Do you:

A. get an 8 year old Porsche Boxter, BMW, Corvette, Cadillac, Jaguar, Mercedes or some other luxury vehicle(possibly on ebay) to project a more than likely false sense of wealth hoping nobody notices the age of you car. Then show up to meetings and mention the brand of your car hoping no one will actually look at it too carefully in the parking lot.

B. get a prius or hybrid vehicle

C. get a full electic car like the leaf and hope it doesn't run out of electricity

D. get a motorcycle instead

E. Don't buy a car due to the current economic and socio-geo-political climate

I have a cycle so I don't really care about cars too much, but this question really interests me.

What do channel 9ers think?

Too bad Sven. Riding public transportation is fun sometimes on vacation, but every day that must be a bummer. Especially when the trains are full.

-Josh

40 minutes ago, 01001001 wrote

@Sven Groot:

Too bad Sven. Riding public transportation is fun sometimes on vacation, but every day that must be a bummer. Especially when the trains are full.

On the contrary. I use the time to read. I would really miss that if I had to drive.

Crowded trains can be annoying, but I've gotten good at avoiding the real crowds (being flexible in my working hours helps).

Herbie

$25.000 is not a whole lot of money for a new car,..

Edit; Totally forgot to pick an option!

I would go for D and a donor card.

Herbie

There is a guy in Isreal that has an exchange battery system, it's a step, but 100 miles compared to the 600 miles I get on a tank of gas, is still not an alternative.

We need a better way to harvest the energy from fuels. Fuel is the most energy dense liquid, that is relatively safe, easy to make, easily availible and easy to handle, we have on the planet. If we can harvest that energy without the prehistoric combustion, I am game.

But electric cars with batteries, charging? No thanks. Energy now is 23 eurocents per kwh over here, imagine what would happen if we were to drive electric! Then I would need to do the dishes by hand again, because it will be to expensive to use the dishwasher.

Or Mr. Fusion.

What we need is learn to unravel the atom.

Not fuse it, not split it, but unravel it into pure energy.

1 hour ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@Sven Groot: hydrogen is a very energy expensive fuel to make and it's tricky in transport. It always needs to stick onto something. And even then, it doesn't get a lot of range.

What we need is learn to unravel the atom.

Not fuse it, not split it, but unravel it into pure energy.

I'd rather put my money into something that can feasibly be accomplished in the next few hundred years.

Prius sucks for fuel economy...

I do not believe in the electric car with batteries.

Batteries are ... dangerous

hydrogen is a very energy expensive fuel to make and it's tricky in transport. It always needs to stick onto something

Sometimes I think you disagree with things because you think that if hippies like it, it must be bad.

41 minutes ago, Sven Groot wrote

*snip*

I'd rather put my money into something that can feasibly be accomplished in the next few hundred years.

Creating hydrogen from another source of energy adds an unnecessary step to the process, introducing additional losses. Therefore it's less efficient, bang for buck, then petrol. Basically any alternative that is providing less miles per buck, is not really an alternative and will never work in real life.

11 minutes ago, evildictaitor wrote

*snip*

Sometimes I think you disagree with things because you think that if hippies like it, it must be bad.

Yeah that must be it.

Hippies are always very emotional about a lot of issues, if they would stop and think with their heads instead of with their harts, they will see the real world implications of their ideas.

Driving around in electric cars or hybrids is not going to solve any problem, it will create a ton of new problems though. Battery creation, recycling and increased electric bills for starters.

It's hard, bordering impossible, to store chemical energy in a reversible process in the amounts that you need in a car constricted by the space you have in a car. Petrol has an energy density that is unmatched, so it's the best option. Like it said; we just need a better way of destroying petrol for it's energy. There is allready an idea by doing variable strokes in an engine to greatly increase full economy.

But don't mind me, I'm just here to bash me some hippies!

Edit;

6 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@Dr Herbie: I do not believe in the electric car with batteries. Batteries are dirty, icky, dangerous and you will always have the range problem.

... Mmm. Alot like petrol then.

Would you prefer to be sitting in a car when the battery catches fire, or the fuel tank?

I would buy a Vauxhall Insignia for that price range

Much rather get out, but between the two, I would put my money on the fuel tank.

Each night when you put your electric car into the garage and plug it in for the night, it runs the risk of overheating and catching fire. My pertrol car does not have that problem.

If you own an electric car, my advice to you is to get it out of the garage, buy a 50 meter extension cord and charge it by the street.

Imagine 6000 of those charging in your garage,..

45 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@Ray7:

Much rather get out, but between the two, I would put my money on the fuel tank.

Yup that's what I thought you'd say.

And I'd be more concerned with the petrol tank while I'm driving, since I don't actually sleep in the garage. 

And those things appear to be smoking and flaring rather than exploding. I reckon about six smoke alarms would have gone off long before those things became a problem.

So, if you're unfortunate enough to be in a car accident, I still maintain that your fuel tank is a much bigger and more immediate problem than your batteries.

Having said that though, I was nearly hit by a Prius while I was out running. Didn't hear it. :-/

F: buy a non-electric, non-hybrid that gets 40mpg (e.g. Ford Focus).

G: buy a turbo diesel that gets 45mpg (e.g. VW Jetta/Golf TDI)

Tesla recently unveiled it's new EV sedan that has a range of 265 miles and is a fully featured luxury car (read: heavy). They have a charging system that can recharge the batteries at a rate of 300 miles/hour. While it's way out of the price range for most it does show that a fully EV car with a gas car comparable range can be built today. They've figured out how to deal with all of the problems that prevent this from being a daily driver for many except one: refueling. Sure you can install a charging station at your house but who has a few extra thousand bucks lying around to do that? This is solvable (i.e. have the dealer bundle the install cost in the car price) but the automotive industry, builders, employers, and governments need to get behind it. The automotive industry needs to agree on a standard method of charging these vehicles. Homes should be built with charging station just like they include toilets today. Municipalities need to look at providing public charging stations throughout the city just like they provide parking meters. Employers should encourage EV usage by providing a few premium parking spots with charging stations (and getting a tax break for doing so).

The battery/recycling "issue" is just a bunch of FUD. It's just another problem in need of a system to solve it just like the system Maddus included for a more efficient combustion engine. If anything the shift to EV will create badly needed jobs. We've had curb-side recycling here in the Northwest for decades and I am still amazed on how much of the U.S. hasn't followed suit. People are just so entirely lazy it's amazing. Just scrape off what you want from the top and discard the rest. It doesn't matter if in the long run that's less efficient or someone else will have to pay for it.  We have to learn to make the effort to do better with what we have.

Speaking of... it looks like the Germans are having some success with solar power. While the investment is huge the long term gain will be substantial. You could say Microsoft has the same outlook on W8; maybe it won't be a hit right out of the gate but in the long run it's a direction they had to go to save themselves.

Renewables, EVs, hybrids, supply chain -- yeah it's a mess right now but these are solvable problems that will produce jobs, reduce costs, cut pollution, and improve our lives (or maybe the lives of our children) in the long run.

--- End of Rant 119291 ---

*Edit*

And to answer the OP's question I'd buy the Ford Focus EV. I live 6 miles from work so distance is not an issue. That paired with the GF's Prius for range I'd be set. If I were single and had no kids I'd get a motorcycle and donor card.

3 minutes ago, DeathByVisualStudio wrote

I just got back from a road trip where we drove a 2012 Prius 3. We averaged 55 mpg and got 57 mpg on one tank. One of our stops (for coffee & sandwiches) was at this gas station in Eugene, Or. It was a thing of beauty. They had pumps for biodiesel, E85, diesel, regular gas, and all kinds of blends in between. This was a modern, clean gas station that you wouldn't know was a "hippie" gas station. The biodiesel was 10 cents more a gallon that the regular gas at the station next door. It's too bad diesels never took off here in the U.S. because Maddus is right -- they are better than a purely gas driven vehicle (though I'd argue that the Prius is equally as good). I'd gladly pay 10 cents more a gallon for biodiesel.

Tesla recently unveiled it's new EV sedan that has a range of 265 miles and is a fully featured luxury car (read: heavy). They have a charging system that can recharge the batteries at a rate of 300 miles/hour. While it's way out of the price range for most it does show that a fully EV car with a gas car comparable range can be built today. They've figured out how to deal with all of the problems that prevent this from being a daily driver for many except one: refueling. Sure you can install a charging station at your house but who has a few extra thousand bucks lying around to do that? This is solvable (i.e. have the dealer bundle the install cost in the car price) but the automotive industry, builders, employers, and governments need to get behind it. The automotive industry needs to agree on a standard method of charging these vehicles. Homes should be built with charging station just like they include toilets today. Municipalities need to look at providing public charging stations throughout the city just like they provide parking meters. Employers should encourage EV usage by providing a few premium parking spots with charging stations (and getting a tax break for doing so).

The battery/recycling "issue" is just a bunch of FUD. It's just another problem in need of a system to solve it just like the system Maddus included for a more efficient combustion engine. If anything the shift to EV will create badly needed jobs. We've had curb-side recycling here in the Northwest for decades and I am still amazed on how much of the U.S. hasn't followed suit. People are just so entirely lazy it's amazing. Just scrape off what you want from the top and discard the rest. It doesn't matter if in the long run that's less efficient or someone else will have to pay for it.  We have to learn to make the effort to do better with what we have.

Speaking of... it looks like the Germans are having some success with solar power. While the investment is huge the long term gain will be substantial. You could say Microsoft has the same outlook on W8; maybe it won't be a hit right out of the gate but in the long run it's a direction they had to go to save themselves.

Renewables, EVs, hybrids, supply chain -- yeah it's a mess right now but these are solvable problems that will produce jobs, reduce costs, cut pollution, and improve our lives (or maybe the lives of our children) in the long run.

--- End of Rant 119291 ---

++

Kudos where kudos are required

19 hours ago, Sven Groot wrote

*snip*

On the contrary. I use the time to read. I would really miss that if I had to drive.

Crowded trains can be annoying, but I've gotten good at avoiding the real crowds (being flexible in my working hours helps).

This looks like a nice system. Does anybody know if they actually built it or not?

Or did Bill just buy himself more hamburgers with the money instead?

(note to self: in the case I get a billion dollars, find a way to make hamburgers taste differently, or fire hamburger cook)

Why is the first option so lomg?

And no vote because I already have my Ford Escort since my high school. I will save it for a house.

Overheating batteries are common.

@DeathByVisualStudio: Putting food in your gas tank, that's a good idea? Biofuels are bad for your engine, they are very corrosive to engine parts and bad for people because it drives foodprices up.

They have a charging system that can recharge the batteries at a rate of 300 miles/hour.

This method of charging decreases battery life significantly. You can only charge at this rate a number of times before your battery has to be replaced.

Sure you can install a charging station at your house but who has a few extra thousand bucks lying around to do that?

Why would it take a couple of thousand dollars? A charging station is basically just a electric cable hooked up to the mains.

Municipalities need to look at providing public charging stations throughout the city just like they provide parking meters.

Who is going to pay for that?

The battery/recycling "issue" is just a bunch of FUD

No it's not, it's nothing like the more efficient piston engine. This is a problem that has not been solved, the piston engine I posted is an improvement to a working solution. Those are two entirely different things!

Do you have any idea how toxic materials like nickel are? How much energy is wasted in creating and recycling them? Now imagine a million of those heavy metal battery packs needing to be recycled.

If anything the shift to EV will create badly needed jobs

If the market is asking for them, yes, but currently it's only being pushed by government, so, for each job being created, two real ones are lost.

Speaking of... it looks like the Germans are having some success with solar power

What are you talking about man? The Germans are going broke in the solar business! People can't afford electricity anymore! Germans are being deprived of energy. This is success? How do you define failure then?

Look at Denmark, also a huge success for wind right? Highest price per kwh in the world!

I then bought a used Porsche, a 924, model year of 1977, while still driving the Ford. I rebuilt the engine myself a few years later, with some machining of the head and new cylinder sleeves installed by a machine shop.

I then bought a motorcycle. A Honda 350 cc and put about 11,000 km on it before some kids decided they liked it better than I did and made it disappear from my backyard one night

Then I bought a used Honda Civic from a friend of one of my brothers, and parked the Porsche as it was getting expensive to maintain it. I replaced the starter one day and forgot to tighten one bolt. A very important bolt it was. The timing of the valves with the pistons relied on this bolt to be tightened properly. After a short test drive and a push home, then a lengthy process of replacing the head, I could never get the car to pass "Air Care", so concludes by driving of vehicles on a regular basis. I haven't driven my own car for over 10 years now.

I did drive my mothers car for a while after fixing and painting some nasty looking rusty spots. But alas, one day someone drove into the back of the car and the Insurance company paid $10,000 to take the car off of my mothers hands. Funnily before I fixed and painted the rusty spots, she couldn't even sell the car for $500. (actually it was my sisters car first and she couldn't get what she thought was a good price for it, so the gave it to mom).

I ride my bike and walk to all my destinations. Other family members do the grocery shopping. I still have all my former vehicles except for the motorcycle. Only the Porsche is still drivable.

So I have experienced much of what's in Mr. 8 bits list of options. And I have selected a truck as my next vehicle, because my family could use a utility vehicle. We have an empty lot next door which we own and am thinking of building a house there. We want to finish rebuilding a sundeck this summer and need to do repairs on the roof as well. A few months ago we had to haul a new hot water tank home (which I installed, successfully).

57 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@Ray7: You watch too many movies, fuel tank never explodes in an accident. For an explosion to take place, you first need the tank to be pressurised. So all it really can do is catch fire if it's punctured. Because it's in the belly of the car and made very sturdy, this rarely happens.

Overheating batteries are common.

Well, that's funny because I don't know anyone who's had a problem recharging batteries in laptops of phones, but I know two people who have had car fires.

Car fires are not explosions, but they do get engulfed in flames very fast -- one of our friends had her two small children in the car and she only just had time to get them out before the whole car was engulfed in flames.

There are three likely causes of fires in electric cars:  bad wiring in the charging socket in the house (no earth); design flaws (although this is still a suspicion rather than a known issue); batteries damaged in accidents which the owners then continue to use despite the warnings not to.

The battery damage issues are actually caused by liquid coolants. Coolant leaks onto the wires and crystallises, which makes them more flammable when they get warm.  Electric cars without coolant (such as the Nissan Leaf) don't have this problem.

Herbie

Car fires happen and are very dangerous, like you said, a lot of flammable materials in the car. Now imagine the same car fire while sitting on top of lithium-ion batteries.

And how can you tell if you've had a crash what the state of the battery is? That would mean we would have to swap them out afther each collision.

Only real alternative I can see with electric propelled vehicles, is to tap directly from the mains, I don't see batteries as a real option. That solution would reduce the weight of the car, increase safety of the car and solve the range problem. There is just a small challenge of getting the power to the car.

The point of my post was also that your claim that "Overheating batteries are common" is plain wrong. If a car battery is damaged it is at risk of fire, but not guaranteed to catch fire.  The issue raised with the Volt electric car fire, which was three weeks after it was used in a crash test, was not reproduced in two other cars that underwent similar crash tests.  As a result, the investigators determined that electric cars pose no greater risk than petrol cars.  

I don't think that getting a battery checked after a collision is a big deal -- just the same as you would get the brakes and the steering checked. Emergency services know that if they attend a collision involving electric vehicles, they should discharge the battery. As I stated before, fires from damaged batteries are cause by leakage; a visual check of the battery would tell you if it was leaking.

Herbie

After a year and two months and 30k km I am pretty happy with my choice, TOC is much lower than my old VW Golf.

However, if you are looking for a "fun" and "emotional drive, this is NOT the car you want.

1 day ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@Dr Herbie: If you want fuel economy buy a diesel, Prius sucks for fuel economy, I do better then a Prius with my VW Golf Variant TDI and my Daihatsu Sirion 1.3.

I drive a Prius. My current consumption is 3.9 l/100 km (or 60 mpg). That's a better than your VW or Daihatsu.

I would have expected hybrids to do a lot better in comparison, and given that diesel engines are more efficient than their petrol counterparts, I would have expected that there would be a lot of diesel/electric hybrid cars by now.

100mpg isn't unrealistic for one of those and that would be an excellent stopgap while we mull over how we get to recharge and manage batteries...

EDIT: for what it's worth, diesel fuel is also extremely safe: its flashpoint is high enough that it's not even rated as flammable.

1 day ago, DeathByVisualStudio wrote

I just got back from a road trip where we drove a 2012 Prius 3. We averaged 55 mpg and got 57 mpg on one tank. One of our stops (for coffee & sandwiches) was at this gas station in Eugene, Or. It was a thing of beauty. They had pumps for biodiesel, E85, diesel, regular gas, and all kinds of blends in between. This was a modern, clean gas station that you wouldn't know was a "hippie" gas station. The biodiesel was 10 cents more a gallon that the regular gas at the station next door. It's too bad diesels never took off here in the U.S. because Maddus is right -- they are better than a purely gas driven vehicle (though I'd argue that the Prius is equally as good). I'd gladly pay 10 cents more a gallon for biodiesel.

My brother has a rather rough and ready Land Rover and has been known to top the diesel tank up with several gallons of vegetable oil from his local Asda when the petrol station was closed...

The average car in the US is 3500 pounds where as they're only using about 600 pounds of that weight at any given time.

Why the need to fuel all that dead weight(hauling around unused metal), times the number of drivers in America?

Why not optimize the weight of vehicles and therefore how much fuel (electric or gas) is needed to  propell those vehicles?

I mean, in reality this thread was more to find out what kind of idiots would buy an old luxury car for the price of a new normal car, but this got unexpectedly interesting.

Unbalanced how?

Electric batteries have certain risks. The risk of overheating while charging and decharging is one. Two is that lithium-ion batteries are highly flammable. Nothing you do is going to change these two facts. You can reduce the risk of overheating and catching fire, but you can never get rid of them.

My main concern with batteries as a source of the fire is not my primairy concern. What happens if the battery catches fire due to a fire started elsewhere?

What happens if these cars hit the second hand market?

I'm not so convinced of the need to move to electric and certainly not convinced that it's a safer alternative.

Electric cars have certain risks and petrol cars also have certain risks -- in fact as I already posted, in the links previously, the American NHTSA has determined that the fire risks are similar between the two. See? Balanced.

What happens if the battery catches fire due to a fire started elsewhere?  Much the same as a petrol car when it catches fire due to a fire started elsewhere -- it will go up in flames and potentially spread the fire.  See?  Balanced.

What happens when these cars hit the second-hand market?  Much the same as a petrol car hitting the second-hand market -- if you don't get it checked out properly, then you risk accidents due to faults.  See? Balanced.

My view is that for me an electric car almost makes sense, but not until the range goes up and the price goes down. You appear to have decided that you don't like electric cars on principle and will find any argument to support that view. 

Herbie

I have concerns about the electric car as a solution, but I think people should be free to choose. Petrol, especially diesel, is IMO much safer because we have 100 years more experience with it. Infrastructure is allready in place, etc etc. Why on earth should we move to battery powered vehicles? Petrol is still the best option and don't even think about playing the pollution card, because with electric the pollution is still there, just not from your exhaust.

As for the pollution card -- we can easily play that one;  electric cars decouple the production of the energy from its use. Not all electricity is produced by fossil fuels and (at least in the UK) you can use a 'green' provider that uses more of the renewable sources for production, or you can (as several UK electric car drivers have) install enough solar cells to generate the required power to recharge your car. Electric cars have a larger carbon footprint in production but, due to their use of electricity and their fewer moving parts (requiring fewer replacements), their overall lifetime footprint is lower that petrol cars. As the technology of electric cars matures, I would expect the carbon footprint to drop (or at least stay the same) but not to increase.

However, my main reason for wanting an electric car would be the lower TCO over the full lifetime of the car.  Saving money always makes sense.

Herbie

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/23/electric-cars-its-all-about-the-battery/

Green energy doesnt nearly supply enough (never will, there is only so much wind and sun to go around) electricity to be able to sustain a electric car fleet. So we will have to build more nuclear, coal and gas powered powerplants. Invest heavily in new infrastructure to transport the power. And it's this transport of electricity that is the achilles heel of the electric car. It comes at a such a big loss, that any gain in efficiency in the car are lost. And imagine the rise in electricity prices!

And if you want to drag environment into it, you should take a look at the production sites of these batteries. It's not pretty.

@GoddersUK: I do acknowledge that urban areas do benefit, because the pollution is now elsewhere, but less overall? no, I'm not conviced.

Did Bill Gates ever build his monorail to his magic kingdom or not?

I don't live near Seattle so I don't know. I can say for a fact that the MS campus in Mountain View has no such monorail, sadly.

Given that the average commute in the UK (which has one of the longest average commutes in Europe) is 8.2 miles (11.3 miles looking at rural areas only), most of us don't regularly need a vehicle with a 500+ mile range; on the rare occasions that people want to travel 500+ miles they could hire a diesel car and still spend less per year than they do owning a diesel car.

Not enough green electricity for an electric fleet?  You could argue that is the case at the moment, but you could also point out that the people running the electric grid would very much like people to use electric cars because charging them overnight would help solve one of their main efficiency problems (skip to 5:10 for the bit about night-time demand i you don't want to watch the whole 11 minutes). More electric cars being charged overnight would lead to a reduction in the cost of electricity for everyone. That's what the people running the grid say, and they are the ones who would know.

Yes, mining sites for the battery metals are not pretty, but then neither are some of the ones for coal mining.  It is up to the countries allowing open-cast mining  to clean up after themselves, and it is the responsibility of the companies producing the electric vehicles to ensure that as much of it is recyclable as possible.

Herbie

And as the range increases and the charge time decreases, the power demand will increase by the product of the two. And people who don't own cars and people who have little money will be the victims of this latest fad.

Electric cars and green energy are projects for the elite to show off that they care for the planet more then for their fellow man.

If you have an electric car with a range of 100 miles and a commute of 11 miles, you're not going to recharge it once you get to work.  If you're charging on your own supply, you're going to want to charge it on the cheapest tariff possible -- I would invest £10 in a plug timer to start the charging after 11pm.

2 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

Electric cars and green energy are projects for the elite to show off that they care for the planet more then for their fellow man.

Which is such a stunningly hypocritical contradiction that I shall leave is as it stands.

Herbie

EDIT: contradiction, not tautology I think.

4 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@GoddersUK: I do acknowledge that urban areas do benefit, because the pollution is now elsewhere, but less overall? no, I'm not conviced.

Well that's the great myth about electricity being more environmentally friendly... you just shift the pollution elsewhere.

Still, the greatest good for the greatest number, and all that

3 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

And as the range increases and the charge time decreases, the power demand will increase by the product of the two. And people who don't own cars and people who have little money will be the victims of this latest fad.

Just to be clear on this: You're suggesting that if electric cars were available that were capable of lasting for long distances, as well as having short charge times, people would spend a lot more time charging them. Presumably because they'd all suddenly discover a need to drive a lot further, right? I mean, further even than they typically drive now, despite petrol cars having exactly those characteristics? And this genuinely makes sense to you?

1 hour ago, GoddersUK wrote

*snip*

Well that's the great myth about electricity being more environmentally friendly... you just shift the pollution elsewhere.

Nothing is perfect, however there are methods of generating electricity that are cleaner and more efficient than petrol engines. It's also considerably easier to deal with the problems of waste products in a single power plant than it is when they're being generated from every single vehicle on the road.

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/6/13/electric-vehicles-crony-capitalism.html

http://energy.typepad.com/the-energy-blog/2010/04/greenhouse-gas-emissions-electric-vs-gasoline-cars.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/green-living-blog/2011/jan/17/electric-car-emissions

Herbie

Nuclear power was previously used to generate about 30% of all electricity in Japan. Polls show 70% of Japanese citizens want Japan to completely get rid nuclear power in the long term. I wonder how many of those 70% have given any thought as to what to replace it with.

I am not against nuclear power. I believe it can be done safely. Building nuclear power plants on the coastline of a tsunami-prone country and having no contingency plan for a complete failure of all backup power is not good practice, however.

And your source for this information is ... ?

Common sense,. It's allready known as range stress or range enxiety,. So when you park in your EV in your special charge parking spot, you plug it in. Do you leave your laptop unplugged because it has 4 hours left when you sit next to a socket? No you dont, so neither will you leave your electric car unplugged in a charging station, that's obvious. 

If you have an electric car with a range of 100 miles and a commute of 11 miles, you're not going to recharge it once you get to work.  If you're charging on your own supply, you're going to want to charge it on the cheapest tariff possible -- I would invest £10 in a plug timer to start the charging after 11pm.

I would ONLY charge it at work, as I'm not paying, but my boss is (actually customers, stockholders and all employees are paying).

Where does this tellytubby world view come from? Can't you see all these things are doing more harm then good?

Which is such a stunningly hypocritical contradiction that I shall leave is as it stands.

Ok let's see then, what kind of feel good projects do we have and how does this affect the elite and how does it affect the poor?

1. Biofuels

This effects the elite not so much, they don't care if their burger is $1 or $2, they make enough money. The poor people that live of a couple of bucks a day do care that their food prices have been doubled. Not to mention the robbing of land done to create palmoil plantations. So effect on the elite, they get a warm feeling inside, effect on the poor, less to eat and loss of homes and income.

2. Green energy

This again effects the elite not so much, they don't care if their power comes at 23 eurocents the kwh or 56 eurocents the kwh. They have the money to invest in solar panels and windmills to compensate for the loss of income via all sorts of subsidies and tax benefits. The poor however have no choice but to cut spending in other areas, as energy is one of THE basic necessities of any household. So again, it has little effect on the elite, but a huge effect on the poor, they are driven into energy starvation.

I could go on and on. Oh and to those who think I see this as a conspiracy, I don't. I think people are genuinely concerned with the environment, they are just picking the wrong 'solutions' to the 'problems'.

I'll leave you with this;

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

49 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

*snip*

1. Biofuels

This effects the elite not so much, they don't care if their burger is $1 or $2, they make enough money. The poor people that live of a couple of bucks a day do care that their food prices have been doubled. Not to mention the robbing of land done to create palmoil plantations. So effect on the elite, they get a warm feeling inside, effect on the poor, less to eat and loss of homes and income.

McDonalds already use biofuels created from the waste oil from their kitchens. People's burgers are already cheaper precisely because of this.

I shall have to wait now and reply later.

Herbie

Those initiatives are but a drop in the ocean [edit: strike that, cheaper burger means solution works] and more costly then the normal alternative, so not really a good idea[/edit].

The vast amounts of biofuels come from farmland converted into biofuel plantations.

Even Greenpeace and other NGO's first promoting biofuels are now backing away from it, as they are doing serious harm to the poorest people on the planet.

It will not be long till the knowledge of the effects other feel good projects becomes so widespread that the same NGO's are forced to take a different stance.

Like I said, people mean well, things just work differently in real life. That's why you need people with their heads in the clouds working together with people with their feet in the dirt. And it's not a good idea to force these solutions by law, a solution has to hold up by it's own merit, not because it has a special status. When this status is gone, see the cutting of subsidies in Spain, the solution becomes a problem instead of a solution.

Any way, where I live it's too cold to make an electric car practical to own. We even just had one of, if not the coldest Junes in recorded history here in south western Canada. My Carbon Tax also just went up to $30 a tonne on July 1   I will be burning wood in my fireplace this winter, carbon tax free

And of course I still remain convinced that the world would be better off with double the current amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, so all these emissions reductions schemes are unnecessary. (Don't worry, I'm not going to bother trying to convince you).

--- --- ---

If you believe that emissions have to be reduced, then you had better watch this video lecture by Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. The solutions are far more difficult than you could ever imagine: (He believes in Global Warming)

 http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.ca/2012/04/climate-fix-lecture-with-slides.html

3 days ago, JoshRoss wrote

Abarth!

Ironically I'm waiting for a call right now this minute with my collection date. Probably the best car I have driven, nothings come even close to much fun you have with it. 

3 days ago, Sven Groot wrote

*snip*

On the contrary. I use the time to read. I would really miss that if I had to drive.

Crowded trains can be annoying, but I've gotten good at avoiding the real crowds (being flexible in my working hours helps).

Oh, I'm quite jealous. USA sucks for public transportation, worst imaginable.

3 days ago, Dr Herbie wrote

In the scenario where I needed to buy a car, I would probably go with the Prius (for fuel economy), or do what I always do and get a 'nearly new' car from a second-hand car dealer (you can often get them still under manufacturers warranty when a year or two old).  Then I drive it until the repair costs start to get out of hand, usually after 100,000 miles or so.

Herbie

I'd be the one on the side of the road trying to push my Leaf to the next 110-volt electrical outlet...

2 days ago, PaoloM wrote

*snip*

++

Kudos where kudos are required

+1

Kudos DBVS

I think pure electic vehicles aren't practical until they can get the recharge time down to under 30 minutes for a full recharge without shortening the battery's lifespan.

For now, the best solution appears to be something like the Chevy Volt, i.e. an electric car with a built-in gas generator. Too bad it's $40k for a $25k vehicle.

Electric cars and green energy are projects for the elite to show off that they care for the planet more then for their fellow man.

No, they are attempts to clean up the mess resulting from years of denial and procrastination that all environmental protection must be the cheapest for my personal budget. You cannot count how many people spend in your "elite" fashion with cash they saved from menial middle income jobs. Maddus you must re-examine your prejudices because you have lost sight of honest objectivity, imho. People are not wired identically, you assume too much.

3 days ago, JoshRoss wrote

Abarth!

I was *this* close to pick one up Saturday

One thing that is really impeding us is 100 years of auto brand marketing.

Without that type of drilling into people's psychology we would have eliminated gas vehicles by now.

We need to focus on what cars accomplish, namely transportation, rather than what brand they are, be it Abarth, Fiat or whatever. I'm not advocating public transportation or the monorail systems like I posted in the video above. I think personal transportation is good, but not the way we're currently doing it.

I don't drive a motorcycle because it's cool. I drive it because I can go in between cars and traffic almost never stops me. There are functional reasons that people buy things and thresholds of risk.

I think most people are too hung up on ad campaigns and branding. It's the same motivating force that would push somebody(an idiot) to buy a 10 year old luxury car for the same price that they can get a new car with good gas mileage or an electric.

We need to make sure that people know that you're not a better person because you drive a luxury car. Once we have accomplished that, I think the rest will be easy.

14 minutes ago, 01001001 wrote

Just as I know a little something about Google's real business (not adwords/adsense) and ad exchanges, I know a whole lot about the automobile industry and marketing related to that.

One thing that is really impeding us is 100 years of auto brand marketing.

Without that type of drilling into people's psychology we would have eliminated gas vehicles by now.

...

We need to make sure that people know that you're not a better person because you drive a luxury car. Once we have accomplished that, I think the rest will be easy.

I agree that individuality is juxtaposed collective identity, psychologically, there is safety in numbers.

I agree it would be paradise without that reflexive instinctive perspective, paradise indeed.

I assert that will never happen. We are all wired in the strangest possible manners imaginable.

I assert that the market is driven by profiteering, and gas cars are more profitable than change...

I don't have the guts to ride a bike like you, for sure, not until my kids are set. 

The fantasy that electric cars are right around the corner doesn't survive even the most cursory reality check...consumers simply won't pay a $20,000 premium for a vehicle that doesn't go very far, isn't very convenient, and runs out of juice as soon as you turn on the air conditioner.

And then, as she says, there's another problem:

Electric vehicles require large amounts of electricity – so much that Toronto Hydro chief Anthony Haines says he doesn't know how he'd get it. "If you connect about 10 per cent of the homes on any given street with an electric car, the electricity system fails," he said recently."

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/07/02/is-the-wwf-telling-the-truth-about-electric-cars/

11 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

*snip*

Common sense,. It's allready known as range stress or range enxiety,. So when you park in your EV in your special charge parking spot, you plug it in. Do you leave your laptop unplugged because it has 4 hours left when you sit next to a socket? No you dont, so neither will you leave your electric car unplugged in a charging station, that's obvious. 

Ah yes, Range Anxiety : a phrase invented by people who don't drive electric cars.  If you were going on a long journey in you petrol car would you just jump right in and head off, or do you actually check what's in the tank and possibly even plan where you're going to stop to fill up?  It's the same process with an electric car, just with a smaller range.  How many times have you run out of petrol?  Probably about the same number of times that an electric car driver runs out of electricity.

I don't plug my laptop in to recharge until I see the power light turn orange, even if I am sitting right next to a socket. I often even wait longer than that a plug it on to recharge over-night so it's ready for the next day.  I can manage this because I am able to plan ahead.

11 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

I would ONLY charge it at work, as I'm not paying, but my boss is (actually customers, stockholders and all employees are paying).

I would never do that unless I was given express permission -- because I have this thing called a 'conscience' which you will find that most people have.

If I was offered a free re-charge my my work, I would also press them to do something to mitigate the cost; if they're offering recharging to all employees the costs will mount up, so they should do something like Google's solar arrays in the car-park.  I would do this because I recognise that employment is a two-way street and just shrugging and saying "Well, I'm not paying for it so I don't care" is not the action of a responsible employee.

11 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

1. Biofuels

This effects the elite not so much, they don't care if their burger is $1 or $2, they make enough money. The poor people that live of a couple of bucks a day do care that their food prices have been doubled. Not to mention the robbing of land done to create palmoil plantations. So effect on the elite, they get a warm feeling inside, effect on the poor, less to eat and loss of homes and income.

I completely agree with you on this one -- Biolfuels are a fool's errand.  No only do they take away food production resources, but some of the chemical by-products are pretty nasty too.  While using waste food oil is a fine idea, we still have to deal with the by-products.

11 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

2. Green energy

This again effects the elite not so much, they don't care if their power comes at 23 eurocents the kwh or 56 eurocents the kwh. They have the money to invest in solar panels and windmills to compensate for the loss of income via all sorts of subsidies and tax benefits. The poor however have no choice but to cut spending in other areas, as energy is one of THE basic necessities of any household. So again, it has little effect on the elite, but a huge effect on the poor, they are driven into energy starvation.

Which is exactly the reason that the wealthy should be paying their higher tax rates fully -- the wealthy pay more in taxes which go to subsidise green energy which can be used cheaply by everyone.  Eventually the technology matures enough to bring the costs down and the subsidies can be reduced.  This way we are less reliant on fossil fuels from other countries and more in control of the price we pay (unlike the oil prices being fixed by OPEC over which we have no control).

Herbie

12 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

*snip*

And your source for this information is ... ?

Common sense.

And there you go... Game, set, match. You'll continue to decry the obviousness of the elephant in the room by attacking its truck, its tail, its ears but you refuse to see the elephant as a whole. 

No one is suggesting that renewables are superior today to petrol. Your comparison of the two technologies in their current form is ridiculous (amongst other statements like for every one public sector job that is created two private sector jobs are lost -- how about for every new public sector job a consumer is created that produces the need for more private sector jobs?). How many trillions of dollars have going into the development of petrol? Renewable have a long way to go before they are as mature as petrol but I'm happy to see the quick progress being made because of the investments both individuals and nations are making. Oil and related technologies have a limited future. Renewables do not (hence the name -- you know common sense like and all).

If you want to count every ancillary cost then you also have to include the cost of wars and lives fought over oil. Renewables like wind and solar are readily available to all. No haves & have nots; no power base that can be leveraged.

And that's where I'm going to end my contribution to this ridiculous thread. I'm sorry you are so limited in your vision of the future.

BTW, I hope for your own safety that you have rid yourself of all cell phones, laptops, etc. that are in your possession as it's pretty irrefutable by your account on how dangerous the are.  

7 hours ago, Proton2 wrote

@Dr Herbie: I don't seem to see any reference to the further calculations needed for the transmission losses and the other losses of energy along the way to get the energy from the power plant to the wheels of the electric car. The links you provided me seems to stop at the amount of electric power generated at the plant, which is a long way from the final destination for our calculation purposes.

You're absolutely correct -- the loss on the distribution grid is about 10%, so we can subtract that from the electric car efficiency, making electric cars between 11% and 48% more carbon efficient that petrol cars; still a substantial reduction.

7 hours ago, Proton2 wrote

Any way, where I live it's too cold to make an electric car practical to own. We even just had one of, if not the coldest Junes in recorded history here in south western Canada. My Carbon Tax also just went up to $30 a tonne on July 1   I will be burning wood in my fireplace this winter, carbon tax free

I have no problem with people using petrol cars when they are the best solution to their circumstances -- my point is that for the majority of the people in Europe and the USA for the majority of their time an electric car is a perfectly acceptable solution and has serious environmental and economic benefits.

Oh, and burning wood is carbon neutral, so there wouldn't be a carbon tax on it, but it's not sustainable unless you plant some replacements (see the Sahara dessert for reference).

Herbie

6 minutes ago, Dr Herbie wrote

*snip*

(see the Sahara dessert for reference).

Hmmm... dessert...

Personally I dislike electric cars because they are very uneffecient. It is only switching consumption of resource to that extremely heavy and toxic battery. I do not see how this is clean at all. Hybrid is ok because we conserve energy lost during breaking. It is still uneffecient with that battery, but, since it indeed improve mpg, I am fine with it, dispite that extra toxic weight.

if we use very efficient fusion generator that can be recycled for future car, i think that would be awesome. Imagine a car where you dont need to refuel at all and you can move it to a new car instead of wasting it.

Or some kind of organic organisim that is easy to grow and can be converted to energy easily. That would be great too. This organism can harvest sunlight better than any solar panel. No need to maintain, just put water and let the sun and take its course. Amazing. 

1 hour ago, Proton2 wrote

"

*snip*

And then, as she says, there's another problem:

*snip*

Seems to contradict the view of the UK energy companies, if you watched the video link I posted earlier.

If more people used electric cars, there would be less demand for petrol which would reduce the demand for electricity by oil processing plants that, it turns out, use much more electricity than I expected in the production of petrol.  I didn't know that oil refineries were often deliberately built next to power plants (like Google do for their data centres).

Turns out that the electricity used to produce one US gallon of petrol would power a Nissan Leaf for roughly 16 miles. It's not that impressive compared to the 42 MPG I get in my current car, but I've known people drive petrol cars that got less than that.

Herbie

1 minute ago, PaoloM wrote

*snip*

Hmmm... dessert...

Ha! Freudian slip -- I haven't had dessert yet!  

*mooches off to the kitchen for a speculative rummage*

Herbie

Hmmmm.... I disagree because USA population is not dense in most of the states, and they are close to 50% or more of USA population. And those people are on the road, they dont park for an hour and taking that tea time.

1 day ago, Blue Ink wrote

@ZippyV: 60 mpg is nothing to write home about these days. Leaving alone pure electric for the current range problem and battery lifetime, there are countless diesel and petrol options that easily exceed 70 mpg (there's a VW Golf 1.6 TDI that makes 74, for istance) and you can exceed 80 mpg on some models (source: www.nextgreencar.com ).

If you are going to use UK miles then it's 72.43 MPG. Also note that I don't drive on the highway at all.

Nothing is perfect, however there are methods of generating electricity that are cleaner and more efficient than petrol engines. It's also considerably easier to deal with the problems of waste products in a single power plant than it is when they're being generated from every single vehicle on the road.

Yes, but the question is do we use those methods? The answer is, mostly, no. As I said above, it shifts the pollution out of urban areas, which is probably good and you get different types of pollution (less NO2 but more mercury for eg., I think, although those specific examples could be wrong).

Also power station chimneys release their wastes much higher which means, I believe, that the UK gives Scandinavia a load of acid rain

The best short term solution is probably nuclear fission since that gives you the waste all nicely bottled up (although how it compares once mining and transport of uranium have been taken into account I don't know). Longer term ITER needs to hurry up. Also sacrifices will need to be made. I remember a while ago proposals for a huge tidal station in the Severn estuary that could have produced some ridiculous proportion of the country's energy demand - people objected on the grounds that it would kill the fish but, tbh, if it comes to killing the fish or warming the globe I'd kill the fish any day. Similarly people need to stop being so NIMBY about wind turbines etc(I always throught they looked nice anyway and never understood the "oh noes they're ugly" argument) - although whether they'll ever supply a significant amount of our energy, I don't know.

I think there's also a place for things such as water heating solar panels on homes to reduce resource use (photovoltaics, though, should be avoided as the compounds used within them could be far far better used for other things)

There is no single solution that will fit all scenarios, the use of existing waste to produce biofuels will suit some situations, electric vehicles others and some situations will doubtless still rely on petrol (I can't see those Alaskan ice road trucks getting by on batteries in the near future!) The future will doubtless require a multitude of solutions, unless something utterly revolutionary comes along.

9 hours ago, magicalclick wrote

@Dr Herbie:

Hmmmm.... I disagree because USA population is not dense in most of the states, and they are close to 50% or more of USA population. And those people are on the road, they dont park for an hour and taking that tea time.

Average American commute is 16 miles. That would be easily covered by electric cars with a range of 100 miles (even accounting for the silly amounts of time sitting in congested queues).

Herbie

Ah yes, Range Anxiety : a phrase invented by people who don't drive electric cars.  If you were going on a long journey in you petrol car would you just jump right in and head off, or do you actually check what's in the tank and possibly even plan where you're going to stop to fill up?  It's the same process with an electric car, just with a smaller range.  How many times have you run out of petrol?  Probably about the same number of times that an electric car driver runs out of electricity.

Sure, it's all in their heads. Each day when I leave I check wether I need a refeul this day and plan where to do it. On vacation it's different, I just drive till I am 200km above empty and start looking for petrol station signs, as I want to be on the safe side. So with an electric car I'd be looking for a charge station as soon as I leave. Did you ever take a holiday with a car? I went to Italy, Norway, Chech Republic and Germany,.

I don't plug my laptop in to recharge until I see the power light turn orange, even if I am sitting right next to a socket. I often even wait longer than that a plug it on to recharge over-night so it's ready for the next day.  I can manage this because I am able to plan ahead.

Why would you even do that? I don't think that's normal behavior.

I would never do that unless I was given express permission -- because I have this thing called a 'conscience' which you will find that most people have.

If I was offered a free re-charge my my work, I would also press them to do something to mitigate the cost; if they're offering recharging to all employees the costs will mount up, so they should do something like Google's solar arrays in the car-park.  I would do this because I recognise that employment is a two-way street and just shrugging and saying "Well, I'm not paying for it so I don't care" is not the action of a responsible employee.

You are a real Robin Hood, normal people would just like their laptop, plug in their car. Look around you, normal people are driven by greed or self preservation (same thing). So if you offer them a freebie, they will take it.

I completely agree with you on this one -- Biolfuels are a fool's errand.  No only do they take away food production resources, but some of the chemical by-products are pretty nasty too.  While using waste food oil is a fine idea, we still have to deal with the by-products.

Good!

Next step, acknowledging that windmills cause warming and climate change!

Article in nature.

Oh and bird death;

Which is exactly the reason that the wealthy should be paying their higher tax rates fully -- the wealthy pay more in taxes which go to subsidise green energy which can be used cheaply by everyone.  Eventually the technology matures enough to bring the costs down and the subsidies can be reduced.  This way we are less reliant on fossil fuels from other countries and more in control of the price we pay (unlike the oil prices being fixed by OPEC over which we have no control).

Herbie

Sure, first give them a tax cut and then slap on an additional tax. The burocracy in your world would cover the entire planet.

If you don't want to acknowledge this, it's fine with me, doesn't change the facts one bit. Keep your eyes closed, fingers in your ears while yelling 'NANNANANAANA, CANT HEAR YOU!', just because the facts does not compute with your vision of the world.

You can't force a transition to a new way of living. Solutions that are pushed top-down rarely work. So if government decides that biofuels, solar and wind are the future, most likely they are not.

I'm not afraid of the future, I just don't think that the future is decided by burocrats but by the free market, us!

4 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

*snip*

Sure, it's all in their heads. Each day when I leave I check wether I need a refeul this day and plan where to do it. On vacation it's different, I just drive till I am 200km above empty and start looking for petrol station signs, as I want to be on the safe side. So with an electric car I'd be looking for a charge station as soon as I leave. Did you ever take a holiday with a car? I went to Italy, Norway, Chech Republic and Germany,.

If you had read what I posted earlier you would know that I already said that for longer journeys you can easily hire a diesel car -- but you don't need a diesel car fo day-to-day commuting.

4 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

You are a real Robin Hood, normal people would just like their laptop, plug in their car. Look around you, normal people are driven by greed or self preservation (same thing). So if you offer them a freebie, they will take it.

Then we obviously have a different point of view -- I accepts that there are people like that, but I also believe that the majority aren't selfish arseholes.

4 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

Next step, acknowledging that windmills cause warming and climate change!

*snip*

Oh and bird death

Windmills (and other energy systems) will cause localised climate changes.  It's obvious, but it's not a global problem and it's not on the same scale as the burning of fossil fuels.

We've already covered bird deaths in previous threads -- deaths by wind turbines are a hugely minor figure compared to bird deaths from windows in buildings or birds being hit by cars and a minuscule fraction of bird deaths by domestic cats.  If you're suggesting we should ban wind turbines to save birds, then you'd also have to support banning windows, cars and cats.

Herbie

Average American commute is 16 miles. That would be easily covered by electric cars with a range of 100 miles (even accounting for the silly amounts of time sitting in congested queues).

Herbie

Statistics,...

You can't make this stuff up,...

If the average commute is 16 miles, then we can get rid of cars alltogether and make them go on bikes!

So, 45% from the power plant -> -10% transport -> -10% battery -> -5% motion = 35% yield

About exactly the same as my diesel engine, on wich the yield has been increasing steadily.

So, the technology is not very clean, it's not more energy efficient, it's more expensive and it's not more environmentally friendly.

Why do we want this again?

If you had read what I posted earlier you would know that I already said that for longer journeys you can easily hire a diesel car -- but you don't need a diesel car fo day-to-day commuting.

Ok let's see then, I should invest in a car that is more of a hassle to use costs more money and when I need range I should spent even more money to rent a vehicle that I could have purchased in the first place?

What?!

Me, like other sane people, would just buy the better car. That's why this inferior car needs government regulations for it to become an alternative, cost wise. Once that support drops, when people flock to the EV and the program becomes to costly, demand for the EV will drop and EV companies will go out of business. But don't worry it's 'sustainable', HOGWASH! So, only the people with enough money will benefit from these types of regulations and the poor get to cough up the dough, really social.

Then we obviously have a different point of view -- I accepts that there are people like that, but I also believe that the majority aren't selfish arseholes.

People on benefits, are they selfish arseholes? People that get a tax refund, are they selfish arseholes? People that collect a wage, are they selfish areseholes?

I think you are a bit selfish, willing to sacrifice the freedom to choose of other people for things you find desirable (wich is greed, basically, just not for money but for ideals).

Windmills (and other energy systems) will cause localised climate changes.  It's obvious, but it's not a global problem and it's not on the same scale as the burning of fossil fuels.

We've already covered bird deaths in previous threads -- deaths by wind turbines are a hugely minor figure compared to bird deaths from windows in buildings or birds being hit by cars and a minuscule fraction of bird deaths by domestic cats.  If you're suggesting we should ban wind turbines to save birds, then you'd also have to support banning windows, cars and cats.

Herbie

So it's okay, because someone else is doing it to?

It's okay, because it's only local temperature and local climate?

Isn't climate the sum of the system?

Why do you have one set of values for this and another set of values for something else? Don't you think that's a bit hypocritical?

2 hours ago, Dr Herbie wrote

*snip*

Average American commute is 16 miles. That would be easily covered by electric cars with a range of 100 miles (even accounting for the silly amounts of time sitting in congested queues).

Herbie

Hmmm... average American single phone call is 16 minutes as well too. We should also have less battery life and charge between calls.

11 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

*snip*

Ok let's see then, I should invest in a car that is more of a hassle to use costs more money and when I need range I should spent even more money to rent a vehicle that I could have purchased in the first place?

What?!

Again, if you read what I posted earlier you would see that the TCO of an electric car is LOWER that a diesel. You can run an electric car AND rent a diesel now and again for less money than owning a diesel. If you regularly travel long distances, then an electric car does not make sense but like most people I don't regularly travel long distances.

11 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

 That's why this inferior car needs government regulations for it to become an alternative, cost wise. Once that support drops, when people flock to the EV and the program becomes to costly, demand for the EV will drop and EV companies will go out of business. But don't worry it's 'sustainable', HOGWASH! So, only the people with enough money will benefit from these types of regulations and the poor get to cough up the dough, really social.

Do you want to go into the subsidies that already go to the oil industry to keep your diesel car affordable?

11 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

People on benefits, are they selfish arseholes? People that get a tax refund, are they selfish arseholes? People that collect a wage, are they selfish areseholes?

I think you are a bit selfish, willing to sacrifice the freedom to choose of other people for things you find desirable (wich is greed, basically, just not for money but for ideals).

And yet another strawman. I think that people to thoughtlessly plug their EV into someone else's power supply is a selfish arseholes, same as people who deliberately steal office supplies are arseholes.

11 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

because someone else is doing it to?

It's okay, because it's only local temperature and local climate?

Isn't climate the sum of the system?

Why do you have one set of values for this and another set of values for something else? Don't you think that's a bit hypocritical?

No, it's not hypocritical; there is a cost to everything, but electric vehicles and sustainable generation have a lower cost than fossil fuels. You cannot justify using bird deaths as a case against wind power when wind power is not even a major cause of bird deaths.

For some educated facts about electric cars from someone who has also done his research check the first five minutes of this. (I know it's Llewellyn again, but I liked him even before he started broadcasting about alternative energy):

Herbie

48 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@Dr Herbie: Then the losses of the battery 10-15%, then the losses of electricity to motion 5%.

So, 45% from the power plant -> -10% transport -> -10% battery -> -5% motion = 35% yield

About exactly the same as my diesel engine, on wich the yield has been increasing steadily.

So, the technology is not very clean, it's not more energy efficient, it's more expensive and it's not more environmentally friendly.

Why do we want this again?

Where do you get these values from, out of interest? You never seem to post links.

Your calculation depends on the 45% efficiency of a coal powered plant, while other plant types are more efficient; there is a drive towards more efficient power production in general (not just for electric cars), so electric car yield can be expected to increase due to these changes.  That, again, of one of the main benefits of electric cars -- they decouple the energy production from the energy use which allows multiple approaches to optimising the yields.

Yes, diesel yield has been increasing, but you're assuming that diesel yield will continue increase at the same rate and that EV yield won't increase as much. I know I can't predict the future and I suspect you can't either, so that isn't much of an argument either way.

Herbie

1 hour ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

If the average commute is 16 miles, then we can get rid of cars alltogether and make them go on bikes!

Do you regularly ride a bicycle for 16 miles (approx. 26km)? The distance from my front door to my work is 8.7km, which I like to do on bicycle once in a while. Taking into account traffic lights and stuff, it takes me about 45 minutes (almost exactly the same as it takes me with public transit). If you think a 26km commute is doable on a bicycle, you must be a regular greek god of atlethicism.

That's not even accounting the fact that you can't take anything with you, really. And that if it's even a mildly warm day (let alone midsummer Tokyo) you absolutely must have a shower and a change of clothes at work (even for my measly 8km, let alone 26km). And then there's rainy days.

Though I must admit it would probably be a good thing for most Americans to get some exercise.

39 minutes ago, magicalclick wrote

*snip*

Hmmm... average American single phone call is 16 minutes as well too. We should also have less battery life and charge between calls.

Well the point is that most people's phone batteries last all day, and this is why the drive to make phone batteries more efficient has slowed down -- they are good enough for most people most of the time.  Phone batteries don't have to last all week because people have accepted that they can recharge them at home over-night; this wasn't the case when smart-phones first came on the market, there were lots of complaints about how they had to be recharged more than once a week. Very similar to the take-up of electric cars.

Herbie

43 seconds ago, Dr Herbie wrote

Again, if you read what I posted earlier you would see that the TCO of an electric car is LOWER that a diesel. You can run an electric car AND rent a diesel now and again for less money than owning a diesel. If you regularly travel long distances, then an electric car does not make sense but like most people I don't regularly travel long distances.

Aha, but is TCO lower if I have to rent a diesel? Is the TCO lower if government stops their promotional programs (wich they will)?

Does this TCO take into account that I have to use alternative means of transportation when my vehicle is charging?

Apples and oranges mate.

Do you want to go into the subsidies that already go to the oil industry to keep your diesel car affordable?

Tax break and subsidy is not the same thing, we discussed this over and over.

And yet another strawman. I think that people to thoughtlessly plug their EV into someone else's power supply is a selfish arsehole.

By that logic even parking your car at work is a selfish act, because the parkingspot does not belong to you. It's ment for you to charge your vehicle, it would be stupid not to use it!

No, it's not hypocritical; there is a cost to everything, but electric vehicles and sustainable generation have a lower cost than fossil fuels. You cannot justify using bird deaths as a case against wind power when wind power is not even a major cause of bird deaths.

 

Cost in money or cost less in some fictional environmental currency?

Because if they are less cost in money, why do they need the government tax cuts and subsidies?

If they cost less money I would be driving electric!

Is it considered minor globally or locally? If it's one of the major contributors locally, would you be against it then?

For some educated facts about electric cars from someone who has also done his research check the first five minutes of this. (I know it's Llewellyn again, but I liked him even before he started broadcasting about alternative energy):

Herbie

His argument against hydrogen applies to batteries aswell, he just doesnt realize it. Because you know, power comes from a plug. Where does the hydrogen come from? Where does the electricity come from? I would LOVE to live in a world where it's that simple.

Lol, lithium ion only degrades about 10% according to him. Hehehe, I have laptops that wont even charge anymore,.. lol,.. This guy is making stuff up.

I do agree, that less moving parts means less maintenance. But the battery is still the achilles heel, in Africa there are Mercedeces that have driven over millions of miles, without much replacements. Trucks that have a lifespan of 30+ years. Now THAT's sustainable! He also doesnt go into the electrics of the electric vehicle, wich will be more expensive to maintain.

Just because something is different, doesnt mean it's better. Just because a few large coorperations and governments cahoot into an idea, doesnt make it an 'alternative'. Or did you think it was about the environment?

No solution today beats the efficiency of fossil fuels, nothing. It will be a very very long time before we move away from it. We have decades of petrol engine development ahead of us. We also have decades of new drilling techniques ahead of us. We are still discovering new sources of oil and still not drilling the biggest reserves. So there will be no peak oil, we will find a more efficient way, we always have, always will.

By forcing a solution, you will only slow the development of a more efficient car down.

Actually, it's more environentally friendly to drive a diesel car then ride a bike. A diesel car doesnt require baked cow parts as a fuel

1 minute ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@Sven Groot: No, I ride my bike out of leisure, I was just making a point about the average commute. Some travel 0 some travel 150km, to suggest that one solution fits all based on an average, is just rediculous.

Actually, it's more environentally friendly to drive a diesel car then ride a bike. A diesel car doesnt require baked cow parts as a fuel

Another straw-man -- I never at any point said that electric cars are the solution for everyone -- I said they were a solution for the majority most of the time.

Herbie

Bulk of the figures are from wikipedia.

And ofcourse there are energy sources wich are more efficient. But these are exemptions! It's not very realistic to propose that all power in the world should come from hydrodams, wind or solar. It might be nice to dream about it, but in the real world we have supply and demand to consider. Wind, water and sun are not under our control (hydro to a degree, but once the lake is empty.....) therefore these are sources we use if we can, the bulk of the power comes from sources that we are in control coal, gas, oil and nuclear. Pointing out that the first three are more efficient is folly, because we cannot utilize them when we want.

The 35% is allready based on the most sunny scenario for the electric car, it can only go downhill from there.

Same with people with electric vehicles, they will charge it when they get the chance, because you might need the range later on.

The electric car only makes sense if we make drastic sacrifices to our mobility and isn't that what the damn thing is supposed to do? Keep us mobile?

11 minutes ago, Dr Herbie wrote

*snip*

Another straw-man -- I never at any point said that electric cars are the solution for everyone -- I said they were a solution for the majority most of the time.

Herbie

Okay, noted.

Then please explain to me who this majority is and what you mean with most of the time?

How is something a solution when it works 'most of the time'?

Here sir, Windows 8, it works for the majority of the people most of the time,..

4 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

Same with people with electric vehicles, they will charge it when they get the chance, because you might need the range later on.

It really seems that a lot of your argument depends on everyone having exactly the same ways of thinking as you. Zoals de waard is vertrouwd hij zijn gasten?

I'm here at an office with 10+ developers, all have their laptop plugged in and nearly half their phone. So it's not just my behavior that I take into the argument, it's also behaviors of the people around me.

I can't fathom why you wouldnt want to charge your range limited, long refuel time vehicle any chance you get? Why risk running out of juice with a three hour charge as result? It's late, I have to do groceries and pick up the kids from daycare, I can't risk charging for three hours!

1 minute ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@Sven Groot: Well, do you leave your laptop unplugged till it tells you the battery is dead? do you leave your phone unplugged when you have the ability to charge?

Yes, and yes. The only time I have my laptop plugged in always is at work, because I know I'm using it all day and it won't last that long. Anywhere else I typically don't plug it in because it's a hassle.

I have an phone charge cable here at work. But right now, my phone is lying 20cm from the cable, not plugged in, because it still has plenty of charge. I didn't bother to plug it in because it's not needed.

My lazyness tends to override this supposed "range anxiety".

EDIT: It's also a holdover from the time when charging too early would deplete a battery's performance faster. I remember having devices that explicitly instructed you to let the charge drain completely before recharging. I don't think this problem affects modern batteries, but old habits die hard.

Of course the real answer would be to allow more office workers to telecommute, but that still hasn't caught on here in the UK.

Herbie

When you have an EV your "lazyness" will result you in one time pushing the electric car to the next charging station, waiting for three hours for a fast charge and then never ever being lazy about plugging in your EV ever again.

The pain from a depleted laptop or a depleted phone is less, then a depleted EV.

@Dr Herbie: Then I really don't see what problem the EV is set out to solve?

It's a very costly product just to use for a daily commute, you would have to use two vehicles to get around. If you want to talk about costs and costs to the environment, I would suggest that you use the petrol one for both situations.

22 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@Dr Herbie: Then I really don't see what problem the EV is set out to solve?

It's a very costly product just to use for a daily commute, you would have to use two vehicles to get around. If you want to talk about costs and costs to the environment, I would suggest that you use the petrol one for both situations.

No, you use one vehicle to get around for most of the time (which you own) and another vehicle you share (through renting) with many other people for those minority of cases where you need it. Therefore you pay for one cheaper TCO on the EV and an additional cost for the diesel rental when required, the total cost of both being lower than the TCO of a diesel for all driving. I think this is the third time I have gone through this point in this thread.

Herbie

No, you use one vehicle to get around for most of the time (which you own) and another vehicle you share (through renting) with many other people for those minority of cases where you need it. Therefore you pay for one cheaper TCO on the EV and an additional cost for the diesel rental when required, the total cost of both being lower than the TCO of a diesel for all driving. I think this is the third time I have gone through this point in this thread.

Herbie

This only works on paper. I shared a car with my brothers when I was younger, I ended up buying it from my dad because it was never availible to me when I needed it.

I think your ideas are really cool, hip and green, but just not very realistic. For instance, does your TCO take into account the building of the new power stations, infrastructure and charging stations? Oh wait, I forgot, I was only supposed to charge at night.

Where does this world exist that everybody does exactly what they are told to do? I don't live there, do you? These are the examples I was refering to earlyer, good ideas in the cloud, disaterous solutions in the mud, but keep em coming!

Like I said before, these ideas would require everyone to make HUGE sacrifices in their personal liberties to solve a non existing problem, therefore I am against it by principle, in this case I'm against it because it's not even a solution, otherwise it would be happening on it's own.

Maddus will not throw the baby out with the bathwater. But he will wait for the squeaky clean baby...

Am I wrong? Not from what I've been reading.

(And thanks to those nut-job hippies buying EVs, regardless if they are merely showing off, this future will come sooner.)

Conservatives buy when it profits them, not before. Not willing to sacrifice for a greater good because unconvinced there is greater good in EVs today. 

There is no evil in Maddus' heart, but a scathing conservatism that I for one do not share.

4 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@Sven Groot: The Scotty inside me wants to keep everything running at 105%.

When you have an EV your "lazyness" will result you in one time pushing the electric car to the next charging station, waiting for three hours for a fast charge and then never ever being lazy about plugging in your EV ever again.

The pain from a depleted laptop or a depleted phone is less, then a depleted EV.

Good job on moving the goalposts. Your argument was "everyone always plugs in their laptops/phones so they will do that with electric cars too". As soon as I said "I don't always plug in my laptop or phone" you changed it to "but you'll still plug in a car because the consequences of a dead battery are worse" which is an entirely different argument.

Now that wouldn't be a problem if you actually admitted you were wrong about the first point, but you didn't. You just changed the argument and hoped no one would notice.

This isn't the first time you've done that either.

23 minutes ago, JohnAskew wrote

If EV becomes long-range and battery technology becomes less dangerous regarding fires, or when this happens, Maddus will be in line to purchase one because it will be the most cost efficient ride available. And this will happen in our lifetimes.

And if it does happen in our lifetimes it'll be because of pioneers of the technology who realized that alternatives were needed and didn't wait until we completely run out of oil or whatever other catastrophe happened.

Maddus's attitude is akin to not calling the plumber until the water reaches your lips. He's unwilling to recognize that the pipes are leaking at all if there's the remotest chance that doing something about it means a change in his lifestyle.

Thank you, very much, you seem to catch my drift.

Indeed I would be driving electric, with batteries, today, if it made sense. It does not and I'm not convinced it ever will.

Allow me to make one small addition to your post.

What I am strongly against is ANY government intervention on the freedom of choice of individuals, as long as it does not effect third parties. Each time government does this, some people benefit at the expense of others. If that makes me a conservative, so be it, I don't label, but I do not judge people who do.

It's the same with this electric vehicle and hybrids. Here in Holland they are road tax exempt and as a lease car only require you to add 14% (hybrid) or 0% (electric) of the new value to your income, normal car is 21%, diesel like mine 25%.

Richer people can afford to sell their current car and go for a new one. People like me, can't. And as I'm paying more then the rich guy, they are driving their car at my expense. As soon as they cars hit the second hand market or become commonly availible and I am in the chance of buying one, the taxcut or subsidy is dropped. So, people like me always get the short end of the stick, same with solar panels, same with windmills, some people benefit at the expense of others.

I want a fair government that does not try and make the economy as it sees fit. It's there to facilitate and protect, not to lead and play investment banker. And people opting for government intervention because the problem is so big are barking up the wrong tree. Politicians who listen to these people and put it in law are creating a system of inequality. Not to say that government should not pass polution laws, but they have to be reactive, not proactive. And certainly NOT choose any solutions, that's up to the people.

Like Pielke Jr. stated in that video, we started decarbonizing long before carbon became an issue. We started cleaning up the environment long before government regulated it. Now that government is regulating both, we have moved the problem and it became worse. They might mean well, but it never turns out the way they expect.

If you want people to behave responsible, give them the responsibility. If you want people to behave irresponsible, take responsibility away from them.

1 minute ago, Sven Groot wrote

*snip*

And if it does happen in our lifetimes it'll be because of pioneers of the technology who realized that alternatives were needed and didn't wait until we completely run out of oil or whatever other catastrophe happened.

Maddus's attitude is akin to not calling the plummer until the water reaches your lips. He's unwilling to recognize that the pipes are leaking at all if there's the remotest chance that doing something about it means a change in his lifestyle.

Liberals ask themselves: "How can I make this situation better?"

Conservatives ask themselves: "How can I profit from this situation?"

And in some way I will never understand, we need both.

I have no problem admitting when I am wrong. The statement was indeed a bit extreme, undefendable and a bad comparison,. I did indeed feel the need introduce a somewhat altered statement, but I do not mean to be sneaky about it.

This isn't the first time you've done that either.

I apologize for everytime I did and for future mistakes

So; Not all people charge their laptop and phones when they get the chance.

Let's put it this way then; I expect that the vast majority, Dr Herbie not included, will charge their EV everytime they get the chance. This based on the assumption that it creates a lot of stress not knowing wether you will make it to your destination without a three hour wait for a charge.

Herbie

10 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@JohnAskew:

...

If you want people to behave responsible, give them the responsibility. If you want people to behave irresponsible, take responsibility away from them.

I agree %100.

For me, buying EV is very responsible, and like cell phones, the first generation will be embarrassingly clunky and uncomfortable (EV range, fire hazard), but will seed their improvement.

They have been preaching doom about fossils since 1970. Guess what,.. It's still here, it's clean(-ish) and it's cheap. It's been lifting people from poverty since 1920 due to access to cheap energy.

And you want to put a halt to that?

@JohnAskew: Then go for it bro! Just don't force me through government programs to fund it! I'm all for people having the choice for electric cars, I'll even tow them to a charging station!

@Dr Herbie: Diesel without government meddling would cost me 60 eurocents a liter, now it's costing me 140 eurocents a liter.

But I don't really mind, as long as they spend it on fixing the roads and getting rid of road tax. Money has to come from somewhere. Now they spend it on school books for kids, don't see any reason why to do that.

Source (Dutch) http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzineaccijns

Where is the subsidy in that? Shouldnt diesel be cheaper than 60 cents for me, if it is subsidised?

You keep going on about these subsidies, but I really feel you are violating the definition of a subsidy. When a government takes $100 from you and gives you $40 back, it's a tax cut for $40, you end up paying $60 tax. When a government subsidides you for $40, this means that there is no income for government from you and usually comes from a subsidy program that you have to enroll for.

Back to the wikipedia article;

However, many of the "subsidies" available to the oil and gas industries are general business opportunity credits, available to all US businesses

So, they are generic tax cuts, not a real subsidy like the one Solyndra got at all!

Back to your question;

Am I against subsidies, hell yes! Am I against tax cuts,....?

tricky

Let's say I'm not against them, but they should be used wisely and scarcely.

6 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

But I don't really mind, as long as they spend it on fixing the roads and getting rid of road tax. Money has to come from somewhere. Now they spend it on school books for kids, don't see any reason why to do that.

In the UK, all taxes to go the Treasury which then decides what to spend the money on -- no taxes are earmarked for a specific purpose e.g. road tax is not spend on roads, it just goes into the lump sum at the treasury which will later decides how much it is spending on roads based on how much they think they need to spend. Taxes here aren't set to cover costs, they're set to encourage or discourage certain behaviours (like encouraging people to get LPG cars by having little or no fuel tax on LPG, and discouraging people from wasting petrol on unnecessary journeys by hiking up fuel tax on petrol). Sometimes I agree with that philosophy, but I often think they take it too far.

Herbie

Twice in on thread!

Awesome!

Miracles do happen