anyone think that the oil companies might have something to do with this not being adopted on a larger scale?
No, actually. I have a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering and I've worked in powertrain research at a major OEM for 10 years and I can say I've never felt the influence of the oil companies (only met an oil company person once and he was a geek like me). I'm sure the oil/energy companies have a big influence in government, but they are not suppressing innovation. So what is? Well, here is a partial list...
First, the headline is silly. Any reasonable consideration of environmental impact must take into account what is called the "wells-to-wheels" analysis. You need to consider all the energy conversion costs. In addition, you have to recognize all the various tradeoffs between polution at each conversion point, overall efficiency, environmental policy, etc. Any analysis that doesn't show the complete picture is just plain out of context.
Infrastructure is another big concern. If the oil companies have an impact, this is where it is (although this is beyond the scope of the original slashdot article). Sure, nuclear power is efficient and the "wells-to-wheels" analysis might look good but pure EVs don't have the range for most consumers so you need some kind of fuel. Maybe hydrogen is the answer, but what about the costs and environmental impact of refining it? And then there are the safety issues (hydrogen is much more volatile than gasoline, requires much less ignition energy and it burns in a colorless flame...think about that the next time you see the evaporative emmissions coming out while filling your gas tank).
I've worked on many advanced powertrain concepts (include HEVs) and I can tell you what the number one factor is...cost. Hands down, across the board this is what keeps innovations out of vehicles. This group added a battery. Do you know what a battery for an HEV costs!?! Not to mention the environmental impact that disposal has.
Unfortunately, the way the original article was presented was misleading in several ways. First, you need to account for all the energy and you need to account for all the costs in the vehicle itself. Let's look at the original article for what it was...somebody trying to build a more fuel efficient car by changing some of the design decisions made by the original engineers. That's great. But don't be fooled into thinking that this is a universal solution.
Sorry, but there are no silver bullets. It may be tempting to imagine that "the truth is out there" and that oil companies are keeping automotive technologies "in check" for their own purposes, but I can tell you honestly from being at the front line this just isn't the case.
Now, are automative companies doing everything they can? No. They are quite conservative and driven almost entirely by government regulation and consumer demand. But there are sincere, environmentally minded people working on these problems. Please don't insult their integrity by implying they are not interested or motivated to improve the situation.
You want more fuel efficient cars?...you have to pay for them. Go out and buy a hybrid and/or ask your representative to support increasing gas taxes. That will change the balance equation and make the business case much clearer for those environmentally-minded engineers already working on these problems.
They shouldn't and I did not say otherwise. You are putting words in my mouth here in the way you quoted my statement. I said "intellectual property rights" and preservation of intellectual property rights does not imply a copyright monopoly.
As I said in my original post, I am concerned about the government not looking out for the interests of its citizens. The copyright situation is exactly the kind of thing I was referring to. I am not disputing that the citizens are being denied something that is owed to them with respect to copyrights. I agree with you on this point. Furthermore, I also don't like the current software patent situation either.
The biggest problem in this whole discussion is that both sides seem to have pretty unreasonable positions and neither one has shown much willingness to understand what is required to find a solution.
I am fascinated by this particular topic and I think it will be interesting to see how it plays out. To me, it reminds me of the old "irresistible force meets an immovable object" conundrum. The market forces here are pretty close to irresistible. The record and movie companies certainly seem to be immovable objects. My biggest concern is the government's role in this and the fact they seem strongly biased toward business instead the citizens themselves.
Tim O'Reilly had a great quote in a podcast I was listening to the other day. To paraphrase, what he said was "The internet grew into the worlds best record store. It had everything!...except a cash register. You couldn't even pay if you wanted to. Meanwhile, the record companies are sitting on the side saying 'These people are robbing us blind!'."
Personally, I don't really mind DRM as long as it lets me do what I want to do. I don't like iTunes because it tries to force me into certain hardware. Ironically, Windows Media isn't so bad for me because it works with my player. The winning business model will recognize this.
It is strange being in the center on this topic because so few people are. Mainstream consumers are shocked when I tell them I've used hymn on my iTunes music (they will understand someday when they finally feel the pinch). On the other hand, I'm not willing to deny businesses their rights to their intellectual property. They just can't expect to keep a stranglehold on the distribution mechanism...those days are long gone.
Slashdot Mirror
anyone think that the oil companies might have something to do with this not being adopted on a larger scale?
No, actually. I have a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering and I've worked in powertrain research at a major OEM for 10 years and I can say I've never felt the influence of the oil companies (only met an oil company person once and he was a geek like me). I'm sure the oil/energy companies have a big influence in government, but they are not suppressing innovation. So what is? Well, here is a partial list...
Unfortunately, the way the original article was presented was misleading in several ways. First, you need to account for all the energy and you need to account for all the costs in the vehicle itself. Let's look at the original article for what it was...somebody trying to build a more fuel efficient car by changing some of the design decisions made by the original engineers. That's great. But don't be fooled into thinking that this is a universal solution.
Sorry, but there are no silver bullets. It may be tempting to imagine that "the truth is out there" and that oil companies are keeping automotive technologies "in check" for their own purposes, but I can tell you honestly from being at the front line this just isn't the case.
Now, are automative companies doing everything they can? No. They are quite conservative and driven almost entirely by government regulation and consumer demand. But there are sincere, environmentally minded people working on these problems. Please don't insult their integrity by implying they are not interested or motivated to improve the situation.
You want more fuel efficient cars?...you have to pay for them. Go out and buy a hybrid and/or ask your representative to support increasing gas taxes. That will change the balance equation and make the business case much clearer for those environmentally-minded engineers already working on these problems.
They shouldn't and I did not say otherwise. You are putting words in my mouth here in the way you quoted my statement. I said "intellectual property rights" and preservation of intellectual property rights does not imply a copyright monopoly.
As I said in my original post, I am concerned about the government not looking out for the interests of its citizens. The copyright situation is exactly the kind of thing I was referring to. I am not disputing that the citizens are being denied something that is owed to them with respect to copyrights. I agree with you on this point. Furthermore, I also don't like the current software patent situation either.
The biggest problem in this whole discussion is that both sides seem to have pretty unreasonable positions and neither one has shown much willingness to understand what is required to find a solution.
I am fascinated by this particular topic and I think it will be interesting to see how it plays out. To me, it reminds me of the old "irresistible force meets an immovable object" conundrum. The market forces here are pretty close to irresistible. The record and movie companies certainly seem to be immovable objects. My biggest concern is the government's role in this and the fact they seem strongly biased toward business instead the citizens themselves.
Tim O'Reilly had a great quote in a podcast I was listening to the other day. To paraphrase, what he said was "The internet grew into the worlds best record store. It had everything!...except a cash register. You couldn't even pay if you wanted to. Meanwhile, the record companies are sitting on the side saying 'These people are robbing us blind!'."
Personally, I don't really mind DRM as long as it lets me do what I want to do. I don't like iTunes because it tries to force me into certain hardware. Ironically, Windows Media isn't so bad for me because it works with my player. The winning business model will recognize this.
It is strange being in the center on this topic because so few people are. Mainstream consumers are shocked when I tell them I've used hymn on my iTunes music (they will understand someday when they finally feel the pinch). On the other hand, I'm not willing to deny businesses their rights to their intellectual property. They just can't expect to keep a stranglehold on the distribution mechanism...those days are long gone.
It is an interesting age we live in.