when it sunk...) You need to fix the political system 1st and foremost or our crash landing will continue (if lucky, otherwise it'll just be a crash/collapse.) Obama also realizes this to some degree which is why he fought healthcare against even his own staff and party and continues to try to bend over backwards to make the republicans civil - its about all he can do.... except he doesn't seem to be forceful on fixing the political system at all - just some words here and there... No surprise; he probably doesn't think it is as bad as it really is simply because he made it to the top (not realizing he was only allowed to make it because he wasn't disruptive or a real threat.) OR he gave up on trying to fix such a hopeless mess that will require riots and violence (by sane people
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
"Watch the movie: Who Killed the Electric Car? It is full of answers!"
No, Who Killed the Electric Car is mostly filled with questions. Still a very interesting movie.
=====
suggests that math is not your strong suit. If more taxes are coming in somebody is not paying less.
=====
Suggests that economics is not your strong suit.
Keynesian economics is a ruse..and doesnt work.
(Mod me down for insulting liberal monetary theory'
this Administration is forging a new path forward by making sure America doesn't just lead in the 21st Century, but dominates in the 21st Century,
*Join me, and together, we can rule the galaxy...*
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Sssh! That's the only way to get the right-wingers to support alternative energy!
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Buy me a Tesla S and I will drive it every day to work. Deal?
Because solar electricity is not economically viable. Wind? Sure. In any event, charging electric cars is tedious and there are limits to battery technology.
Want a better solution? How about a home hydrogen station powered by a roof mounted wind turbine. Add a hydrogen tank to your car and just introduce H2 into the air intake. Simple, low tech. It's a suplement to traditional fossil fuels, not a replacement. Run out of H2? The car just continues on gasoline.
Neither solar nor battery tech seems economically viable to me. I don't know about wind and H2. I'm curious as to what a home sized H2 system could retail for and what the ongoing maintenance costs would be. Adding H2 to a conventional car would be really cheap.
...we should totally ignore it and say screw you. After all, this is all they say to us when we ask for anything.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
Err...what planet are you looking at? Have you seen the massive spending and deficit run up the current administration has done the pass 2x years??!?!
In this short time...they've almost doubled what Bush and Clinton did combined....
And in the Obama state of the union,what did he propose? MORE spending (called it investment this time). No...
While I'm against the amounts Bush II put in place during his reign...Obama and Dems have taken to all new highs.
Also, what subsidies are you talking about with reference to gas prices? I hear this all the time, and I dunno what you're on about. I mean, the reason prices are so high in the EU for example, is due to the huge amount of over taxation they put on fuel over there.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Sure, why not? That kind of scheme (forcing people to give up something they own that has value for something else to replace it) worked for cash for clunkers.
Oh, but wait, there's a problem with this: what about people who want to drive long distances? My wife and I drive to Austin (from Dallas) to visit our oldest daughter at least once a year; we drive to San Antonio to visit friends at least three times a year (yes, we love our friends more than our child, get over it). Those trips are expensive enough with gas at $3 a gallon, at $5 a gallon they'd be undoable. And with an electric car with a 100 mile range, they'd be impossible.
So pray tell me, how do you justify forcing me to support something that actually, and demonstrably, harms me?
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Agreed that taxes are always used to encourage or discourage behaviour. They work for that.
Children are not good for society. They should be expensive. We need to eliminate the aspects of our economic system which work as a pyramid scheme. We do not need more children in the next generation than this one. We obscure the inadequacies of our economy by keeping the economy growing through market/labor growth. The practice goes back to pre-history, but we're really only now (the past century or so) trading our quality of life for this form of economic growth. We don't need to restrict reproduction, but it's insane to subsidise it.
Up the gas tax five dollars for passenger vehicles
Horrible idea.
You can't enforce it a tax on 'passenger vehicles'.
Many of us have habits and jobs that don't go match with driving an electric vehicle.
Make many other things more expensive for people who can't afford it.
It's really a nifty way to make the bourgeoisie feel like they are doing something good at the expense of the poor.
Display some adaptability.
Seriously, I've NEVER understood this thinking. Regardless of the taxes..people will fuck and have kids.
I seriously doubt that this conversation has happened..."Oooh...babe, I love you let's do it....here let me put a condom on. What? Well...we don't want any more kids right? OH..really? You mean if we have another mouth to feed, I can write a bit more off on my taxes?!?!?" [rips rubber off and starts fucking bareback for rest of marriage]
Sorry...I don't buy it. It isn't fair either...people no kids or less kids are subsidizing people with more kids? How is that fair. People should take full responsibility for their actions, you want kids..be prepared to pay for them yourself, and make whatever sacrifices you have...don't take money out of my pocket.
Heck if nothing else...if we tax based on good things...tax parents MORE for each kid, as that they end up using more resources that people with less kids (schools, etc)
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
There's plenty of wind when you're tearing down the freeway at 80 MPH.
That's a toss-up. Some of the cars they have don't have the safety and emission features of their American counterparts, and for us to be able to get some of their super-efficient diesels, there would need to be changes there as well.
That was a MAJOR unforseen consequence of the Interstate system - the death of a lot of the rail in the US. Not that I personally mind - there's more freedom in being able to drive a car than ride a rail.
======= While I agree with your point in principle, the downside to higher gas taxes is that it 'fuels' (pardon the pun) the tea-party and drill-baby-drill political movements. And having those folks in power sort of negates all of the benefits of having electric cars in the first place. ========= Dare I say it? Yup...tea-partier here! (Welp..there goes everything 'round here..but before I'm modd'ed into oblivion...) We dont believe in what you 'think'. We let the market dictate. (With only the necessary g'ment oversight needed to prevent monopolistic over-reach) Having said that, we welcome the electric car overlords...when the market can bare it. (not thru subsidies, or 'nudging'.) When the tech is ready, they will come. We understand that the DELIBERATE and ARTIFICIAL raising of gas prices is just another command economy move from elites. (If you want to point to oil company subsidies, be prepared to talk about oil company taxation. You know, the part that is strangely omitted when discussing said issue). Now...'we' dont negate the benefits. We will be ready when its feasible, and doesnt require tax money to foist on the public.
"In my mind the big problem here is not that the US is so dependent on oil, but that we are so dependent on CARS! A million new electric cars means a million consumers of energy. We need a end to unsustainable transportation with a change in our car hungry culture. Regardless of the technology used, an adopted public transportation system is always more efficient in resources than one that proposes a million cars with a single passenger in them."
Agreed to some extent -- we should fund public transport -- however a good portion of current public transit systems need a major overhaul, and is NOT more efficient than autos.
Look at how much gas your local bus system uses. It's a matter of public record, probably. Then look at the miles they drive -- hopefully they'll have a passenger-miles figure which would be ideal.
It turns out that buses (at least in Chicago) aren't more efficient than cars. On a purely gas level, the people taking the bus would be better off in cars. Plus we pay drivers, and buses rip up the streets. Now that doesn't make me want to eliminate bus systems, but it does make me
A. angry as bus companies, but that's not very useful.
B. interested in small transport devices -- autonomous cars, cars in road trains, super efficient cars.
The problem is buses are constantly running around almost empty.
This is a logistics problem. Computing and math solve logistics problems. Some clever person should be able to find the right mix of technologies to increase efficiency. Look to electric and (hopefully soon) autonomous taxis/demand driven small buses to get people to rail systems quickly and efficiently.
(Trains are great -- or at least I've never seen the figure to show they're not. But where trains go, property values are high, so the poor need to use buses just to get to the trains.)
The Volt only holds 4 people. (Don't ask me why they took out the middle back seat.) So either the wife stays home, or one of the kids does.
Tax breaks that need to end, and less fun to drive than a car you mean. Trucks corner for shit.
The political class of this country just doesn't get it. We're broke! The piggy bank is empty! There. Is. No. Money!
And yet they continue to push these asinine boondoggles down our throats. At what point will politicians realize they can't throw money at every problem just to boost their poll numbers? Unfortunately, probably not until Moody's gives us the rating we deserve, B+. Even then they might not have the will to slash the government the way it needs to be slashed.
Talk about fiddling while Rome burns.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Uhm. No. Presto, more personal vehicles in the US on diesel. Just like in Europe. (e.g. in Belgium 60% is diesel)
The companies already have the knowledge to do that, so minimal effort on side of the car companies. If that will be a good or bad thing is another matter.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Spending money that we don't have for things that we don't want or need is not an INVESTMENT, it is irresponsible finance.
We don't want alternative energy cars until they are affordable and practical. That won't happen by 2015 or 2025 for that matter. I don't want an electric car and I don't want my tax dollars buying one for you either. I drive a 13 year old Chevy because that's all that I can afford. I'd rather drive it than an econobox any day.
He wants high-speed-rail too. That is another BAD IDEA because of the huge costs and the fact that most of us couldn't ride these trains. That means that ridership will never pay for the service and we will all support the monster with more taxes. High speed rail works in Europe and Japan because of the population density in limited geographic areas. We are spread out too much in America to even access trains or find one going where we need to travel. Bad for America and bad for me.
Obama should have been a salesman or a lawyer.... wait, he is a lawyer but not in a courtroom.
Go look up th term fungible. Then you can come back and talk with the big boys.
Tax breaks are necessary. It is the only way us farmers can make any profit at all. It is funny to hear all the people freaking out about how expensive food is getting, yet we're still struggling to make a living selling at those "high" prices. I do agree that extending the same breaks to standard automobiles would go a long way, however.
Trucks are far more enjoyable to drive during normal road travel. I'm sure a car is more fun on the track, but I don't take either vehicle to the track.
Sheesh...
... I'll have a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster with a side of Plutonium Nyborg
So counterproductive! We need safe carfree cities. Electric or whathaveyou green magic cars are NOT any better than what we have now.
1) Moving the emissions from the tailpipe to the coal power plant smoke stack is not a big improvement.
2) trashing useful cars and building lots of new ones with lightweight, rare energy intensive materials is terrible for everyone.
3) Green cars are the ultimate greenwash - there to convince us that cars are still sustainable at all which is the big lie
4) The efficiency paradox: If we have more efficient cars we will simply have more cars overall negating any gains from efficiency
5) Green cars do nothing to address the safety, land use, hyper-mobility, city-planning, social problems, exercise problems, health problems... in short they are all sensation and no substance.
It doesn't have to be this way. In fact, look at the huge subsidy and corporate welfare required to keep the car system going. It would be easier for us to let it die as it should. End Car Era!
Stupidity is its own reward.
You are making the fake tree buggers in California cry by saying that.
Stop clouding the issue with facts!
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
That wouldn't fix the problem. The guy who is rich enough to have the 4x4 Escalade will just pay the luxury/SUV tax and still have it. Even if gas were selling at $10.00 a gallon, they would still be on the roads.
This tax would put the screws on the small farmer who is too small to get the subsidies that the big guys get. We really don't want to see the small guys who grow our food go the way of ISPs and radio stations just yet... its nice knowing that an egg came from an actual chicken in a coop, as opposed to possibly from a chemical factory in Elbonia.
What I love is the whiners at the pump when it hits $4.00 a gallon in their Escalade XLT.. Wahhh poor baby, cant afford a real car like a civic, fit, festvia or trendy hybrid? So that makes you a "fake" rich person.
and it is. escalade owners are fake poser rich people. real rich drive hybrids right now.
Because of fake "safety" laws. the truck you want is safe as all get out, but US safety laws are designed to keep competition out of the country.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
There is 1 truck that cornered well... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GMC_Syclone
The Syclone was an awesome truck to drive and cornered better than any BMW.
Problem is GM cant build something like that anymore. They dont have any management that knows how to run a car company. they no longer have any soul.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
We are far, far, from being in an unsustainable position with respect to short term debt. The bond markets agree: the US Treasury is borrowing money at some of the lowest rates in history, which would not be the case if we were in debt trouble.
The other thing that chaps my ass about this whole deal is that the Congresscritters bitching loudest about our supposedly massive debt load... just rammed through more giant tax cuts for rich people. And have set up rules stating that in their budget process, they can cut taxes as much as they want without offsetting them with spending cuts. If they were serious about debt, they'd stop doing that. But the only thing they're really interested in is 1) making trouble for Obama, and 2) serving their rich masters.
Children are not good for society. They should be expensive. We need to eliminate the aspects of our economic system which work as a pyramid scheme.
So you're all for stopping social security then? Otherwise, if you dissuade children, you end up in a position where you have to import immigrants to keep a large enough tax base to pay for retirees.
How about universal healthcare? The entire point of this system is that a large number of healthy people support the unhealthy people through taxes. What happens when your population consists of a very large group of older, less healthy citizens, and a much smaller group of healthy citizens? That scheme goes out the window too.
I'm merely guessing you would support SS and healthcare given that most of the posts earlier in this discussion reference the same. I'm not saying you said it anywhere in your post.
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
That is bull cockey.. Those "safety" features are useless. Stop thinking that Italy, UK, Spain and Germany are a backwater 3rd world where they build card to kill people. They are as safe as the junk that GM and Ford makes.
Let me guess, you also believe that Canadian drugs are "UNSAFE" as well... the raging lie the US govt and the drug companies claim.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
So, put the cells on the back side of your house? Unless you have a very unusual wedge-shaped roof, it slopes both ways. Being in Seattle might be more of a problem, but realistically, most people don't live in Seattle. Some fairly large percentage of houses could generate at least a couple kW with solar PV.
Fact: making life harder does not stop the stupid from having kids. Look at africa, overpopulated for the resources so children are born into starvation over and over.
It will not change anything. The rich get Richer, the poor get kids.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
feverishly devises ever more ways to ensure they can continue to drive cars, other countries are working on ways to remove them altogether. America is a large country, sure, but thanks to piss-poor civil planning most cities from their shopping centers to their workplaces are absolutely unnavigable without some form of vehicle. I live in Phoenix, a city basically designed from the ground up to require a car, and which boasts an impressive noxious smog like we lovingly call "the brown cloud." my office is so short on parking employees have actually refused to come to work some days. we have a transit and rail system, but any hint of expanding them is demonized as socialism.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Tax stamps for cars. I'm all for it.
ULEV vehicles get $0.00 tax. every MPG below 35 your vehicle get's you add an extra $0.50 per gallon tax at the pump. Hummer H2 owners can afford $9.25 a gallon gas.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Hello, there's plenty of room in the trunk.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Current Prius batteries have a 100,000 mile warranty on their batteries, and many are lasting considerably longer than that.
It just found your location, every few seconds, and recorded only the distance traveled (maybe in which state, for state highway funding purposes).
The hardware and the source code for the system would have to be published and open, so everyone could verify that the meter recorded NOTHING but distance traveled.
What are the chances the government would approve a system that COULDN'T be used for intrusive monitoring, though?
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
but you can buy a small commuter car. do you really need to drive alone 40 miles to work in your Extended cab F350 that has never had anything in the truck bed other than the 50" plasma you bought? Buy a small commuter car. a ford Festiva gets 40mpg is a ULEV vehicle and works just fine for getting to work and back even 100 miles away. AND it does great in snow. I see 4 of them drive in more snow daily than the whimpy girly people in NYC saw this year.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
The government does not generate income, it spends income. Government is always on the "expense" side of the economic ledger. It may be a good expense (infrastructure) or a poor expense (mad-house spending on homeland security), but it's still an expense.
In addition, it is always an "expensive" expense. That is, the government takes its income from the private sector profits which already include the cost of doing business, extracts its own overhead cost, and then uses the remainder to create a job. The dollars are thus double-encumbered with overhead.
Lastly, government jobs are not "lasting" in the sense that private jobs are. Hiring one government person doesn't generate any income to hire two more, as it would in the private sector; it always stays an expense, each and every time another person is added to the roles.
Therefore, it is vital to strictly limit government spending just to those expenses which no other organization can make.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
It would be more like 2.5 million new unemployed.
Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Sure they have the right to drive whatever, so long as the laws allow it (see my dump truck example). But there's no reason to make it cheap for them to do so. A gasoline tax added on to the existing gas-guzzler tax would help. I'm in agreement with afidel on this one.
BTW, have you thought of the effect these huge tanks have on the rest of the population's vehicle choices? I saw a Smart car just the other day and thought "well that person's dead when an H2 hits him". What right does the Hummer driver have to drive a vehicle substantially more dangerous to others?
How do you like it when the shoe is on the other foot?
I also live in Minnesota and drive a Prius, and I haven't had any problems. My batteries have been working fine for 4.5 years, and the computer's always been able to start up the engine even at -15 degrees F last week.
I've been tracking my gas mileage since I bought the car (using actual gas receipts and odometer rather than the car's reported MPG), and I find that it drops from 45-50MPG in mid-summer to 35-40MPG in the coldest parts of winter. While that's definitely a decline, it's closer to 75% of the range than half and I doubt it's because of the battery. Everyone's MPG goes down somewhat in the winter, and the Prius moreso because it can't shut off its engine and go into electric mode as often.
Perhaps with substantially fewer of these tanks on the road, the average driver won't feel the need to buy bigger and bigger vehicles to compensate for everyone else's monster vehicles?
That's ludicrous on it's face. Per Wikipedia, in 2003 the US consumed 476 billion liters of gasoline. And you're going to tell me that if consumption of gas dropped to zero tomorrow, oil consumption wouldn't change at all? The answer's in your own post: oil companies would stop alkylation and reforming, meaning that the components of petroleum that used to be converted to gasoline would now become available for use as diesel, kerosene, etc. Which means that less oil would be required
Check this page for more details. You can see that gasoline accounts for around half of all "finished petroleum products" consumed in the US. If we stopped using gasoline, we could pump much less oil, because we wouldn't have to convert other hydrocarbons into gasoline - we could just use them for heavier fuels, chemical feedstocks, etc.
Egypt does not supply any significant quantity of oil, and neither does unrest there affect oil deliveries from elsewhere. Unless the problem spreads to some country that actually produces oil, I doubt there will be a big effect.
People buy whatever luxuries they can afford and fit into their lifestyle. It's what drives nearly every advance in the world, the idea that if you make more money you can get shit you like.
When I was in Europe, it seemed like the size of cars was driven much less by gas prices and much more by the fact that you couldn't drive a Cayenne down most of their streets, let alone find parking for it.
Yes, and enjoy the complete collapse of almost every major consumer industry in the US.
Things aren't shipped by truck because transporting them on a truck is cheaper. They're shipped by truck because it's cheaper than having a giant warehouse of inventory on the end of the distribution line.
Read about lean manufacturing. In the days before the interstate you had to keep massive inventory locally. The efficiencies allowed by getting your new delivery of just what you need by truck overnight instead of scheduling on the next major train line have been huge. Allowing, among other things, the nice selection of fresh produce in every cheap-ass walmart in the country.
People don't realize how much logistics affect everything.
Isnt that just a cool word for "wasting more tax payers dollars?"
>Trouble is...when exactly did taxes evolve to become a method for the government to influence citizen behavior??
Before the beginning: Remember the Tea Tax that caused the famious tea party which has now been hijacked by the clueless?
Import and Export taxes used to help nations, now its "protectionism" and anti-free trade to do so-- they've existed forever, some for good reasons some for economic warfare. Now we have subsidies and other schemes we tend to favor in place of obvious import/export taxes. Local taxation has been used in similar ways since the invention of taxation.
It has always been about manipulating behavior; it can start out as revenue but it never stays that way and I doubt it can get out of a committee without that coming into discussion -- if you've been in committees you'd know it is nearly impossible for such things not to come up.
Flat taxation is impossible. Social Security is the closest we will ever get to that (and the rich still don't pay but its flat for the rest of us) and it has been under attack since day 1 to complicate and/or ruin it ever since-- not just for the profits/exploitation but also because of the potential POWER of complicated policies; like we have on everything else. You CANT remove the power that comes with tax policy its just way too tempting -- its also far more acceptable than policing people's behaviors (except drugs - for them we love Authoritarianism.)
Rule #1: assume the primary messages put out by any politician is a diversion.
Businesses are trying to tell you how to live your life; more often they are manipulating your life--- if not just shortening your life without you knowing it. Since the 70s businesses have had think tanks suckering people like you into fighting for them and against yourself. It is a conspiracy and it has billions of dollars making up the slogans you are born and raised with which may have hints of truth but whose purpose is not in your best interest. Bacon with eggs was created by the pig lobby which had a surplus at the time... so now the two foods are intertwined traditionally not for any good reason other than some marketing guy thought of it.
Child credits are generally thought to be NICE for parents; that was the intention. But then it was complicated by extra things to go after minorities as well as the poor. Its not easy to fairly implement something on this issue that is simple, it has to be complex enough to make political manipulation easy.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Just because the Nissan Leaf, Chevy Volt and Tesla are being made doesn't mean that me and the rest of the country are going to spend, or even have the means, of buying a $35k, $50k or $100k car that doesn't perform as well in mileage, safety and environmental impact as say my Subara Forester which only cost me $20k.
For example, I actually got to go to a Nissan Leaf event and test drive one http://www.michaelghurston.com/2010/10/test-drive-the-nissan-leaf/ - the car had some cool features, but it has some serious impractical features that would cause my life to revolve around my car instead of my car being something to get me from point a to point b.
Ave Molech Setting
They stopped their helpful trade in program where the dealers had to buy back your old car, and now on top of that the money for going green with your car is drying up....what sort of incentive are they giving, none, so how about you just accept that people will change when they are good and ready ( or can afford it)
Seriously, for someone who looks so much the other way when it comes to corporate taxation, and fines for pollution, you should know that if we all went green and drove the best cars possible for no pollution, it would equal to about 2 days worth of the pollution we would save if we stopped all the refineries from spewing out the garbage they spew out...so really the volume of cars damaging the environment is nothing compared to what could be done with stricter laws against pollution for the big cos.
But more American children means more Americans. Why are you so unamerican?
clearly you're missing something. very few things are moved long distances
by truck these days. it costs too much. perishable items are a big exception.
the problem is that getting goods that last mile can be a real problem, and
it often makes sense to haul goods a couple of 100 miles by truck.
Really, that is only if you tow crap, are fully loaded, or have the big engine in it. The Toyota Tacoma (small one) with their smallest 4 banger engine in it, gets 21/25 mpg. Weigh it down with 500 pounds of sand bags, plus 5 people, and tow a trailer, then you get 12 around town. The only other way is if the car was broken and needed repaired.
3 kids should fit in a Volt just fine.
Maybe for a one parent family and only if one child is old enough to be able to sit in the front seat. They don't have a middle seat in the back.
No kidding! I like butchering people for fun, but then they told me I had to stop. I was like, wtf? It's something I like to do and they're telling me I can't anymore.
2010 Toyota Tacoma V6: 14 city 18 hwy
2010 Toyota Tacoma 4cyl: 17 city 22 hwy
2010 Chevrolet K1500 4WD V8: 15 city 21 hwy
Size doesn't seem to make a lot of difference in economy. The 4 cylinder mini isn't much better than the V8 full size, and the V6 mini is worse! The K1500 Hybrid is better than both Toyotas.
I'm not advocating either one. I think they all suck. I want a compact 4wd 4-cylinder diesel with a manual transmission. Delete all the stupid options and give me 30+mpg.
Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
No particular reason you can't run your logistics through a rail network, assuming (ahem) it is not run by assholes. Bad weather, and the rails can be somewhat more reliable (based on what keeps running up near Boston, when it snows badly).
Damage to a road is proportional (so I read) to the 4th power of per-wheel weight. Apparently (Michigan, what Google gave me) a truck can have 18,000 lbs per axle, or 4500lbs/wheel. Versus my car (Honda Civic), at about 600lbs/wheel. 7.5x the weight per wheel, or 3100x the road wear, per wheel, and the truck's got more wheels (not all of them loaded that much). For every dollar towards road construction or repair that I pay, a heavy truck should pay several thousand dollars. And it is true, there are cars out there much heavier than mine -- and they should also pay more. I see no reason why I should be subsidizing other people's lifestyle choices like this.
I'm unconvinced. There's lots of cars that get 40mpg, it's 280 miles to San Antonio. Round trip, 14 gallons of gas, costs $42 at $3, or $70 at $5. Cars need insurance and repairs, this is not going to break the bank.
It may be the case that you own some huge car that gets much worse gas mileage than that, but if you're so tight for money, why would you own such a huge car?
Because I am a bad, bad person, an evil man who thinks that our economic system should be sustainable. I am indeed going to Hell.
I'd consider Requiring at least a chauffeur's license and commercial insurance for vehicle over 2750 lbs or body on frame construction or reasonable equivalent and be done with it. You'd really kill them if you made commercial class vehicle park in the boonies of the Walmart parking lot and restricted them from the HOV lanes with out a CDL.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
to match?
Provide me w/ a chance to fold the solar cell garage into a home improvement loan and it becomes a lot more affordable, and having the solar cells eases the strain which charging so many electric vehicles would add to the electric grid.
William
Primarily because photovoltaic solar panels cost more to implement than the electricity they can be expected to produce over their entire lifespan in many, if not most, parts of the country. People tend to VASTLY overestimate the efficiency of solar power systems, in the real world they're very expensive and produce very little electricity.
Presumably you cut some regressive tax at the same time; this need not be at the expense of the poor.
Since one of them goes around with that chart that shows half of spending is military. Of course which ever one it is doesn't stress he's talking about discretionary spending which is part of the budget because it ruins the story line. If you do total government spending military, social security, and medicare are all about 20% each.
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
Maybe you missed the part where I complained about electric cars not having the range? So just ignore the money and focus on the fact that an electric car cannot drive from Dallas to San Antonio. Until one is invented that can, it's foolish to assume anyone in their right mind would buy one.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Some of us cant afford 5 dollar a gallon gas OR new cars. What about us?
One thing I notice is that things never move as fast as bureaucrats want/declare them to. If they do succeed magically it's because one of two things happened. First; questionable practices, lack of transparency, or lack of industry input occurred. Second, what came out is a pile of poo or is drastically under scope of what the dream was. If success happens, everyone pats each other on the back and doesn't ask how it happened. If things fail or arn't the success they were hoping for, then it just gets swept under the rug.
If you throw money at the problem, that doesn't always fix things. In the software industry you can't just pull a developer out of a hat and get 100% productivity immediately to solve a federal ambition because someone gave you some money. Governments have to bid for resources just like any utility does. If more utilities are asking for software that works and does what they need today in the field, that's what is going to happen. If the government pulls the trump card (FERC, NERC, NARUC, PUCs), then it hurts the industry as a hole because that time that was going into awesome software is now forced into federal compliance instead.
Funny - I got the data from the Toyota website. I guess I must be missing something, a 2x4 with 2.7 L V4, manual transmission got 21/25 according to the selections I saw.
For your purposes, no, an electric car would definitely require a lunch+charge stop. Twice :-). You also said that $5 gas would make the trip unaffordable, which is what did not make sense to me.
What doesn't quite make sense to me about the e-cars, is that they seem to require a Goldilocks commute. Too long, and the range becomes an issue. Too short, and you don't save enough gasoline to justify the incremental cost. And a commute shorter than five miles (mine is ten), depending on the weather and route, you can easily do on a bicycle, or a scooter, or a motorcycle -- these are all variously efficient, and generally cheaper than any of these cars. (And those of us who already bike to work often, are wondering where our big subsidy is.)
I can't believe the OP didn't take five seconds to google the federal budget to see just how far off his "..more of the budget than everything else combined." statement was.
I don't know if you are stupid or clueless about Texas. This type of rhetoric of taxing/penalizing SUV owners is what is fueling the Tea Party movement. Yes, if you have passed economics and civics in junior high school, you will see the Tea Party stuff is BS, but the whole movement is fueled on fear.
Telling people that the government is going to tax or take away people's pickup trucks is going to get more Tea Partiers in office by adding more combustibles to the fire. Already these morons own one part of Congress. Can you picture what they would do if they have control of Congress and the Oval Office? Do you want people in office whose sole reason for getting there is "we will undo the Democrats"?
http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/09eb7f4c973349f2
"This essay explain why luxury safer electric (or plug-in hybrid) cars should be free-to-the-user at the point of sale in the USA, and why this will reduce US taxes overall. Essentially, unsafe gasoline-powered automobiles in the USA pose a high cost on society (accidents, injuries, pollution, defense), and the costs of making better cars would pay for themselves and then some. This essay is an example of using post-scarcity ideology to understand the scarcity-oriented ideological assumptions in our society and how those outdated scarcity assumptions are costing our society in terms of creating and maintaining artificial scarcity. "
And that is even without considering the value of electric cars to balancing loads on a smart grid...
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
"There's absolutely no good reason for trucks to have to transport things long distances."
Asserted conclusions aren't proof.
Wake me when you can:
Drive a train all the places trucks can go, stop and start that train as conveniently while making multiple dropoffs and pickups, and CHANGE its itinerary as easily via dispatcher.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
That wouldn't fix the problem. The guy who is rich enough to have the 4x4 Escalade will just pay the luxury/SUV tax and still have it.
The point is not to eliminate them altogether, just to make them less attainable to the masses (who don't need them...need to give them incentive not to want one).
Those who can't really afford it, but buy them anyway (happens a lot here in Texas), will then be de-incentivized from buying one, which would be the point. I have no problem with people who are able AND willing to pay a premium from owning premium vehicles and enjoying them. It's the hoard of lower class people who live month-to-month because their Suburban payment is higher than their house (or trailer) payment. Make gas more expensive so it puts this sort of vehicle out of reach of common guy. Even some of the more sensible middle and upper middle class people may catch on and grab a Volvo wagon or something more responsible (even though they can afford the SUV).
SUVs should be the exception, not the norm.
Or maybe they have a disabled spouse like me. Her power wheelchair literally won't fit in most cars - it's either an SUV or a van. Before you suggest "exemption for vehicles with handicap stickers", it's illegal to drive with them in place (not that that stops a lot of people). We're not rich enough to afford two separate vehicles (one for commuting, one for transporting her) so yes, we have an SUV (albeit a smaller one)
tax the crap out of unweildy SUVs and trucks
Yes, because your lifestyle doesn't require one, so clearly no one else's does either.
Ever tried to tow a boat with your Honda Fit? A camper? Haul firewood? Lumber for a home project? Ride offroad on a hunting trip?
You know, suddenly on Wednesday night when I was towing idiot car drivers up snowy hills they weren't bitching about how much diesel my F-250 was consuming to do it, or how "unweildy" it was.
You mean you still have equity to get a loan against?
~X~
Add a hydrogen tank to your car and just introduce H2 into the air intake. Simple, low tech. It's a suplement to traditional fossil fuels, not a replacement. Run out of H2? The car just continues on gasoline.
That's an illegal engine mod if it was made after 1975. $100,000 in EPA certification costs are coming your way if it was made after 1975.
Adding H2 to a conventional car would be really cheap, but the problem is always the tanks. Hydrogen is PITA and the tanks are huge and expensive. Plus, you'll need a lot of power - likely 4-5 times as much as for an electric car, so it offsets the costs. Looking at the near term "no breakthrough" options, it looks like a car powered by batteries and biodiesel generators is a winner.
Responsibility is an addiction
Virtue is a temptation
Community is a cartel
If our electricity is generated by giant diesel engines, then would we not be consuming just as much (more?) petroleum fuel?
If they poured all that money into rails, you would be stuck on the rail road's schedule, the rail roads's trains, the rail road's desinations, etc, etc
Most Americans would respond to the return to that kind of control over our lives with a hearty "Go Fuck Yourself" rather than being stuck in public transporation.
The rail system is just fine for non-prioirty large bulk cargo, it just so happens to suck, and always has, for just about everything else.
Yet, the software engineers I work with drive their F-250s to work. Because of all that hunting they do, I suppose. Or, we live in Texas, so a big dumb truck that they don't need is a status symbol, and the norm, instead of the exception for people like you who actually need a truck.
I drove a VW pickup growing up (and yes we towed a 16' ski boat with it!). It doesn't snow in Austin, so I'm not sure how many snowy hill tows we get around here either.
And my wife's vehicle is a Ford Ranger. Does everything (but tow bigger trucks up snowy hills) you claim is so important, minus the big dumbness.
Posting AC because I modded in this thread. Careful what you wish for. There are a lot of people who wish gas prices would go up. The problem is that it would result in inflation, and even worse, lack of buying power.
Take the Suburban analogy:
In the mid 1990s, average graduating salary was about 35-40k/year. A Suburban ran about $30,000 back then.
These days, the average graduating salary is about $40k/year, which isn't much more than it was almost 1-2 decades ago. The same Suburban has almost doubled in price.
Gas prices going up would mean prices on everything we eat, consume, use, and abuse going up. Without the increase in salary to cover these goodies. So, if gas prices hit $10 a gallon, the iPhone that costs $299 with a 2 year contract now may end up costing $600 to $1000 with ease.
Of course, people will say that making people not buy toys is a good thing, but what happens if people have no disposable income and have to choose between eating or paying the rent each month? They don't buy, and if they are not buying, businesses are not getting customers.
Yes, I know and empathize with the people with subcompacts who hate looking at the never used tow ball that is eye-level on a SUV ahead. However, gas prices and additional regulations like CAFE are not the answer. In fact, the Tea Party's only reason why they swept the elections is because people fear government regulation, even though in reality the fears are completely unfounded.
Want to get SUVs off the road? Get the press to deem them not cool. As of now, the press pushes the perception that minivans and station wagons are for the elderly people with the turn signal on in the left lane going 20 below the speed limit, while SUVs are for people who want something that is mean and tough.
I'd like to see things go back to the pre-90s, where SUVs were more of a fringe item -- there were no manly stereotypes about them, and people sometimes would scratch their heads and wonder why someone wanted a vehicle that was slow and awkward to handle compared to a car. However, back then, those vehicles were sold as utility vehicles for hauling cows from the farm to the rendering plant, not rolling safes, or pecker extensions.
>This.
Ah, "this". The 2011 equivalent of "me too".
One in 300 people will have an electric car in 4 years. Way to set really admirable goals. LOL Seriously, we should have electric cars NOW, and they should be CHEAP. End retarded copyright and patent laws. I'll build you a cheap reliable and FAST electric car tomorrow.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
You mean we're going to buy 1m more German and Japanese cars?
You are missing my point. Which is fair, I suppose, since it wasn't particularly well made. (Nor will this be, TBH.)
My point is that there are perfectly valid reasons for someone to own large trucks. Heck, a Ranger isn't exactly tiny either, why is it acceptable for you to own one of those, but people with larger trucks or SUVs have them purely as a status symbol?
I'll grant you in certain communities (like Texas, apparently) that is the case among a significant population of large vehicle owners. Absolutely. Few people roll their eyes more than I do at the idiots driving their chromed-out Hummers. (And few laughed more at them than I when the gas prices skyrocketed back in 2005). And you're absolutely right that they aren't necessarily safer, and in some ways much less safe.
But your post is yet another of the "tax things I don't like, because if *I* don't need them, clearly other people don't." I'll make the same statement I make in my day job, when people suggest stupid IT security policies: Just because it doesn't affect not YOUR use case, doesn't mean it won't affect someone else's.
Further, the purpose of taxes should not be changing people's behavior, but instead to secure revenue to operate the government.
(And no, a Ranger doesn't cut it in every situation. I've driven my dad's quite often, and when towing his relatively little Ford 1210 tractor, I don't exactly feel safe. The bed of a Ranger is small, in the firewood case you're doubling the number of trips you'd take with it.)
Personally, I'm hoping electrics work out well. I'm going to try to keep the Eclipse going until '12 or '13, and see what they're looking like at that point. At least by then there should be a decent number of fuel efficient used cars on the lots as folks abandon them for electrics. I hope.
Why stick with the old way of thinking about energy? Other countries don't procrastinate. It's time to end technological complacency.
Just take a look at these Romanian made long range electric vehicles on sale here, in the United States:
http://www.envisionmotorcompany.com/
(electrolysis efficiency) * (combustion efficiency) = 25% (tops for anything reasonably cheap) * 10% (realistically) = 2.5%.
That's pure crap. Not to mention storage issues (read expense) and engine maintenance issues (read more expense), and engine tuning issues (the issue being none such is being done), leading to efficiency issues (read even more expense). Not practical, in any way, in the least.
Nor are fuel cells, crappy energy density, crappy efficiency and high maintenance for small installations, even just the batteries required for making such a car would make the fuel cells pointless - might as well make it a flex fuel (turbine?) hybrid, or pure electric.
I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
Seconded - anybody try to apply free market principles to the work market - high unemployment means low demand and high supply - short of genocide, stopping reproduction subsidies would actually improve the economy and the average life quality.
I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
Get a decent electric vehicle. Or a generator trailer. Or rent a fucking car.
I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
Well to be fair, you haven't seen the entirety of my comments in this story. Elsewhere I've made it abundantly clear that people who actually need a large pickup truck should be exempt from any sort of hypothetical taxation. My point being, most people who drive large trucks don't actually need one.
Amazingly, every country in Western Europe gets by just fine without large trucks and SUVs. I lived in England and Germany. A Ford Transit panel van works for 99% of tasks.
I'm not for taxing what *I* don't need. I'm for taxing what should be discouraged (frivolously large vehicles when not needed for one's livelihood), and for taxing things other people (including myself) don't need. I think history shows that taxes are used to encourage and discourage specific behaviors that are deemed good or bad for society. The belief taxes are used purely for revenue generation is like saying prisons are purely for punishing the guilty (and not to keep dangerous people out of society, for example). It's one thing to say how you think taxes *should* be used, but in reality, they are used to influence behavior.
Speaking of trucks, I wonder if any of them will be interested in dropping a monster electric motor in there, if not for the efficiency, for the torque numbers alone. The Volt is a 150hp motor that turns something like 270 ft/lb of torque. I could only imagine what an electric equivalent of one of those giant truck (gas) engines could manage for towing capacity.
Lets to to where we use taxation ONLY to fund the govt, and lets get the govt out of the business of trying to tell me how to live and run my life!
Nothing more than a contemporary Republican soundbite.
The very fact that government exists means that the group of citizens around you (i.e., the government) are making collective decisions, which in turn means they're telling you "how to live and run your life." To clarify, *you* are also a part of the government, telling others how to live their life. The real question has nothing to do with your soundbite, but is: where do we draw the line on what roles the government must play.
*Think* before you keep hawking these soundbites. Or is that too much to ask of you?
Simple. About $300 billion a year is spent preparing tax tax returns. Simplify the tax system to eliminate that cost, raise taxes slightly so that the government now gets some of that money, and let the tax payers keep the rest. The government gets more money, and the tax payer gets to keep more of theirs.
Trouble is...when exactly did taxes evolve to become a method for the government to influence citizen behavior??
Ever since it was observed that people try to avoid taxes. It's been a while.
In the case of a fuel tax though, it can be considered as internalizing an externality or two.
Funny. Obama has been in office two years, and most of the things hes stuck funding are legacy items that are required to be funded by law. Another big chunk was the bailout, which wasn't exactly optional being a last-moment action of Bush the Lesser et al. and a direct feature of the G.W. leadership in gutting all forms of financial regulation.
Then there was the whole Republican Filibuster Rampage for two years to prevent any meaningful action by the government to undo the G.W. era "tax cuts" ensuring that the whole Republican Borrow and Spend *ahem* fiscal responsibility *ahem* was the only way to keep the government open and functioning.
I also must mention the war in Iraq, which had _nothing_ to do with anything regarding terrorism or valid international policy. Bush, having made a horrific financial boondoggle out of our entire economy under the waving banner of terrorism, where Iraq had _nothing_ to do with international terrorism, we rational analysts can not fairly lay that ongoing cost at Obama's feet. Sure we want out of Iraq, but we do have a moral responsibility to clean up as much of the spilled milk as possible before we go. Plus see the RFR mentioned above for exacerbating contributions to these issues.
Yes, your approbation of Obama, who meanwhile has met something like 84% of his election promises in the first two years of office and largely repaired our international reputation, is a tad misplaced. Perhaps even "convenient self deception" is involved here when you point at the last two years and bemoan the inability of the current administration to undo eight years of legislative, fiscal, and social damage done by the previous administration.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
I used to live near DC. A presidential motorcade involves snarling the city to a freaking stop sometimes for hours. People stuck in their cars. Motorcycle cops blocking intersections. Fleet of cars. Random circuitous routes. I think direct point-to-point transport in Marine 1 is probably a _huge_ carbon footprint win.
Now how about moving the President in a commercial jet? His security staff and regular staff, and the news outlets that invariably pursue would use up a non-trivial number of the seats (like all of them). If any were left over, would you want to go through the screening to join that flight? And they would have to strip-search the planes for bombs. And don't get me started international flight delays when, say, most or all of the terminals for whichever airports he passed through would be traumatized. I'm pretty sure that Airforce 1 isn't much of a waste in carbon or money or time once you look at the whole picture.
Course he could drive cross country in that motorcade. Yea, that would be interesting. With armed military escort vehicles and disruptions of every city and township passed through or worse, stopped within.
If we lived in a world where the President could hop into a Ford Festia and just drive off safe in his person, then sure the Presidential aircraft would be wasteful.
We don't live in that world.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
...The construction costs get spent here (gee, spend stimulus dollars on something productive, instead of a bunch of "roads and bridges to nowhere"), and then, we can run our electric cars on the nuclear electricity instead of sending billions overseas for imported oil.
We're talking about whether you could put a solar installation on a house. If you have a roof, you have space. Cars parking on the street have nothing whatsoever to do with it. The rest of your post is pretty much gibberish. The fact is that some fairly large percentage of houses in the US could accommodate a solar PV installation.