--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <noozg...@...> wrote: > > Around here poeple want a cheaper second car. IOW, they keep their > current vehicle for long trips or maybe their commute but for going to > local stores, etc an inexpensive electric could suffice.
While convenient, that's not going to solve global warming. When an aggressive cap and trade emerges, they may redo the math. > They just > aren't being made. The closest was the GEM car which was sold for > awhile up the street but I often pitied the poor folks who bought these > glorified golf carts as fuming drivers had to follow them at 25 mph on a > 40 mph street. Zip has them too. >So you have to have a vehicle that can probably do as > fast as 55 mph though not intended for the freeway. > > Had gas remained above the $4 mark then we might be seeing at least more > announcements. Another problem? Crash testing. And making a crash > proof car adds to the price with things like titanium frames, etc. > Thirty years ago we wouldn't have bothered with such stuff. My 1978 > fuel efficient 5-speed Subaru wagon didn't have air bags either. My > 1988 Subaru wagon had fuel injection and was automatic (having learned > nobody drives stick anymore so I got stuck with driving on long trips > with a manual). It was also over three times the price of the 10 year > older model -- used. > > Tata, the Indian automaker has finally released the world's cheapest car: > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7957671.stm > Will we see it here? Probably not. It probably wouldn't pass our > crashing testing standards. Wonder if it sounds like a motorbike the > sound I always associate with Asia and unheard around here (just very > loud poorly muffled Harley's instead)? > What we really need is better mass transit. I mean mass transit that > works and that gets you to a location like work in near the same time it > would take via car ... or better. I agree. With lots of micro feeder lines. EV minivans micro buses that can fan out from major hubs. AND people can WALK! And ride bikes. For an obese out of shape society, that's one of the better solutions. Walk a mile from the light rail stop to work. Or pull out your foldabike, or folda kyack for water regions. Win Win. Clearer, brighter nation, much lower health costs, cheaper, more efficent transportation and dramatic reduction of GHG. > When I once worked a job in downtown > Seattle it was easier to walk a short two blocks to the express bus > which hopped on the express lanes on the freeway from the University > District and got me there in 15 minutes. Couldn't do that in my car. > > But our cities are built helter skelter. Corporations build their > headquarters far two often where the CEO's spouse wants to live (really > ... according to a 1990's study). Most white collar jobs can easily work at home 2-4 days a week. That would cut commute emissions by half or more. >Then we change jobs every few years. > And then there is telecommuting which works well until you notice your > telecommuting employees are falling behind or missing meetings they were > supposed to come into. > > Maybe human life was never meant to be this complex? > > grate.swan wrote: > > I read an article on this several months ago. Its an intriguing idea. > > Among them that it cuts the first cost to on par with gas cars. The GM volt > > may be priced at 40k initially, and down to 30k with volume. For a "shell" > > commensurate with a 20k car. Hard to justify individually. > > > > Three concerns. First, the pricing that was implied in the article I read > > implied a pretty hefty user price. Quite a bit above the operating cost > > (including battery depreciation)of a more conventional plug-in. > > > > Second, their system implies a possible natural monopoly -- that is too > > expensive to support multiple "distribution systems". Which could be > > handled by a Public Utility model -- but does not seem to be core to their > > thinking. On the other hand, if there are standards for common batteries > > etc, and some coop agreement between competing networks addressing the "we > > gave out a new battery and got a crummy used one in return" problem, then > > the more suppliers the merrier. Filling out the network fast and diversely. > > > > > > Third, they give signs of being pi-in-the-sky pipe dreamers in some > > regards. For example, that ALL the electricity will be from renewables. Its > > aggressive to have 25% renewable portfolio standards for all electric > > utilities by 2025. 100% even by 2025 is not in any sane person's thinking > > (amazing, low probability, techno breakthrus not included). 100% renewables > > by say 2015 which their plan implies is not technically and > > construction-wise possible. Much less the political and economic > > constraints. If their plan is based on 100% renewables then the rest of > > their projects are probably mushy thinking also. > > > > >
