----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan M" <dsummersmi...@comcast.net> To: "'Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion'" <brin-l@mccmedia.com> Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 2:05 PM Subject: RE: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
> > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On >> Behalf Of xponentrob >> Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 9:11 PM >> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion >> Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Dan M" <dsummersmi...@comcast.net> >> To: "'Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion'" <brin-l@mccmedia.com> >> Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 1:24 PM >> Subject: RE: Scouted: U.S. >> Heh! I'm aware of the math involved. >> Frex: http://www.gunaxin.com/chevy-volt-bmw-mini-tesla-roadster/4055 >> Worth reading. > > Especially the part where he stated he has no idea why gas prices dropped > so > much. :-) Did you see 60 Minutes last night? Seems like there might be a little fallout. > > >> The problem with breaking down the math is that it pretty well preaches >> to >> the already-decided. People are going to buy what they want to buy unless >> they just can't afford to, and that is likely the only math that counts. >> That pretty much means that some people will take a premium hit if they >> believe that there will be other indirect benefits. >> Then too, it must be repeated that these are initial estimates, and that >> the >> prices will inevitably lower. It is just a question of how much, and that >> kind of market forcasting is near impossible at the moment for anyone. > > But, to first order, curve fitting of past prices aren't bad for things > that > are technology based (this clearly doesn't work for commodities that show > both highly inelastic supply and highly inelastic demand). That is why > bioengineering is an area that has potential; its costs are dropping a > factor of 2 per year. Battery costs aren't. Now, we only need a factor > of > 10 for batteries, so it is possible that nanotech will provide a solution. > So, I'd say fund nanotech, not the present technology, which won't give us > the home run that is needed. > Well.....short to midterm..... we don't need a homerun, we just need a single. We don't need an electric car that matches a gasoline powered auto in every specification. Hybrids will do that job well enough. We need electrics for city driving and commuting. This involves some changes in habits, but nothing drastic. Most families own 2 vehicles and what most people are proposing is that 1 of them be more efficient and clean. If you put together a series of singles, you can get a score. It doesn't have to be a perfect vehicle right off the bat. Virtually every car is more vehicle than people need on a day to day basis anyway, so it isn't as if folks are going to be suffering if they own an electric or a hybrid. > >> >> > >> > >> >> >> >> Vaporware? >> > >> > The Tesla can be bought. The others are still being configured and are >> > not >> > available for sale. I've always been skeptical about what the price >> > and >> > performance will be. The engineering rule is that projects take twice >> as >> > long and cost twice as much. Cutting this factor down, because they >> > are >> > in >> > prototype stage, a conservative estimate is that costs are 30% higher >> than >> > discussed. They talked about 5 people, they talked about 240 miles, but >> > never said that 5 people could be taken 240 miles. My guess is that >> > the >> 5 >> > person seating is tight, and only for the 80 mile version of the >> > car....otherwise they'd explicitly say otherwise (If I were the project >> > manager I'd be all over the tech. writer's back to make sure that the >> > capacity was stated explicitly if it existed...if it wasn't there, I'd >> be >> > happy with what they wrote). >> > >> > Second, the 240 miles would probably be under ideal conditions. >> >> Exactly the same as with gasoline vehicles, only no one ever questions >> this. For some reason I find that humorous. > > Because we have real personal benchmark against which we can measure the > difference and because someone other than the companies themselves test > MPG > ratings? Well....the government establishes MPG ratings, and they do it with only one passenger, the driver. I don't see that your criticism amounts to much in this case. (Ever notice the YMMV disclaimer? I think that is especially applicable in this discussion<G>) >> >> You also have to factor in the lower costs of using electricity as an >> energy source. > > I was assuming 0 electricity costs. > > > >>Depending on where one lives, gas is 3 - 5 times as costly as the >> equivilent in watts. What is the value of a vehicle you may have zero >> maintainance with in the first 5 years? > > Like my computer power supplies? The car that isn't built yet is like the > backup quarterback when the team is struggling.....no problems are > reported. I can think of 2 ways to respond here. I have often installed frequency drives in areas that were hot and had constant vibration. I expect that these drives are more like BEV auto electronics than a computers power supply. They last for years without maintainance or replacement. Computer power supplies can be cheap crap if you buy a cheap PC or a bad model. (Other factors have to be considered too.....dirty power.....) and Most auto manufacturers have BEVs in the works and almost all have hybrids either for sale of coming soon. I don't think that many manufacturers would be doing something obviously stupid or that they are all *that* corrupt. There has to be some advantage beyond simple demand or expediency. (Really....I'm thinking that Toyota, Honda, Tesla, Fisker, Lightning and several others have shown what can be accomplished, and dozens of 300 million dollar manufacturing plants are more than just PR. Literally billions are being spent to bring these vehicles to market, with private money, and I struggle to envision that thousands of engineers, accountants, CEOs and investors are tilting at a battery powered windmill, that they are all foolish.) >> >> Eventually, I think the answer is Yes. > > I'd say the answer is "it depends." If the money is thrown at electric > cars > now, before the battery breakthrough happens, it will be as useful as > ethanol. Ethanol has been blended into our gasoline for.........20 - 30 years? I have a hard time understanding this line of reasoning, especially about the battery breakthrough. When the break through comes, you can replace the autos batteries with the new ones as soon as you need a replacement. (Not exactly that simple.....there is the charger to be considered also but.....) > > >> I don't think there is any question that there is a need to get away from >> carbon based fuels and from millions of mobile units burning them at >> various rates of inefficiency. IMO ethanol is not really a helpful >> long term solution. > > I agree, but bioengineered fuels are not ethanol. There are algae that > exist right now that produce aviation fuel with 1000x the efficiency of > ethanol. The basic process is taking CO2 and H2O + solar energy to make > complex hydrocarbons and O. These can be burned, producing CO2 and H2O. > The net effect of the cycle is constant CO2, no net emissions. I agree, but you ignore the rest of the periodic table, some of which also comprises fuels and which will be emitted as pollutants. For trains and planes it would be a neccessary evil, but I'd like to see personal transportation removed from that equation. (in the long term) > > Now, there are problems with these algae being suspect to infections by > fungi. But, with bioengineering exploding even faster than computers did, > its quite possible that we can bioengineer solutions to this problem. The > fact that venture capitalists are dropping good sized investments in > startups in this field (Sapphire Energy has received 100 million in > capital) > indicates that there is at least some potential here. > > It may not work, there may be problems scaling up that are unanticipated. > But, there exist in that field the same sort of fast learning curve that > we > had seen with computers between say 1955 and 1980. Agree > >> I expect such taxes are coming, but phased in over a number of years. >> This too has the scent of inevitability whether BEVs and Hybrids succeed >> or fail to win in the market. > > Well, the US public will have to drastically change its nature to become > pro-tax....even though you and I, and JDG for that matter, think it's a > good > idea. It won't be so painful if there is an alternative to using gas. >> > to CNN, SUV and Trucks are now outselling cars again >> > >> > http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/22/autos/trucks_back/ >> >> Watch C-Span much lately? > > Nope, when I did it was always politicians posturing and lying. :-) > Pretty much the same, but lately there have been Automaker CEOs getting in on the act. (On C-Span) > >> >> As I said earlier, "People will buy what they want to buy". > > True, and the best guess is that something has to change for what they > want > to buy to change. > > >> I'm working with a guy, I give him a carpool home everyday so we have >> plenty >> of time to chat, and this guy has a great desire to own a 1500 or an >> F-250 >> truck. He admits that he doesn't need or have a use for one, he just >> wants >> it. And I expect he will buy one. He will drive it to work in the morning >> and it will sit in a parking lot all day. He will drive it home in the >> evening where it will sit in the driveway. He will take it out on >> Saturdays >> and spend a couple of hours cleaning his precioussssssssss. >> I know lots of people just like him. I'm related to quite a few. >> I, because of this, do not tend to be swayed by practicality arguments >> because I don't see all that many people who make decisions based on >> practicality. >> But I did see many people who's heads got twisted 180 degrees by gas >> prices last summer. Most still plan to buy that big monster truck, but >> I get the feeling they all recognise it as a chance at a last hurrah. > > What happens when gas is still relatively cheap in 5 years? Remember, oil > consumption was still going up while gas was under $4.00. I think that in > 5 > years, the energy shock of 08 will be like the gas lines of 79, forgotten. On 60 Minutes last night. Gas prices were rising while demand was sinking and supply was increasing. Factoid: The largest oil company in America is Morgan Stanley. xponent What Is Adequacy? Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
