Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
On Jan 23, 2009, at 5:07 PM, xponentrob wrote: > From: "xponentrob" > To: "Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion" > Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 4:49 PM > Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? > > >> *** >> So I'm wondering if the more expensive luxury versions of the >> comparable >> models are seeing similar falls in sales. >> Are people forgoing the "bells and whistles" also? >> > To Answer my own question: > > http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-01-06-voa59.cfm > > "Industry analyst Jesse Toprak says that while the slumping global > economy > has hurt all vehicle sales, trucks and sport utility vehicles > outsold cars > because of deep dealer discounts, lower gas prices and the fact that > hybrids > cost $3,000 to $5,000 more than conventional cars." > > It is a known that dealers have had a lot of overstock in trucks and > SUVs > from last summer. I would think that if the same discounts were > available > for the hybrids, sales would not have dropped off so steeply. > > xponent > Da Moneez Maru > rob A bit of anecdotal data that might be informative: According to more than one local Toyota dealer, the Prius holds its resale value well enough that there is surprisingly little price difference between a new Prius and a used but new condition Prius, even from a previous model year. The standard ICE-only cars' resale values tend to drop like rocks once they get into the hands of their first owners. (This may no longer be true, as my last info on it comes from near the $4/gal peak and depreciation may now be a bigger factor, but it's something to think about. As far as I know, ICE's still depreciate considerably faster than hybrids.) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
- Original Message - From: "xponentrob" To: "Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion" Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 4:49 PM Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? > *** > So I'm wondering if the more expensive luxury versions of the comparable > models are seeing similar falls in sales. > Are people forgoing the "bells and whistles" also? > To Answer my own question: http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-01-06-voa59.cfm "Industry analyst Jesse Toprak says that while the slumping global economy has hurt all vehicle sales, trucks and sport utility vehicles outsold cars because of deep dealer discounts, lower gas prices and the fact that hybrids cost $3,000 to $5,000 more than conventional cars." It is a known that dealers have had a lot of overstock in trucks and SUVs from last summer. I would think that if the same discounts were available for the hybrids, sales would not have dropped off so steeply. xponent Da Moneez Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
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 Bruce Bostwick > Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 12:20 PM > To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion > Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? > > On Jan 23, 2009, at 12:00 PM, dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: > > > Since then, I've been seeing promises of competative electric cars. > > When > > gas prices were at $4.50/gallon, the premium for hybrids was within > > $1000 > > of being a wash. But, now that prices are back close to $1.50 > > (around here > > at leastbut when we were up near $4.50, I'd guess you were > > higher too) > > hybrid sales are falling like a rock. > > And that, in turn, is a symptom of how susceptible the mainstream is > to short-term thinking and its application to decisions with long-term > effects. > People buying cars really seem to think that fuel prices will always > be what they are right now, and we won't have another $4+/gal peak or > even higher soon. They also really seem to think there won't be an > overall upward trend on top of seasonal and market-driven > fluctuations. Discounting 2008's ups and downs (which were spectacular), we saw a steady price trend in most commodities (e.g. iron ore, tin, gold, aluminum) from the mid 70s to 2007: downward. Last year was a roller coaster, but few of the folks who are responsible for making long term decisions that are highly dependant on prices assumed that 4+ dollar gas would last long. The bet in the oil patch was that oil prices would settle back under 80. If you really believe that oil will go back north of 100 within the next 5 years, you should sell oil short on the futures market. The long term trend is off this bottom, but you could still sell for 62 dollars in 2 years and 70 dollars in 5. That's consistent with the general range that long term projects were assuming last summer, when prices spiked near $150. So, on average, $2.50-$3.00 (inflation adjusted) gas is a good bet for the lifetime of a car. >No other interpretation makes sense to me, when people > turn around and buy 10-15 mpg SUV's and pickups the moment fuel goes > down below $2/gal. (The only exception would be if they plan to trade > the thing in next summer when the fuel prices go back up, which is a > different kind of insanity.) But, they were buying them in decent numbers when gas was $2.50-$3.00/gallon. There is nothing that indicates that the long term average price of oil (say over a 5 year period) will go above $80.00/barrel within the next decade. The oil patch would love steady oil in the 60-80 dollar range, and steady natural gas at about $6.00/thousand cubic feet. Remember, peak oil was first predicted to be within 5 years in 1920. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
- Original Message - From: To: Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 4:39 PM Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? Original Message: - From: xponentrob xponent...@comcast.net Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:56:08 -0600 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? - Original Message - From: To: Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 12:00 PM Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? >>Since then, I've been seeing promises of competative electric cars. When >>gas prices were at $4.50/gallon, the premium for hybrids was within $1000 >>of being a wash. But, now that prices are back close to $1.50 (around here >>at leastbut when we were up near $4.50, I'd guess you were higher too) >>hybrid sales are falling like a rock. >Aren't overall vehicle sales been "falling like a rock"? >SUV/Truck sales have been getting a larger share of the pie of late, but as >I understand it all sales are down and this is why *all* automakers are >having troubles. But, hybrid sales are falling much faster. The latest comparison I got was through November, and (according to the eia), gas prices fell 20% from November to December. >From http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/04/r-l-polk-co-ana.html Sales of the market-leading Prius were down 48.3% to 8,660-its lowest sales month since January 2007. Camry Hybrid sales were off 57.5%, down to 2,174 units. That accounted for 8.6% of all Camry sales. Total Camry sales for the month were down 28.8%. Sales of the Highlander Hybrid were down 64.8% to 907 units, representing 11.5% of all Highlander models sold. Total Highlander sales were down 35.9% in the month. So, as of November, they are dropping by about a factor of 2 more than the same gas powered models. Car sales are dropping, hybrid sales are dropping much faster. And, while I don't have the details available, indications are that the relative slide continues. In a couple of months, we'll see if there's a bottom. If not, hybrid sales will drop to the point where the sales become insignificant. *** So I'm wondering if the more expensive luxury versions of the comparable models are seeing similar falls in sales. Are people forgoing the "bells and whistles" also? xponent Further Investigations Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
Original Message: - From: xponentrob xponent...@comcast.net Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:56:08 -0600 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? - Original Message - From: To: Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 12:00 PM Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? >>Since then, I've been seeing promises of competative electric cars. When >>gas prices were at $4.50/gallon, the premium for hybrids was within $1000 >>of being a wash. But, now that prices are back close to $1.50 (around here >>at leastbut when we were up near $4.50, I'd guess you were higher too) >>hybrid sales are falling like a rock. >Aren't overall vehicle sales been "falling like a rock"? >SUV/Truck sales have been getting a larger share of the pie of late, but as >I understand it all sales are down and this is why *all* automakers are >having troubles. But, hybrid sales are falling much faster. The latest comparison I got was through November, and (according to the eia), gas prices fell 20% from November to December. >From http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/04/r-l-polk-co-ana.html Sales of the market-leading Prius were down 48.3% to 8,660its lowest sales month since January 2007. Camry Hybrid sales were off 57.5%, down to 2,174 units. That accounted for 8.6% of all Camry sales. Total Camry sales for the month were down 28.8%. Sales of the Highlander Hybrid were down 64.8% to 907 units, representing 11.5% of all Highlander models sold. Total Highlander sales were down 35.9% in the month. So, as of November, they are dropping by about a factor of 2 more than the same gas powered models. Car sales are dropping, hybrid sales are dropping much faster. And, while I don't have the details available, indications are that the relative slide continues. In a couple of months, we'll see if there's a bottom. If not, hybrid sales will drop to the point where the sales become insignificant. Dan M. mail2web.com What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you? http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
- Original Message - From: To: Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 12:00 PM Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? >Since then, I've been seeing promises of competative electric cars. When >gas prices were at $4.50/gallon, the premium for hybrids was within $1000 >of being a wash. But, now that prices are back close to $1.50 (around here >at leastbut when we were up near $4.50, I'd guess you were higher too) >hybrid sales are falling like a rock. Aren't overall vehicle sales been "falling like a rock"? SUV/Truck sales have been getting a larger share of the pie of late, but as I understand it all sales are down and this is why *all* automakers are having troubles. xponent Question Of The Day Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
On Jan 23, 2009, at 12:00 PM, dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: > Since then, I've been seeing promises of competative electric cars. > When > gas prices were at $4.50/gallon, the premium for hybrids was within > $1000 > of being a wash. But, now that prices are back close to $1.50 > (around here > at leastbut when we were up near $4.50, I'd guess you were > higher too) > hybrid sales are falling like a rock. And that, in turn, is a symptom of how susceptible the mainstream is to short-term thinking and its application to decisions with long-term effects. People buying cars really seem to think that fuel prices will always be what they are right now, and we won't have another $4+/gal peak or even higher soon. They also really seem to think there won't be an overall upward trend on top of seasonal and market-driven fluctuations. No other interpretation makes sense to me, when people turn around and buy 10-15 mpg SUV's and pickups the moment fuel goes down below $2/gal. (The only exception would be if they plan to trade the thing in next summer when the fuel prices go back up, which is a different kind of insanity.) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
Doug wrote: >Furthermore, because of concerns about climate change and unrest in >the middle east, a prediction that batteries and cheap electric cars >are going to be in great demand over the next several decades is a >good bet. I have no arguement against the concept that cheap batteries and cheap electric cars would be in great demand. That has beent true since 1973, when the oil boycott woke us up to the dependance of the world on Mid-East oil. Since then, I've been seeing promises of competative electric cars. When gas prices were at $4.50/gallon, the premium for hybrids was within $1000 of being a wash. But, now that prices are back close to $1.50 (around here at leastbut when we were up near $4.50, I'd guess you were higher too) hybrid sales are falling like a rock. So, we've made real progress since '73. In another 35 years, we may very well have competative battery powered cars that are flexible enough to be competative in the US and European markets. We also may have biofuels that are sensible because bioengineering has progressed to the point where we have 20%+ efficiency in converting sunlight to complex, burnable, hydrocarbons. But, until that happens, China will pick the cheapest option. Even when oil recovers to reasonable, sustainable prices (say $60-$80/barrel), hybrids will not make sense until the premium is, roughly, cut in half. Compact electric cars are roughly 40k, compared to about 13k for compact gas cars, and have a range < 100 miles/charge. So, these cars are only for the richand the well off Chinese who can afford to move up from a bike to a car are not rich by US standards. Further, oil usage in a country that is just starting to introduce automobiles their oil usage is not for private >So a move to all electric strengthens government control >by alleviating dependence on foreign oil and automobiles and expands the >economy not only internally but globally. But, the Chinese do make autos, > 7 million in 2006. They import oil, but they are also a producer, about 60% of their oil is internally produced. Coal is their favorite and cheapest option, so that is a plus for electricity (although a minus for the environment). So, while they would have an even better foreign trade balance than they do without importing oil, they are in a far different position than the US. For some reason, I keep on getting the feel that those who think that we can decrease worldwide CO2 output in the next 10 years feel that if nations only had the will, then they could quickly produce cheap alternative energy. It's not like the moon race, where price was no object, its more like space factories, where price is a critical factor. And so far, prices for alternative energy are not falling rapidly. That's why I think we need a disruptive innovation for things to change. > For example, several years ago, there were pollution regulations passed. > They have all been ignored, with no real consequences. The only exception > to this was during the Olympics, when some industries had to shut down and > most people had to stop driving so Beijing looked as good as possible. >Well, you can only crap upstream for so long before you figure out that it's >a pretty stupid habit. IIRC, we know that's been going on in India for 3000 years. :-) >Perhaps the Olympics has been a wake up call for the Chinese. I haven't seen any data that indicates that the Chinese will be willing to sacrifice ecconomic growth for pollution control. That is a tradeoff that the West agreed to because we were rich enough to have that on the agenda. But, it wasn't until the '60s that we did. If history is a guide, China is a good ways away from having the per capita GDP at which countries start spending it on pollution control. Perhaps they will do it faster than average, but since they are a factor of ~9 less than the US in 2007(5.4k vs 45k on Wikipedia), it would be unrealistic to expect them to accept lower incomes to attack pollution for at least a decade. I would guess that global warming would be an issue for them later than that. I think the only possible way to change this pattern is to change the relative expense of batteries, biofuels, large capacity energy storage, etc. Without that, China will keep on adding 1% to its CO2 output for 1% growth in income (it's been faster than that lateley, but I think it will fall to that over the next 10 years or so) for at least a decade. At that point, it should have twice the CO2 output of the US and EU combined. We can wish this won't happen, but history indicates it will. Dan M. mail2web.com Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft® Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
Dan wrote: > > > I googled for that and found nothing that hinted at that. Given China's > only two priorities: > > 1) The government keeps total control > 2) The economy keeps expanding Excellent points Dan, but what you fail to see is how requiring electric vehicles would accomplish both more control and an expanding economy. As China's economy expands more of their people can afford luxury items such as cars, but most cars are made outside the country and they are powered by petroleum products that are not readily available in China. Furthermore, because of concerns about climate change and unrest in the middle east, a prediction that batteries and cheap electric cars are going to be in great demand over the next several decades is a good bet. So a move to all electric strengthens government control by alleviating dependence on foreign oil and automobiles and expands the economy not only internally but globally. > > Even if that were pronounced, it would have to be taken with kilotons of > salt. > > For example, several years ago, there were pollution regulations passed. > They have all been ignored, with no real consequences. The only exception > to this was during the Olympics, when some industries had to shut down and > most people had to stop driving so Beijing looked as good as possible. Well, you can only crap upstream for so long before you figure out that it's a pretty stupid habit. Perhaps the Olympics has been a wake up call for the Chinese. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
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 Doug Pensinger > Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 10:33 PM > To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion > Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? > > Dan M wrote: > > > > > > > Sure, it's been argued for a long time that Americans can do with a lot > > less. Let's say we do. The problem is that this argument doesn't hold > for > > the Chinese, who are now the leading emitter of greenhouse gasses. My > view > > was that the West had the money to buy a home run, and a home run will > be > > the only thing to get emerging economies, like China, to switch. > > > Didn't I read (on list I think) that the Chinese are requiring that all > new > cars sold after 2011 are required to be 100% electric? > > Doug > Just Asking, maru I googled for that and found nothing that hinted at that. Given China's only two priorities: 1) The government keeps total control 2) The economy keeps expanding Even if that were pronounced, it would have to be taken with kilotons of salt. For example, several years ago, there were pollution regulations passed. They have all been ignored, with no real consequences. The only exception to this was during the Olympics, when some industries had to shut down and most people had to stop driving so Beijing looked as good as possible. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
Dan M wrote: > > > Sure, it's been argued for a long time that Americans can do with a lot > less. Let's say we do. The problem is that this argument doesn't hold for > the Chinese, who are now the leading emitter of greenhouse gasses. My view > was that the West had the money to buy a home run, and a home run will be > the only thing to get emerging economies, like China, to switch. Didn't I read (on list I think) that the Chinese are requiring that all new cars sold after 2011 are required to be 100% electric? Doug Just Asking, maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
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: Monday, January 12, 2009 7:47 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" > To: "'Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion'" > Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 2:05 PM > Subject: RE: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? > > > > 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. OK, let's say we do that. We decrease the US greenhouse gas emissions 15% within the next 20 as a result of this happening. From normal development, the availability of hybrids at a 4k premium now and the limited availability of electric cars in several years (I'm inclined to take the Chevy, Honda, and Toyota numbers with say 20% more cost as a good guess) at a 25k or so premium for compact cars. But, that won't have much of an impact on the total greenhouse gas emissions because it doesn't address China, which will, barring a tremendous setback in the Chinese growth, will overwhelm the emissions from the US and Europe combined. To see why this is critical, let's look at the 4 top GDP countries in terms of tons of carbon per $1000 GDP. The figures for 2000-2006 are shown below. (2007 isn't available yet). China US Germany Japan 2000 0.980.60 0.40 0.37 2001 0.940.58 0.40 0.37 2002 0.960.58 0.39 0.37 2003 1.030.57 0.40 0.38 2004 1.120.56 0.40 0.37 2005 1.130.55 0.39 0.36 2006 1.120.52 0.38 0.36 You see that China has actually risen in their energy intensity per dollar of GDP. The US has fallen, and will probably continue to fall, with the singles that you are talking about. Germany and Japan have been fairly steady, but will probably fall enough to drop their per capita emissions. But, the singles you are talking about won't affect China because they are in a totally different point in economic development than the US. People there are demanding economic growth, and the 5%-7% expected next year in China may be low enough to spark civil unrest. Unless electric cars are as cheap as gas cars, then they won't switch. > 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. Sure, it's been argued for a long time that Americans can do with a lot less. Let's say we do. The problem is that this argument doesn't hold for the Chinese, who are now the leading emitter of greenhouse gasses. My view was that the West had the money to buy a home run, and a home run will be the only thing to get emerging economies, like China, to switch. > Wellthe 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) Sure, but when they test a big SUV, they test it with one driver, but the full load. They don't change the configuration of the car. That's where the Will 240 rating is suspect. They replaced passenger space with battery space, changing the nature of the car itself. It's like having a small Hummer that can only squeeze three people in it with a shoehorn and then using its mpg in ads for the full blown Hummer. In contrast, the Tesla rating system seem fairly rigorous, and the numbers they get are probably about as optimistic as nominal mpg ratings. > 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. (ReallyI'm thinking that Toyota, > Honda, Tesla, Fisker, Lightning and several others have shown what can be > accomplished, and
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: Monday, January 12, 2009 6:16 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" > To: "'Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion'" > Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 12:56 PM > Subject: RE: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? > > > > First, I got a "not there" when looking for the paper. Second, > batteries > > will have to become many orders of magnitude better for storage of power > > generation at off peak times for use at peak timesparticularly if we > > are > > thinking of things like wind power which would be close to economically > > feasible right now if there was such a storage mechanism. > > There are a few companies currently promoting business plans wherein > downtown office buildings would purchase *used* current technology Li-ion > auto batteries to store off-peak power for re-use during peak hours. > Storing power on-site would have some advantages. OK, that's a much smaller usage than I was thinking of that is based on the fact that industrial users have a big portion of their bill based on their highest usage rate for the month. I can see why that would make economic sense for those companies. But, it does little to cut CO2 emissions, it may actually raise them slightly (battery storage is good but not perfect). If this use were extended, then it might slightly decrease the number of power plants needed to be built, but would slightly increase the amount of electricity used. Indeed, it might be an incentive to add to the fraction of electricity generated by coal. > That doesn't resemble any plan I've seen. What I've seen has storage only > mitigating peak usage for 24 hour cycles. If the wind doesn't blow, you > just lose out on savings. But, it also means that wind can't be counted on. In another forum I was debating this, and was led to a website maintained by the company that has the largest fraction of wind in its mix. They stated that they can only count on about 5% of nameplate capacity, and that this was becoming a limiting factor on their use of wind. > > and compressed air storage downhole. > > I think we discussed this about a year or so ago. One of our wind power > discussions. Yup > > Already occuring. Industry is also funding considerable reseach on it's > own. > A lot of good reseach results have already come in as a result of battery > nano-research. There is already a Li-ion battery that will recharge to 90% > of capacity in 10 minutes and full charge (from dead) in less than an > hour. They are working on manufacturing techniques to reduce cost and >increase reliability, but that news is around a year old. And, I haven't seen battery prices fall. If the market and the technology is there, someone will take advantage of it. Look at computers, were a zillion companies sprang up out of virtually nowhere after the IBM PC was developed 25 or so years ago. > > If we can get Li-I batteries to increase their capacity > > by say 10x, while holding their cost constant, then electric cars become > > economically feasible. But, if we don't, then we can subsidize electric > > cars with hundreds of billions and we still won't have anything more > than > > an > > expensive subsidy program, like ethanol. > > > When manufacturing capacity comes online here in the US costs should come > down fairly dramatically. The problem currently is that there are only a > few > manufacturers, almost all overseas, and none can supply enough to cause a > price drop. But there is a LOT of money to be made even with lower prices, > so there are a good number of companies vying for a piece of the pie. Why is manufacturing overseas? What massive Li-ifactory building programs exist in the US? The problem with US manufacturing is that, even at minimum wage without benefits, labor costs are relatively high here. In Zambia, for example, getting two dollars a day at a factory is a big step up for most people. Here, with tax and government overheads, a minimum wage worker costs a company >$8.00 per hour. I spent a few minutes googling and found no indication that there are now factories with large capacities for building these batteries now being built in the US. I also got no announcements, except from the governor of Michigan who said she wanted Michigan to give tax incentives to do so. If you have sites that show that the US is getting into the Li-I battery manufacturing business, that would be great to see. Otherwise, I think you can understand why I think that this manufacturing, like so many other factories, will be overseas. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
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: Monday, January 12, 2009 7:47 PM > To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion > Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? > > > Did you see 60 Minutes last night? Seems like there might be a little > fallout. > I saw it on their website, and it fit my expectations for a 60 minutes story. They had a story line and they included interviews and facts that fit the story line into the show. Anything that detracted from telling a good story was eliminated from the show. They don't stay a highly rated show by including too many long boring chalkboard sessions. So, the primary thrust of their argument is that it is futures traders that determine the price of oil, not supply and demand. They pointed out that demand was falling as the price was reaching its height, and that supply and demand should indicate that it falls as demand falls. In a sense, that is true. It isn't just supply and demand, it's that and anticipated supply and demand in the future. That's why it's a futures market. And, like any other market, it can be prone to bubbles and panic. But, it's there for a reason. Using it, an airline company can buy futures for aviation fuel and oil companies can sell futures in crude oil. It's true that everyone wants to get in the act, so most of the transactions are not by folks who actually need to buy or sell the product, but folks who see a profit opportunity. And, for the most part, markets like this market or the stock market are efficient. That is to say that it's hard to find someone with a long term pattern of beating that outside the statistical norm. (e.g. there are enough brokers so that if they used coin flipping as their strategy, a good number would have beaten the market average performance in 10 out of the last 12 years). Warren Buffet looked to be the one exception to the rule, but that's even debatable. But, these folks don't operate in a vacuum. There is a fundamental reality that underlies the pricing: supply and demand. Back in '98, there was a significant excess of supply of crude oil. Everyone knew that. In that environment, futures prices were not going to go through the roof. Instead, they exaggerated the effect of supply and demand and fell below $10/barrel. So, lets get to July, 2008. We have, from EIA, the following information for supply and demand. Date Supply Demand 2004 83.10 82.41 2005 84.56 84.00 2006 84.54 84.98 07Q1 83.96 85.97 07Q2 84.21 84.97 07Q3 84.25 85.64 07Q4 85.30 87.00 08Q1 85.34 86.41 08Q2 85.66 85.24 08Q3 85.69 84.73 As 60 minutes pointed out, demand was falling in 2008 and supply had increased. But, what they didn't point out was the fact that this data was not available at that time. Only the data until Q1 of 2008 was available. We knew that the US demand was dropping, but between 2004 and 2007, it had dropped 2.8%, while the total demand (including the US) increased by 1.7%. With all the talk of peak oil, and China's and India's economies booming, one can understand why such a bubble was in place. Most folks in the oil patch didn't count on such a bubble lasting. Big oil companies wouldn't approve projects that were profitable at $150/barrel, but required them to be profitable at, roughly, half of this. But, that was also true back in 2002, when prices were > $30/barrelcompanies would require profitability at under $20 barrel. And then, the bubble burst with the financial crisis. As the world went into recession, demand slacked, and prices fell through the floor. There was a market panic. But, it was based in the reality that the OPEC cuts didn't happen as fast as the demand drop and the fact that tankers are sitting out there floating with tens of millions of barrels waiting until prices go back up to dock. So, speculation does effect prices. But, in the long run, the fundamentals of supply and demand either end panics or burst bubbles. In a sense, markets exaggerate the normal market forces. Finally, to get to the villains of 60 minutes: the speculators, we see that a lot of them lost their shirts. If you look at the sales and prices for Feb 09 crude oil you see that a lot of speculators bought these futures at >$140/barrel. They are about to expire at under $40. Speculating on commodities futures can make you millions. But, for every speculator who made a fortune in oil in the last year, there is one who lost a fortune. But, that's a boring story, and wouldn't get CBS the ratings they needed. I'd argue that futures markets are the worst way to sell commodities, except for all the other ways that have been tried, of course. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: > On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 3:12 PM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro < > albm...@centroin.com.br> wrote: > > > > > Why there are no natural gas cars in the USA? > > > There are. I see them all the time around here. Some public utilities run > all their vehicles on compressed natural gas. Here in California, CNG > vehicles can use carpool lanes with a solo occupant. > > I'm also seeing more "dual-fuel" badges on new cars -- gasoline or ethanol. > Our neighbor has a big SUV that is ready to run on corn. > > Nick > ___ > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l > NYC has some city-owned cars and buses running CNG. There is also an initiative to use CNG for the taxi fleet. john ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
- Original Message - From: "Dan M" To: "'Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion'" 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" >> To: "'Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion'" >> 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 >> > carotherwise 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? Wellthe government establishes MPG ratings, and they do it with only one passenger, the driver. I don't see that your criticism a
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
- Original Message - From: "Dan M" To: "'Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion'" Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 12:56 PM Subject: RE: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? > First, I got a "not there" when looking for the paper. Second, batteries > will have to become many orders of magnitude better for storage of power > generation at off peak times for use at peak timesparticularly if we > are > thinking of things like wind power which would be close to economically > feasible right now if there was such a storage mechanism. There are a few companies currently promoting business plans wherein downtown office buildings would purchase *used* current technology Li-ion auto batteries to store off-peak power for re-use during peak hours. Storing power on-site would have some advantages. > > Let me run some numbers to give a feel for this. Let's say we have a 200 > MW > wind farm (say 300 MW nameplate, allowing for nominal winds to below > nameplate), and will need to store 100 hours worth of energy to make it > feasible to use it as a stand alone facility. That means we'd need 20 GWh > of storage. That doesn't resemble any plan I've seen. What I've seen has storage only mitigating peak usage for 24 hour cycles. If the wind doesn't blow, you just lose out on savings. > > According to > > http://www.allaboutbatteries.com/Battery-Energy.html > > storing this energy with the type of advanced Li-I batteries we've been > seeing in the best cars, we'd have to pay >80 billion for the storage. > The > windfarm itself costs only 300 million in my example, so you see that > battery storage is far away from economical for this purpose. > > That's why folks are looking at lowering the cost of conversion to > hydrogen > and compressed air storage downhole. I think we discussed this about a year or so ago. One of our wind power discussions. > > Now, I'm not saying that finding a cheaper better battery is impossible. > Rather, I'm arguing that it will take a breakthrough. Thus, I'd argue for > the government funding nanotech and nanochemistry as the best means of > approaching this. Already occuring. Industry is also funding considerable reseach on it's own. A lot of good reseach results have already come in as a result of battery nano-research. There is already a Li-ion battery that will recharge to 90% of capacity in 10 minutes and full charge (from dead) in less than an hour. They are working on manufacturing techniques to reduce cost and increase reliability, but that news is around a year old. > If we can get Li-I batteries to increase their capacity > by say 10x, while holding their cost constant, then electric cars become > economically feasible. But, if we don't, then we can subsidize electric > cars with hundreds of billions and we still won't have anything more than > an > expensive subsidy program, like ethanol. > When manufacturing capacity comes online here in the US costs should come down fairly dramatically. The problem currently is that there are only a few manufacturers, almost all overseas, and none can supply enough to cause a price drop. But there is a LOT of money to be made even with lower prices, so there are a good number of companies vying for a piece of the pie. xponent Numbers Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
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" > To: "'Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion'" > 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. :-) > 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. > > > > > > >> > >> 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 > > carotherwise 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? > > 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. > > 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. > 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. 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
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 Doug Pensinger > Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2009 11:50 PM > To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion > Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? > > Dan wrote: > > > > > But, let's just take 30. At $1.50/gal, that's 5 cents/mile. Lets say > > these > > cars are kept for 150k, which is on the high side...that's 7.5k for gas. > > The break even point, assuming CDs pay zero, with the MSRP discount, is > > close to $6.00/gal. And, that's comparing with a smaller car. > > > > and: > > > > > > > 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 > > carotherwise 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). > > > > Now tell me Dan. Does your Escort get 30 mpg with 5 adults aboard, or are > you engaging in the same kind of deceptive language you're accusing others > of? OK, I didn't state things precisely correctly. I've measured the 30 mpg driving back and forth to be with Teri while she was at seminary. This trip is 300 miles, with about 30 traffic lights and a few stop signs. What I was getting at is that the 80 mile version seats 5, while the 240 mile version uses the space that passengers can sit it for the extra batteries. So, five people can no longer fit in the car. If the car were to degrade to 220 miles with 5 people instead of 1, then that's not a big deal. But, 80 and 240 are very different numbers. And since all the other manufactures of similar cars (Toyota, Chevy) are in the 40-100 mile range, having a car that uses the same fundamental technology (the wheel design is not going to change things by factors of two) and is more than a factor of two better sounds rather fishy. > Not that nine out of ten cars has more than one person in it. And by > the way, gas prices around here are back up to $2/gal and will probably go > higher soon. So if your getting 23miles/gallon (with your five people in > the car) for 150k at $2.50/gal that's 16k for gas. California is special in that it has gas blends that are more expensive and tend to get slightly lower gas mileage. But, then, virtually everything costs a lot more in California. :-) When I was selling my house, I got great amusement considering the multi-millions I would get for my house out there. > And if batteries become cheaper and wind/solar interests buy up used > batteries to store power generated at off peak times, > http://www.its.berkeley.edu/sustainabilitycenter/newsandevents/CEFISrelate > d_sandia_report.pdf > the maintenance cost of electrics is probably a lot cheaper than gas > powered cars that are much more mechanically complex. First, I got a "not there" when looking for the paper. Second, batteries will have to become many orders of magnitude better for storage of power generation at off peak times for use at peak timesparticularly if we are thinking of things like wind power which would be close to economically feasible right now if there was such a storage mechanism. Let me run some numbers to give a feel for this. Let's say we have a 200 MW wind farm (say 300 MW nameplate, allowing for nominal winds to below nameplate), and will need to store 100 hours worth of energy to make it feasible to use it as a stand alone facility. That means we'd need 20 GWh of storage. According to http://www.allaboutbatteries.com/Battery-Energy.html storing this energy with the type of advanced Li-I batteries we've been seeing in the best cars, we'd have to pay >80 billion for the storage. The windfarm itself costs only 300 million in my example, so you see that battery storage is far away from economical for this purpose. That's why folks are looking at lowering the cost of conversion to hydrogen and compressed air storage downhole. Now, I'm not saying that finding a cheaper better battery is impossible. Rather, I'm arguing that it will take a breakthrough. Thus, I'd argue for the government funding nanotech and nanochemistry as the best means of approaching this. If we can get Li-I batteries to increase their capacity by say 10x, while holding their cost constant, then electric cars become economically feasible. But, if we don't, then we can subsidize electric cars with hundreds of billions and we st
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 3:12 PM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro < albm...@centroin.com.br> wrote: > > Why there are no natural gas cars in the USA? There are. I see them all the time around here. Some public utilities run all their vehicles on compressed natural gas. Here in California, CNG vehicles can use carpool lanes with a solo occupant. I'm also seeing more "dual-fuel" badges on new cars -- gasoline or ethanol. Our neighbor has a big SUV that is ready to run on corn. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
Dan wrote: > > But, let's just take 30. At $1.50/gal, that's 5 cents/mile. Lets say > these > cars are kept for 150k, which is on the high side...that's 7.5k for gas. > The break even point, assuming CDs pay zero, with the MSRP discount, is > close to $6.00/gal. And, that's comparing with a smaller car. > > and: > > 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 > carotherwise 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). > Now tell me Dan. Does your Escort get 30 mpg with 5 adults aboard, or are you engaging in the same kind of deceptive language you're accusing others of? Not that nine out of ten cars has more than one person in it. And by the way, gas prices around here are back up to $2/gal and will probably go higher soon. So if your getting 23miles/gallon (with your five people in the car) for 150k at $2.50/gal that's 16k for gas. And if batteries become cheaper and wind/solar interests buy up used batteries to store power generated at off peak times, http://www.its.berkeley.edu/sustainabilitycenter/newsandevents/CEFISrelated_sandia_report.pdf the maintenance cost of electrics is probably a lot cheaper than gas powered cars that are much more mechanically complex. But none of that is as important or as relevant as the fact that there is _no_ future for petroleum based energy for this country. We spend billions upon billions of dollars on maintaining a presence in the Middle East to protect our sources while we finance our enemies with the money we spend on oil. Factoring the political costs of our dependence on oil makes it quite a bit more expensive than you imply. By providing ourselves with alternatives, even if they are initially more expensive, we provide ourselves with a future and make the terrorists irrelevant (not to mention broke.) Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
Dan M wrote: > > Personally, I'd bet a beer that bioengineered fuels, that have >10x the > efficiency of ethanol production will have a significant market share in 10 > years (say 10% of jet fuel), but electric cars will not be a significant > player (>5% of cars sold worldwide in 2019) in that time. But, I have no > problem in placing chips on battery development, because the payoff from a > given winner should be substantialwe just don't know which bet will pay > off. > Why there are no natural gas cars in the USA? Argentina lead South America into this, and now we have "tetrafuel" cars in Brazil: they run on ethanol, compressed natural gas, the brazilian 75% vol gasoline / 25% vol ethanol and gasoline. Probably they could also run on methanol or propane (both are illegal in Brazil - as is pure, unmixed gasoline). Not to mention those extravagant vehicles that run on liquid hydrogen... Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Detroit Auto Show/Hybrids and Electrics (was: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/business/11electric.html?ref=autoshow http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/automobiles/autoshow/11SHOW.html?em Ford http://www.freep.com/article/20090111/BUSINESS03/90111045/1016/BUSINESS01/Ford+outlines+electric++hybrid+plans http://www.autoweek.com/article/20090111/FREE/901119989 http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/industrials/magna-ford-motor-company-partner-introduce-ero-emission-battery-electric-1518830864/ Chrysler http://www.autoweek.com/article/20090111/FREE/901109991 http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aHCn5mV9BjR4&refer=home GM http://info.detnews.com/redesign/blogs/autoshowblog/index.cfm?blogid=363 http://blog.wired.com/cars/2009/01/gm-promises-a-4.html http://jalopnik.com/343835/detroit-auto-show--2009-saturn-vue-green-line-2-mode-hybrid http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/automobiles/autoshow/11BATTERY.html?_r=1&ref=autoshow Toyota http://uk.reuters.com/article/marketsNewsUS/idUKN1129586120090111 http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2009/01/toyota-ftev-concept-at-2009-detroit-auto-show.html http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/toyota-plug-in-hybrid-coming-this-year/ Honda http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2009/01/2010-honda-insi.html Mercedes http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/01/10/detroit-2009-mercedes-benz-unveils-the-concept-bluezero/ BYD (China) http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/01/09/detroit-preview-byds-f3dm-plug-in-hybrid-will-be-unveiled-mond/ xponent In Cars Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
- Original Message - From: "Dan M" To: "'Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion'" Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 1:24 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 11:50 AM >> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion >> Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? >> > >> Sheesh Dan! You are exaggerating your argument a bit don't you think? >> Looking around, I can't find many cars that are even close to 11K MSRP >> excepting a few Kias and the Toyota Yaris Chevy Aveo, and Nissan Versa; >> and none of them are getting the kind of gas mileage you specify. Indeed, >> only the Yaris breaks 30 MPG. (Granted, cars are selling at an average of >> 14.9% below MSRP these days) > > OK, I was doing milage from memory. But, my bigger Escort gets 30, so I > thought these smaller cars got a bit more. > > But, let's just take 30. At $1.50/gal, that's 5 cents/mile. Lets say > these > cars are kept for 150k, which is on the high side...that's 7.5k for gas. > The break even point, assuming CDs pay zero, with the MSRP discount, is > close to $6.00/gal. And, that's comparing with a smaller car. > Heh! I'm aware of the math involved. Frex: http://www.gunaxin.com/chevy-volt-bmw-mini-tesla-roadster/4055 Worth reading. 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. > > >> >> 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 > carotherwise 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. > > I'm not opposed to electric cars, I just try to use the rules of thumb > I've > learned from engineering on all comers...those I'm rooting for as well as > against. > > Realistically, after a recovery, long term gasoline prices should average > in > the $2.50 range. I know that if we could get $80 oil (in 2008 dollars) > promised for the next 10 years, everyone in the oil patch would be very > very > happy. Electric cars will have to compete against that. So, the math has > to > work out that waythe lower payments on gas will have to balance the > higher payments on the car note for the average Joe and Joan. You also have to factor in the lower costs of using electricity as an energy source. 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? What will be the differences in warranties? There are a lot of unanswered questions that effect value. > >> I understand the argument you are trying to make. The key is battery >> development. And there are economic issues that could miscarry the entire >> trend... if normal and simple economics were to hold sway. >> But >> I don't think those kinds of economic arguments will hold in the long >> run. >> There is political will running in from several directions that will >> create a sort of ad hoc alliance to promote hybrids and BEVs. > > I believe that. I wouldn't doubt that pe
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 11:50 AM > To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion > Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? > > Sheesh Dan! You are exaggerating your argument a bit don't you think? > Looking around, I can't find many cars that are even close to 11K MSRP > excepting a few Kias and the Toyota Yaris Chevy Aveo, and Nissan Versa; > and none of them are getting the kind of gas mileage you specify. Indeed, > only the Yaris breaks 30 MPG. (Granted, cars are selling at an average of > 14.9% below MSRP these days) OK, I was doing milage from memory. But, my bigger Escort gets 30, so I thought these smaller cars got a bit more. But, let's just take 30. At $1.50/gal, that's 5 cents/mile. Lets say these cars are kept for 150k, which is on the high side...that's 7.5k for gas. The break even point, assuming CDs pay zero, with the MSRP discount, is close to $6.00/gal. And, that's comparing with a smaller car. > > 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 carotherwise 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. I'm not opposed to electric cars, I just try to use the rules of thumb I've learned from engineering on all comers...those I'm rooting for as well as against. Realistically, after a recovery, long term gasoline prices should average in the $2.50 range. I know that if we could get $80 oil (in 2008 dollars) promised for the next 10 years, everyone in the oil patch would be very very happy. Electric cars will have to compete against that. So, the math has to work out that waythe lower payments on gas will have to balance the higher payments on the car note for the average Joe and Joan. > I understand the argument you are trying to make. The key is battery > development. And there are economic issues that could miscarry the entire > trend... if normal and simple economics were to hold sway. But > I don't think those kinds of economic arguments will hold in the long run. > There is political will running in from several directions that will > create a sort of ad hoc alliance to promote hybrids and BEVs. I believe that. I wouldn't doubt that people will be able to pitch for over 100 billion in government money for projects. The question is whether it will have more of a real impact that the 30 billion/year we have thrown at ethanol. > It appears that concern over "Peak Oil" is growing. > There are National Security issues due to the large amount of imported oil > from less than friendly cultures. People are generally disgusted > with importing oil from less than friendly cultures. Yes, but where is the support for a gas tax that will further limit consumption. I'll know when folks are serious about it when they agree to a $3.00/gal tax matched with a tax rebate program that renders a net neutral disincentive to use gasoline. This will happen when 1) It just froze over 2) Pigs fly 3) Fill in the blank. > Environmental concerns over Greenhouse Gas emissions. > Environmental concerns over pollution emissions. / Medical concerns over > pollution emissions. > People worry about future "Gas Price Shocks" such as we had last summer. > Large auto manufacturers see startups like Tesla as a "Threat". Well, that all sounds good, but the numbers don't seem to match. According to CNN, SUV and Trucks are now outselling cars again http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/22/autos/trucks_back/ I think that folks are very interested in other people sacrificing for the environment and to stop those nasty folks in the Mid-East from getting more money. But, as long as gasoline prices stay under $3.00 (which I expect for the next 5 yearsthe June peak was a bubble), not much will be done to change buying habits. > It seems to me that you are looking at where we are with an eye >to the next few years.
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
- Original Message - From: "Dan M" To: "'Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion'" Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 9:14 PM Subject: RE: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? > >> The Tesla is not the best example one could use. I think the Heuliez Will >> is a better example of an electric vehicle that is just about there. The >> price should be around 27-34K (when it hits market) and the car can do 0 >> - 60 in around 10 seconds with a top speed of 87MPH and has a range >> of248 >> miles. > > Yes, but if you read what they write carefully, they never say that they > can > go with long range and carry a full passenger load. If you compare it > with > domestic sub-compact cars, it looks as though its maximum range version > will > carry about the same as a 11k sub-compact car. > >> It >> is not as sexy as the Tesla, but it is much more of a reply to peoples >> needs than the Tesla and costs should go down as more are manufactured. > > And, it's still being designed, according to the manufacturers. Costs go > up > and performance goes down on vaporware cars, in my experience. Yes, it > hit > the auto show, but its not going to be produced for a year or more, and we > all know how that can change things. Basically, who but a rich > environmentalist would buy a car like this at 3x the price of a comparable > gas engine car that gets 40-50 mpg highway? > Sheesh Dan! You are exaggerating your argument a bit don't you think? Looking around, I can't find many cars that are even close to 11K MSRP excepting a few Kias and the Toyota Yaris Chevy Aveo, and Nissan Versa; and none of them are getting the kind of gas mileage you specify. Indeed, only the Yaris breaks 30 MPG. (Granted, cars are selling at an average of 14.9% below MSRP these days) Vaporware? Heck, the car is an example of a design I prefer, and one that looks to be adopted by other manufacturers. As I've mentioned before, all the attention is focused on the high end vehicles, and the manufacturers of such claim they will work their way down the pyramid so that the eventual low end auto buyers will reap the most benefit of cost reductions when they are able to purchase a BEV/HBEV. The big existing manufacturers are starting near the middle of their lines and working "out" from there, starting with hybrids. I like the "Active Wheel" design because the energy is being used as close to the pavement as possible, and not being wasted spinning drive shafts and transmissions. That was the point of using that particular car as an example, plus that a giant like Michelin was working on the design. (Personally, I don't find that particular model/body style to be too interesting. It looks like something out of the 70s.) I understand the argument you are trying to make. The key is battery development. And there are economic issues that could miscarry the entire trend... if normal and simple economics were to hold sway. But I don't think those kinds of economic arguments will hold in the long run. There is political will running in from several directions that will create a sort of ad hoc alliance to promote hybrids and BEVs. It appears that concern over "Peak Oil" is growing. There are National Security issues due to the large amount of imported oil from less than friendly cultures. People are generally disgusted with importing oil from less than friendly cultures. Environmental concerns over Greenhouse Gas emissions. Environmental concerns over pollution emissions. / Medical concerns over pollution emissions. People worry about future "Gas Price Shocks" such as we had last summer. Large auto manufacturers see startups like Tesla as a "Threat". There are also some "seedling" issues. Potential fuel tax increases that would bring us to par with Europe. The decreased "cost of ownership" potential for electrics. (Up to an order of magnitude fewer moving parts, less need for maintenance[almost none], practically no oil products used except for joint lube etc...) Electricity is cheaper than gas (cost/mile) The possibility that congested and polluted cities could outlaw ICE use in certain districts (London Frex) It seems to me that you are looking at where we are with an eye to the next few years. I'm looking at where the trends seem to be taking us with and eye to the next decade, maybe 2. That difference in range can give a lot of variance to what the trends will tell you. Amirite? xponent Electromotive Forces Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
> The Tesla is not the best example one could use. I think the Heuliez Will > is a better example of an electric vehicle that is just about there. The > price should be around 27-34K (when it hits market) and the car can do 0 > - 60 in around 10 seconds with a top speed of 87MPH and has a range of248 > miles. Yes, but if you read what they write carefully, they never say that they can go with long range and carry a full passenger load. If you compare it with domestic sub-compact cars, it looks as though its maximum range version will carry about the same as a 11k sub-compact car. > It > is not as sexy as the Tesla, but it is much more of a reply to peoples > needs than the Tesla and costs should go down as more are manufactured. And, it's still being designed, according to the manufacturers. Costs go up and performance goes down on vaporware cars, in my experience. Yes, it hit the auto show, but its not going to be produced for a year or more, and we all know how that can change things. Basically, who but a rich environmentalist would buy a car like this at 3x the price of a comparable gas engine car that gets 40-50 mpg highway? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
- Original Message - From: "Dan M" To: "'Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion'" Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 4:59 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: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 7:21 PM >> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion >> Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? >> >> If one wants to make direct comparisons of a type of batteries >> capabilities, >> one has to go no farther than a hardware store or Lowes or Home Depot. >> I've been using cordless drills for a couple of decades. They were once >> using Ni-Cad batteries, until the Nimh batteries swallowed the market. >> The >> Ni-Cad and Nimh battery packs were pretty much the same size and >> performed >> about the same, only Nimh had a slight edge in most categories. In the >> last 2 years Li-ion batteries have begun to take over the market. >> The battery packs are smaller and lighter, but deliver more power >> and torque and do it for longer with a shorter recharge time. >> In short, Li-ion are starting to dominate the market and it is a market >> that has requirements that has similarities to the requirements in Auto >> applications. > > I agree with your methodology, but wish to add one thing: cost. The added > cost for modest energy densities is not a big factor, but at $4.27 per Wh, > it means a lot if one needs a lot of watt hours. In the case of power > tools, the use isn't as much as one thinks, > > My memory is that the Tesla uses these batteries, and its price tag has a > lot to do with how expensive they are. I think we'd need a factor of 10 > reduction in price/Wh before they are commercially feasible for Joe and > Joan > commuter. But, I would not necessarily rule that out; because the > evidence > for research on the techniques indicates that there may be some room for > improvements both in storage density and price per battery. The Tesla is not the best example one could use. I think the Heuliez Will is a better example of an electric vehicle that is just about there. The price should be around 27-34K (when it hits market) and the car can do 0 - 60 in around 10 seconds with a top speed of 87MPH and has a range of248 miles. It is not as sexy as the Tesla, but it is much more of a reply to peoples needs than the Tesla and costs should go down as more are manufactured. The Chevy Volt looks to be similarly placed, though it is a series hybrid. > > The other factor is that we will either need to switch to nuclear power > for > virtually all of our electricity or find a very efficient high volume > energy > storage system to match with wind. Right now, power grids can count on > only > 5% or so of the rated capacity of wind farms. Pairing them with natural > gas > plants makes this reasonable, but then we are burning fossil fuels to get > the electricity. That's slightly better for the environment than > gasoline, > but far worse than high tech biofuels that might come on line in 5-10 > years. > > So, in the short term, I'd argue for building nuclear plants, finding ways > to make batteries denser and cheaper, and biofuels from non-food sources > which produce aviation fuel far more efficiently than ethanol is produced, > developing high efficiency massive energy storage, and a raise in the gas > tax. > > But, you've heard that before. :-) > True, and I am in agreement with you most of the time on this subject. But I must caution against accidental hyperbole. The Tesla is a high end sports car. Using it as an example with regards to commuting is a bit over the top. Understandable, since it has about the highest profile (among potential consumers) of any BEV, but the car was designed to show possibilities and capabilities,not to be a mainstream or even a commuter vehicle. xponent Compacts Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
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: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 7:21 PM > To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion > Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? > > If one wants to make direct comparisons of a type of batteries > capabilities, > one has to go no farther than a hardware store or Lowes or Home Depot. > I've been using cordless drills for a couple of decades. They were once > using Ni-Cad batteries, until the Nimh batteries swallowed the market. The > Ni-Cad and Nimh battery packs were pretty much the same size and performed > about the same, only Nimh had a slight edge in most categories. In the > last 2 years Li-ion batteries have begun to take over the market. > The battery packs are smaller and lighter, but deliver more power > and torque and do it for longer with a shorter recharge time. > In short, Li-ion are starting to dominate the market and it is a market > that has requirements that has similarities to the requirements in Auto > applications. I agree with your methodology, but wish to add one thing: cost. The added cost for modest energy densities is not a big factor, but at $4.27 per Wh, it means a lot if one needs a lot of watt hours. In the case of power tools, the use isn't as much as one thinks, My memory is that the Tesla uses these batteries, and its price tag has a lot to do with how expensive they are. I think we'd need a factor of 10 reduction in price/Wh before they are commercially feasible for Joe and Joan commuter. But, I would not necessarily rule that out; because the evidence for research on the techniques indicates that there may be some room for improvements both in storage density and price per battery. The other factor is that we will either need to switch to nuclear power for virtually all of our electricity or find a very efficient high volume energy storage system to match with wind. Right now, power grids can count on only 5% or so of the rated capacity of wind farms. Pairing them with natural gas plants makes this reasonable, but then we are burning fossil fuels to get the electricity. That's slightly better for the environment than gasoline, but far worse than high tech biofuels that might come on line in 5-10 years. So, in the short term, I'd argue for building nuclear plants, finding ways to make batteries denser and cheaper, and biofuels from non-food sources which produce aviation fuel far more efficiently than ethanol is produced, developing high efficiency massive energy storage, and a raise in the gas tax. But, you've heard that before. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
- Original Message - From: "Dan M" To: "'Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion'" Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 7:12 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: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 12:09 AM >> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion >> Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? >> >> > >> > If there's biofuel technology that doesn't significantly impact the >> > food stream as a source of motor vehicle fuel, then I'm all for it. >> > I'm not anywhere near PC myself, and if there's a GMO solution that >> > actually does provide a decent rate of return without investing more >> > energy in getting energy out of the fuel produced or cut too deeply >> > into the food supply, great. Hadn't heard of this. >> > >> >> These days I'm looking cynically at biofuels. they do nothing to >> reduce CO2 levels in most cases (most applications are for ICE), > > I'm not sure I follow you here. Present biofuels are bad, they divert > food > into products that have low net energy out per energy unit in. I have no > problem with that argument. But, under lab conditions they've gotten over > 1000x the yield of corn. That isn't what I was addressing actually. Present biofuels (FTMP) take carbon out of the air when being grown and then dump it right back into the atmosphere when being used. Worse, they take frex, sulpher out of the ground and it either gets into the atmosphere or into sequestration where it could also escape as a form of pollution. Remember that my stance against CO2 is that it is a pollutant, primarily. Greenhouse effects are a secondary consideration for me. > > Now, there are problems with the algae; it's especially susceptible to > fungi > attacks. But, with bioengineering costs dropping a factor of two per > year, > this appears to be an area that can be tweaked, one way or another. It > would be akin to knowing you needed a megaflop machine to get your work > done > back in '76Moore's law would make you optimistic. Battery performance > has progressed at a much slower rate. > Agreed. With biofuels my concerns are that they will mostly be used in ICE which are very inefficient at *using* energy. With batteries, it seems to me that having an energy source that fits the need is is of greater import than having an excess of stored energy to burn (such as is the situation with liquid hydrocarbon fuels). What I'm trying to say is that with some improvement in battery technology we will have a system that fits transportation needs in most cases, as opposed to the "one size fits all cases and damn the waste" system we currently employ. Biofuels do not change the equation too much if we are going to continue employing ICEs. > > >> but there is some hope for a good fuel for Fuel Cells > > That is another possibility for energy storage for cars I would prefer Biofuels be used in Fuel Cell cars. It is a much more efficient use of the stored energy. > > >>and there *will* be a long term need for diesels. > > More critically for biofuel: aviation. It will be a long time before a > battery can power a 777 for 8000 miles. > You are correct sir! I was thinking more along the lines of Trains and 18 wheelers. I think it unlikely that batteries will be able to do much more than moderate energy use with very heavy and flying vehicles. xponent Commerce Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
On 8 Jan 2009, at 01:21, xponentrob wrote: > If one wants to make direct comparisons of a type of batteries > capabilities, > one has to go no farther than a hardware store or Lowes or Home Depot. > I've been using cordless drills for a couple of decades. They were > once > using Ni-Cad batteries, until the Nimh batteries swallowed the > market. The > Ni-Cad and Nimh battery packs were pretty much the same size and > performed > about the same, only Nimh had a slight edge in most categories. In > the last > 2 years Li-ion batteries have begun to take over the market. The > battery > packs are smaller and lighter, but deliver more power and torque and > do it > for longer with a shorter recharge time. Cadmium is very nasty stuff and was ending up in landfills when people disposed of batteries. NiCd batteries were banned in Europe because of that although I think power tools got an exemption tied to manufacturers providing a recycling programme that pays a huge 'deposit' back on returned batteries. Poison Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : w...@wtgab.demon.co.uk Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ "I embraced OS X as soon as it was available and have never looked back." - Neal Stephenson ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
- Original Message - From: "Dan M" To: "'Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion'" Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 6:49 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 Lance A. Brown >> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 1:44 PM >> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion >> Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? >> >> Dan M wrote: >> > >> > Look at >> > >> > http://www.allaboutbatteries.com/Battery-Energy.html >> >> And if you RTFA, you'll see a not implausible argument made by Sherry >> Boschertthat Cabasys is squelching the market for large-format NiMH >> batteries: >> > > It seems very implausible to me. And, I think I have some expertise with > companies playing hard-ball with intellectual property. You can look at > the > reference I gave earlier to a recent Boston Globe article that discusses > the > export of one of my inventions to Iran and see how easy it is for big > foreign companies to do workarounds on patents. In particular, what is > patented is not NiMH batteries, but one particular technique for using > them. > Any patent attorney worth his salt can have modest rework written to look > like a new variation, not really covered by the original > patent...especially > if he has good sized companies at his side. > > If you look at this patent, there is no reason that folks like Sony, > Toyota, > etc. would not be willing to have their own Japanese patents on similar > techniques, and have the case settled in Japanese courts. By the time the > case is settled, 2012 would have rolled around. I served on a patent > committee for the second largest oilfield service company in the world for > 8 > years, and am very familiar with how this works. > > It's not that Chevron wouldn't play hardball, it's that Chevron would play > hardball to win money. Sitting on a patent that's about to expire is just > stupid, unless you own the lion share of the oil business. There total > revenue is about 8% of the crude oil sales from last yearand their > last > quarterly filing has them buying 49 billion of crude for the quarter vs. > 79 > billion in revenue. So, they are less than 5% of the crude oil production > business. > > Further, they have licensed their battery technology to big car companies > for their production hybrids. That's not sitting on it. You may argue > that > their strategy is flawed because they don't sell to small startups, but > they > do sell batteries for large scale automotive usewhich is not sitting > on > the patent. > > Finally, if this battery were that good, why isn't it dominating the small > rechargeable battery market, where it is being sold without restrictions > (e.g. you can buy them over the 'net)? Why don't all cell phones use this > battery? Might it be the result of the energy density not being all that > high? > If one wants to make direct comparisons of a type of batteries capabilities, one has to go no farther than a hardware store or Lowes or Home Depot. I've been using cordless drills for a couple of decades. They were once using Ni-Cad batteries, until the Nimh batteries swallowed the market. The Ni-Cad and Nimh battery packs were pretty much the same size and performed about the same, only Nimh had a slight edge in most categories. In the last 2 years Li-ion batteries have begun to take over the market. The battery packs are smaller and lighter, but deliver more power and torque and do it for longer with a shorter recharge time. In short, Li-ion are starting to dominate the market and it is a market that has requirements that has similarities to the requirements in Auto applications. The only battery I see coming that might be superior is the very very new Silver-Zinc batteries. They are so new I have only read about them (I don't think they are even being manufactured yet.), but they sound quite promising and I expect they will be very expensive. xponent Silver Lining Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
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: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 12:09 AM > To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion > Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? > > > > > If there's biofuel technology that doesn't significantly impact the > > food stream as a source of motor vehicle fuel, then I'm all for it. > > I'm not anywhere near PC myself, and if there's a GMO solution that > > actually does provide a decent rate of return without investing more > > energy in getting energy out of the fuel produced or cut too deeply > > into the food supply, great. Hadn't heard of this. > > > > These days I'm looking cynically at biofuels. they do nothing to > reduce CO2 levels in most cases (most applications are for ICE), I'm not sure I follow you here. Present biofuels are bad, they divert food into products that have low net energy out per energy unit in. I have no problem with that argument. But, under lab conditions they've gotten over 1000x the yield of corn. Now, there are problems with the algae; it's especially susceptible to fungi attacks. But, with bioengineering costs dropping a factor of two per year, this appears to be an area that can be tweaked, one way or another. It would be akin to knowing you needed a megaflop machine to get your work done back in '76Moore's law would make you optimistic. Battery performance has progressed at a much slower rate. > but there is some hope for a good fuel for Fuel Cells That is another possibility for energy storage for cars >and there *will* be a long term need for diesels. More critically for biofuel: aviation. It will be a long time before a battery can power a 777 for 8000 miles. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
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 Lance A. Brown > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 1:44 PM > To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion > Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? > > Dan M wrote: > > > > Look at > > > > http://www.allaboutbatteries.com/Battery-Energy.html > > And if you RTFA, you'll see a not implausible argument made by Sherry > Boschertthat Cabasys is squelching the market for large-format NiMH > batteries: > It seems very implausible to me. And, I think I have some expertise with companies playing hard-ball with intellectual property. You can look at the reference I gave earlier to a recent Boston Globe article that discusses the export of one of my inventions to Iran and see how easy it is for big foreign companies to do workarounds on patents. In particular, what is patented is not NiMH batteries, but one particular technique for using them. Any patent attorney worth his salt can have modest rework written to look like a new variation, not really covered by the original patent...especially if he has good sized companies at his side. If you look at this patent, there is no reason that folks like Sony, Toyota, etc. would not be willing to have their own Japanese patents on similar techniques, and have the case settled in Japanese courts. By the time the case is settled, 2012 would have rolled around. I served on a patent committee for the second largest oilfield service company in the world for 8 years, and am very familiar with how this works. It's not that Chevron wouldn't play hardball, it's that Chevron would play hardball to win money. Sitting on a patent that's about to expire is just stupid, unless you own the lion share of the oil business. There total revenue is about 8% of the crude oil sales from last yearand their last quarterly filing has them buying 49 billion of crude for the quarter vs. 79 billion in revenue. So, they are less than 5% of the crude oil production business. Further, they have licensed their battery technology to big car companies for their production hybrids. That's not sitting on it. You may argue that their strategy is flawed because they don't sell to small startups, but they do sell batteries for large scale automotive usewhich is not sitting on the patent. Finally, if this battery were that good, why isn't it dominating the small rechargeable battery market, where it is being sold without restrictions (e.g. you can buy them over the 'net)? Why don't all cell phones use this battery? Might it be the result of the energy density not being all that high? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
- Original Message - From: "Dan M" To: "'Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion'" Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 12:33 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 Bruce Bostwick >> Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 11:42 PM >> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion >> Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? >> >> On Jan 5, 2009, at 2:58 PM, Dan M wrote: >> >> >> The few >> >> productive industries we have in the USA now (the auto industry >> >> springing immediately to mind) are in such sad shape -- in the auto >> >> industry's case, from putting more energy into fighting a phase c >> >> hange into a PHEV/BEV based market than they are into any real R&D or >> >> new product development -- that they cost more than they generate in >> >> value. To me, that seems unsustainable. Am I missing something >> >> here? >> > >> > They don't have to put any energy into fighting it; the consumers are >> > happily doing it for them. The sale of the hybrid Prias (sp) has >> > fallen >> > about 50%. Electric cars are toys for the rich. Battery technology >> > has not >> > improved much in the last 20 years, even though there is a multi- >> > billion >> > battery market where one can make a handy profit right now, outside >> > of the >> > car market, by marketing a better battery. >> >> Battery technology has matured to the point where it's definitely >> possible to build a NiMH powered car with at least 140 mile range. If >> it weren't, it probably would be only academic that Cobasys/Ovonics >> holds patents to large format NiMH batteries that it refuses to >> license for automotive use, primarily because it's a wholly owned >> subsidiary of Chevron. > > Hmmm, that sounds like the common conspiracy theory, like the 200 mpg > carburetor design that was held as a trade secret by an oil company (the > company varied with the theory) back in the '60s and '70s. > > We know that these batteries are buyable on the market in standard over > the > counter battery usage, and have found a good niche as a camera battery. > If > they were that good, why didn't they overtake this market? > > Second, if you look at at > > http://www.cobasys.com/news/20070313.shtml > > you will find the proud announcement of their use in automobiles. You > will > find a confirmation of this at > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel_metal_hydride_battery > > > where their use in Saturns is mentioned. > >> >> The demand is there, make no mistake about it. > > That's a fairly strong statement. At a low enough price, I'd believe it. > But, there are real problems with batteries. > > Look at > > http://www.allaboutbatteries.com/Battery-Energy.html > > and you'll see what I mean. We know that the energy density of gasoline > is > about 46 MJ/Kg. Compare this to the best, most expensive battery (Li > ion), > and we get a factor of 100. Electric cars are more efficient (90% vs > 20%), > so this gets down to a factor of 22 or so in power/weight. And, using the > highly efficient batteries has a cost, that's why the Tesla Roadster costs >>100k. Replacement cost on the batteries is 20k, but I suspect that a lot of that cost will eventually disappear when more manufacturers get into the game and the economies of scale come into play. Each Tesla requires 6831 laptop batteries and that is largely the reason for the cost. Query: IIRC ICE extract only 12% of the available energy from gasoline. Is that already factored into your comparison or is it something to still be considered? I think the best comparison you could make is cost/mile as it directly shows costs and savings for the additional premium one would outlay. > > We know that the modest amount of batteries in a hybrid raises the prices > 4-5k. We know that the Prius hybrid sales are now falling like a rock > (factor of 2 Dec-Dec, and probably significantly more June-Dec), due to > the > added cost and the cheap price of gas. So, why would there be extensive > demand for an expensive commuter car that can only be used for relatively > short trips? For exactly the same reasons people bought hybrids before gas prices started rising so much last year. (BTW the Tesla gets 244 miles between charges with the new transmission) All car dealers are experiencin
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
- Original Message - From: "Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro" To: "Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion" Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 6:36 AM Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? > Does it really matters? As long as the generation of energy is costly, > batteries are irrelevant. > > I saw with horror a story about a "green city" in Japan, where all houses > were covered with beautiful solar arrays. > > Very nice, but each monstrosity cost 40.000 _dollars_. For what? Giving > 200 dollars a month of green energy for the next 10 years? > > Alberto Monteiro the neocynical Very good point Alberto. I reckon it would be a safe bet to assume that the factory that produced the solar arrays wasn't solar powered itself. Regards, Wayne Eddy ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
Dan M wrote: > > and you'll see what I mean. We know that the energy density of gasoline is > about 46 MJ/Kg. Compare this to the best, most expensive battery (Li ion), > and we get a factor of 100. Electric cars are more efficient (90% vs 20%), > so this gets down to a factor of 22 or so in power/weight. And, using the > highly efficient batteries has a cost, that's why the Tesla Roadster costs > Does it really matters? As long as the generation of energy is costly, batteries are irrelevant. I saw with horror a story about a "green city" in Japan, where all houses were covered with beautiful solar arrays. Very nice, but each monstrosity cost 40.000 _dollars_. For what? Giving 200 dollars a month of green energy for the next 10 years? Alberto Monteiro the neocynical ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
Dan M wrote: > > Look at > > http://www.allaboutbatteries.com/Battery-Energy.html And if you RTFA, you'll see a not implausible argument made by Sherry Boschertthat Cabasys is squelching the market for large-format NiMH batteries: > In her book, "Plug-in Hybrids: The Cars that Will Recharge America"[1], > published in February 2007, Sherry Boschert argues that large-format > NiMH batteries are commercially viable but that Cobasys refuses to > sell or license them to small companies or individuals. Boschert > argues that Cobasys accepts only very large orders for these > batteries. When Boschert conducted her research, major auto makers > showed little interest in large orders for large-format NiMH > batteries. However, Toyota employees complained about the difficulty > in getting smaller orders of large format NiMH batteries to service > the existing 825 RAV-4EVs. Because no other companies were willing to > make large orders, Cobasys was not manufacturing nor licensing any > large format NiMH battery technology for automotive purposes. > Boschert concludes that "it's possible that Cobasys (Chevron) is > squelching all access to large NiMH batteries through its control of > patent licenses in order to remove a competitor to gasoline. Or it's > possible that Cobasys simply wants the market for itself and is > waiting for a major automaker to start producing plug-in hybrids or > electric vehicles." [1] http://www.newsociety.com/bookid/3934 --[Lance] -- GPG Fingerprint: 409B A409 A38D 92BF 15D9 6EEE 9A82 F2AC 69AC 07B9 CACert.org Assurer ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
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 Bruce Bostwick > Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 11:42 PM > To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion > Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? > > On Jan 5, 2009, at 2:58 PM, Dan M wrote: > > >> The few > >> productive industries we have in the USA now (the auto industry > >> springing immediately to mind) are in such sad shape -- in the auto > >> industry's case, from putting more energy into fighting a phase c > >> hange into a PHEV/BEV based market than they are into any real R&D or > >> new product development -- that they cost more than they generate in > >> value. To me, that seems unsustainable. Am I missing something > >> here? > > > > They don't have to put any energy into fighting it; the consumers are > > happily doing it for them. The sale of the hybrid Prias (sp) has > > fallen > > about 50%. Electric cars are toys for the rich. Battery technology > > has not > > improved much in the last 20 years, even though there is a multi- > > billion > > battery market where one can make a handy profit right now, outside > > of the > > car market, by marketing a better battery. > > Battery technology has matured to the point where it's definitely > possible to build a NiMH powered car with at least 140 mile range. If > it weren't, it probably would be only academic that Cobasys/Ovonics > holds patents to large format NiMH batteries that it refuses to > license for automotive use, primarily because it's a wholly owned > subsidiary of Chevron. Hmmm, that sounds like the common conspiracy theory, like the 200 mpg carburetor design that was held as a trade secret by an oil company (the company varied with the theory) back in the '60s and '70s. We know that these batteries are buyable on the market in standard over the counter battery usage, and have found a good niche as a camera battery. If they were that good, why didn't they overtake this market? Second, if you look at at http://www.cobasys.com/news/20070313.shtml you will find the proud announcement of their use in automobiles. You will find a confirmation of this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel_metal_hydride_battery where their use in Saturns is mentioned. > > The demand is there, make no mistake about it. That's a fairly strong statement. At a low enough price, I'd believe it. But, there are real problems with batteries. Look at http://www.allaboutbatteries.com/Battery-Energy.html and you'll see what I mean. We know that the energy density of gasoline is about 46 MJ/Kg. Compare this to the best, most expensive battery (Li ion), and we get a factor of 100. Electric cars are more efficient (90% vs 20%), so this gets down to a factor of 22 or so in power/weight. And, using the highly efficient batteries has a cost, that's why the Tesla Roadster costs >100k. We know that the modest amount of batteries in a hybrid raises the prices 4-5k. We know that the Prius hybrid sales are now falling like a rock (factor of 2 Dec-Dec, and probably significantly more June-Dec), due to the added cost and the cheap price of gas. So, why would there be extensive demand for an expensive commuter car that can only be used for relatively short trips? As soon as a 100-mile- > range battery powered car is available, there are plenty of people who > would much rather charge their cars overnight (on off-peak electrical > power, at home) and get the energy equivalent of 150 mpg (even > counting the overall 70% charge efficiency of the battery system) for > the daily commute. Enough that even one production generation will > bring the concept close enough to maturity for them to displace > gasoline-powered vehicles. They are available, they are much more expensive than ICE based cars, and they are selling only in small numbers to those with _a lot_ of discretionary income. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
On Jan 6, 2009, at 12:09 AM, xponentrob wrote: > Most of the electrics are using Lithium Ion batteries and getting > ranges > similar to what you posit here. Indeed, several exceed 140 MPC, > though they > generally are high end and expensive. > Altairnano Technology has batteries that will work like "new" after > 180,000 > miles. There are plenty of amazing advances being made currently > (NPI). Li+ has potential, but it's not as mature a technology as NiMH. The reason a lot of electrics are using Li+ is that it isn't tied up in the patent squatting I mentioned earlier. (The Chevron/Cobasys patents expire in 2012. I'd be willing to bet money that we see a veritable explosion of large format NiMH battery production the moment those patents expire.) > The Chevy Volt looks like it has a chance to be a Prius killer. It > is just a > better system. I saw some rather unimpressive demos of it not too long ago. GM rolled one out for a photo shoot a few months ago and it could barely move itself, let alone drive -- possibly a firmware issue of some sort, or miscalculations in the engineering somewhere, but not ready for prime time yet. I know a lot of people who aren't holding their breath for the Volt to go into production. If it does, and if it's *ready* when it does, then yes, it has the potential to be a Prius killer. We'll see, though. "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." -- Thomas Jefferson ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
On Jan 6, 2009, at 12:05 AM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: > Point being, as has been mentioned previously, > there are some parts of the US at least where a > vehicle such as described will not serve the > need, or where one with those limitations might > be enough for some trips but for which at least > weekly or monthly frex something with a much > longer potential range is needed. It's similar > to when the Segway was introduced: except in > perhaps NYC and DC where some people who live in > the city are able to do entirely without > automobiles most of us in the US at least fairly > regularly need something which goes faster than > 12 mph and further than a few miles, is > weatherproof, and can carry (often multiple) > children and cargo (like a week's groceries for > the family and/or the kid's school and sports > equipment), and can't afford $5K for an > additional vehicle with those limitations which > would make it useless for their purposes much of the time. That's certainly true. However, those areas are sparsely populated, and it's actually fair to consider vehicles meeting the needs of those regions as rather specialized. In urbanized areas, particularly in densely populated urban areas (which, not all that coincidentally, are the areas where motor vehicle exhaust emissions contribute particularly heavily to smog and other undesirable side effects of pollution), a 100 mile commuter vehicle is a much more reasonable benchmark. (To tell the truth, I commute about 50 miles round trip on a daily basis, and a battery powered car with that much range plus margin would be quite reasonable if I could charge it at home on off-peak power.) Produce enough of those to where economies of scale kick in and more than just the first adopters are buying them, and that would be enough to get over the hump into larger scale development .. as I said, a phase change in the market. Agreed, there are some people who wouldn't buy a battery electric vehicle to save their lives. Some of those people tend to be the same ones who don't think gasoline will go right back up to $4+/gal next summer. Wouldn't it be sweet to be the one who saw this coming ahead of time and had at least a basic product line of electric cars ready for them when they start feeling the pinch at the pump again this year? “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” -- Mahatma Gandhi ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
At 08:11 AM Tuesday 1/6/2009, Julia Thompson wrote: >On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: > > > At 12:09 AM Tuesday 1/6/2009, xponentrob wrote: > > > >> xponent > >> Watt?The Current News Is Shocking Mr Volta! Maru > >> rob > > > > > > Ohm, that's revolting. > >Sigh. You just can't resist jumping into these pun threads, can you? > > Julia No mho, huh? . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Dan M wrote: > > > How does an economy grow on momentum? The mortgage industry managed to do it for a while. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: > At 12:09 AM Tuesday 1/6/2009, xponentrob wrote: > >> xponent >> Watt?The Current News Is Shocking Mr Volta! Maru >> rob > > > Ohm, that's revolting. Sigh. You just can't resist jumping into these pun threads, can you? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
Doug Pensinger wrote: > > On an SF list you forget Aerospace? > Aerospace is no longer future history, it's alternate history. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
On 06/01/2009, at 4:42 PM, Bruce Bostwick wrote: > If there's biofuel technology that doesn't significantly impact the > food stream as a source of motor vehicle fuel, then I'm all for it. > I'm not anywhere near PC myself, and if there's a GMO solution that > actually does provide a decent rate of return without investing more > energy in getting energy out of the fuel produced or cut too deeply > into the food supply, great. Hadn't heard of this. Depends where you are. In Fiji, and possibly in some of the other island nations, palm oil is used as biodiesel. Mainly 'cause you can only eat so many coconuts, I suspect... Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
At 12:09 AM Tuesday 1/6/2009, xponentrob wrote: >xponent >Watt?The Current News Is Shocking Mr Volta! Maru >rob Ohm, that's revolting. . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
- Original Message - From: "Bruce Bostwick" To: "Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion" Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 11:42 PM Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? > On Jan 5, 2009, at 2:58 PM, Dan M wrote: > >>> The few >>> productive industries we have in the USA now (the auto industry >>> springing immediately to mind) are in such sad shape -- in the auto >>> industry's case, from putting more energy into fighting a phase c >>> hange into a PHEV/BEV based market than they are into any real R&D or >>> new product development -- that they cost more than they generate in >>> value. To me, that seems unsustainable. Am I missing something >>> here? >> >> They don't have to put any energy into fighting it; the consumers are >> happily doing it for them. The sale of the hybrid Prias (sp) has >> fallen >> about 50%. Electric cars are toys for the rich. Battery technology >> has not >> improved much in the last 20 years, even though there is a multi- >> billion >> battery market where one can make a handy profit right now, outside >> of the >> car market, by marketing a better battery. > > Battery technology has matured to the point where it's definitely > possible to build a NiMH powered car with at least 140 mile range. If > it weren't, it probably would be only academic that Cobasys/Ovonics > holds patents to large format NiMH batteries that it refuses to > license for automotive use, primarily because it's a wholly owned > subsidiary of Chevron. Most of the electrics are using Lithium Ion batteries and getting ranges similar to what you posit here. Indeed, several exceed 140 MPC, though they generally are high end and expensive. Altairnano Technology has batteries that will work like "new" after 180,000 miles. There are plenty of amazing advances being made currently (NPI). > > Toyota lost the patent lawsuit over the EV-95 battery used in the RAV4- > EV, which is one major reason why it never made it to production, and > the only reason RAV4-EV's are still on the road is that their leases > weren't as airtight with the no-buyout language as those for the EV1, > which GM reposessed en masse and sent to the crusher the moment the > California ZEV mandate was effectively nullified. > > The demand is there, make no mistake about it. As soon as a 100-mile- > range battery powered car is available, there are plenty of people who > would much rather charge their cars overnight (on off-peak electrical > power, at home) and get the energy equivalent of 150 mpg (even > counting the overall 70% charge efficiency of the battery system) for > the daily commute. Enough that even one production generation will > bring the concept close enough to maturity for them to displace > gasoline-powered vehicles. > > The Prius isn't quite what it could be. In a plug-chargeable > configuration (which is sold, and legal, everywhere but the USA -- > ever notice that blank spot in the row of buttons on the dash? In > Japan, the "EV" button goes there -- the car runs entirely off the > battery for a significant distance, which could be substantially > improved with a different battery/charger/firmware arrangement.) a lot > of short-range commutes become grid-powered. It's not a hard > conversion if you don't mind voiding the warranty, people are doing it > successfully here. The demand is dropping mainly because a > substantial part of this country's population thinks gasoline prices > will never, ever go back up. Is that the best metric to go by when > forecasting demand? The Chevy Volt looks like it has a chance to be a Prius killer. It is just a better system. > >> Contrast this with the bioengineered biofuel market, which the US is >> clearly >> leading. European rules are so strict, they might as well prohibit >> bioengineering. But, in the US, costs for the tools of the trade are >> dropping faster than Moore's law: almost a factor of two per year. >> This >> isn't PC, because we're tampering with nature, but it has a much >> better >> chance of working than solutions that have a horrid cost/benefit >> ratio. > > If there's biofuel technology that doesn't significantly impact the > food stream as a source of motor vehicle fuel, then I'm all for it. > I'm not anywhere near PC myself, and if there's a GMO solution that > actually does provide a decent rate of return without investing more > energy in getting energy out of the fuel produced or cut too deeply > into the food supply, great. Hadn't heard of this. > These days I'm looking cynically at biofuels. they do nothing to reduce CO2 levels in most cases (most applications are for ICE), but there is some hope for a good fuel for Fuel Cells and there *will* be a long term need for diesels. xponent Watt?The Current News Is Shocking Mr Volta! Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
At 11:42 PM Monday 1/5/2009, Bruce Bostwick wrote: >The demand is there, make no mistake about it. As soon as a 100-mile- >range battery powered car is available, there are plenty of people Although there are still plenty of people who live in places like the Western US where there is nothing but empty desert and sagebrush within a 100-mile radius of where they live. >[ ] > >The Prius isn't quite what it could be. In a plug-chargeable >configuration (which is sold, and legal, everywhere but the USA -- >ever notice that blank spot in the row of buttons on the dash? That's where some of those who live in those big blank spaces out West put the switch for the after-market driving lights which are needed when driving on some of those long uninterrupted stretches of road to avoid becoming one with some of the nocturnal desert fauna, and which use a fair amount of electricity when on. Point being, as has been mentioned previously, there are some parts of the US at least where a vehicle such as described will not serve the need, or where one with those limitations might be enough for some trips but for which at least weekly or monthly frex something with a much longer potential range is needed. It's similar to when the Segway was introduced: except in perhaps NYC and DC where some people who live in the city are able to do entirely without automobiles most of us in the US at least fairly regularly need something which goes faster than 12 mph and further than a few miles, is weatherproof, and can carry (often multiple) children and cargo (like a week's groceries for the family and/or the kid's school and sports equipment), and can't afford $5K for an additional vehicle with those limitations which would make it useless for their purposes much of the time. >"When you mention that we want five debates, say what they are: one on >the economy, one on foreign policy, with another on global threats and >national security, one on the environment, and one on strengthening >family life, which would include health care, education, and >retirement. I also think there should be one on parts of speech and >sentence structure. And one on fractions." -- Toby Ziegler I doubt I am alone in thinking that the latter two should be mandatory for everyone entering public service before they are allowed to do anything else. (And I realize that it is a quote from a fictional character. Doesn't mean there's no truth in it. . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
On Jan 5, 2009, at 2:58 PM, Dan M wrote: >> The few >> productive industries we have in the USA now (the auto industry >> springing immediately to mind) are in such sad shape -- in the auto >> industry's case, from putting more energy into fighting a phase c >> hange into a PHEV/BEV based market than they are into any real R&D or >> new product development -- that they cost more than they generate in >> value. To me, that seems unsustainable. Am I missing something >> here? > > They don't have to put any energy into fighting it; the consumers are > happily doing it for them. The sale of the hybrid Prias (sp) has > fallen > about 50%. Electric cars are toys for the rich. Battery technology > has not > improved much in the last 20 years, even though there is a multi- > billion > battery market where one can make a handy profit right now, outside > of the > car market, by marketing a better battery. Battery technology has matured to the point where it's definitely possible to build a NiMH powered car with at least 140 mile range. If it weren't, it probably would be only academic that Cobasys/Ovonics holds patents to large format NiMH batteries that it refuses to license for automotive use, primarily because it's a wholly owned subsidiary of Chevron. Toyota lost the patent lawsuit over the EV-95 battery used in the RAV4- EV, which is one major reason why it never made it to production, and the only reason RAV4-EV's are still on the road is that their leases weren't as airtight with the no-buyout language as those for the EV1, which GM reposessed en masse and sent to the crusher the moment the California ZEV mandate was effectively nullified. The demand is there, make no mistake about it. As soon as a 100-mile- range battery powered car is available, there are plenty of people who would much rather charge their cars overnight (on off-peak electrical power, at home) and get the energy equivalent of 150 mpg (even counting the overall 70% charge efficiency of the battery system) for the daily commute. Enough that even one production generation will bring the concept close enough to maturity for them to displace gasoline-powered vehicles. The Prius isn't quite what it could be. In a plug-chargeable configuration (which is sold, and legal, everywhere but the USA -- ever notice that blank spot in the row of buttons on the dash? In Japan, the "EV" button goes there -- the car runs entirely off the battery for a significant distance, which could be substantially improved with a different battery/charger/firmware arrangement.) a lot of short-range commutes become grid-powered. It's not a hard conversion if you don't mind voiding the warranty, people are doing it successfully here. The demand is dropping mainly because a substantial part of this country's population thinks gasoline prices will never, ever go back up. Is that the best metric to go by when forecasting demand? > Contrast this with the bioengineered biofuel market, which the US is > clearly > leading. European rules are so strict, they might as well prohibit > bioengineering. But, in the US, costs for the tools of the trade are > dropping faster than Moore's law: almost a factor of two per year. > This > isn't PC, because we're tampering with nature, but it has a much > better > chance of working than solutions that have a horrid cost/benefit > ratio. If there's biofuel technology that doesn't significantly impact the food stream as a source of motor vehicle fuel, then I'm all for it. I'm not anywhere near PC myself, and if there's a GMO solution that actually does provide a decent rate of return without investing more energy in getting energy out of the fuel produced or cut too deeply into the food supply, great. Hadn't heard of this. "When you mention that we want five debates, say what they are: one on the economy, one on foreign policy, with another on global threats and national security, one on the environment, and one on strengthening family life, which would include health care, education, and retirement. I also think there should be one on parts of speech and sentence structure. And one on fractions." -- Toby Ziegler ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
On Jan 5, 2009, at 5:52 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: >> The few >> productive industries we have in the USA now (the auto industry >> springing immediately to mind) are in such sad shape -- in the auto >> industry's case, from putting more energy into fighting a phase c >> hange into a PHEV/BEV > > "peta-hecto-electron-volt/billion-electron-volt"? Pluggable hybrid electric vehicle/battery electric vehicle. :) Apologies for the out-of-namespace acronyms. "Way I remember it, albatross was a ship's good luck, 'til some idiot killed it ... Yes, I've read a poem. Try not to faint." -- Capt. Mal Reynolds, "Serenity" ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
On 06/01/2009, at 2:55 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: > > > On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Charlie Bell wrote: > >> >> On 06/01/2009, at 2:37 PM, Dan M wrote: >>> >>> You have now forced me into the following response by this action >>> sir: >>> >>> I agree with you. >> >> Woohoo. > > Woo hoo? Expression of delight. Usually accompanied with an exclamation mark and arms thrown aloft. But too tired and sick for excitement. I'm home watching the cricket, which gives you an idea of how sick I am right now... ;-) Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Charlie Bell wrote: > > On 06/01/2009, at 2:37 PM, Dan M wrote: >> >> You have now forced me into the following response by this action sir: >> >> I agree with you. > > Woohoo. Woo hoo? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
On 06/01/2009, at 2:37 PM, Dan M wrote: > > You know you've now changed the subject from the original topic. Conversational drift. Blame the viral load. Chewy phlegm. Yum. > I was > arguing, rather convincingly IMHO, that the US was not horrid and > not about > to fall. Well, to drag it back - by some measures, the US *has* failed. Utterly. And the attitude that the US knows best does prevail through many areas (the recent hostile takeover of the International Human Powered Vehicle Association by the American contingent is just one example - newsflash the US IS NOT "International"...). By others, the US is doing very nicely. Where would I be without my supply of big-budget SF movies and TV crime drama? Put it this way - 8 *more* years of Bush (or if McCain had won) and the US would be in very serious strife, as would the rest of the world. Ideology can only trump reality for a while. Maybe, just maybe, under new leadership, the pendulum will swing back, and health, policing, international policy and respect for individual rights will improwe to the level the US collectively says it aspires to. I hope so, 'cause at the moment the world does at least look to the States as a belweather, even if they disagree. > Now, you change the argument to "the US is not the only country of > worth; many other folks in many other countries have done good things. > Furthermore, we're all dependant on the good work of those who came > before > us" Yes, 'cause it's worth remembering. :-) > > > You have now forced me into the following response by this action sir: > > I agree with you. Woohoo. C. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
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 Charlie Bell > Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 9:15 PM > To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion > Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? > > My attitude is not "America sucks", it's "hey hang on, the whole world > has done some great stuff and let's give credit where it's due"). It > irritates me just as much when the Brits say "we totally cracked the > Enigma code, dude", 'cause the three-wheel Enigma was cracked by a > Pole, who came up with the first calculating machines (the "bombes"), > and this work was smuggled out of Poland in the diplomatic bag. This > doesn't diminish in any way from Turing et al, who went on to crack > the 4 and 5 wheel machines, and the Post Office engineer who built > Colossus, and so on. > > We're ALL standing on the shoulders of giants. Just cause the States > is the biggest guy in the room right now doesn't make him the *only* > guy in the room. You know you've now changed the subject from the original topic. I was arguing, rather convincingly IMHO, that the US was not horrid and not about to fall. Now, you change the argument to "the US is not the only country of worth; many other folks in many other countries have done good things. Furthermore, we're all dependant on the good work of those who came before us" You have now forced me into the following response by this action sir: I agree with you. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
On 06/01/2009, at 1:52 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote: > > On an SF list you forget Aerospace? Yes! The world's first supersonic jetliner was American! The world's largest passenger jet is American! The world's largest military transport is... American!!! No, wait. ;-) Admittedly, the most successful aircraft company in history is American (Boeing) and possibly the second (arguably Lockheed), and the longest serving planes are American (DC-3 and Hercules...), and the world's coolest looking interceptor was American (YF-23), and the world's most expensive bomber, and the Moon landings, and the Mars Rovers and so on. But plenty of the pioneering stuff in aerospace (the jet engine, the geostationary satellite, the first satellite, the first robot probe on the Moon) were done elsewhere. My attitude is not "America sucks", it's "hey hang on, the whole world has done some great stuff and let's give credit where it's due"). It irritates me just as much when the Brits say "we totally cracked the Enigma code, dude", 'cause the three-wheel Enigma was cracked by a Pole, who came up with the first calculating machines (the "bombes"), and this work was smuggled out of Poland in the diplomatic bag. This doesn't diminish in any way from Turing et al, who went on to crack the 4 and 5 wheel machines, and the Post Office engineer who built Colossus, and so on. We're ALL standing on the shoulders of giants. Just cause the States is the biggest guy in the room right now doesn't make him the *only* guy in the room. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
> On an SF list you forget Aerospace? I thought of it and meant to include it; does that count for partial credit? :-) Good catch. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
Dan wrote: > > > I think that you and virtually every economist differ on what are the > fundamentals. One fundamental is innovation. Another is productivity. US > productivity has risen faster than other developed countries. The US is > either the home or the main market for virtually all medical innovations. > Europe has made it virtually impossible for bioengineering firms to > operate, > and the US is doing very well there. Since that's the only real hope for > biofuels (e.g. algae farms producing aviation fuel), the US is well poised > to be the leader in that field. > On an SF list you forget Aerospace? Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
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 Bruce Bostwick > Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 8:37 AM > To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion > Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? > > On Jan 4, 2009, at 9:13 PM, Dan M wrote: > > > And yet, you sing we're on the eve of destruction? > > > > Dan M. > > I guess part of my cynicism is frustration at having had to live in > the wake of the Boomers most of my life, and survive on the scraps > they missed, when it seems the only response to my getting closer to > actually joining the middle class and becoming financially stable is > the goalposts moving farther away just when I think I'm about to get > there. I'm sorry if you have financial hard times, but you write as though there is finite pile of money and when it's gone, it's gone. As I mentioned before, I personally know and worked alongside a team that created tens of billions of wealth. In my own small way (http://tinyurl.com/8zp89c) I have created wealthby developing techniques that allow for the accurate measurement of porosity while drillingsaving time and thus money (it takes millions/day to operate big oil rigs) by allowing companies to get the needed measurements while drilling. So, the growth in per capita GDP is not simply a funny number; it reflects the growth of real per capita wealth. Indeed, even if you don't accept that the CPI slightly overstates inflation, deny Brad DeLongs persuasive arguments that inflation has been about 9% less for lower income people than higher income people, and dismiss the value of the rise in the benefits obtained by the average family, the average household income is now higher than it was when I was in my 20s. So, while you might be on hard times, hard times existed in the '60s-'80s too. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
On 1/5/2009 12:26:56 PM, Bruce Bostwick (lihan161...@sbcglobal.net) wrote: > Probably true, but > don't let the Canadians hear you say that .. :D .. > "Hey, you, down in the States, take off, eh?! Hoser!" > > (Bit of a sensitive subject up there, I hear.) > > On Jan 5, 2009, at 10:49 AM, Dan M wrote: > > > I know Canada is almost a suburb of the US, with most of the > > population living within 100 miles of the US (and most living south of > > Duluth MN, where I grew up). > http://www.unitednorthamerica.org/ xponent For Spice Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
At 08:36 AM Monday 1/5/2009, Bruce Bostwick wrote: >On Jan 4, 2009, at 9:13 PM, Dan M wrote: > > > And yet, you sing we're on the eve of destruction? > > > > Dan M. > >I guess part of my cynicism is frustration at having had to live in >the wake of the Boomers most of my life, and survive on the scraps >they missed, when it seems the only response to my getting closer to >actually joining the middle class What do you consider as the criterion for "actually joining the middle class"? >and becoming financially stable is >the goalposts moving farther away just when I think I'm about to get >there. What specifically do you mean here? >The tail end of that curve is not a happy place, and when the >idea of having a financial cushion of savings and investments to >soften the blow when things flame out is sort of a cruel sadistic >taunt, the prospect of having the whole system collapse and render any >of my efforts moot seems like a final indignity Such things are always a possibility for just about anyone. Regardless of the economy, what would you do if frex you were injured or became ill and couldn't work, at least for the foreseeable future? Even if your medical problem is one that clearly qualified for disability, it is often a minimum of six months before you can start to qualify for disability, and it can take a couple of years or more to go through the process. Few people have enough to live on for that long (not to mention any medical bills not covered by insurance) without any outside help from family members, church or other charities, etc. > .. and it leaves me in >a rather cynical mood. I'd like to be more optimistic, but I'm at the >trailing edge of the herd and the wolves are a lot closer to me than >to some of the people with the "let them eat cake" attitudes about >cashing in a few stock options to pay the bills for a few years. It's >very much on my mind these days. . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
At 08:30 AM Monday 1/5/2009, Bruce Bostwick wrote: >On Jan 4, 2009, at 9:13 PM, Dan M wrote: > > >> -Original Message- > >> From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l- > >> boun...@mccmedia.com] On > >> Behalf Of Bruce Bostwick > >> Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 7:49 PM > >> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion > >> Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? > >> > >> On Jan 2, 2009, at 8:35 PM, dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: > >> > >>>> From the Wall Street Journal: > >>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123051100709638419.html > >>> > >>>> As if Things Weren't Bad Enough, Russian Professor Predicts End of > >>>> U.S. > >>>> In Moscow, Igor Panarin's Forecasts Are All the Rage; America > >>>> 'Disintegrates' in 2010 > >>> > >>> I read this a few weeks ago and got a good chuckle out of it. It > >>> shows > >>> than Americans aren't the only ones who can be clueless about how > >>> things > >>> work in other countries. :-) > >>> > >>> Dan M. > >> > >> Well, one element of it is almost certainly true -- the USA that > >> we'll > >> be living in in 2010 will not be the USA as we know it. If we > >> continue > >> with "business as usual", the mostly-completed process of running the > >> country into the ground will very likely reach a point of no return > >> before then > > > > Ah, I'd really like some hard data to support that hyperbola. As > > messed up > > as Bush was, by most measure, the US is far better off than most > > countries. > > Take, for example, one I worry about the most: foreign debt as a > > percentage > > of GDP. It is now, by my rough calculations for 2008, at about 45% > > of GDP. > > While I think this is bad, it's much better than Great Britain, > > where it > > stands at 380%. > > > > If you are over 40, you should remember how Japan was going to blow > > the US > > out of the water in the '80s. China is the new champonly they are > > finding their growth is sliding from 10% per year down to a far > > lower level > > that folks are guessing at. We know industrial output is down from > > last > > year, so they have as much trouble with the trade imbalance as we do. > > > > The US is far less densely populated than any other developed > > country, its > > air and water suppliers are far less polluted than 40 years ago, and > > racism > > has fallen to the point where we've been able to elect a black > > president. > > > > And yet, you sing we're on the eve of destruction? (See note below after you read to the bottom.¹) > > > > Dan M. > >With a few minor exceptions, the USA is running largely on momentum, >which is finite. We've been migrating from a production-based economy >to a service-based economy by degrees since the Bush I era, I heard people making the same claim (that we were moving or indeed had already moved to a primarily "service" economy) in the Carter era. > and we now >manufacture very little if any of what we consume as most of our >finished goods are manufactured in China, and the vast majority of the >remainder are imported from other countries whose labor is far cheaper >than ours. Unless I'm reading the signs wrong, it definitely seems to >me that the fire has gone out and the machinery just takes a long time >to spool down, and this recent collapse is more symptom than root cause. > >I just don't see the fundamentals currently supporting anything more >than a downhill slide into progressive collapse if the systems >currently in place continue to operate the way they're operating now. >As a country, in aggregate, we don't really seem to *do* anything >these days other than buy, consume, and move money around. Again, from the late 70s/very early 80s: "This planet has - or rather had - a problem, which was this: most of the people living on it were unhappy for pretty much of the time. Many solutions were suggested for this problem, but most of these were largely concerned with the movements of small green pieces of paper, which is odd because on the whole it wasn't the small green pieces of paper that were unhappy." Douglas Adams (1952 2001) > The few >productive industries we have in the USA now (the auto industry >springing immediately to mind) are in such sad
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
On 06/01/2009, at 9:41 AM, dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: >> It doesn't, indefinitely. And GDP is a poor measure, it really is. > > > Even GDP per capita? Even after figuring in purchasing power > parity? Is > your arguement that per person income is not a good financial > measure of > the wealth of a country? How that wealth is distributed is important too. If 10% of a nation is living in poverty and 15% don't have health cover, there's something wrong. > >> And on all those measures, the USA is not doing well compared to >> other > developed >> nations. > > Well, I see you didn't include unemployment, projected workers/retiree > ratios, productivity or any of the factors that favor the US. US, 6.5% unemployed. Oz, 5%. The US may be up in the top echelon in many measures, but it's no longer top of most of the ones it was top of. > Health is a > very complex subject, which I'd be glad to discuss (including the > fact that > the US is paying for health advances that other developed countries > then > piggy back on), As are Aus, Japan, Germany, the UK etc. Both the discovery of _Helicobacter pylori_ and the development of the HPV vaccine were Australian. > as is poverty. Again, we can have a fruitful discussion on > either topic, but the realities are very complex. Of course they are. That's my entire point in saying GDP alone is a poor measure. I'm not interested in a "fruitful discussion" on those issues, 'cause I'm sick in bed ironically, I just wanted to make the point that the USA makes some tragic problems for its own citizens, and saying "We're number one!" through GDP masks a lot of the real picture. Don't think this is just US-bashing, when it's relevant I'm just as scathing of the Australian government, and the UK, Cyprus, etc etc. Anywhere I've spent some time. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
Original Message: - From: Charlie Bell char...@culturelist.org Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 08:48:53 +1100 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? On 06/01/2009, at 7:58 AM, Dan M wrote: >> >>> With a few minor exceptions, the USA is running largely on momentum, >>> which is finite. > >> How does an economy grow on momentum? >It doesn't, indefinitely. And GDP is a poor measure, it really is. Even GDP per capita? Even after figuring in purchasing power parity? Is your arguement that per person income is not a good financial measure of the wealth of a country? > It doesn't tackle the important stuff, like how many people are in >poverty, in jail, educated, health and so on. I can understand why there would be a very complex arguement as to which country is now preferable. But, with the borderline exception of GB, most developed countries have been very good at decreasing potential problems by keeping their coutries homogeneous (e.g. keeping different ethnic groups down to small minorities). I know my Zambian daughter Neli, who studied a semester in Europe, sees Europe as clearly more racist than the US. The US is dealing with the aftereffects of slavery and Jim Crow, which has hurt in very paradoxial ways. For example, after civil rights, a large fraction of blacks though only Oreos studied hard in school, men didn't need to take care of their children, etc. My African daughters have both commented on this. The good news is that Obama's election is starting to change some minds. The US is also dealing with a massive influx of poor uneducated Hispanics across our porous border. In a couple of generations, they become as likely as the next American to be well educated, out of jail, etc, but in the short term they add considerably to the poverty rate, crime rate, etc. I know Hispanic gangs are very dangerous around here. >And on all those measures, the USA is not doing well compared to other developed >nations. Well, I see you didn't include unemployment, projected workers/retiree ratios, productivity or any of the factors that favor the US. Health is a very complex subject, which I'd be glad to discuss (including the fact that the US is paying for health advances that other developed countries then piggy back on), as is poverty. Again, we can have a fruitful discussion on either topic, but the realities are very complex. >That plus the astonishing debt burden left by Reagan/Bush 1 >and then Bush 2 and it's hard to see how the US can maintain its >position long term. The debt burden (as a percentage for the US is actually lower now than in '92. After the stimulous package it will probably exceed that number, but still be far lower than it was in '46. It will be a problem, but not an insurmountable one. What I cannot figure out among all the people who think that the US is about to fall from its perch and see a singular massive depression (e.g. the US drops while every other country rises) is who's going to take over. Europe is getting old and will be seeing its population drop significantly over the next 50 years, has fianancial institutions that are far more leveraged than the US institutions as well as far less transparent. Why do you think, after the the US had a financial crisis, that the Euro dropped like a rock compared to the dollareven though the balance of trade deficits of the US should have cause the opposite. Japan is getting even older, after sufferoing a lost decade when it was projected to overtake the US for ecconomic dominence. China has far more at risk than the US, besides being far poorer. I realize that there is a great desire in the world to see the US get its comeuppance. But, while I beleived that Japan might overtake the US back in the 80s, I don't see any candidate now. What might be possible, if the US growth slows down, is a non-polar worldwhich will be far more dangerous than anything we've seen since October, '62. Dan M. mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
On 06/01/2009, at 7:58 AM, Dan M wrote: >> >> With a few minor exceptions, the USA is running largely on momentum, >> which is finite. > > How does an economy grow on momentum? It doesn't, indefinitely. And GDP is a poor measure, it really is. It doesn't tackle the important stuff, like how many people are in poverty, in jail, educated, health and so on. And on all those measures, the USA is not doing well compared to other developed nations. That plus the astonishing debt burden left by Reagan/Bush 1 and then Bush 2 and it's hard to see how the US can maintain its position long term. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
On 06/01/2009, at 3:49 AM, Dan M wrote: > Finally, I have a question for those from Oz. My understanding is > that most > of the population of Oz lives on the southern coast because the vast > center > of Australia is not a great place to put a lot of people. Is that > accurate? Yep. In fact, most of Oz isn't a great place to put a lot of people. We're overpopulated now, in terms of water sustainability (although bad mismanagement is a large contributor - I want to shoot whoever came up with the idea of growing cotton and rice in savannah). C. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
- Original Message - From: "Dan M" To: "'Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion'" Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 2:49 AM Subject: RE: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? > They are. In my haste in writing I was less precise than I wanted to be. > I > was thinking about the major developed countries (e.g. Western Europe, the > UK and Japan). I know Canada is almost a suburb of the US, with most of > the > population living within 100 miles of the US (and most living south of > Duluth MN, where I grew up). Western Europe isn't a country and I think you are being very condescending suggesting that Australia & Canada aren't major countries. I would like to challenge you to find any reliable agency that makes a distinction between major & minor developed countries, and lists the USA on one side and Australia & Canada on the other. If you absolutely must make a distinction, perhaps G8 countries is a better option. > I thought that much of Australia is not suitable for high density > populations, but I'll stand to be corrected. > And of course, Nordic > countries have low population densities in the far north and in the > mountains. > The point I was trying to make is that the US is far less populated than > where most of the rest of the developed world lives. For example, the 4th > largest metropolitan area in the US (the Houston Metro Area) has the same > population density as the whole of the UK (including the rugged NW of > Scotland). Vast swaths of the US have both good farm land and relatively > low population densities (e.g. Iowa at ~50/sq. mi.) So, there is a lot of > room for the US to increase its population before it approaches Europe. > > Finally, I have a question for those from Oz. My understanding is that > most > of the population of Oz lives on the southern coast because the vast > center > of Australia is not a great place to put a lot of people. Is that > accurate? Mostly true. More people could live inland, but most (for some unknown reason - possibly shopping realated for about 50% of the population) prefer to live in the big cities, which were built on the coast. You could argue that urban areas should be located in arid areas so that the good farmland is not wasted but that is a side issue. Regards, Wayne ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
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 Bruce Bostwick > Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 8:30 AM > To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion > Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? > > On Jan 4, 2009, at 9:13 PM, Dan M wrote: > > > With a few minor exceptions, the USA is running largely on momentum, > which is finite. How does an economy grow on momentum? >We've been migrating from a production-based economy > to a service-based economy by degrees since the Bush I era, and we now > manufacture very little if any of what we consume as most of our > finished goods are manufactured in China, Well, then we don't consume much in the way of finished goods. Our imports from China in 2008 (we don't have Nov. and Dec. in yet) will be about 275 billion dollars. Our GDP is about 14 trillion. So, imports from China are only about 2% of GDP. Medical is far higher, at 16%. >and the vast majority of the > remainder are imported from other countries whose labor is far cheaper > than ours. There is no doubt that the era of high pay, low skill unionized work in the USA is drawing to a close. But, from the start of Bush I to 2007, the US GDP grew by 67%. Comparing with other countries, I was able to only get long term growth until 2003...so from 1998 to 2003, the US GDP grew 53% and Western Europe GDP grew 33%, and Japan by 28%. Since then, I know that the US has continued to do better from '03 to '08, but I don't have it in an easy to get at table. (It's the non-US countries that are hard to quantify...the US data is always easy to get to). That's not coasting. >Unless I'm reading the signs wrong, it definitely seems to > me that the fire has gone out and the machinery just takes a long time > to spool down, and this recent collapse is more symptom than root cause. I suggest that you are reading the signs wrong. I think that your argument depends on the economy still being founded on the same footing as they were in the '60s. But, if you look at the additions to the economy since the '70s, you see that the US has done well. In the mid-80s it was supposed to fall behind Japan in the '90s, but it's Japan that stagnated in the '90s. China is a poor country that is positioned to take advantage of its cheap labor, but it is strongly feeling the hit of the US decrease in purchasing. Factory production _fell in Dec, after years of 10% yearly rises. > I just don't see the fundamentals currently supporting anything more > than a downhill slide into progressive collapse if the systems > currently in place continue to operate the way they're operating now. I think that you and virtually every economist differ on what are the fundamentals. One fundamental is innovation. Another is productivity. US productivity has risen faster than other developed countries. The US is either the home or the main market for virtually all medical innovations. Europe has made it virtually impossible for bioengineering firms to operate, and the US is doing very well there. Since that's the only real hope for biofuels (e.g. algae farms producing aviation fuel), the US is well poised to be the leader in that field. > As a country, in aggregate, we don't really seem to *do* anything > these days other than buy, consume, and move money around. Well, we don't do as much smokestack manufacturing as we had, but remember, we consume (with the exception of energy and food) far less stuff than we did before. With respect to computers and associated electronics, while Japan and the US are strongly competitive, the US is still the clear chip leader. Detroit is in terrible shape due to legacy costs, but its Toyota and Honda sales that lead the drop in auto sales this December. Ford's market share is rising, mostly at the expense of these two companies. Finally, much of 2008's balance of trade problem is due to oil imports. While oil costs have been volatile, they averaged about $100/barrel last year. That means that almost 2/3rds of the US trade deficit went to oil imports. If oil stays in the $50-$60 dollar range, with the slowdown, we should see a dramatic (possibly 50%) drop in the balance of trade deficit. Finally, if the US is in such bad shape, why has the dollar risen, and why (with the US government about to issue another trillion in debt) are T-bill interest rates so low? Even the longest term bonds (30 years) offer less than 3% interest per year. That's the exact opposite of what one would expect of a country that's going down the tubes. >The few > productive industries we have in the USA now (the auto industry > springing immediately to mind) are in such sad shape -- in the auto > industry's
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
Probably true, but don't let the Canadians hear you say that .. :D .. "Hey, you, down in the States, take off, eh?! Hoser!" (Bit of a sensitive subject up there, I hear.) On Jan 5, 2009, at 10:49 AM, Dan M wrote: > I know Canada is almost a suburb of the US, with most of the > population living within 100 miles of the US (and most living south of > Duluth MN, where I grew up). "Good, 'cause, you know, we want to report that the country's a lot stranger than it was a year ago." -- Toby Ziegler ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
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 Wayne Eddy > Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 1:23 AM > To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion > Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? > > Surely Canada & Australia are both far less densely populated than the > United States? They are. In my haste in writing I was less precise than I wanted to be. I was thinking about the major developed countries (e.g. Western Europe, the UK and Japan). I know Canada is almost a suburb of the US, with most of the population living within 100 miles of the US (and most living south of Duluth MN, where I grew up). I thought that much of Australia is not suitable for high density populations, but I'll stand to be corrected. And of course, Nordic countries have low population densities in the far north and in the mountains. The point I was trying to make is that the US is far less populated than where most of the rest of the developed world lives. For example, the 4th largest metropolitan area in the US (the Houston Metro Area) has the same population density as the whole of the UK (including the rugged NW of Scotland). Vast swaths of the US have both good farm land and relatively low population densities (e.g. Iowa at ~50/sq. mi.) So, there is a lot of room for the US to increase its population before it approaches Europe. Finally, I have a question for those from Oz. My understanding is that most of the population of Oz lives on the southern coast because the vast center of Australia is not a great place to put a lot of people. Is that accurate? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
On Jan 4, 2009, at 9:13 PM, Dan M wrote: > And yet, you sing we're on the eve of destruction? > > Dan M. I guess part of my cynicism is frustration at having had to live in the wake of the Boomers most of my life, and survive on the scraps they missed, when it seems the only response to my getting closer to actually joining the middle class and becoming financially stable is the goalposts moving farther away just when I think I'm about to get there. The tail end of that curve is not a happy place, and when the idea of having a financial cushion of savings and investments to soften the blow when things flame out is sort of a cruel sadistic taunt, the prospect of having the whole system collapse and render any of my efforts moot seems like a final indignity .. and it leaves me in a rather cynical mood. I'd like to be more optimistic, but I'm at the trailing edge of the herd and the wolves are a lot closer to me than to some of the people with the "let them eat cake" attitudes about cashing in a few stock options to pay the bills for a few years. It's very much on my mind these days. "It should be a fight! We disagree on something important and immediate." -- Toby Ziegler ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
On Jan 4, 2009, at 9:13 PM, Dan M wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l- >> boun...@mccmedia.com] On >> Behalf Of Bruce Bostwick >> Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 7:49 PM >> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion >> Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? >> >> On Jan 2, 2009, at 8:35 PM, dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: >> >>>> From the Wall Street Journal: >>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123051100709638419.html >>> >>>> As if Things Weren't Bad Enough, Russian Professor Predicts End of >>>> U.S. >>>> In Moscow, Igor Panarin's Forecasts Are All the Rage; America >>>> 'Disintegrates' in 2010 >>> >>> I read this a few weeks ago and got a good chuckle out of it. It >>> shows >>> than Americans aren't the only ones who can be clueless about how >>> things >>> work in other countries. :-) >>> >>> Dan M. >> >> Well, one element of it is almost certainly true -- the USA that >> we'll >> be living in in 2010 will not be the USA as we know it. If we >> continue >> with "business as usual", the mostly-completed process of running the >> country into the ground will very likely reach a point of no return >> before then > > Ah, I'd really like some hard data to support that hyperbola. As > messed up > as Bush was, by most measure, the US is far better off than most > countries. > Take, for example, one I worry about the most: foreign debt as a > percentage > of GDP. It is now, by my rough calculations for 2008, at about 45% > of GDP. > While I think this is bad, it's much better than Great Britain, > where it > stands at 380%. > > If you are over 40, you should remember how Japan was going to blow > the US > out of the water in the '80s. China is the new champonly they are > finding their growth is sliding from 10% per year down to a far > lower level > that folks are guessing at. We know industrial output is down from > last > year, so they have as much trouble with the trade imbalance as we do. > > The US is far less densely populated than any other developed > country, its > air and water suppliers are far less polluted than 40 years ago, and > racism > has fallen to the point where we've been able to elect a black > president. > > And yet, you sing we're on the eve of destruction? > > Dan M. With a few minor exceptions, the USA is running largely on momentum, which is finite. We've been migrating from a production-based economy to a service-based economy by degrees since the Bush I era, and we now manufacture very little if any of what we consume as most of our finished goods are manufactured in China, and the vast majority of the remainder are imported from other countries whose labor is far cheaper than ours. Unless I'm reading the signs wrong, it definitely seems to me that the fire has gone out and the machinery just takes a long time to spool down, and this recent collapse is more symptom than root cause. I just don't see the fundamentals currently supporting anything more than a downhill slide into progressive collapse if the systems currently in place continue to operate the way they're operating now. As a country, in aggregate, we don't really seem to *do* anything these days other than buy, consume, and move money around. The few productive industries we have in the USA now (the auto industry springing immediately to mind) are in such sad shape -- in the auto industry's case, from putting more energy into fighting a phase c hange into a PHEV/BEV based market than they are into any real R&D or new product development -- that they cost more than they generate in value. To me, that seems unsustainable. Am I missing something here? Some energy source that's going to inject new value into the system? "Good, 'cause, you know, we want to report that the country's a lot stranger than it was a year ago." -- Toby Ziegler ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
On 05/01/2009, at 7:59 PM, Wayne Eddy wrote: > Pedantic humour aside Dan's statement that "the US is far less densely > populated than any other developed country" is plainly incorrect. Oh yeah, blatantly. I was just being funny about the two you mentioned, 'cause they're very densely populated in bits... Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
- Original Message - From: "Charlie Bell" To: "Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion" Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 5:39 PM Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? > > On 05/01/2009, at 6:22 PM, Wayne Eddy wrote: > >> Surely Canada & Australia are both far less densely populated than the >> United States? > > He said developed country. The former of those you mentioned is a > developed southern border, and the latter, a developed coastline... > > Charlie. > (Pedantic for humour value) Below is the list of the countries with the top 30 Human Development Index scores. The countries with asterisks are less densly populated tham the USA. 1. Iceland 0.968 * 2. Norway 0.968 * 3. Canada 0.967 * 4. Australia 0.965 * 5. Ireland 0.960 6. Netherlands 0.958 7. Sweden 0.958 * 8. Japan 0.956 9. Luxembourg 0.956 10. Switzerland 0.955 11. France 0.955 12. Finland 0.954 * 13. Denmark 0.952 14. Austria 0.951 15. United States 0.950 16. Spain 0.949 17. Belgium 0.948 18. Greece 0.947 19. Italy 0.945 20. New Zealand 0.944 * 21. United Kingdom 0.942 22. Hong Kong 0.942 23. Germany 0.940 24. Israel 0.930 25. South Korea 0.928 26. Slovenia 0.923 27. Brunei 0.919 28. Singapore 0.918 29. Kuwait 0.912 30. Cyprus 0.912 Pedantic humour aside Dan's statement that "the US is far less densely populated than any other developed country" is plainly incorrect. Regards, Wayne. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
On 05/01/2009, at 6:22 PM, Wayne Eddy wrote: > Surely Canada & Australia are both far less densely populated than the > United States? He said developed country. The former of those you mentioned is a developed southern border, and the latter, a developed coastline... Charlie. (Pedantic for humour value) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
Surely Canada & Australia are both far less densely populated than the United States? Regards, Wayne Eddy > The US is far less densely populated than any other developed country, its > air and water suppliers are far less polluted than 40 years ago, and > racism > has fallen to the point where we've been able to elect a black president. > > And yet, you sing we're on the eve of destruction? > > Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
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 Bruce Bostwick > Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 7:49 PM > To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion > Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? > > On Jan 2, 2009, at 8:35 PM, dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: > > >> From the Wall Street Journal: > > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123051100709638419.html > > > >> As if Things Weren't Bad Enough, Russian Professor Predicts End of > >> U.S. > >> In Moscow, Igor Panarin's Forecasts Are All the Rage; America > >> 'Disintegrates' in 2010 > > > > I read this a few weeks ago and got a good chuckle out of it. It > > shows > > than Americans aren't the only ones who can be clueless about how > > things > > work in other countries. :-) > > > > Dan M. > > Well, one element of it is almost certainly true -- the USA that we'll > be living in in 2010 will not be the USA as we know it. If we continue > with "business as usual", the mostly-completed process of running the > country into the ground will very likely reach a point of no return > before then Ah, I'd really like some hard data to support that hyperbola. As messed up as Bush was, by most measure, the US is far better off than most countries. Take, for example, one I worry about the most: foreign debt as a percentage of GDP. It is now, by my rough calculations for 2008, at about 45% of GDP. While I think this is bad, it's much better than Great Britain, where it stands at 380%. If you are over 40, you should remember how Japan was going to blow the US out of the water in the '80s. China is the new champonly they are finding their growth is sliding from 10% per year down to a far lower level that folks are guessing at. We know industrial output is down from last year, so they have as much trouble with the trade imbalance as we do. The US is far less densely populated than any other developed country, its air and water suppliers are far less polluted than 40 years ago, and racism has fallen to the point where we've been able to elect a black president. And yet, you sing we're on the eve of destruction? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
On Jan 2, 2009, at 8:35 PM, dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: >> From the Wall Street Journal: > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123051100709638419.html > >> As if Things Weren't Bad Enough, Russian Professor Predicts End of >> U.S. >> In Moscow, Igor Panarin's Forecasts Are All the Rage; America >> 'Disintegrates' in 2010 > > I read this a few weeks ago and got a good chuckle out of it. It > shows > than Americans aren't the only ones who can be clueless about how > things > work in other countries. :-) > > Dan M. Well, one element of it is almost certainly true -- the USA that we'll be living in in 2010 will not be the USA as we know it. If we continue with "business as usual", the mostly-completed process of running the country into the ground will very likely reach a point of no return before then. I'm betting there will be some outside-the-box thinking during this next administration that will change course to some degree -- the big question is whether it will be enough of a course change soon enough to avoid the hard landing. "Listen, when you get home tonight, you're gonna be confronted by the instinct to drink a lot. Trust that instinct. Manage the pain. Don't try to be a hero." -- Toby Ziegler ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
Alberto > > > > > Clearly, the only solution is for the US to mount a massive attack on > > all the countries listed in the article at once. > > > It's surprising that not a single piece of the future-former-USA went > to Israel. Those conspiracy theorists are getting unimaginative. > Sheesh, don't you know? Israel _controls_ all those countries. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
David Land wrote: > > Right. As everyone knows, Mexico is a great power that is poised to > take over the entire Southern tier of the United States. And those > damned Canadians have been quietly biding their time since the > American revolution, lying in wait for just the right moment to > arrive. And the European Union is so blatantly an effort to organize > Europe for a take-over of the United States that it's a wonder no > one's mentioned it before... > > Clearly, the only solution is for the US to mount a massive attack on > all the countries listed in the article at once. > It's surprising that not a single piece of the future-former-USA went to Israel. Those conspiracy theorists are getting unimaginative. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
Right. As everyone knows, Mexico is a great power that is poised to take over the entire Southern tier of the United States. And those damned Canadians have been quietly biding their time since the American revolution, lying in wait for just the right moment to arrive. And the European Union is so blatantly an effort to organize Europe for a take-over of the United States that it's a wonder no one's mentioned it before... Clearly, the only solution is for the US to mount a massive attack on all the countries listed in the article at once. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
Dan M. wrote: > >> As if Things Weren't Bad Enough, Russian Professor Predicts End of U.S. >> In Moscow, Igor Panarin's Forecasts Are All the Rage; America >> 'Disintegrates' in 2010 > > I read this a few weeks ago and got a good chuckle out of it. It shows > than Americans aren't the only ones who can be clueless about how things > work in other countries. :-) > Maybe we could work around a Big Bet about which is the next country that will disintegrate. Russia? Canada? USA? China? Brazil? India? Australia? South Africa? I bet on China, but Bolivia came close to it a few months ago. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
Original Message: - From: Nick Arnett narn...@mccmedia.com Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 14:17:07 -0800 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? >From the Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123051100709638419.html >As if Things Weren't Bad Enough, Russian Professor Predicts End of U.S. >In Moscow, Igor Panarin's Forecasts Are All the Rage; America >'Disintegrates' in 2010 I read this a few weeks ago and got a good chuckle out of it. It shows than Americans aren't the only ones who can be clueless about how things work in other countries. :-) Dan M. myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft® Windows® and Linux web and application hosting - http://link.myhosting.com/myhosting ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
