Why the hybrid car racket will fail.

[Igor The Terrible]

Stagnant wages. Income gap. Worthless dollar. All the above....take
your pick. However, the bottom line is you are looking at a very thin
market. The new high mileage hybrids will be well out of the reach of
the Wal-Mart/McDonald plant workers. When you consider they will cost
roughly $9,000.00 more than their gasoline powered counterparts that
they can't even think of owning, where is the market.

Now for those with more dollars and sense, what do you think they are
going to be worth after you have owned them for a few years and the
batteries will need replacing? Your depreciation is going to wipe out
any savings that you thought you might have
realized.

So get used to driving your gas hog--unless, of course, you can build
your own fuel efficient vehicle.

It is an absolute shame when the top 5% won't buy 95% of the goods and
services in their own country.

Let the war among businesses for the fight over market tablescraps
begin. ;-)



http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=5911409&ch=4226724&src=news

[Gooserider]

Post by Igor The Terrible
Stagnant wages. Income gap. Worthless dollar. All the above....take
your pick. However, the bottom line is you are looking at a very thin
market. The new high mileage hybrids will be well out of the reach of
the Wal-Mart/McDonald plant workers. When you consider they will cost
roughly $9,000.00 more than their gasoline powered counterparts that
they can't even think of owning, where is the market.
Now for those with more dollars and sense, what do you think they are
going to be worth after you have owned them for a few years and the
batteries will need replacing? Your depreciation is going to wipe out
any savings that you thought you might have
realized.
So get used to driving your gas hog--unless, of course, you can build
your own fuel efficient vehicle.
It is an absolute shame when the top 5% won't buy 95% of the goods and
services in their own country.
Let the war among businesses for the fight over market tablescraps
begin. ;-)

Hybrids as they are now do not deliver on the promise. It is possible to get
mileage in the 40s with a conventional gasoline engine. Volkswagen gets
better mileage than that with their diesels. Hybridizing a Suburban isn't
going to improve anything.

[Steven L.]

Post by Gooserider

Post by Igor The Terrible
Stagnant wages. Income gap. Worthless dollar. All the above....take
your pick. However, the bottom line is you are looking at a very thin
market. The new high mileage hybrids will be well out of the reach of
the Wal-Mart/McDonald plant workers. When you consider they will cost
roughly $9,000.00 more than their gasoline powered counterparts that
they can't even think of owning, where is the market.
Now for those with more dollars and sense, what do you think they are
going to be worth after you have owned them for a few years and the
batteries will need replacing? Your depreciation is going to wipe out
any savings that you thought you might have
realized.

Yep, Consumer Reports did a study on that just last year. They found
that when depreciation is factored in, the fuel cost saving from buying
a hybrid never pays for itself over the ownership of the car.

Post by Gooserider

Post by Igor The Terrible
So get used to driving your gas hog--unless, of course, you can build
your own fuel efficient vehicle.
It is an absolute shame when the top 5% won't buy 95% of the goods and
services in their own country.

FYI, many Honda and Toyota autos are built right here in the U.S. by
American workers. Honda operates a huge factory in Ohio. Toyota's
announced goal is to have all Toyota cars sold in the U.S. to be built
in the U.S. by American workers.

Post by Gooserider

Post by Igor The Terrible
Let the war among businesses for the fight over market tablescraps
begin. ;-)

Hybrids as they are now do not deliver on the promise. It is possible to get
mileage in the 40s with a conventional gasoline engine. Volkswagen gets
better mileage than that with their diesels. Hybridizing a Suburban isn't
going to improve anything.

Agreed.
I own a gasoline-powered Honda Civic coupe, and it's hardly a "gas hog."
It gets great mileage, and depreciates relatively slowly too.

[Igor The Terrible]

Post by Steven L.
FYI, many Honda and Toyota autos are built right here in the U.S. by
American workers.  Honda operates a huge factory in Ohio.  Toyota's
announced goal is to have all Toyota cars sold in the U.S. to be built
in the U.S. by American workers.

Honda and Toyota make great cars and yep, Nissan has a plant in
Canton, MS that employees Americans as well. Hey, I don't have a
problem trading with countries who are on a level playing field with
us--be it Japan, Germany, S. Korea, etc.... But, to nation build a
country that has nearly 7x the population we do, is approaching the
point where they will have as many engineers as our entire population,
giving them most favored nation status while they were robbing us
blind of our cutting edge technology and reverse engineering it,
etc... Fuck, why didn't we just go the fuck over there, build our own
gallows, supply our own rope and sandbags and hang ourselves? What
were we thinking? It goes to show what the last three presidents of
this country were made of...outside them being the absolute lowest
common denominator among Yale scum. What a fucking embarrassment!
Just when you thought we couldn't possibly elect a bigger goddamned
idiot into office, lo and behold to what gets inaugurated the
following term.......after term.......after term........after
term...........after term.........

[z]

Post by Gooserider

Stagnant wages.  Income gap.  Worthless dollar.  All the above....take
your pick.  However, the bottom line is you are looking at a very thin
market.  The new high mileage hybrids will be well out of the reach of
the Wal-Mart/McDonald plant workers.  When you consider they will cost
roughly $9,000.00 more than their gasoline powered counterparts that
they can't even think of owning, where is the market.
Now for those with more dollars and sense, what do you think they are
going to be worth after you have owned them for a few years and the
batteries will need replacing?  Your depreciation is going to wipe out
any savings that you thought you might have
realized.
So get used to driving your gas hog--unless, of course, you can build
your own fuel efficient vehicle.
It is an absolute shame when the top 5% won't buy 95% of the goods and
services in their own country.
Let the war among businesses for the fight over market tablescraps
begin.  ;-)

Hybrids as they are now do not deliver on the promise. It is possible to get
mileage in the 40s with a conventional gasoline engine. Volkswagen gets
better mileage than that with their diesels. Hybridizing a Suburban isn't
going to improve anything

last time I looked (which was in 2008) only the Prius and Civic Hybrid
of the currently marketed hybrids got better mileage than the new
Mini. You just can't beat light weight.

[Steven L.]

Post by z

Post by Gooserider

Post by Igor The Terrible
Stagnant wages. Income gap. Worthless dollar. All the above....take
your pick. However, the bottom line is you are looking at a very thin
market. The new high mileage hybrids will be well out of the reach of
the Wal-Mart/McDonald plant workers. When you consider they will cost
roughly $9,000.00 more than their gasoline powered counterparts that
they can't even think of owning, where is the market.
Now for those with more dollars and sense, what do you think they are
going to be worth after you have owned them for a few years and the
batteries will need replacing? Your depreciation is going to wipe out
any savings that you thought you might have
realized.
So get used to driving your gas hog--unless, of course, you can build
your own fuel efficient vehicle.
It is an absolute shame when the top 5% won't buy 95% of the goods and
services in their own country.
Let the war among businesses for the fight over market tablescraps
begin. ;-)

Hybrids as they are now do not deliver on the promise. It is possible to get
mileage in the 40s with a conventional gasoline engine. Volkswagen gets
better mileage than that with their diesels. Hybridizing a Suburban isn't
going to improve anything

last time I looked (which was in 2008) only the Prius and Civic Hybrid
of the currently marketed hybrids got better mileage than the new
Mini. You just can't beat light weight.

That's true, but Detroit pushes the biggest vehicles because they
command the highest profit margins. That's where their advertising
budget goes. Ford spends much more money advertising their F-150 than
their Focus.

So what Detroit is demanding, is to be left alone to build huge SUVs and
trucks, while futzing around with hybrid engines to try to squeeze a few
more miles per gallon out of them.

The fundamental problem is the mix of vehicles that Detroit sells.

[V]

On Jan 11, 8:51�pm, Igor The Terrible

Stagnant wages. �Income gap. �Worthless dollar. �All the above....take
your pick. �However, the bottom line is you are looking at a very thin
market. �The new high mileage hybrids will be well out of the reach of
the Wal-Mart/McDonald plant workers. �When you consider they will cost
roughly $9,000.00 more than their gasoline powered counterparts that
they can't even think of owning, where is the market.
Now for those with more dollars and sense, what do you think they are
going to be worth after you have owned them for a few years and the
batteries will need replacing? �Your depreciation is going to wipe out
any savings that you thought you might have
realized.
So get used to driving your gas hog--unless, of course, you can build
your own fuel efficient vehicle.
It is an absolute shame when the top 5% won't buy 95% of the goods and
services in their own country.
Let the war among businesses for the fight over market tablescraps
begin. �;-)
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=5911409&c...

Good points.

I looked at an electric MX motorcycle and they wanted $10,000 for it.
A gas powered one of higher quality costs only $5500.

Really they will need plug in hybrid cars to get 125+ MPG just to 'run
in place' as our gas prices will be skyrocketing in the near future
with increasing worldwide fossil fuel demands....40 - 50 MPG will go
nowhere in the upcoming years.

The scary thing is CHINDIA is just starting to bloom with their
demands for fossil fuels We haven't seen anything yet with the
meteoric rise of gas, energy and over consumption.

In China the per capita car ownership rate is 40 car owners per 1000
persons. In India it is much lower, running 8 cars per 1000 people. As
these two giants evolve more of their population will want cars...in
India, they have made a $2500 car as well.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/05/percapita_car_o.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20394364/

I think our countries future will be that of...'America...a
Democratic, Communist Nation Under God.'

Life as we know it in America is coming to an end in the not so
distant future.

And maybe I am using the wrong word with communism?

Maybe it should be Nationalism? Socialism? I don't know since I have
little interest in politics.

As far for what I means, it could be compared somewhat to Plato's
Republic. Where the republic came first and people came second.

But with the US, the injection of Democratic values as well as a
spiritual foundation that supports our country from its earliest
beginnings would 'hopefully' separate us from the atheist based
communists that have been run as dictatorships.

Am I as Christian zealot?

No, I am an agnostic freethinker.

As for why I have come up with such a bold statement as 'America...a
Democratic, Communist Nation Under God?'

See these DVD's

1940's House PBS (albeit our enemy is not Germany...it is energy) And
witness something along the lines of a 'Democratic, Communist Nation
Under God.'

http://www.amazon.com/1940s-House-Marguerite-Patten/dp/B0000AYL47

A Crude Awakening
http://www.oilcrashmovie.com/

End of Suburbia
http://www.endofsuburbia.com/

Oil Apocalypse
http://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id=108290


See these books:

http://www.amazon.com/Out-Gas-End-Age-Oil/dp/0393058573

http://www.amazon.com/Hubberts-Peak-Impending-World-Shortage/dp/0691116253

http://www.lastoilshock.com/


...put it all together and you have 'America...a Democratic, Communist
Nation Under God.' as the 'best fit ' equation.

And for dessert...add 'politics as usual'

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F

And we can see nothing substantive will or can be done in the US to
fix our woes.

BTW, do I like communism?

No, not really, I like things EXACTLY as they are. I like being an
energy whore and sucking down the crude just as you do. I like running
my dirt bikes, jet skis, RV and driving my car.

But what I like doesn't matter...neither does what you like matter.

What does matter is 'what our country likes' or more appropriately
'needs' in order to survive.

If we look at the root of communism it is that of the commune-ist. The
hippy communes and the Israeli Kibbutz's and the modern day survival
devotees that plan to buy some land and develop a 'survival community'
to live of the land all share in the same commune-ist dream.

But the point is not to persuade you to be a communist, but to foster
a realization that for the US to survive, we must put 'what matters to
our country' on the front burner...and as our country survives...so do
we survive.

Alan Watts used to say, it doesn't matter what you think, it doesn't
matter what you like, it doesn't matter what you hope for...all that
really matters is what IS.

Sure we keep our treasured paper money, our guns, and what have you.

Guns are a populations last line of defense.

Look at Afghanistan...they beat Russia and the US is still having
trouble with 'the people' there....all because of an armed
population.

BTW, whenever I think of the Afghanis I think back to the poem.

"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains.
And go to your Gawd like a soldier" ~ Kipling

So NEVER, NEVER give up your guns...for when the guns go, so does your
freedom. Guns are the foundation of freedom.

Money??

Well, money will not be worth much anyway. Money is nothing more than
stored energy. But since the crude dried up, the 'real energy' behind
the money has vanished...and so did private industry.

So, what is money good for nowadays...to wipe your ass?

Not really, the government supplied toilet paper works better than
that.

What about the coal mines? All government owned. If you want to eat
you work in the mines or where the gov places you...it is that
simple.

This is how our country can claim to be a 'communist democracy' We are
not a slave driven dictatorship, You still have 'some freedoms.' You
can work or not work as you please. But, don't expect a gov handout if
you do not want to contribute to the countries survival needs....and
as our country survives so do we survive.

Religion? Well, the atheists can still be atheists and the Christians,
Muslims and Jews can still worship as they like.

But the big difference in our government is; instead of the ego based
decisions that politicians and the titans of business get sucked into,
the politicians will put the long term US viability as top priority
over personal profit.

How do we accomplish this? I don't know, since politicians are
normally ego based, lying, power hungry individuals. But this is an
area that has to be perfected the best we can with accepting we deal
with imperfect humans.

If we look at the various powers the government has though executive
orders, we are pretty much there (a Democratic, Communist Nation Under
God.) without much effort.

Here are just a few of them...

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of
transportation and control of highways and seaports.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the
communication media.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 allows the government to take over all
electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to take over all food
resources and farms.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into
work brigades under government supervision.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001 allows the government to take over all health,
education and welfare functions.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a
national registration of all persons.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government to take over all airports
and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to
relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate
areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005 allows the government to take over railroads,
inland waterways and public storage facilities.

http://sonic.net/sentinel/gvcon5.html

What happened to all our individual freedoms with these executive
orders?

It was lost long ago in the deluded American dream that believes the
individual American can survive on their own. Without a strong
government you guys would be speaking Chinese or Russian. What
happened to the personal property of Iraq when the US took it down?
Ditto for your homes and McMansions if another country decided 'to
move' here.

You think it is political biz as usual in the US in the upcoming
election?

It makes little difference.

The world is in a death spiral and politicians as well as industry are
pretending this problem does not exist. No Politician can fix our
woes. the best we can do is to make the most of our dilemma.

We can only blame ourselves, for it is just how we have built our
world over the years....too many people, living outside of natures
intended balance and not an infinite supply of energy to fuel all our
demands.

So Dem or Rep...any politician in charge had better come to terms with
how things really are and not live in dream land...we are running out
of time as our fossil fuel supplies dwindle.

You know every country will not run out of crude all at once.

Without energy our country is open for takeover ... no jets...no
tanks...no transport on the ground or in the air. Luckily we will
still have nuclear powered submarines and aircraft carriers as long as
the uranium holds out. But the jets on the flattop all use jet fuel.
All the supplies for those subs and carriers petroleum dependent.

Other countries such as Russia that have a good supply of nationally
based crude may not be so kind to keep on selling it to us, We will
need a 'local and continual' source somewhat within our borders for
national security. You see, jet fuel as well as gasoline deteriorates
and cannot be stored indefinitely. So we must always be producing some
of it to replace the stale stuff to supply the military.

So long before the crude dries up the government must 'secure a
supply' of crude for it own needs. This is what is driving the North
American Union. This is why illegal aliens are pretty much free to do
what they wish in the US.

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

NAFTA came about as a way for the US to get its hands on the energy
output of Canada and Mexico. And part of that agreement (unwritten)
was to relax the law somewhat on the illegals coming from Mexico.

In short...if you want our crude you take some of our illegals

As our world changes and our drug supply dries up, things will only
get worse. And the bigger the city - the bigger the hellhole it will
become. And this time RIGHT NOW is the defining moment as to whether
most of our population will die off or not in the crisis that awaits
us in the not so distant future.

Besides crude oil, have you ever thought about how much of our life is
dependent on natural gas for cooking, heating and hot water?

How many of our homes are set up for efficient heating with natural
methods such as wood, pellet, passive solar?

My house is not.

I never gave this subject any thought until I learned about peak
natural gas. And by then it was too late.

My house is as far as it can be from the 'ideal house' that can be
heated my natural methods. And to make maters worse, I live in the NE
US, where it gets plenty cold.

Do you know that much of your life is dependent on natural gas
*outside* its use as an energy source?

Natural gas is a raw material in many of our products we depend on.

Almost all the helium we produce comes from natural gas.

Propane, synthetic fertilizers, ammonia?

They are totally dependent on natural gas.

Our population boom was fueled by synthetic fertilizers made from
natural; gas. Once the gas dries up so does the fertilizer and a
shortage of fertilizer equals a shortage of food.

Natural; gas is also used as an energy source to produce steel, glass,
paper, clothing, brick, electricity

We will run out of natural gas, just as we deplete our crude supplies
in the near future.

http://www.amazon.com/High-Noon-Natural-Gas-Energy/dp/1931498539

http://www.enotes.com/how-products-encyclopedia/natural-gas

http://www.ipm.iastate.edu/ipm/icm/2003/4-14-2003/natgasn.html

http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/non-renewable/naturalgas.html#WHATITISUSEDFOR

Many people just think of crude oil for gasoline production.

From this list we can see that we are still massively depend on crude
for our non sustainable lifestyle. There is no replacement for
crude...crude is in the details of our life.

So even if we all stop driving we will just be postponing the
inevitable that our artificial way of living is going to change in the
not so distant future.

A partial list of products made from Petroleum (144 of over 6000
items) One 42-gallon barrel of oil creates 19.4 gallons of gasoline.
The rest (over half) is used to make things like:

Solvents Diesel Motor Oil Bearing Grease
Ink Floor Wax Ballpoint Pens Football Cleats
Upholstery Sweaters Boats Insecticides
Bicycle Tires Sports Car Bodies Nail Polish Fishing lures
Dresses Tires Golf Bags Perfumes
Cassettes Dishwasher Tool Boxes Shoe Polish
Motorcycle Helmet Caulking Petroleum Jelly Transparent Tape
CD Player Faucet Washers Antiseptics Clothesline
Curtains Food Preservatives Basketballs Soap
Vitamin Capsules Antihistamines Purses Shoes
Dashboards Cortisone Deodorant Footballs
Putty Dyes Panty Hose Refrigerant
Percolators Life Jackets Rubbing Alcohol Linings
Skis TV Cabinets Shag Rugs Electrician's Tape
Tool Racks Car Battery Cases Epoxy Paint
Mops Slacks Insect Repellent Oil Filters
Umbrellas Yarn Fertilizers Hair Coloring
Roofing Toilet Seats Fishing Rods Lipstick
Denture Adhesive Linoleum Ice Cube Trays Synthetic Rubber
Speakers Plastic Wood Electric Blankets Glycerin
Tennis Rackets Rubber Cement Fishing Boots Dice
Nylon Rope Candles Trash Bags House Paint
Water Pipes Hand Lotion Roller Skates Surf Boards
Shampoo Wheels Paint Rollers Shower Curtains
Guitar Strings Luggage Aspirin Safety Glasses
Antifreeze Football Helmets Awnings Eyeglasses
Clothes Toothbrushes Ice Chests Footballs
Combs CD's Paint Brushes Detergents
Vaporizers Balloons Sun Glasses Tents
Heart Valves Crayons Parachutes Telephones
Enamel Pillows Dishes Cameras
Anesthetics Artificial Turf Artificial limbs Bandages
Dentures Model Cars Folding Doors Hair Curlers
Cold cream Movie film Soft Contact lenses Drinking Cups
Fan Belts Car Enamel Shaving Cream Ammonia
Refrigerators Golf Balls Toothpaste Gasoline

Americans consume petroleum products at a rate of three-and-a-half
gallons of oil and more than 250 cubic feet of natural gas per day
each!

http://www.beloit.edu/~SEPM/Geology_and_the_enviro/Petroleum_need.html

Realize this, throughout history many great nations that once were are
not around any longer.

Hopefully the US will understand this and start accepting the truth
that something has to give and it can't be business as usual.

Always remember, none of us will be ultimate survivors, we all have to
die one day. But the successful survivor extends his or her life
beyond an earlier death...a death that was caused by ignorance of how
to make that life last longer.

You still have some valuable time left to prepare for what awaits you
down the road.

We are in the 'Indian Summer' of a carbon based world. Don't wait
until the winter sets in to start work on your preparedness efforts.


Also see:

Beyond Civilization: humanity's next great adventure
by Quinn, Daniel

Beyond Oil: the view from Hubbert's Peak
by Deffeyes, Kenneth S.
http://www.princeton.edu/hubbert/

Bowling Alone: the collapse and revival of American community
by Putnam, Robert D.

Breathe No Evil
Safe-Tek Publishers

Collapse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_(book

The Coming Economic Collapse - how you can thrive when oil costs $200
a barrel
by Leeb, Stephen

Crossing the Rubicon: the decline of the American empire at the end of
the age of oil
by Ruppert, Michael C.

Dancing at Armageddon: Survivalism and Chaos in Modern Times
by Richard G. Mitchell Jr

The Long Emergency: surviving the converging catastrophes of the
twenty-first century
by Kunstler, James Howard

The Oil Depletion Protocol : a plan to avert oil wars, terrorism and
economic collapse
by Heinberg, Richard

Peak Oil Survival: preparation for life after gridcrash
by McBay, Aric

Powerdown: options and actions for a post-carbon world
by Heinberg, Richard

Resource Wars: the new landscape of global conflict
by Klare, Michael T
http://www.amazon.com/Resource-Wars-Landscape-Conflict-Introduction/dp/0805055762

A Thousand Barrels a Second: the coming oil break point and the
challenges facing an energy dependent world
by Tertzakian, Peter

Twilight in the Desert: the coming Saudi oil shock and the world
economy
by Simmons, Matthew R.

Zoom:the global race to fuel the car of the future
by Iain Carson and Vijay V. Vaitheeswaran.



Take care,


V (Male)

Agnostic Freethinker
Practical Philosopher
Futurist
Urban Homesteader
Agnostic minister of secular humanism to the mind-
manacled...spiritually sick...defiance based atheist.
AA#2

[Uncle Fairy Dust]

Post by V
On Jan 11, 8:51�pm, Igor The Terrible

Stagnant wages. �Income gap. �Worthless dollar. �All the above....take
your pick. �However, the bottom line is you are looking at a very thin
market. �The new high mileage hybrids will be well out of the reach of
the Wal-Mart/McDonald plant workers. �When you consider they will cost
roughly $9,000.00 more than their gasoline powered counterparts that
they can't even think of owning, where is the market.
Now for those with more dollars and sense, what do you think they are
going to be worth after you have owned them for a few years and the
batteries will need replacing? �Your depreciation is going to wipe out
any savings that you thought you might have
realized.
So get used to driving your gas hog--unless, of course, you can build
your own fuel efficient vehicle.
It is an absolute shame when the top 5% won't buy 95% of the goods and
services in their own country.
Let the war among businesses for the fight over market tablescraps
begin. �;-)
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=5911409&c...

Good points.
I looked at an electric MX motorcycle and they wanted $10,000 for it.
A gas powered one of higher quality costs only $5500.
Really they will need plug in hybrid cars to get 125+ MPG just to 'run
in place' as our gas prices will be skyrocketing in the near future
with increasing worldwide fossil fuel demands....40 - 50 MPG will go
nowhere in the upcoming years.

They could use bioethanol, but you drank it all.

Na zdrowie! Asshole.

[Bret Cahill]

We have two curves: the exponential increase in fuel costs vs the
asymptotic increase in fuel efficiency.

The most out-of-touch pathetic response yet to fuel costs is GM
spending the next 7 years developing an engine that gets 15% better
fuel economy when the cost of fuel goes up 30% every year.

We need to start electrifying everything now while we still have a
half way functional economy. Everything will have to come off the
grid sooner or later anyway.


Bret Cahill

Post by V

Stagnant wages. �Income gap. �Worthless dollar. �All the above....take
your pick. �However, the bottom line is you are looking at a very thin
market. �The new high mileage hybrids will be well out of the reach of
the Wal-Mart/McDonald plant workers. �When you consider they will cost
roughly $9,000.00 more than their gasoline powered counterparts that
they can't even think of owning, where is the market.
Now for those with more dollars and sense, what do you think they are
going to be worth after you have owned them for a few years and the
batteries will need replacing? �Your depreciation is going to wipe out
any savings that you thought you might have
realized.
So get used to driving your gas hog--unless, of course, you can build
your own fuel efficient vehicle.
It is an absolute shame when the top 5% won't buy 95% of the goods and
services in their own country.
Let the war among businesses for the fight over market tablescraps
begin. �;-)
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=5911409&c...

Good points.
I looked at an electric MX motorcycle and they wanted $10,000 for it.
A gas powered one of higher quality costs only $5500.
Really they will need plug in hybrid cars to get 125+ MPG just to 'run
in place' as our gas prices will be skyrocketing in the near future
with increasing worldwide fossil fuel demands....40 - 50 MPG will go
nowhere in the upcoming years.

[Jerry Okamura]

"Bret Cahill" <***@aol.com> wrote in message news:e4b2101f-478c-4363-812c-***@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
We have two curves: the exponential increase in fuel costs vs the
asymptotic increase in fuel efficiency.

The most out-of-touch pathetic response yet to fuel costs is GM
spending the next 7 years developing an engine that gets 15% better
fuel economy when the cost of fuel goes up 30% every year.

We need to start electrifying everything now while we still have a
half way functional economy. Everything will have to come off the
grid sooner or later anyway.


Bret Cahill


Why?

[Steven L.]

Post by Bret Cahill
We have two curves: the exponential increase in fuel costs vs the
asymptotic increase in fuel efficiency.
The most out-of-touch pathetic response yet to fuel costs is GM
spending the next 7 years developing an engine that gets 15% better
fuel economy when the cost of fuel goes up 30% every year.
We need to start electrifying everything now while we still have a
half way functional economy. Everything will have to come off the
grid sooner or later anyway.
Bret Cahill
Why?

Because even Honda and Toyota have been unable to develop batteries or
fuel cells that give enough cruising range before having to recharge
your car for 12 hours each time.

With gasoline-powered cars, you can drive for hundreds of miles between
fill-ups. And then when you do fill up, it takes only minutes (after
which you're on your way), rather than 12 hours as a battery recharger
would.

Recharging only makes sense at all for those who own a house with a
garage and can plug their car into their garage electric outlets for
recharging. If you live in an apartment building and park your car on
the street, sometimes a long way from your apartment, how you can
recharge it?

[phil scott]

Post by Steven L.

We have two curves:  the exponential increase in fuel costs vs the
asymptotic increase in fuel efficiency.
The most out-of-touch pathetic response yet to fuel costs is GM
spending the next 7 years developing an engine that gets 15% better
fuel economy when the cost of fuel goes up 30% every year.
We need to start electrifying everything now while we still have a
half way functional economy.  Everything will have to come off the
grid sooner or later anyway.
Bret Cahill
Why?

Because even Honda and Toyota have been unable to develop batteries or
fuel cells that give enough cruising range before having to recharge
your car for 12 hours each time.
With gasoline-powered cars, you can drive for hundreds of miles between
fill-ups.  And then when you do fill up, it takes only minutes (after
which you're on your way), rather than 12 hours as a battery recharger
would.
Recharging only makes sense at all for those who own a house with a
garage and can plug their car into their garage electric outlets for
recharging.  If you live in an apartment building and park your car on
the street, sometimes a long way from your apartment, how you can
recharge it?
--
Steven L.
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Fast charging batteries are common in those applications. by means
of many smaller cells, that charge on heavy amperage in parallel, in
contrast to what you may be used to, one big battery that takes all
day on a trickle charger....and better ones are on the way.

combined with a small gas engine and braking the regenerates the
batteries, the hybreds are quite competitive, some at 100mpg seen
driving around Petaluma calif for instance...with a local dealer
there, modified Honda I think.




Phil Scott

[Bret Cahill]

Post by Steven L.

We have two curves: �the exponential increase in fuel costs vs the
asymptotic increase in fuel efficiency.
The most out-of-touch pathetic response yet to fuel costs is GM
spending the next 7 years developing an engine that gets 15% better
fuel economy when the cost of fuel goes up 30% every year.
We need to start electrifying everything now while we still have a
half way functional economy. �Everything will have to come off the
grid sooner or later anyway.
Bret Cahill
Why?

Because even Honda and Toyota have been unable to develop batteries or
fuel cells that give enough cruising range before having to recharge
your car for 12 hours each time.
With gasoline-powered cars, you can drive for hundreds of miles between
fill-ups. �And then when you do fill up, it takes only minutes (after
which you're on your way), rather than 12 hours as a battery recharger
would.
Recharging only makes sense at all for those who own a house with a
garage and can plug their car into their garage electric outlets for
recharging. �If you live in an apartment building and park your car on
the street, sometimes a long way from your apartment, how you can
recharge it?

Run lines out to the curb. The plug stays in a water meter style box
during the day and at night, after you plug in, you flip a switch in a
lock box or from inside the apt.

The Sierra Club once wanted to "Manhattenize" the United States
because it is more green than the single family ranch house so we
definitely want to make electricity convenient.


Bret Cahill

[timeOday]

Post by Bret Cahill
We have two curves: the exponential increase in fuel costs vs the
asymptotic increase in fuel efficiency.
The most out-of-touch pathetic response yet to fuel costs is GM
spending the next 7 years developing an engine that gets 15% better
fuel economy when the cost of fuel goes up 30% every year.
We need to start electrifying everything now while we still have a
half way functional economy. Everything will have to come off the
grid sooner or later anyway.

I guess you have watched "Who Killed the Electric Car" too. After
watching that, I am convinced that GM is absolutely committed to
fighting and literally dying for the status quo. They are so backwards.
Even with the trillion dollar oil subsidy of the Iraq war they can't
turn a buck in the modern reality.

[Rick Brandt]

Post by timeOday
I guess you have watched "Who Killed the Electric Car" too. After
watching that, I am convinced that GM is absolutely committed to
fighting and literally dying for the status quo. They are so
backwards. Even with the trillion dollar oil subsidy of the Iraq war
they can't turn a buck in the modern reality.

Are you aware that GM is introducing a new all electric?

[BAM]

Post by Rick Brandt

Post by timeOday
I guess you have watched "Who Killed the Electric Car" too. After
watching that, I am convinced that GM is absolutely committed to
fighting and literally dying for the status quo. They are so
backwards. Even with the trillion dollar oil subsidy of the Iraq war
they can't turn a buck in the modern reality.

Are you aware that GM is introducing a new all electric?

How about the Tata Nano? $2,500 and 50 mpg.

Interest groups are already screaming that by making vehicles so cheap, it
will increase the number of persons that own cars, and pollution will
increase.

No-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-.................

It means that poor people will get rid of their old gas guzzling bombs, and
with a few hundred bucks can finance a new car, fuel efficient, with a $50 a
month finance payment.

BAM

[Denis Loubet]

"Bret Cahill" <***@aol.com> wrote in message news:e4b2101f-478c-4363-812c-***@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
We have two curves: the exponential increase in fuel costs vs the
asymptotic increase in fuel efficiency.

The most out-of-touch pathetic response yet to fuel costs is GM
spending the next 7 years developing an engine that gets 15% better
fuel economy when the cost of fuel goes up 30% every year.

We need to start electrifying everything now while we still have a
half way functional economy. Everything will have to come off the
grid sooner or later anyway.

================

What supplies the grid? Coal or Nuclear? Aren't both of those supposed to be
bad?

[Olrik]

Post by Bret Cahill
We have two curves: the exponential increase in fuel costs vs the
asymptotic increase in fuel efficiency.
The most out-of-touch pathetic response yet to fuel costs is GM
spending the next 7 years developing an engine that gets 15% better
fuel economy when the cost of fuel goes up 30% every year.
We need to start electrifying everything now while we still have a
half way functional economy. Everything will have to come off the
grid sooner or later anyway.
================
What supplies the grid? Coal or Nuclear? Aren't both of those supposed to be
bad?

Coal is bad, but nuclear is quite safe.

As for the grid, anything renewable can feed it : hydro, wind, solar,
waves, etc.

One day, everything on wheels will be powered by batteries. We'll keep
petrol for some plastics and other goods, and airplanes.

Olrik

Post by Bret Cahill
--
Denis Loubet

[Denis Loubet]

Post by Olrik

Post by Bret Cahill
We have two curves: the exponential increase in fuel costs vs the
asymptotic increase in fuel efficiency.
The most out-of-touch pathetic response yet to fuel costs is GM
spending the next 7 years developing an engine that gets 15% better
fuel economy when the cost of fuel goes up 30% every year.
We need to start electrifying everything now while we still have a
half way functional economy. Everything will have to come off the
grid sooner or later anyway.
================
What supplies the grid? Coal or Nuclear? Aren't both of those supposed to be
bad?

Coal is bad, but nuclear is quite safe.

Whoa! That's a turnaround! I thought nuclear was supposed to be the devil's
power source.

Have we found a way to safely eliminate the waste?

Post by Olrik
As for the grid, anything renewable can feed it : hydro, wind, solar,
waves, etc.

I suspect that won't be enough.

Post by Olrik
One day, everything on wheels will be powered by batteries. We'll keep
petrol for some plastics and other goods, and airplanes.

Batteries don't pop out of thin air, nor does the energy they contain. You
don't get something for nothing. You're paying for the energy you get from
the batteries in whatever waste product is produced by whatever power source
charges the batteries.

I don't see a solution to this problem. Fusion is proving to be an elusive
target, and would generate its own variety of radioactive waste. I've heard
that the renewable sources of power are orders of magnitude insufficent to
meet our needs. I have no idea what we're going to do.

If only reality were like Star Trek, we could reverse the transducer coil
and POOF! Free power!

[Bret Cahill]

Post by Denis Loubet

Post by Olrik

We have two curves: �the exponential increase in fuel costs vs the
asymptotic increase in fuel efficiency.
The most out-of-touch pathetic response yet to fuel costs is GM
spending the next 7 years developing an engine that gets 15% better
fuel economy when the cost of fuel goes up 30% every year.
We need to start electrifying everything now while we still have a
half way functional economy. �Everything will have to come off the
grid sooner or later anyway.
================
What supplies the grid? Coal or Nuclear? Aren't both of those supposed to be
bad?

Coal is bad, but nuclear is quite safe.

Whoa! That's a turnaround! I thought nuclear was supposed to be the devil's
power source.
Have we found a way to safely eliminate the waste?

Post by Olrik
As for the grid, anything renewable can feed it : hydro, wind, solar,
waves, etc.

I suspect that won't be enough.

We have no choice but to give it the ol' college try.


Bret Cahill

[Denis Loubet]

Post by Denis Loubet

Post by Olrik

We have two curves: ?the exponential increase in fuel costs vs the
asymptotic increase in fuel efficiency.
The most out-of-touch pathetic response yet to fuel costs is GM
spending the next 7 years developing an engine that gets 15% better
fuel economy when the cost of fuel goes up 30% every year.
We need to start electrifying everything now while we still have a
half way functional economy. ?Everything will have to come off the
grid sooner or later anyway.
================
What supplies the grid? Coal or Nuclear? Aren't both of those supposed
to
be
bad?

Coal is bad, but nuclear is quite safe.

Whoa! That's a turnaround! I thought nuclear was supposed to be the devil's
power source.
Have we found a way to safely eliminate the waste?

Post by Olrik
As for the grid, anything renewable can feed it : hydro, wind, solar,
waves, etc.

I suspect that won't be enough.

We have no choice but to give it the ol' college try.

I can't disagree with you there!

[Olrik]

Post by Denis Loubet

Post by Olrik

Post by Bret Cahill
We have two curves: the exponential increase in fuel costs vs the
asymptotic increase in fuel efficiency.
The most out-of-touch pathetic response yet to fuel costs is GM
spending the next 7 years developing an engine that gets 15% better
fuel economy when the cost of fuel goes up 30% every year.
We need to start electrifying everything now while we still have a
half way functional economy. Everything will have to come off the
grid sooner or later anyway.
================
What supplies the grid? Coal or Nuclear? Aren't both of those supposed to be
bad?

Coal is bad, but nuclear is quite safe.

Whoa! That's a turnaround! I thought nuclear was supposed to be the devil's
power source.
Have we found a way to safely eliminate the waste?

It's rather easy to bury.

Post by Denis Loubet

Post by Olrik
As for the grid, anything renewable can feed it : hydro, wind, solar,
waves, etc.

I suspect that won't be enough.

You're right, but I was not clear enough, sorry : I was thinking only
about vehicles.

Post by Denis Loubet

Post by Olrik
One day, everything on wheels will be powered by batteries. We'll keep
petrol for some plastics and other goods, and airplanes.

Batteries don't pop out of thin air, nor does the energy they contain. You
don't get something for nothing. You're paying for the energy you get from
the batteries in whatever waste product is produced by whatever power source
charges the batteries.

Yes, indeed. But batteries can last a long time, and do not cost a lot
to charge, hence the idea that all cars & trucks could be battery-
powered in a couple of decades.

Post by Denis Loubet
I don't see a solution to this problem. Fusion is proving to be an elusive
target, and would generate its own variety of radioactive waste. I've heard
that the renewable sources of power are orders of magnitude insufficent to
meet our needs. I have no idea what we're going to do.

Fusion will be around in about 20 years, as they've said for the last
50 years!

;-)

Post by Denis Loubet
If only reality were like Star Trek, we could reverse the transducer coil
and POOF! Free power!

Just be sure to patent it!

Olrik

Post by Denis Loubet
Denis Loubet
http//www.io.com/~dloubet

[Denis Loubet]

Post by Olrik

Post by Denis Loubet

Post by Olrik

Post by Bret Cahill
We have two curves: the exponential increase in fuel costs vs the
asymptotic increase in fuel efficiency.
The most out-of-touch pathetic response yet to fuel costs is GM
spending the next 7 years developing an engine that gets 15% better
fuel economy when the cost of fuel goes up 30% every year.
We need to start electrifying everything now while we still have a
half way functional economy. Everything will have to come off the
grid sooner or later anyway.
================
What supplies the grid? Coal or Nuclear? Aren't both of those supposed
to
be
bad?

Coal is bad, but nuclear is quite safe.

Whoa! That's a turnaround! I thought nuclear was supposed to be the devil's
power source.
Have we found a way to safely eliminate the waste?

It's rather easy to bury.

Does it stay there? Clouds drop water, you know. ;-)

Post by Olrik

Post by Denis Loubet

Post by Olrik
As for the grid, anything renewable can feed it : hydro, wind, solar,
waves, etc.

I suspect that won't be enough.

You're right, but I was not clear enough, sorry : I was thinking only
about vehicles.

Staying on topic on usenet!? Are you mad?

I figure the power for everything would be coming off the same grid. I don't
know what that kind of draw would do to the grid.

Post by Olrik

Post by Denis Loubet

Post by Olrik
One day, everything on wheels will be powered by batteries. We'll keep
petrol for some plastics and other goods, and airplanes.

Batteries don't pop out of thin air, nor does the energy they contain. You
don't get something for nothing. You're paying for the energy you get from
the batteries in whatever waste product is produced by whatever power source
charges the batteries.

Yes, indeed. But batteries can last a long time, and do not cost a lot
to charge, hence the idea that all cars & trucks could be battery-
powered in a couple of decades.

I do like many of the benefits of electric vehicles. There are even electric
dragsters. And there are people working on capacitor technology as a
possible alternative for batteries. There's plenty of room for surprises,
both good and bad.

Post by Olrik

Post by Denis Loubet
I don't see a solution to this problem. Fusion is proving to be an elusive
target, and would generate its own variety of radioactive waste. I've heard
that the renewable sources of power are orders of magnitude insufficent to
meet our needs. I have no idea what we're going to do.

Fusion will be around in about 20 years, as they've said for the last
50 years!
;-)

And where's my damned flying car!

Post by Olrik

Post by Denis Loubet
If only reality were like Star Trek, we could reverse the transducer coil
and POOF! Free power!

Just be sure to patent it!

Good thinking!

[Msgt_Billy]

Post by Denis Loubet

Post by Olrik

Post by Bret Cahill
We have two curves: the exponential increase in fuel costs vs the
asymptotic increase in fuel efficiency.
The most out-of-touch pathetic response yet to fuel costs is GM
spending the next 7 years developing an engine that gets 15% better
fuel economy when the cost of fuel goes up 30% every year.
We need to start electrifying everything now while we still have a
half way functional economy. Everything will have to come off the
grid sooner or later anyway.
================
What supplies the grid? Coal or Nuclear? Aren't both of those supposed to be
bad?

Coal is bad, but nuclear is quite safe.

Whoa! That's a turnaround! I thought nuclear was supposed to be the devil's
power source.
Have we found a way to safely eliminate the waste?

Post by Olrik
As for the grid, anything renewable can feed it : hydro, wind, solar,
waves, etc.

I suspect that won't be enough.

Post by Olrik
One day, everything on wheels will be powered by batteries. We'll keep
petrol for some plastics and other goods, and airplanes.

Batteries don't pop out of thin air, nor does the energy they contain. You
don't get something for nothing. You're paying for the energy you get from
the batteries in whatever waste product is produced by whatever power source
charges the batteries.
I don't see a solution to this problem. Fusion is proving to be an elusive
target, and would generate its own variety of radioactive waste. I've heard
that the renewable sources of power are orders of magnitude insufficent to
meet our needs. I have no idea what we're going to do.
If only reality were like Star Trek, we could reverse the transducer coil
and POOF! Free power!
--
Denis Loubet
http//www.io.com/~dloubet
--
Denis Loubet
http//www.io.com/~dloubet

There's still plenty of coal, geothermal, solar, etc. So... what if,
instead of recharging batteries, the "filling station" simply replaces
them? ...Drive into docking... click... snap... drive away.

Bill

[Igor The Terrible]

Post by Msgt_Billy

Post by Denis Loubet

Post by Olrik

We have two curves:  the exponential increase in fuel costs vs the
asymptotic increase in fuel efficiency.
The most out-of-touch pathetic response yet to fuel costs is GM
spending the next 7 years developing an engine that gets 15% better
fuel economy when the cost of fuel goes up 30% every year.
We need to start electrifying everything now while we still have a
half way functional economy.  Everything will have to come off the
grid sooner or later anyway.
================
What supplies the grid? Coal or Nuclear? Aren't both of those supposed to be
bad?

Coal is bad, but nuclear is quite safe.

Whoa! That's a turnaround! I thought nuclear was supposed to be the devil's
power source.
Have we found a way to safely eliminate the waste?

Post by Olrik
As for the grid, anything renewable can feed it : hydro, wind, solar,
waves, etc.

I suspect that won't be enough.

Post by Olrik
One day, everything on wheels will be powered by batteries. We'll keep
petrol for some plastics and other goods, and airplanes.

Batteries don't pop out of thin air, nor does the energy they contain. You
don't get something for nothing. You're paying for the energy you get from
the batteries in whatever waste product is produced by whatever power source
charges the batteries.
I don't see a solution to this problem. Fusion is proving to be an elusive
target, and would generate its own variety of radioactive waste. I've heard
that the renewable sources of power are orders of magnitude insufficent to
meet our needs. I have no idea what we're going to do.
If only reality were like Star Trek, we could reverse the transducer coil
and POOF! Free power!
--
Denis Loubet
http//www.io.com/~dloubet
--
Denis Loubet
http//www.io.com/~dloubet

There's still plenty of coal, geothermal, solar, etc. So... what if,
instead of recharging batteries, the "filling station" simply replaces
them? ...Drive into docking... click... snap... drive away.
Bill- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

That is an idea but...it would it would require all manufacturers to
build their cars around a handful of different model batteries. Then
you would have the problem of someone who bought a brand new car and
giving up his new battery for one that might be several years old.

OTOH, a slick marketing trick might be for dealers to sell cars
without batteries and give them a coupon to go to a battery shop and
get one they want.

[Msgt_Billy]

On Jan 14, 5:07 pm, Igor The Terrible

Post by Igor The Terrible

Post by Msgt_Billy

Post by Denis Loubet

Post by Olrik

Post by Bret Cahill
We have two curves: the exponential increase in fuel costs vs the
asymptotic increase in fuel efficiency.
The most out-of-touch pathetic response yet to fuel costs is GM
spending the next 7 years developing an engine that gets 15% better
fuel economy when the cost of fuel goes up 30% every year.
We need to start electrifying everything now while we still have a
half way functional economy. Everything will have to come off the
grid sooner or later anyway.
================
What supplies the grid? Coal or Nuclear? Aren't both of those supposed to be
bad?

Coal is bad, but nuclear is quite safe.

Whoa! That's a turnaround! I thought nuclear was supposed to be the devil's
power source.
Have we found a way to safely eliminate the waste?

Post by Olrik
As for the grid, anything renewable can feed it : hydro, wind, solar,
waves, etc.

I suspect that won't be enough.

Post by Olrik
One day, everything on wheels will be powered by batteries. We'll keep
petrol for some plastics and other goods, and airplanes.

Batteries don't pop out of thin air, nor does the energy they contain. You
don't get something for nothing. You're paying for the energy you get from
the batteries in whatever waste product is produced by whatever power source
charges the batteries.
I don't see a solution to this problem. Fusion is proving to be an elusive
target, and would generate its own variety of radioactive waste. I've heard
that the renewable sources of power are orders of magnitude insufficent to
meet our needs. I have no idea what we're going to do.
If only reality were like Star Trek, we could reverse the transducer coil
and POOF! Free power!
--
Denis Loubet
http//www.io.com/~dloubet
--
Denis Loubet
http//www.io.com/~dloubet

There's still plenty of coal, geothermal, solar, etc. So... what if,
instead of recharging batteries, the "filling station" simply replaces
them? ...Drive into docking... click... snap... drive away.
Bill- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

That is an idea but...it would it would require all manufacturers to
build their cars around a handful of different model batteries. Then
you would have the problem of someone who bought a brand new car and
giving up his new battery for one that might be several years old.
OTOH, a slick marketing trick might be for dealers to sell cars
without batteries and give them a coupon to go to a battery shop and
get one they want.

I guess the biggest hurdle would be standardizing a battery connection
and cavity to put it into, wouldn't it? Like you say, in a
standardized world, you could rent/coupon the batteries from the
start. If they get smaller and better... all the better. Hell,
properly used, they could drive buses, locomotives, and trucks.

The addition of coal fired power plants is a worry, naturally, but I
think a lot could be done to clean them up, and even process the waste
into usable building blocks, gases and fluids for industry and
construction.

I think the entire world would like to see a transition to hydrogen,
and exciting new ideas pop up every day for generating the stuff. Just
the other day I saw some company using the oxidation of waste aluminum
to generate H2. There are several companies using salts to store the
stuff, with increasingly exciting results. Honda, I think it is, has
developed a home service station to go with the H2 car they have,
whereby you can use the excess H2 you generate to help power your
house.

I want to see this country leading the pack in this innovation.
Without it, we're going to be sucking hind teat in all things
economic.

Bill

[Igor The Terrible]

Post by Msgt_Billy
On Jan 14, 5:07 pm, Igor The Terrible

Post by Igor The Terrible

Post by Msgt_Billy

Post by Denis Loubet

Post by Olrik

We have two curves:  the exponential increase in fuel costs vs the
asymptotic increase in fuel efficiency.
The most out-of-touch pathetic response yet to fuel costs is GM
spending the next 7 years developing an engine that gets 15% better
fuel economy when the cost of fuel goes up 30% every year.
We need to start electrifying everything now while we still have a
half way functional economy.  Everything will have to come off the
grid sooner or later anyway.
================
What supplies the grid? Coal or Nuclear? Aren't both of those supposed to
be
bad?

Coal is bad, but nuclear is quite safe.

Whoa! That's a turnaround! I thought nuclear was supposed to be the devil's
power source.
Have we found a way to safely eliminate the waste?

Post by Olrik
As for the grid, anything renewable can feed it : hydro, wind, solar,
waves, etc.

I suspect that won't be enough.

Post by Olrik
One day, everything on wheels will be powered by batteries. We'll keep
petrol for some plastics and other goods, and airplanes.

Batteries don't pop out of thin air, nor does the energy they contain. You
don't get something for nothing. You're paying for the energy you get from
the batteries in whatever waste product is produced by whatever power source
charges the batteries.
I don't see a solution to this problem. Fusion is proving to be an elusive
target, and would generate its own variety of radioactive waste. I've heard
that the renewable sources of power are orders of magnitude insufficent to
meet our needs. I have no idea what we're going to do.
If only reality were like Star Trek, we could reverse the transducer coil
and POOF! Free power!
--
Denis Loubet
http//www.io.com/~dloubet
--
Denis Loubet
http//www.io.com/~dloubet

There's still plenty of coal, geothermal, solar, etc. So... what if,
instead of recharging batteries, the "filling station" simply replaces
them? ...Drive into docking... click... snap... drive away.
Bill- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

That is an idea but...it would it would require all manufacturers to
build their cars around a handful of different model batteries.  Then
you would have the problem of someone who bought a brand new car and
giving up his new battery for one that might be several years old.
OTOH, a slick marketing trick might be for dealers to sell cars
without batteries and give them a coupon to go to a battery shop and
get one they want.

I guess the biggest hurdle would be standardizing a battery connection
and cavity to put it into, wouldn't it? Like you say, in a
standardized world, you could rent/coupon the batteries from the
start. If they get smaller and better... all the better. Hell,
properly used, they could drive buses, locomotives, and trucks.
The addition of coal fired power plants is a worry, naturally, but I
think a lot could be done to clean them up, and even process the waste
into usable building blocks, gases and fluids for industry and
construction.
I think the entire world would like to see a transition to hydrogen,
and exciting new ideas pop up every day for generating the stuff. Just
the other day I saw some company using the oxidation of waste aluminum
to generate H2. There are several companies using salts to store the
stuff, with increasingly exciting results. Honda, I think it is, has
developed a home service station to go with the H2 car they have,
whereby you can use the excess H2 you generate to help power your
house.
I want to see this country leading the pack in this innovation.
Without it, we're going to be sucking hind teat in all things
economic.
Bill- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Agreed!!

[Fran]

Post by Denis Loubet

Post by Olrik

We have two curves:  the exponential increase in fuel costs vs the
asymptotic increase in fuel efficiency.
The most out-of-touch pathetic response yet to fuel costs is GM
spending the next 7 years developing an engine that gets 15% better
fuel economy when the cost of fuel goes up 30% every year.
We need to start electrifying everything now while we still have a
half way functional economy.  Everything will have to come off the
grid sooner or later anyway.
================
What supplies the grid? Coal or Nuclear? Aren't both of those supposed to be
bad?

Coal is bad, but nuclear is quite safe.

Whoa! That's a turnaround! I thought nuclear was supposed to be the devil's
power source.

It depends whom you talk to ... As things stand though around 20% of
US electricity is nuclear sourced and a further 8% is hydro (IIRC),
and wind is also growing, so cars running on electricity is
comparatively rational in pollution terms.

Post by Denis Loubet
Have we found a way to safely eliminate the waste?

The waste problem is overhyped. There are many chemicals you need to
keep humans a safe distance from, and nuclear waste is not the most
troublesome of them.

Keeping it out of the hands of criminals is another matter though.

Using the waste Pu as the fissile material in a Thorium reactor is an
obvious option for the US, since it has a lot of Thorium Oxide lying
about unused and the resultant waste is lower grade than what comes
out of your uranium LWRs.

Post by Denis Loubet

Post by Olrik
As for the grid, anything renewable can feed it : hydro, wind, solar,
waves, etc.

I suspect that won't be enough.

Probably not. Hydro is not as clean a source as many think, wind is
intermittent (though the advent of a cost effective storage system
would radically improve it, and using it to recharge cars off peak
might even help) and solar is still a few years from being cost-
effective. The Japanese are working on new spherical PV cells that
allow insolation to be converted to electricity regardless of the
sun's position in the sky. I've even heard of proposals to use
satellites to accept infrared/UV bandwidth light, convert it to DC,
then microwave, beam it to earth, convert it to DC and so forth.

In the end, the measures will probably require give on both the demand
and the supply side and a range of options.

Post by Denis Loubet

Post by Olrik
One day, everything on wheels will be powered by batteries. We'll keep
petrol for some plastics and other goods, and airplanes.

Batteries don't pop out of thin air, nor does the energy they contain. You
don't get something for nothing. You're paying for the energy you get from
the batteries in whatever waste product is produced by whatever power source
charges the batteries.

True, which gets us back to renewables or low footprint technologies.

Post by Denis Loubet
I don't see a solution to this problem. Fusion is proving to be an elusive
target, and would generate its own variety of radioactive waste. I've heard
that the renewable sources of power are orders of magnitude insufficent to
meet our needs. I have no idea what we're going to do.

Improve energy efficiency in industry, transport; reduce wasteful
consumer practices; redesign cities and building codes to staunch new
demand, slow down population growth, increase the proportion of low
footprint energy in the mix.

Fran

[tg]

Post by Fran

Post by Denis Loubet

Post by Olrik

Post by Bret Cahill
We have two curves: the exponential increase in fuel costs vs the
asymptotic increase in fuel efficiency.
The most out-of-touch pathetic response yet to fuel costs is GM
spending the next 7 years developing an engine that gets 15% better
fuel economy when the cost of fuel goes up 30% every year.
We need to start electrifying everything now while we still have a
half way functional economy. Everything will have to come off the
grid sooner or later anyway.
================
What supplies the grid? Coal or Nuclear? Aren't both of those supposed to be
bad?

Coal is bad, but nuclear is quite safe.

Whoa! That's a turnaround! I thought nuclear was supposed to be the devil's
power source.

It depends whom you talk to ... As things stand though around 20% of
US electricity is nuclear sourced and a further 8% is hydro (IIRC),
and wind is also growing, so cars running on electricity is
comparatively rational in pollution terms.

Post by Denis Loubet
Have we found a way to safely eliminate the waste?

The waste problem is overhyped. There are many chemicals you need to
keep humans a safe distance from, and nuclear waste is not the most
troublesome of them.
Keeping it out of the hands of criminals is another matter though.
Using the waste Pu as the fissile material in a Thorium reactor is an
obvious option for the US, since it has a lot of Thorium Oxide lying
about unused and the resultant waste is lower grade than what comes
out of your uranium LWRs.

Post by Denis Loubet

Post by Olrik
As for the grid, anything renewable can feed it : hydro, wind, solar,
waves, etc.

I suspect that won't be enough.

Probably not. Hydro is not as clean a source as many think, wind is
intermittent (though the advent of a cost effective storage system
would radically improve it, and using it to recharge cars off peak
might even help) and solar is still a few years from being cost-
effective. The Japanese are working on new spherical PV cells that
allow insolation to be converted to electricity regardless of the
sun's position in the sky. I've even heard of proposals to use
satellites to accept infrared/UV bandwidth light, convert it to DC,
then microwave, beam it to earth, convert it to DC and so forth.
In the end, the measures will probably require give on both the demand
and the supply side and a range of options.

Post by Denis Loubet

Post by Olrik
One day, everything on wheels will be powered by batteries. We'll keep
petrol for some plastics and other goods, and airplanes.

Batteries don't pop out of thin air, nor does the energy they contain. You
don't get something for nothing. You're paying for the energy you get from
the batteries in whatever waste product is produced by whatever power source
charges the batteries.

True, which gets us back to renewables or low footprint technologies.

Post by Denis Loubet
I don't see a solution to this problem. Fusion is proving to be an elusive
target, and would generate its own variety of radioactive waste. I've heard
that the renewable sources of power are orders of magnitude insufficent to
meet our needs. I have no idea what we're going to do.

Improve energy efficiency in industry, transport; reduce wasteful
consumer practices; redesign cities and building codes to staunch new
demand, slow down population growth,

Reverse population growth.

If current production of nuclear, hydro and maybe a few percent wind/
solar comes to about a third of usage, then a third of the current
population would be doing just fine eh on electricity production.

And all kinds of benefits follow---inefficient houses, farms, cities,
and so on would be abandoned without any government mandate.
Populations would concentrate reducing transportation costs. Recycling
of materials would replace mining to a great extent. Forests would
grow back, absorbing CO2.

But of course then we couldn't have nitpicking debates about a few
percent difference in this technology or that.

-tg

Post by Fran
increase the proportion of low
footprint energy in the mix.
Fran

[Fran]

Post by tg

Post by Fran

Post by Denis Loubet

Post by Olrik

We have two curves:  the exponential increase in fuel costs vs the
asymptotic increase in fuel efficiency.
The most out-of-touch pathetic response yet to fuel costs is GM
spending the next 7 years developing an engine that gets 15% better
fuel economy when the cost of fuel goes up 30% every year.
We need to start electrifying everything now while we still have a
half way functional economy.  Everything will have to come off the
grid sooner or later anyway.
================
What supplies the grid? Coal or Nuclear? Aren't both of those supposed to be
bad?

Coal is bad, but nuclear is quite safe.

Whoa! That's a turnaround! I thought nuclear was supposed to be the devil's
power source.

It depends whom you talk to ... As things stand though around 20% of
US electricity is nuclear sourced and a further 8% is hydro (IIRC),
and wind is also growing, so cars running on electricity is
comparatively rational in pollution terms.

Post by Denis Loubet
Have we found a way to safely eliminate the waste?

The waste problem is overhyped. There are many chemicals you need to
keep humans a safe distance from, and nuclear waste is not the most
troublesome of them.
Keeping it out of the hands of criminals is another matter though.
Using the waste Pu as the fissile material in a Thorium reactor is an
obvious option for the US, since it has a lot of Thorium Oxide lying
about unused and the resultant waste is lower grade than what comes
out of your uranium LWRs.

Post by Denis Loubet

Post by Olrik
As for the grid, anything renewable can feed it : hydro, wind, solar,
waves, etc.

I suspect that won't be enough.

Probably not. Hydro is not as clean a source as many think, wind is
intermittent (though the advent of a cost effective storage system
would radically improve it, and using it to recharge cars off peak
might even help) and solar is still a few years from being cost-
effective. The Japanese are working on new spherical PV cells that
allow insolation to be converted to electricity regardless of the
sun's position in the sky. I've even heard of proposals to use
satellites to accept infrared/UV bandwidth light, convert it to DC,
then microwave, beam it to earth, convert it to DC and so forth.
In the end, the measures will probably require give on both the demand
and the supply side and a range of options.

Post by Denis Loubet

Post by Olrik
One day, everything on wheels will be powered by batteries. We'll keep
petrol for some plastics and other goods, and airplanes.

Batteries don't pop out of thin air, nor does the energy they contain. You
don't get something for nothing. You're paying for the energy you get from
the batteries in whatever waste product is produced by whatever power source
charges the batteries.

True, which gets us back to renewables or low footprint technologies.

Post by Denis Loubet
I don't see a solution to this problem. Fusion is proving to be an elusive
target, and would generate its own variety of radioactive waste. I've heard
that the renewable sources of power are orders of magnitude insufficent to
meet our needs. I have no idea what we're going to do.

Improve energy efficiency in industry, transport; reduce wasteful
consumer practices; redesign cities and building codes to staunch new
demand, slow down population growth,

Reverse population growth.

Easier said than done. If, tomorrow, women across the planet of
childbearing age began producing children at an average rate of just
2.15, population would start to decline in 2068. I needn't point out
how unlikely such an ambitious target bwould be in the immediate
future. Apparently, births in the US are at a 45 year high.

Post by tg
If current production of nuclear, hydro and maybe a few percent wind/
solar comes to about a third of usage, then a third of the current
population would be doing just fine eh on electricity production.
And all kinds of benefits follow---inefficient houses, farms, cities,
and so on would be abandoned without any government mandate.
Populations would concentrate reducing transportation costs. Recycling
of materials would replace mining to a great extent. Forests would
grow back, absorbing CO2.
But of course then we couldn't have nitpicking debates about a few
percent difference in this technology or that.

The estimates I've seen suggest that about 6.5 billion people can live
sustainably at an average consumption equivalent to the people of
China. If everyone wants to live like an average American, the figure
is somewhere between 100 million and a billion, or, put another way,
we'd need easy access to four more Earth-like planets.

Of course, we don't need to live sustainably. We could do what we are
doing now and dip into the capital reserve with scant concern about
how easy life might be for people in 2050 and even less for anyone
after that. It seems as if maost people think that because we'll never
meet them, they don't count.

Fran

[tg]

Post by Fran

Post by tg

Post by Fran

Post by Denis Loubet

Post by Olrik

Post by Bret Cahill
We have two curves: the exponential increase in fuel costs vs the
asymptotic increase in fuel efficiency.
The most out-of-touch pathetic response yet to fuel costs is GM
spending the next 7 years developing an engine that gets 15% better
fuel economy when the cost of fuel goes up 30% every year.
We need to start electrifying everything now while we still have a
half way functional economy. Everything will have to come off the
grid sooner or later anyway.
================
What supplies the grid? Coal or Nuclear? Aren't both of those supposed to
be
bad?

Coal is bad, but nuclear is quite safe.

Whoa! That's a turnaround! I thought nuclear was supposed to be the devil's
power source.

It depends whom you talk to ... As things stand though around 20% of
US electricity is nuclear sourced and a further 8% is hydro (IIRC),
and wind is also growing, so cars running on electricity is
comparatively rational in pollution terms.

Post by Denis Loubet
Have we found a way to safely eliminate the waste?

The waste problem is overhyped. There are many chemicals you need to
keep humans a safe distance from, and nuclear waste is not the most
troublesome of them.
Keeping it out of the hands of criminals is another matter though.
Using the waste Pu as the fissile material in a Thorium reactor is an
obvious option for the US, since it has a lot of Thorium Oxide lying
about unused and the resultant waste is lower grade than what comes
out of your uranium LWRs.

Post by Denis Loubet

Post by Olrik
As for the grid, anything renewable can feed it : hydro, wind, solar,
waves, etc.

I suspect that won't be enough.

Probably not. Hydro is not as clean a source as many think, wind is
intermittent (though the advent of a cost effective storage system
would radically improve it, and using it to recharge cars off peak
might even help) and solar is still a few years from being cost-
effective. The Japanese are working on new spherical PV cells that
allow insolation to be converted to electricity regardless of the
sun's position in the sky. I've even heard of proposals to use
satellites to accept infrared/UV bandwidth light, convert it to DC,
then microwave, beam it to earth, convert it to DC and so forth.
In the end, the measures will probably require give on both the demand
and the supply side and a range of options.

Post by Denis Loubet

Post by Olrik
One day, everything on wheels will be powered by batteries. We'll keep
petrol for some plastics and other goods, and airplanes.

Batteries don't pop out of thin air, nor does the energy they contain. You
don't get something for nothing. You're paying for the energy you get from
the batteries in whatever waste product is produced by whatever power source
charges the batteries.

True, which gets us back to renewables or low footprint technologies.

Post by Denis Loubet
I don't see a solution to this problem. Fusion is proving to be an elusive
target, and would generate its own variety of radioactive waste. I've heard
that the renewable sources of power are orders of magnitude insufficent to
meet our needs. I have no idea what we're going to do.

Improve energy efficiency in industry, transport; reduce wasteful
consumer practices; redesign cities and building codes to staunch new
demand, slow down population growth,

Reverse population growth.

Easier said than done.

Of course. But it doesn't get said anywhere near enough.

Post by Fran
If, tomorrow, women across the planet of
childbearing age began producing children at an average rate of just
2.15,

Which happens voluntarily when they are empowered through education,
economic security, and political and social freedom.

Post by Fran
population would start to decline in 2068.

I think you are way optimistic on this figure---2.15 is just
replacement; 1 per is what would start the trend down this century.

Post by Fran
I needn't point out
how unlikely such an ambitious target bwould be in the immediate
future. Apparently, births in the US are at a 45 year high.

We are truly strange.

Post by Fran

Post by tg
If current production of nuclear, hydro and maybe a few percent wind/
solar comes to about a third of usage, then a third of the current
population would be doing just fine eh on electricity production.
And all kinds of benefits follow---inefficient houses, farms, cities,
and so on would be abandoned without any government mandate.
Populations would concentrate reducing transportation costs. Recycling
of materials would replace mining to a great extent. Forests would
grow back, absorbing CO2.
But of course then we couldn't have nitpicking debates about a few
percent difference in this technology or that.

The estimates I've seen suggest that about 6.5 billion people can live
sustainably at an average consumption equivalent to the people of
China. If everyone wants to live like an average American, the figure
is somewhere between 100 million and a billion,

And what's wrong with that? I like living like a (relatively frugal)
average American. I would wish that for all future generations, each
and every individual.

Post by Fran
or, put another way,
we'd need easy access to four more Earth-like planets.

Only if we also desired there to be 6 billion people, which would be
irrational.

Post by Fran
Of course, we don't need to live sustainably. We could do what we are
doing now and dip into the capital reserve with scant concern about
how easy life might be for people in 2050 and even less for anyone
after that. It seems as if maost people think that because we'll never
meet them, they don't count.

As I said, we really are strange----have more kids, but don't worry
whether their lives will suck.

-tg

Post by Fran
Fran

[Bret Cahill]

Having more than one kid just increases the odds they'll be drafted to
fight in a geo quagmire.


Bret Cahill

[Fran]

Post by tg

Post by Fran

Post by tg

Post by Fran

Post by Denis Loubet

Post by Olrik

We have two curves:  the exponential increase in fuel costs vs the
asymptotic increase in fuel efficiency.
The most out-of-touch pathetic response yet to fuel costs is GM
spending the next 7 years developing an engine that gets 15% better
fuel economy when the cost of fuel goes up 30% every year.
We need to start electrifying everything now while we still have a
half way functional economy.  Everything will have to come off the
grid sooner or later anyway.
================
What supplies the grid? Coal or Nuclear? Aren't both of those supposed to
be
bad?

Coal is bad, but nuclear is quite safe.

Whoa! That's a turnaround! I thought nuclear was supposed to be the devil's
power source.

It depends whom you talk to ... As things stand though around 20% of
US electricity is nuclear sourced and a further 8% is hydro (IIRC),
and wind is also growing, so cars running on electricity is
comparatively rational in pollution terms.

Post by Denis Loubet
Have we found a way to safely eliminate the waste?

The waste problem is overhyped. There are many chemicals you need to
keep humans a safe distance from, and nuclear waste is not the most
troublesome of them.
Keeping it out of the hands of criminals is another matter though.
Using the waste Pu as the fissile material in a Thorium reactor is an
obvious option for the US, since it has a lot of Thorium Oxide lying
about unused and the resultant waste is lower grade than what comes
out of your uranium LWRs.

Post by Denis Loubet

Post by Olrik
As for the grid, anything renewable can feed it : hydro, wind, solar,
waves, etc.

I suspect that won't be enough.

Probably not. Hydro is not as clean a source as many think, wind is
intermittent (though the advent of a cost effective storage system
would radically improve it, and using it to recharge cars off peak
might even help) and solar is still a few years from being cost-
effective. The Japanese are working on new spherical PV cells that
allow insolation to be converted to electricity regardless of the
sun's position in the sky. I've even heard of proposals to use
satellites to accept infrared/UV bandwidth light, convert it to DC,
then microwave, beam it to earth, convert it to DC and so forth.
In the end, the measures will probably require give on both the demand
and the supply side and a range of options.

Post by Denis Loubet

Post by Olrik
One day, everything on wheels will be powered by batteries. We'll keep
petrol for some plastics and other goods, and airplanes.

Batteries don't pop out of thin air, nor does the energy they contain. You
don't get something for nothing. You're paying for the energy you get from
the batteries in whatever waste product is produced by whatever power source
charges the batteries.

True, which gets us back to renewables or low footprint technologies.

Post by Denis Loubet
I don't see a solution to this problem. Fusion is proving to be an elusive
target, and would generate its own variety of radioactive waste. I've heard
that the renewable sources of power are orders of magnitude insufficent to
meet our needs. I have no idea what we're going to do.

Improve energy efficiency in industry, transport; reduce wasteful
consumer practices; redesign cities and building codes to staunch new
demand, slow down population growth,

Reverse population growth.

Easier said than done.

Of course. But it doesn't get said anywhere near enough.

We're on the same page on this anyway.

Post by tg

Post by Fran
If, tomorrow, women across the planet of
childbearing age began producing children at an average rate of just
2.15,

Which happens voluntarily when they are empowered through education,
economic security, and political and social freedom.

Again, this is the right approach. Throw in looking after the ageing
better and we have prospects.

Post by tg

Post by Fran
population would start to decline in 2068.

I think you are way optimistic on this figure---2.15 is just
replacement; 1 per is what would start the trend down this century.

Undoubtedly, but in practice, not achievable without serious coercion,
which I oppose on ethical grounds. China is down to about 1.7 I
believe.

Post by tg

Post by Fran
I needn't point out
how unlikely such an ambitious target bwould be in the immediate
future. Apparently, births in the US are at a 45 year high.

We are truly strange.

There's a very long cultural tradition to break down. "Be gruitful and
multiply" has very long standing.

Post by tg

Post by Fran

Post by tg
If current production of nuclear, hydro and maybe a few percent wind/
solar comes to about a third of usage, then a third of the current
population would be doing just fine eh on electricity production.
And all kinds of benefits follow---inefficient houses, farms, cities,
and so on would be abandoned without any government mandate.
Populations would concentrate reducing transportation costs. Recycling
of materials would replace mining to a great extent. Forests would
grow back, absorbing CO2.
But of course then we couldn't have nitpicking debates about a few
percent difference in this technology or that.

The estimates I've seen suggest that about 6.5 billion people can live
sustainably at an average consumption equivalent to the people of
China. If everyone wants to live like an average American, the figure
is somewhere between 100 million and a billion,

And what's wrong with that? I like living like a (relatively frugal)
average American. I would wish that for all future generations, each
and every individual.

Nothing in theory, but the practice means we are unlikely to pull up
population growth this side of 9 or 10 billion.

Post by tg

Post by Fran
or, put another way,
we'd need easy access to four more Earth-like planets.

Only if we also desired there to be 6 billion people, which would be
irrational.

This is what we already have NOW.

Post by tg

Post by Fran
Of course, we don't need to live sustainably. We could do what we are
doing now and dip into the capital reserve with scant concern about
how easy life might be for people in 2050 and even less for anyone
after that. It seems as if maost people think that because we'll never
meet them, they don't count.

As I said, we really are strange----have more kids, but don't worry
whether their lives will suck.

Actually, we do worry whether their lives will suck -- not enough
translate that concern into general social policy, and imagine that
somehow THEIR children will be immune from what afflicts others, or
they disengage with it entirely.

Of course, the year 2100 is far too far away for most to think about.
Only a small minority of the children born as these lines are posted
will still be alive. Their children won't have long either. And those
reading this post today will be long gone.

It's not surprising that many people disengage, but I wonder if they
thought it all through what they'd want 2100 to look like, and whether
they'd liked to be blamed for its challenges?

Fran

[tg]

Post by Fran

Post by tg

Post by Fran

Post by tg

Post by Fran

Post by Denis Loubet

Post by Olrik

Post by Bret Cahill
We have two curves: the exponential increase in fuel costs vs the
asymptotic increase in fuel efficiency.
The most out-of-touch pathetic response yet to fuel costs is GM
spending the next 7 years developing an engine that gets 15% better
fuel economy when the cost of fuel goes up 30% every year.
We need to start electrifying everything now while we still have a
half way functional economy. Everything will have to come off the
grid sooner or later anyway.
================
What supplies the grid? Coal or Nuclear? Aren't both of those supposed to
be
bad?

Coal is bad, but nuclear is quite safe.

Whoa! That's a turnaround! I thought nuclear was supposed to be the devil's
power source.

It depends whom you talk to ... As things stand though around 20% of
US electricity is nuclear sourced and a further 8% is hydro (IIRC),
and wind is also growing, so cars running on electricity is
comparatively rational in pollution terms.

Post by Denis Loubet
Have we found a way to safely eliminate the waste?

The waste problem is overhyped. There are many chemicals you need to
keep humans a safe distance from, and nuclear waste is not the most
troublesome of them.
Keeping it out of the hands of criminals is another matter though.
Using the waste Pu as the fissile material in a Thorium reactor is an
obvious option for the US, since it has a lot of Thorium Oxide lying
about unused and the resultant waste is lower grade than what comes
out of your uranium LWRs.

Post by Denis Loubet

Post by Olrik
As for the grid, anything renewable can feed it : hydro, wind, solar,
waves, etc.

I suspect that won't be enough.

Probably not. Hydro is not as clean a source as many think, wind is
intermittent (though the advent of a cost effective storage system
would radically improve it, and using it to recharge cars off peak
might even help) and solar is still a few years from being cost-
effective. The Japanese are working on new spherical PV cells that
allow insolation to be converted to electricity regardless of the
sun's position in the sky. I've even heard of proposals to use
satellites to accept infrared/UV bandwidth light, convert it to DC,
then microwave, beam it to earth, convert it to DC and so forth.
In the end, the measures will probably require give on both the demand
and the supply side and a range of options.

Post by Denis Loubet

Post by Olrik
One day, everything on wheels will be powered by batteries. We'll keep
petrol for some plastics and other goods, and airplanes.

Batteries don't pop out of thin air, nor does the energy they contain. You
don't get something for nothing. You're paying for the energy you get from
the batteries in whatever waste product is produced by whatever power source
charges the batteries.

True, which gets us back to renewables or low footprint technologies.

Post by Denis Loubet
I don't see a solution to this problem. Fusion is proving to be an elusive
target, and would generate its own variety of radioactive waste. I've heard
that the renewable sources of power are orders of magnitude insufficent to
meet our needs. I have no idea what we're going to do.

Improve energy efficiency in industry, transport; reduce wasteful
consumer practices; redesign cities and building codes to staunch new
demand, slow down population growth,

Reverse population growth.

Easier said than done.

Of course. But it doesn't get said anywhere near enough.

We're on the same page on this anyway.

Post by tg

Post by Fran
If, tomorrow, women across the planet of
childbearing age began producing children at an average rate of just
2.15,

Which happens voluntarily when they are empowered through education,
economic security, and political and social freedom.

Again, this is the right approach. Throw in looking after the ageing
better and we have prospects.

Post by tg

Post by Fran
population would start to decline in 2068.

I think you are way optimistic on this figure---2.15 is just
replacement; 1 per is what would start the trend down this century.

Undoubtedly, but in practice, not achievable without serious coercion,
which I oppose on ethical grounds. China is down to about 1.7 I
believe.

First, I just read a report that China is following the universal
pattern---lots of people who have made it in the economy are
*choosing* to have one child, and rural people are the ones resisting
the policy, for all the usual (and reasonable) reasons. If the number
is 1.7, that to me is positive information---perhaps China will figure
out quickly that some kind of social safety net needs to be extended
to those farmers.

Second, I'm always wary of terms like "coercion", since they are
subject to various interpretations. States are coercive; if you impose
a tax on gas-guzzlers, that will be called coercion by the talk-show
adolescents as well. I'm just looking for population reduction to be
on the same table as everything else, which means talking about
possible mechanisms instead of including it in a list and then
discreetly avoiding mentioning it ever again. (This conversation has
gotten beyond that, which is unusual,)

For example, if we can give tax rebates for energy savings, we could
also provide incentives like scholarship and retirement funds for
having fewer children. I don't think that will happen in the USA
anytime soon, but unless the issue is openly discussed, progress in
that direction is impossible.

-tg

Post by Fran

Post by tg

Post by Fran
I needn't point out
how unlikely such an ambitious target bwould be in the immediate
future. Apparently, births in the US are at a 45 year high.

We are truly strange.

There's a very long cultural tradition to break down. "Be gruitful and
multiply" has very long standing.

Post by tg

Post by Fran

Post by tg
If current production of nuclear, hydro and maybe a few percent wind/
solar comes to about a third of usage, then a third of the current
population would be doing just fine eh on electricity production.
And all kinds of benefits follow---inefficient houses, farms, cities,
and so on would be abandoned without any government mandate.
Populations would concentrate reducing transportation costs. Recycling
of materials would replace mining to a great extent. Forests would
grow back, absorbing CO2.
But of course then we couldn't have nitpicking debates about a few
percent difference in this technology or that.

The estimates I've seen suggest that about 6.5 billion people can live
sustainably at an average consumption equivalent to the people of
China. If everyone wants to live like an average American, the figure
is somewhere between 100 million and a billion,

And what's wrong with that? I like living like a (relatively frugal)
average American. I would wish that for all future generations, each
and every individual.

Nothing in theory, but the practice means we are unlikely to pull up
population growth this side of 9 or 10 billion.

Post by tg

Post by Fran
or, put another way,
we'd need easy access to four more Earth-like planets.

Only if we also desired there to be 6 billion people, which would be
irrational.

This is what we already have NOW.

Post by tg

Post by Fran
Of course, we don't need to live sustainably. We could do what we are
doing now and dip into the capital reserve with scant concern about
how easy life might be for people in 2050 and even less for anyone
after that. It seems as if maost people think that because we'll never
meet them, they don't count.

As I said, we really are strange----have more kids, but don't worry
whether their lives will suck.

Actually, we do worry whether their lives will suck -- not enough
translate that concern into general social policy, and imagine that
somehow THEIR children will be immune from what afflicts others, or
they disengage with it entirely.
Of course, the year 2100 is far too far away for most to think about.
Only a small minority of the children born as these lines are posted
will still be alive. Their children won't have long either. And those
reading this post today will be long gone.
It's not surprising that many people disengage, but I wonder if they
thought it all through what they'd want 2100 to look like, and whether
they'd liked to be blamed for its challenges?
Fran

[DK]

Post by Bret Cahill
We have two curves: the exponential increase in fuel costs vs the
asymptotic increase in fuel efficiency.
The most out-of-touch pathetic response yet to fuel costs is GM
spending the next 7 years developing an engine that gets 15% better
fuel economy when the cost of fuel goes up 30% every year.
We need to start electrifying everything now while we still have a
half way functional economy.

Wioth electricity more expensive than oil, that sure sounds like
a great sdolution!

DK

[Virgil]

Post by DK

Post by Bret Cahill
We have two curves: the exponential increase in fuel costs vs the
asymptotic increase in fuel efficiency.
The most out-of-touch pathetic response yet to fuel costs is GM
spending the next 7 years developing an engine that gets 15% better
fuel economy when the cost of fuel goes up 30% every year.
We need to start electrifying everything now while we still have a
half way functional economy.

Wioth electricity more expensive than oil, that sure sounds like
a great sdolution!

But the cost of electrical power from wind and sun is decreasing and
the supply is increasable without immediately compelling limits, in
contrast to oil whose cost is increasing and whose supply is harshly
limited.

[DK]

Post by Virgil

Post by Bret Cahill
We have two curves: the exponential increase in fuel costs vs the
asymptotic increase in fuel efficiency.
The most out-of-touch pathetic response yet to fuel costs is GM
spending the next 7 years developing an engine that gets 15% better
fuel economy when the cost of fuel goes up 30% every year.
We need to start electrifying everything now while we still have a
half way functional economy.

With electricity more expensive than oil, that sure sounds like
a great solution!

But the cost of electrical power from wind and sun is decreasing

Not nearly to the extent of being able to compete with oil.
Particularly with regard to the quantity.

Post by Virgil
the supply is increasable without immediately compelling limits,

It's not. As it stands now, even if you cover 50% of the area of
the entire USA with solar panels (prohibitively expensive and
unrealistic proposition), the energy output would not be sufficient
to cover current energy expenditures from oil.

DK

[phil scott]

Post by DK

Post by Virgil

We have two curves:  the exponential increase in fuel costs vs the
asymptotic increase in fuel efficiency.
The most out-of-touch pathetic response yet to fuel costs is GM
spending the next 7 years developing an engine that gets 15% better
fuel economy when the cost of fuel goes up 30% every year.
We need to start electrifying everything now while we still have a
half way functional economy.  

With electricity more expensive than oil, that sure sounds like
a great solution!

But the cost of electrical power from wind and sun is decreasing

Not nearly to the extent of being able to compete with oil.
Particularly with regard to the quantity.

Post by Virgil
the supply is increasable without immediately compelling  limits,

It's not. As it stands now, even if you cover 50% of the area of
the entire USA with solar panels (prohibitively expensive and
unrealistic proposition), the energy output would not be sufficient
to cover current energy expenditures from oil.
DK- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

correct, solar is not generally viable for our larger needs....
however half of our power in the US goes to lighting, and the energy
used by lighting can be cut 50% easily by moving to LED's...and thats
happening...this broadens the usefullness of solar/ wind etc. It
will be nuclear however that carrys the vital bulk of the load though.


Phil Scott

[phil scott]

Post by DK

We have two curves:  the exponential increase in fuel costs vs the
asymptotic increase in fuel efficiency.
The most out-of-touch pathetic response yet to fuel costs is GM
spending the next 7 years developing an engine that gets 15% better
fuel economy when the cost of fuel goes up 30% every year.
We need to start electrifying everything now while we still have a
half way functional economy.  

Wioth electricity more expensive than oil, that sure sounds like
a great sdolution!
DK

Nuclear power costs 2 cents a KW including costs of decomissioning and
waste disposal etc... Power from oil costs around 10 cents per KW,
(marked up to 15 cents at retail approx)... Hydro Electric is around 4
cents a KW including the dam etc as amortized.


Phil Scott

[zzbunker]

Post by phil scott

Post by DK

We have two curves:  the exponential increase in fuel costs vs the
asymptotic increase in fuel efficiency.
The most out-of-touch pathetic response yet to fuel costs is GM
spending the next 7 years developing an engine that gets 15% better
fuel economy when the cost of fuel goes up 30% every year.
We need to start electrifying everything now while we still have a
half way functional economy.  

Wioth electricity more expensive than oil, that sure sounds like
a great sdolution!
DK

Nuclear power costs 2 cents a KW including costs of decomissioning and
waste disposal etc...   Power from oil costs around 10 cents per KW,
(marked up to 15 cents at retail approx)... Hydro Electric is around 4
cents a KW including the dam etc as amortized.

Well, for the nuke morons, we;re sorry to tell you that
the energy market just doesn't work that way.
Since you make extremely low cost computer, robot,
laser, maser, fiber optic, solar cell, and satelite energy
from coal. Rather than morons like nukes,

Post by phil scott
Phil Scott- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

[zzbunker]

Post by phil scott

Post by DK

We have two curves:  the exponential increase in fuel costs vs the
asymptotic increase in fuel efficiency.
The most out-of-touch pathetic response yet to fuel costs is GM
spending the next 7 years developing an engine that gets 15% better
fuel economy when the cost of fuel goes up 30% every year.
We need to start electrifying everything now while we still have a
half way functional economy.  

Wioth electricity more expensive than oil, that sure sounds like
a great sdolution!
DK

Nuclear power costs 2 cents a KW including costs of decomissioning and
waste disposal etc...   Power from oil costs around 10 cents per KW,
(marked up to 15 cents at retail approx)... Hydro Electric is around 4
cents a KW including the dam etc as amortized.

  Well, for the nuke morons, we;re sorry to tell you that
  the energy market just doesn't work that way.
  Since you make extremely low cost computer, robot,
  laser, maser, fiber optic, solar cell, and satelite energy
  from coal. Rather than morons like nukes,

Or for usenet it's still the same as it's been for the last 50
years,
as far is energy is concerned.
Moron nano-wanks rather than science.

Post by phil scott
Phil Scott- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

[phil scott]

We have two curves:  the exponential increase in fuel costs vs the
asymptotic increase in fuel efficiency.
The most out-of-touch pathetic response yet to fuel costs is GM
spending the next 7 years developing an engine that gets 15% better
fuel economy when the cost of fuel goes up 30% every year.
We need to start electrifying everything now while we still have a
half way functional economy.  Everything will have to come off the
grid sooner or later anyway.
================
What supplies the grid? Coal or Nuclear? Aren't both of those supposed to be
bad?
--
Denis Loubet

coal IS bad... it puts high level radio actives into the air, not to
mention co2.... nuclear is virtually non poluting given that it now
reprocesses all but trace levels of its fuel.... waste disposal is not
an issue, its just spun that way.


Phil Scott

Post by Bret Cahill
We need to start electrifying everything now while we still have a
half way functional economy. Everything will have to come off the
grid sooner or later anyway.

What you need is a rational infrastructure with reasonable public
transportation and people also willing to friggin WALK.

[satyr]

On Jan 11, 8:51?pm, Igor The Terrible

Stagnant wages. ?Income gap. ?Worthless dollar. ?All the above....take
your pick. ?However, the bottom line is you are looking at a very thin
market. ?The new high mileage hybrids will be well out of the reach of
the Wal-Mart/McDonald plant workers. ?When you consider they will cost
roughly $9,000.00 more than their gasoline powered counterparts that
they can't even think of owning, where is the market.
Now for those with more dollars and sense, what do you think they are
going to be worth after you have owned them for a few years and the
batteries will need replacing? ?Your depreciation is going to wipe out
any savings that you thought you might have
realized.
So get used to driving your gas hog--unless, of course, you can build
your own fuel efficient vehicle.
It is an absolute shame when the top 5% won't buy 95% of the goods and
services in their own country.
Let the war among businesses for the fight over market tablescraps
begin. ?;-)
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=5911409&c...

A few years ago, the Ford Explorer was one of the top-selling vehicles
in the US marketplace. It was the best selling SUV and SUV sales were
skyrocketing.

In 2007, the Toyota Prius outsold the Ford Explorer.

Based on ten years of experience, hybrid battery life is now projected
at 150,000 to 200,000 miles.

List price for an Explorer is $26 - 36K and it gets 15 mpg (V8) to 20
mpg (V6) in the city. Used Explorers are plentiful and cheap.

Prius lists for $21 to 23K and gets 48 mpg in the city. Used Priuses
are hard to find and priced close to list.

[Bret Cahill]

Sooner or later all vehicles will rely on electric drives. They need
to do _something_ to get electric motors in vehicles even if all it is
is tossing a motor in the back seat.


Bret Cahill

[Igor The Terrible]

Post by V
On Jan 11, 8:51�pm, Igor The Terrible

Stagnant wages. �Income gap. �Worthless dollar. �All the above....take
your pick. �However, the bottom line is you are looking at a very thin
market. �The new high mileage hybrids will be well out of the reach of
the Wal-Mart/McDonald plant workers. �When you consider they will cost
roughly $9,000.00 more than their gasoline powered counterparts that
they can't even think of owning, where is the market.
Now for those with more dollars and sense, what do you think they are
going to be worth after you have owned them for a few years and the
batteries will need replacing? �Your depreciation is going to wipe out
any savings that you thought you might have
realized.
So get used to driving your gas hog--unless, of course, you can build
your own fuel efficient vehicle.
It is an absolute shame when the top 5% won't buy 95% of the goods and
services in their own country.
Let the war among businesses for the fight over market tablescraps
begin. �;-)
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=5911409&c...

Good points.
I looked at an electric MX motorcycle and they wanted $10,000 for it.
A gas powered one of higher quality costs only $5500.
Really they will need plug in hybrid cars to get 125+ MPG just to 'run
in place' as our gas prices will be skyrocketing in the near future
with increasing worldwide fossil fuel demands....40 - 50 MPG will go
nowhere in the upcoming years.
The scary thing is CHINDIA is just starting to bloom with their
demands for fossil fuels We haven't seen anything yet with the
meteoric rise of gas, energy and over consumption.

You are 1,000% correct on this. The genie is out of the bottle and
there is no way of getting that SOB back in. Can you see another
several hundred million vehicles on the road in the next 20 years?
The giant sucking sound H. Ross Perot was speaking of will not be the
sound of jobs in flight, rather, the remaining drops of crude being
sucked out of the ground. I have no idea how this coming situation
can possibly be managed outside of extremely brutal rationing.

Good call!!!

Post by V
In China the per capita car ownership rate is 40 car owners per 1000
persons. In India it is much lower, running 8 cars per 1000 people. As
these two giants evolve more of their population will want cars...in
India, they have made a $2500 car as well.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/05/percapita_car_o.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20394364/
I think our countries future will be that of...'America...a
Democratic, Communist Nation Under God.'
Life as we know it in America is coming to an end in the not so
distant future.
And maybe I am using the wrong word with communism?
Maybe it should be Nationalism? Socialism? I don't know since I have
little interest in politics.
As far for what I means, it could be compared somewhat to Plato's
Republic. Where the republic came first and people came second.
But with the US, the injection of Democratic values as well as a
spiritual foundation that supports our country from its earliest
beginnings would 'hopefully' separate us from the atheist based
communists that have been run as dictatorships.
Am I as Christian zealot?
No, I am an agnostic freethinker.
As for why I have come up with such a bold statement as 'America...a
Democratic, Communist Nation Under God?'
See these DVD's
1940's House PBS (albeit our enemy is not Germany...it is energy) And
witness something along the lines of a 'Democratic, Communist Nation
Under God.'
http://www.amazon.com/1940s-House-Marguerite-Patten/dp/B0000AYL47
A Crude Awakeninghttp://www.oilcrashmovie.com/
End of Suburbiahttp://www.endofsuburbia.com/
Oil Apocalypsehttp://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id=108290
http://www.amazon.com/Out-Gas-End-Age-Oil/dp/0393058573
http://www.amazon.com/Hubberts-Peak-Impending-World-Shortage/dp/06911...
http://www.lastoilshock.com/
...put it all together and you have 'America...a Democratic, Communist
Nation Under God.' as the 'best fit ' equation.
And for dessert...add 'politics as usual'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F
And we can see nothing substantive will or can be done in the US to
fix our woes.
BTW, do I like communism?
No, not really, I like things EXACTLY as they are. I like being an
energy whore and sucking down the crude just as you do. I like running
my dirt bikes, jet skis, RV and driving my car.
But what I like doesn't matter...neither does what you like matter.
What does matter is 'what our country likes' or more appropriately
'needs' in order to survive.
If we look at the root of communism it is that of the commune-ist. The
hippy communes and the Israeli Kibbutz's and the modern day survival
devotees that plan to buy some land and develop a 'survival community'
to live of the land all share in the same commune-ist dream.
But the point is not to persuade you to be a communist, but to foster
a realization that for the US to survive, we must put 'what matters to
our country' on the front burner...and as our country survives...so do
we survive.
Alan Watts used to say, it doesn't matter what you think, it doesn't
matter what you like, it doesn't matter what you hope for...all that
really matters is what IS.
Sure we keep our treasured paper money, our guns, and what have you.
Guns are a populations last line of defense.
Look at Afghanistan...they beat Russia and the US is still having
trouble with 'the people' there....all because of an armed
population.
BTW, whenever I think of the Afghanis I think back to the poem.
"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains.
And go to your Gawd like a soldier" ~ Kipling
So NEVER, NEVER give up your guns...for when the guns go, so does your
freedom. Guns are the foundation of freedom.
Money??
Well, money will not be worth much anyway. Money is nothing more than
stored energy. But since the crude dried up, the 'real energy' behind
the money has vanished...and so did private industry.
So, what is money good for nowadays...to wipe your ass?
Not really, the government supplied toilet paper works better than
that.
What about the coal mines? All government owned. If you want to eat
you work in the mines or where the gov places you...it is that
simple.
This is how our country can claim to be a 'communist democracy' We are
not a slave driven dictatorship, You still have 'some freedoms.' You
can work or not work as you please. But, don't expect a gov handout if
you do not want to contribute to the countries survival needs....and
as our country survives so do we survive.
Religion? Well, the atheists can still be atheists and the Christians,
Muslims and Jews can still worship as they like.
But the big difference in our government is; instead of the ego based
decisions that politicians and the titans of business get sucked into,
the politicians will put the long term US viability as top priority
over personal profit.
How do we accomplish this? I don't know, since politicians are
normally ego based, lying, power hungry individuals. But this is an
area that has to be perfected the best we can with accepting we deal
with imperfect humans.
If we look at the various powers the government has though executive
orders, we are pretty much there (a Democratic, Communist Nation Under
God.) without much effort.
Here are just a few of them...
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of
transportation and control of highways and seaports.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the
communication media.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 allows the government to take over all
electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to take over all food
resources and farms.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into
work brigades under government supervision.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001 allows the government to take over all health,
education and welfare functions.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a
national registration of all persons.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government to take over all airports
and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to
relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate
areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005 allows the government to take over railroads,
inland waterways and public storage facilities.
http://sonic.net/sentinel/gvcon5.html
What happened to all our individual freedoms with these executive
orders?
It was lost long ago in the deluded American dream that believes the
individual American can survive on their own. Without a strong
government you guys would be speaking Chinese or Russian. What
happened to the personal property of Iraq when the US took it down?
Ditto for your homes and McMansions if another country decided 'to
move' here.
You think it is political biz as usual in the US in the upcoming
election?
It makes little difference.
The world is in a death spiral and politicians as well as industry are
pretending this problem does not exist. No Politician can fix our
woes. the best we can do is to make the most of our dilemma.
We can only blame ourselves, for it is just how we have built our
world over the years....too many people, living outside of natures
intended balance and not an infinite supply of energy to fuel all our
demands.
So Dem or Rep...any politician in charge had better come to terms with
how things really are and not live in dream land...we are running out
of time as our fossil fuel supplies dwindle.
You know every country will not run out of crude all at once.
Without energy our country is open for takeover ... no jets...no
tanks...no transport on the ground or in the air. Luckily we will
still have nuclear powered submarines and aircraft carriers as long as
the uranium holds out. But the jets on the flattop all use jet fuel.
All the supplies for those subs and carriers petroleum dependent.
Other countries such as Russia that have a good supply of nationally
based crude may not be so kind to ...
read more »

[Igor The Terrible]

Well, I guess most of us are pretty much on the same page. Unless
there is a miraculous breakthrough in battery technologies that either
allows them to last for 15 - 20 years OR build them extremely cheap,
the fate of hybrids in this country is sealed.

Alternatives???

I don't see much hope for ethanol and biofuels either unless they are
utilized by the agricultural industry itself so to eliminate
transportation out of its total costs.

Hydrogen is a possibility > IF < we completely scrap our existing
power grid, add no fewer than 20 nuclear plants, each capable of
producing no less than 3GW and use use cryogenic superconductors to
transmit power while using liquid hydrogen as the refrigerant as it is
also transported through the same double wall conduit as the
electricity to remote distribution hubs. Other power generation
sources i.e. solar, wind, hydroelectric could suppliment feeds in
immediate markets.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00003872-159C-1498-959C83414B7F0000&sc=I100322

http://www.fuelcellsworks.com/Supppage5527.html


The overall concept makes a lot of good practical sense. Question is:
can we afford such an effort in the wake of the last three
presidents' handywork in trashing our economy? At this juncture, it
doesn't look good.

So far Germany seems to be making headway in their hydrogen program
and the BMWs used seem to be working out OK.

Will it be worth the effort on our part? Hard to say. One thing is
certain...we will be at absolute liberty to tell OPEC what they can do
with their oil and how quickly they can 'relocate' it there. However,
until some degree of economies are realized, don't expect too much
savings up front.

Hafnium is another option. There was a lot of interest in building
power plants for automotive, aviation, and to some extent maritime
applications. The interest and eventually the research simply died.
Should it be resurrected? Depends on public acceptance. As a nuclear
fuel, it is fairly safe because it has a very short half life (31
years) and unlike uranium or plutonium it can't support chain
reactions so it is worthless for bomb making . My guess it would be
best used for all modes of mass transit, cargo transport, and military
applications.

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/000918.html

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE1DC1F31F936A15756C0A96F948260

http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/CDReadyMUAV2003_834/PV2003_6569.pdf

http://blogs.intel.com/technology/2007/09/45_days_and_counting_to_the_ma.php

I have no idea on what Washington's intentions are on this. (I gave
up on that a long time ago since nobody up there is capable of
thinking). One thing I will say; we better get the lead out of it and
start making some decisions and put programs into motion.

[Rick Brandt]

Post by Igor The Terrible
Well, I guess most of us are pretty much on the same page. Unless
there is a miraculous breakthrough in battery technologies that either
allows them to last for 15 - 20 years OR build them extremely cheap,
the fate of hybrids in this country is sealed.

The batteries are already warranted for the life of the vehicle. At least by
Toyota and Honda (not sure about the US companies). When individual cells fail
they are not expensive to replace. "Wearing the whole set out" is only an issue
for people who drive cars for well more than a decade and that group has never
worried about resale value.

Hybrids are not perfect, but they are a viable alternative and the difficulties
and problems they do have are much more likely to be corrected by widespread
adoption of the technology than by people dismissing it.

As for the individual owner's payback, there are reasons to buy something
greener other than having it "pay for itself over the long term".

[Steven L.]

Post by Rick Brandt

Post by Igor The Terrible
Well, I guess most of us are pretty much on the same page. Unless
there is a miraculous breakthrough in battery technologies that either
allows them to last for 15 - 20 years OR build them extremely cheap,
the fate of hybrids in this country is sealed.

The batteries are already warranted for the life of the vehicle. At least by
Toyota and Honda (not sure about the US companies). When individual cells fail
they are not expensive to replace. "Wearing the whole set out" is only an issue
for people who drive cars for well more than a decade and that group has never
worried about resale value.
Hybrids are not perfect, but they are a viable alternative and the difficulties
and problems they do have are much more likely to be corrected by widespread
adoption of the technology than by people dismissing it.
As for the individual owner's payback, there are reasons to buy something
greener other than having it "pay for itself over the long term".

First of all, it's not that much "greener," compared to the solutions we
really need.

With a hybrid you might save 5 mpg or a little more compared to a good
gasoline-powered car. But in the U.S., the number of passenger-miles
driven has nearly doubled in the last 20 years, which is the real reason
why we're using more energy--we're just driving more. Mostly because
most families now have both parents at work. And with rapidly
developing China and India, we can look forward to over ONE BILLION more
cars on the road there. The greenhouse gas emissions are going to be
staggering, even if every single car is a hybrid.

Secondly, Jimmy Carter learned the hard way that jawboning the American
people to save energy just out of patriotic and environmental concern
doesn't work for any length of time. You've got some activists who buy
a Prius to make a statement, and then you've got the vast majority of
American consumers who aren't out to make a statement, just get
cost-effective transportation.

The Government has to employ either carrots or sticks or both. Either
provide investment tax credits for buying hybrids that are so attractive
that it makes better economic sense to buy one; or else use force. Tell
the auto companies they must phase out gasoline-powered vehicles
altogether by 2020, much as we have told the TV industry that they have
to phase out analog TV. Similar measures will need to be adopted in all
other countries.

[scs0]

Post by Steven L.
The Government has to employ either carrots or sticks or both. Either
provide investment tax credits for buying hybrids that are so attractive
that it makes better economic sense to buy one; or else use force.

Why is it that greens promote the value of sacrifice, but when it
comes to buying trendy "green" products they always want the taxpayers
to sacrifice for their pricey status symbols?

"Or else use force?"
Yea. That's the spirit of freedom and liberty. Considering that the
US Constitution doesn't authorize Congress to legislate such matters
force should be impossible... Ah hell, we're getting Hillary in 2009
and that socialist will legislate ANYTHING!