GM suspends production of the Volt

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for airshocker
#101 Posted by airshocker (31700 posts) -

you're not buying a new battery, you're replacing it w/ a charged one.. kinda like a propane tank for a grill where you bring your empty tank and swap it for a new one. you're just paying for the fuel not the container for it.

comp_atkins

I still can't imagine it ever being feasible, except maybe when batteries can provide more than 30 hours of driving time.

Avatar image for SpartanMSU
#102 Posted by SpartanMSU (3440 posts) -

I'll take my 5.7L HEMI V8 that gets 27 mpg and is actually *gasp* fun to drive over an electric piece of trash any day.

Avatar image for Wasdie
#103 Posted by Wasdie (53489 posts) -

you're not buying a new battery, you're replacing it w/ a charged one.. kinda like a propane tank for a grill where you bring your empty tank and swap it for a new one. you're just paying for the fuel not the container for it.

comp_atkins

That would make the most sense.

Still, batteries aren't nearly as efficent as they need to be to support that and hydrogen power is quickly becoming affordable.

Pure electric cars with no on-board power station are just kind of a dream.

Avatar image for comp_atkins
#104 Posted by comp_atkins (34385 posts) -

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]

you're not buying a new battery, you're replacing it w/ a charged one.. kinda like a propane tank for a grill where you bring your empty tank and swap it for a new one. you're just paying for the fuel not the container for it.

airshocker

I still can't imagine it ever being feasible, except maybe when batteries can provide more than 30 hours of driving time.

how would it be any different from going to a gas station after 6-8 hours of driving time? we tolerate having to take a 5 minute break to refuel a car after 300-400 miles, why would someone not tolerate the same break to swap out a battery ( again, assuming a battery would get you that range which clearly they do not currently )?
Avatar image for airshocker
#105 Posted by airshocker (31700 posts) -

how would it be any different from going to a gas station after 6-8 hours of driving time? we tolerate having to take a 5 minute break to refuel a car after 300-400 miles, why would someone not tolerate the same break to swap out a battery ( again, assuming a battery would get you that range which clearly they do not currently )? comp_atkins

I'm sure it would be tolerable IF batteries did get that kind of range. Currently they don't.

Avatar image for Engrish_Major
#106 Posted by Engrish_Major (17373 posts) -

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]how would it be any different from going to a gas station after 6-8 hours of driving time? we tolerate having to take a 5 minute break to refuel a car after 300-400 miles, why would someone not tolerate the same break to swap out a battery ( again, assuming a battery would get you that range which clearly they do not currently )? airshocker

I'm sure it would be tolerable IF batteries did get that kind of range. Currently they don't.

Wait to see what people think is "feasible" when gas is $10-15 per gallon.
Avatar image for airshocker
#107 Posted by airshocker (31700 posts) -

Wait to see what people think is "feasible" when gas is $10-15 per gallon.Engrish_Major

I doubt gas would ever get that high and we better hope that it doesn't.

Avatar image for branketra
#108 Posted by BranKetra (51726 posts) -
I just hope they eventually make something good out of electric automobiles.
Avatar image for Engrish_Major
#109 Posted by Engrish_Major (17373 posts) -

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]Wait to see what people think is "feasible" when gas is $10-15 per gallon.airshocker

I doubt gas would ever get that high and we better hope that it doesn't.

It's already close to $10/gallon in many European countries that don't subsidize the industry like in the US. And aren't subsidies one of the main things that you are angry about in this thread?
Avatar image for airshocker
#110 Posted by airshocker (31700 posts) -

It's already close to $10/gallon in many European countries that don't subsidize the industry like in the US. And aren't subsidies one of the main things that you are angry about in this thread?Engrish_Major

So subsidies will cause gas prices to rise to that price? I thought you libs keep saying that won't happen.

I never made mention of subsidies in this thread until just now.

Avatar image for Inconsistancy
#111 Posted by Inconsistancy (8094 posts) -

you're not buying a new battery, you're replacing it w/ a charged one.. kinda like a propane tank for a grill where you bring your empty tank and swap it for a new one. you're just paying for the fuel not the container for it.

comp_atkins

It's not recycling in the sense of the propane tank, which is merely convenience, since steel is cheap and propane is usually in a big tank in the first place, so it's just easier to manage in a small one.

Batteries are recycled by taking all their internal components out, filtering some of it, throwing other bits away, melting parts down... the only directly recyclable piece of a battery is it's plastic case. All of this requires energy.

Also, batteries degrade over time because they're a closed system, the chemical reactions aren't perfect, and every round that they go through they lose some of their efficiency. There 'is' a probability that entropy will lower over time, same probability that you'll get the molecules in your hands to line and up go through your desk, but it's 'there'... but that'd still not produce 'free' energy, you'd lose mass as it converted into energy.

The huge benefit of fuels is that it's an open system, fuel goes in, gets burn (becomes entropic) and goes out, put new fuel in to start it all over. Much easier to reduce entropy via replacement, rather than re-refinement.

how would it be any different from going to a gas station after 6-8 hours of driving time? we tolerate having to take a 5 minute break to refuel a car after 300-400 miles, why would someone not tolerate the same break to swap out a battery ( again, assuming a battery would get you that range which clearly they do not currently )? comp_atkins
BWhHAHAHA, 30m vs 5m are you jokes? How obvious is that crap? And you want to replace the battery, how much is that going to cost, and manage? Are recharge stations going to just carry thousands of tons of extra batteries for consumers to load into their car?

Even if you get it's recharge down to the same time, then you have to deal with rebuilding all those batteries every 5 years (they won't last 10, people will drain them dry and over charge them)

Avatar image for comp_atkins
#112 Posted by comp_atkins (34385 posts) -
[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]Wait to see what people think is "feasible" when gas is $10-15 per gallon.Engrish_Major

I doubt gas would ever get that high and we better hope that it doesn't.

It's already close to $10/gallon in many European countries that don't subsidize the industry like in the US. And aren't subsidies one of the main things that you are angry about in this thread?

it's not higher in europe because of lack of subsidies.. it's because of more taxes..
Avatar image for Engrish_Major
#113 Posted by Engrish_Major (17373 posts) -

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]It's already close to $10/gallon in many European countries that don't subsidize the industry like in the US. And aren't subsidies one of the main things that you are angry about in this thread?airshocker

So subsidies will cause gas prices to rise to that price? I thought you libs keep saying that won't happen.

I never made mention of subsidies in this thread until just now.

No, it's the subsidies that make it cheap in the US. And you were talking about credits given to people for cars/solar panels, etc. (i.e., subsidies)
Avatar image for Engrish_Major
#114 Posted by Engrish_Major (17373 posts) -
it's not higher in europe because of lack of subsidies.. it's because of more taxes..comp_atkins
Yes, taxes that actually are able to pay for the infrastructure. Gas taxes are way too low in the US.
Avatar image for airshocker
#115 Posted by airshocker (31700 posts) -

No, it's the subsidies that make it cheap in the US. And you were talking about credits given to people for cars/solar panels, etc. (i.e., subsidies)Engrish_Major

Not in a negative manner, just being factual.

Avatar image for comp_atkins
#116 Posted by comp_atkins (34385 posts) -

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"] you're not buying a new battery, you're replacing it w/ a charged one.. kinda like a propane tank for a grill where you bring your empty tank and swap it for a new one. you're just paying for the fuel not the container for it.

Inconsistancy

It's not recycling in the sense of the propane tank, which is merely convenience, since steel is cheap and propane is usually in a big tank in the first place, so it's just easier to manage in a small one.

Batteries are recycled by taking all their internal components out, filtering some of it, throwing other bits away, melting parts down... the only directly recyclable piece of a battery is it's plastic case. All of this requires energy.

Also, batteries degrade over time because they're a closed system, the chemical reactions aren't perfect, and every round that they go through they lose some of their efficiency. There 'is' a probability that entropy will lower over time, same probability that you'll get the molecules in your hands to line and up go through your desk, but it's 'there'... but that'd still not produce 'free' energy, you'd lose mass as it converted into energy.

The huge benefit of fuels is that it's an open system, fuel goes in, gets burn (becomes entropic) and goes out, put new fuel in to start it all over. Much easier to reduce entropy via replacement, rather than re-refinement.

how would it be any different from going to a gas station after 6-8 hours of driving time? we tolerate having to take a 5 minute break to refuel a car after 300-400 miles, why would someone not tolerate the same break to swap out a battery ( again, assuming a battery would get you that range which clearly they do not currently )? comp_atkins
BWhHAHAHA, 30m vs 5m are you jokes? How obvious is that crap? And you want to replace the battery, how much is that going to cost, and manage. Are recharge stations going to just carry thousands of tons of extra batteries for consumers to load into their car.

true, batteries degrade over time ( didn't see anywhere where i was arguing against that but if you like tangents, knock yourself out... ) as for the second comment where are you getting 30m from when if done properly and w/ some standardization across the industry the packs could feasibly be replaced in under 5m?? why couldn't a station keep extra charged and charging batteries on hand? they currently have no problems storing 15-30 thousand gallons of fuel...
Avatar image for _R34LiTY_
#117 Posted by _R34LiTY_ (3331 posts) -

Yea, turns out the owner would end up paying twice, maybe even 3 times, as much in electricity to charge the vehicle for a short time frame of driving than if it were to be powered by fuel.

Avatar image for comp_atkins
#118 Posted by comp_atkins (34385 posts) -
[QUOTE="comp_atkins"] it's not higher in europe because of lack of subsidies.. it's because of more taxes..Engrish_Major
Yes, taxes that actually are able to pay for the infrastructure. Gas taxes are way too low in the US.

well now you're off arguing a different point altogether..
Avatar image for Wasdie
#119 Posted by Wasdie (53489 posts) -

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]how would it be any different from going to a gas station after 6-8 hours of driving time? we tolerate having to take a 5 minute break to refuel a car after 300-400 miles, why would someone not tolerate the same break to swap out a battery ( again, assuming a battery would get you that range which clearly they do not currently )? Engrish_Major

I'm sure it would be tolerable IF batteries did get that kind of range. Currently they don't.

Wait to see what people think is "feasible" when gas is $10-15 per gallon.

When gas starts to increase, the demand for green energy will go up. We'll see more companies put R&D into hydrogen and other potential tech becuase the market will now be there.

You can't create artifical demand for an item just because you're afraid current prices will skyrocket. The market will balance itself out in this case.

You also forget that the USA has a massive amount of oil refineries. Petrol is really cheap to produce and ship within the borders of the USA. It's one of the major exports of the USA. Combine that with the widespread need for petrol across the country and you get cheaper fuel as a result. No other nation has a consumer need for fuel like the USA. It's a whole different market over here.

Avatar image for Engrish_Major
#120 Posted by Engrish_Major (17373 posts) -
[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="comp_atkins"] it's not higher in europe because of lack of subsidies.. it's because of more taxes..comp_atkins
Yes, taxes that actually are able to pay for the infrastructure. Gas taxes are way too low in the US.

well now you're off arguing a different point altogether..

No I'm not. Insufficient income from gas taxes means that states and the feds have to end up paying for all of the direct and indirect consequences of cheap fuel. i.e., subsidies. And those are subsidies that are paid for by everyone, instead of them being paid for directly by the user himself.
Avatar image for Engrish_Major
#121 Posted by Engrish_Major (17373 posts) -

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="airshocker"]

I'm sure it would be tolerable IF batteries did get that kind of range. Currently they don't.

Wasdie

Wait to see what people think is "feasible" when gas is $10-15 per gallon.

When gas starts to increase, the demand for green energy will go up. We'll see more companies put R&D into hydrogen and other potential tech becuase the market will now be there.

You can't create artifical demand for an item just because you're afraid current prices will skyrocket. The market will balance itself out in this case.

Here we go again, talking about the "free market" coming into play, when current energy policy is anything but. Did you not get my point from three pages ago? Why does the green revolution have to be all about free market forces, when it is already competing against an artificial market?
Avatar image for Wasdie
#122 Posted by Wasdie (53489 posts) -

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"] Wait to see what people think is "feasible" when gas is $10-15 per gallon.Engrish_Major

When gas starts to increase, the demand for green energy will go up. We'll see more companies put R&D into hydrogen and other potential tech becuase the market will now be there.

You can't create artifical demand for an item just because you're afraid current prices will skyrocket. The market will balance itself out in this case.

Here we go again, talking about the "free market" coming into play, when current energy policy is anything but. Did you not get my point from three pages ago? Why does the green revolution have to be all about free market forces, when it is already competing against an artificial market?

You're assuming oil subsidies do anything.

Protip: they don't. They have been nothing but lining the pockets of oil execs for years. They don't even touch the actual economy. That's part of the reason why we need to end them.

The real economy is actually still not supply and demand based, it's run purly by speculators on Wall St.. If it was really supply/demand based, gas would even be cheaper in the USA. We refine it here and have dozens of oil exporters who work with the refineries. We export petrol we have so much of it.

This is what keeps it cheap.

You're advocating building artifical demand for an emerging market. The traditional energy market has widespread demand that is very real. There is a difference.

Avatar image for Engrish_Major
#123 Posted by Engrish_Major (17373 posts) -

You're assuming oil subsidies do anything.

Protip: they don't. They have been nothing but lining the pockets of oil execs for years. They don't even touch the actual economy. That's part of the reason why we need to end them.

The real economy is actually still not supply and demand based, it's run purly by speculators on Wall St.. If it was really supply/demand based, gas would even be cheaper in the USA. We refine it here and have dozens of oil exporters who work with the refineries. We export petrol we have so much of it.

This is what keeps it cheap.

You're advocating building artifical demand for an emerging market. The traditional energy market has widespread demand that is very real. There is a difference.

Wasdie
That's only part of it. There are not only direct subsidies. There are externalities that are costly due to cheap gas. One being environmental impacts - i.e., I have to breathe the direct results of the commute of hundreds of thousands of people every day, in addition to the billions of dollars that states and the feds have to pay to clean up spills at the refineries, waterways, and during transit. Another being infrastructure costs - i.e., I have to pay (out of the general tax fund) for highways that these people use every day because the gas taxes at the pump are too low. Those are subsidies that keep gas artificially cheap in the US. And people are complaining about a little subsidy here and there to companies that are trying to make alternatives feasible.
Avatar image for comp_atkins
#124 Posted by comp_atkins (34385 posts) -
[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="Engrish_Major"] Yes, taxes that actually are able to pay for the infrastructure. Gas taxes are way too low in the US.

well now you're off arguing a different point altogether..

No I'm not. Insufficient income from gas taxes means that states and the feds have to end up paying for all of the direct and indirect consequences of cheap fuel. i.e., subsidies. And those are subsidies that are paid for by everyone, instead of them being paid for directly by the user himself.

again, fuel is not cheaper because is it subsidized. if you think the gov't doling out ~ $4B yearly in tax breaks etc.. the oil industry will have a multi-dollar impact on the price/gallon that americans pay you're mistaken.
Avatar image for Inconsistancy
#125 Posted by Inconsistancy (8094 posts) -

true, batteries degrade over time ( didn't see anywhere where i was arguing against that but if you like tangents, knock yourself out... ) as for the second comment where are you getting 30m from when if done properly and w/ some standardization across the industry the packs could feasibly be replaced in under 5m?? why couldn't a station keep extra charged and charging batteries on hand? they currently have no problems storing 15-30 thousand gallons of fuel...comp_atkins

Fuel is a liquid, it doesn't require cranes to move it, you get truck, attach a hose and it drains out. And, it's a one way trip, the fuel goes in the ground for temporary storage, then into the vehicles to be burnt, truck just leaves after depositing the fuel, and weighs a good bit less.

Fuel cycle! drill ► load into barrels ► send to refinery (via ship) ► to pipeline ► is refined (produces other nifty products as well) ► load diesel and 'gas' into trucks ► ship to gas station in truck ► deposit fuel.

Batteries are solids...

Battery replenishment cycle!:

(ignoring all the initial processes to make the batteries) ► Factory produces battery ► puts onto truck ► sits at the recharge station waiting for the crane (you'll need it) to unload the batteries ► waits longer for spent batteries to be recycled to be loaded ► drives off to the recycle plant ► crane unloads ► factory reprocesses all the batteries ► restart process.

And then don't forget the lovely need for infrastructure, if these recharge stations are carrying batteries that need recharging, and the quickcharge for those with 30m to spare, you'll need a beefy power grid and quite a few more powerstations!

And GLHF with moving those batteries around, the volt's, with it's puny 35mi range, batteries weigh nearly 200kg. And I doubt they're in a place that's easy to take out and put in new ones, not like that battery under the hood.

Until we reach Star Wars level tech, with their lightsaber batteries, we're not going to be moving 100+kw batteries in and out of cars all 'willy-nilly'.

I go on a 'tangent' 'cause you're apparently so shortsighted to not notice it.

Avatar image for Engrish_Major
#126 Posted by Engrish_Major (17373 posts) -
[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="comp_atkins"] well now you're off arguing a different point altogether..comp_atkins
No I'm not. Insufficient income from gas taxes means that states and the feds have to end up paying for all of the direct and indirect consequences of cheap fuel. i.e., subsidies. And those are subsidies that are paid for by everyone, instead of them being paid for directly by the user himself.

again, fuel is not cheaper because is it subsidized. if you think the gov't doling out ~ $4B yearly in tax breaks etc.. the oil industry will have a multi-dollar impact on the price/gallon that americans pay you're mistaken.

Again, that's not what I'm talking about. What my post stated is that insufficient taxes = subsidies. Also read my post right above this one to Wasdie.
Avatar image for superfluidity
#127 Posted by superfluidity (2163 posts) -

The main reason to support the subsidies for EV technology isn't so that U.S. automakers put out amazing cars right away, but because they were incredibly far behind technologically.

A lot of cars are going to be hybrids in the coming years, and a little further out there will be a lot more electric vehicles. You can be certain that Chinese automakers will get government support, many of them were state owned at some point.

Avatar image for kuraimen
#128 Posted by kuraimen (28078 posts) -
[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="comp_atkins"] well now you're off arguing a different point altogether..comp_atkins
No I'm not. Insufficient income from gas taxes means that states and the feds have to end up paying for all of the direct and indirect consequences of cheap fuel. i.e., subsidies. And those are subsidies that are paid for by everyone, instead of them being paid for directly by the user himself.

again, fuel is not cheaper because is it subsidized. if you think the gov't doling out ~ $4B yearly in tax breaks etc.. the oil industry will have a multi-dollar impact on the price/gallon that americans pay you're mistaken.

Then why not end the subsidies. Stop the subsidies and stop the oil wars and lets see what happens to that industry then. Free market FTW! right?
Avatar image for topgunmv
#129 Posted by topgunmv (10736 posts) -

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Yes, worthless solar that allows one to have self-sustaining energy in their own home, decreasing their energy bill and reducing carbon emissions. Oh, when will the world learn just how useless solar power is?

Pirate700

You have no idea how solar energy in a home actually works, do you?

One of my neighbors has a brand new custom million dollar green home...they were telling me during the power outage that their full roof full of panels barely gave them enough to flush their electric toilet. :lol:

Don't electric toilets burn the waste?

We have a big ass generator for power outages, but if we use a toaster it'll break its back.

Anything that is high heat like that siphons power like an abrams does gas.

Avatar image for comp_atkins
#131 Posted by comp_atkins (34385 posts) -

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="Engrish_Major"] No I'm not. Insufficient income from gas taxes means that states and the feds have to end up paying for all of the direct and indirect consequences of cheap fuel. i.e., subsidies. And those are subsidies that are paid for by everyone, instead of them being paid for directly by the user himself.kuraimen
again, fuel is not cheaper because is it subsidized. if you think the gov't doling out ~ $4B yearly in tax breaks etc.. the oil industry will have a multi-dollar impact on the price/gallon that americans pay you're mistaken.

Then why not end the subsidies. Stop the subsidies and stop the oil wars and lets see what happens to that industry then. Free market FTW! right?

dude.. i'm not defending the subsidies just saying they have no effect on the ppg. they ought to be removed.

Avatar image for Engrish_Major
#132 Posted by Engrish_Major (17373 posts) -

The main reason to support the subsidies for EV technology isn't so that U.S. automakers put out amazing cars right away, but because they were incredibly far behind technologically.

A lot of cars are going to be hybrids in the coming years, and a little further out there will be a lot more electric vehicles. You can be certain that Chinese automakers will get government support, many of them were state owned at some point.

superfluidity
Japanese automakers also received massive government subsidies in their infancy, and they became some of the best and biggest auto companies in the world. That forced our own companies to create better products in order to compete.
Avatar image for comp_atkins
#133 Posted by comp_atkins (34385 posts) -
[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="Engrish_Major"] No I'm not. Insufficient income from gas taxes means that states and the feds have to end up paying for all of the direct and indirect consequences of cheap fuel. i.e., subsidies. And those are subsidies that are paid for by everyone, instead of them being paid for directly by the user himself.

again, fuel is not cheaper because is it subsidized. if you think the gov't doling out ~ $4B yearly in tax breaks etc.. the oil industry will have a multi-dollar impact on the price/gallon that americans pay you're mistaken.

Again, that's not what I'm talking about. What my post stated is that insufficient taxes = subsidies. Also read my post right above this one to Wasdie.

k. got what you're saying now. with regards to the level of taxation and how much is appropriate i can't comment since i'm not knowledgeable in whether or not current taxes cover the needs they're intended for.
Avatar image for Engrish_Major
#134 Posted by Engrish_Major (17373 posts) -
k. got what you're saying now. with regards to the level of taxation and how much is appropriate i can't comment since i'm not knowledgeable in whether or not current taxes cover the needs they're intended for.comp_atkins
One of the main problems is that gax taxes are not a percent (as in most other things that are taxed) - they are a set value. And in many states, they have not been raised in a decade or more, meaning that there is effectively less and less income every year due to inflation. And running an election on raising gas taxes does not exactly get you votes. The result is that states are facing rising deficits in their transportation fund, so they are forced to take money from the general fund to pay for roads/infrastructure/emergency services (all the things that drivers take advantage of). And that's just the infrastructure argument. There are two more arguments as to the externalities that cheap gas causes (environmental and foreign policy) that we all have to pay for. These are all costs that other countries take into account when determining gas taxes. Meaning that the people who use gas pay, in direct proportion, for their use. Now that is something that I'd expect conserviatives to be for - not having society shoulder the burden for people who drive a lot.
Avatar image for Fightingfan
#135 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

When I took at look at it, I couldn't believe they were charging 40k+ for that piece of plastic.

airshocker

47k*. :lol:

I can buy a fawkin' SS camaro and a Impala with that...
Avatar image for comp_atkins
#136 Posted by comp_atkins (34385 posts) -

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]true, batteries degrade over time ( didn't see anywhere where i was arguing against that but if you like tangents, knock yourself out... ) as for the second comment where are you getting 30m from when if done properly and w/ some standardization across the industry the packs could feasibly be replaced in under 5m?? why couldn't a station keep extra charged and charging batteries on hand? they currently have no problems storing 15-30 thousand gallons of fuel...Inconsistancy

Fuel is a liquid, it doesn't require cranes to move it, you get truck, attach a hose and it drains out. And, it's a one way trip, the fuel goes in the ground for temporary storage, then into the vehicles to be burnt, truck just leaves after depositing the fuel, and weighs a good bit less.

Fuel cycle! drill ► load into barrels ► send to refinery (via ship) ► to pipeline ► is refined (produces other nifty products as well) ► load diesel and 'gas' into trucks ► ship to gas station in truck ► deposit fuel.

Batteries are solids...

Battery replenishment cycle!:

(ignoring all the initial processes to make the batteries) ► Factory produces battery ► puts onto truck ► sits at the recharge station waiting for the crane (you'll need it) to unload the batteries ► waits longer for spent batteries to be recycled to be loaded ► drives off to the recycle plant ► crane unloads ► factory reprocesses all the batteries ► restart process.

And then don't forget the lovely need for infrastructure, if these recharge stations are carrying batteries that need recharging, and the quickcharge for those with 30m to spare, you'll need a beefy power grid and quite a few more powerstations!

And GLHF with moving those batteries around, the volt's, with it's puny 35mi range, batteries weigh nearly 200kg. And I doubt they're in a place that's easy to take out and put in new ones, not like that battery under the hood.

Until we reach Star Wars level tech, with their lightsaber batteries, we're not going to be moving 100+kw batteries in and out of cars all 'willy-nilly'.

I go on a 'tangent' 'cause you're apparently so shortsighted to not notice it.

i'm sure similar arguments could have been made wrt transitioning to a gasoline infrastructure from an equine one ( you want to ship flammable liquids all over the place?!?? are you mad? ) it's been what, 100 years and we still struggle to produce an automobile that doesn't waste 85% of the energy put into it yet we accept it. i'm sorry that i'm not as pessimistic about ev future prospects as you. i guess i am just too shortsighted.
Avatar image for DJ-PRIME90
#137 Posted by DJ-PRIME90 (11292 posts) -
I don't think theres any way that electric cars will take over. Price tag is too high, takes too long to charge the battery, and you can barely leave your house. I do a lot of driving, more than most, I put about 40,000 km on my cars each year if not more. A lot of the time, I need to fill the car up and keep going. I can't stand around and wait 12 hours for a battery to charge hahahaha the nissan electric car (whatever its called) has a charge time of like 4 hours to 70% on a 240V outlet... 4 hours is even too long. They should have stuck with nitrogen cars... I would personally like to get an engine that runs off of uranium. If the world wasn't so scared of nuclear, it would be perfect. You could go several years easily before you'd have to dispose of the small amount of uranium it would take.
Avatar image for Wasdie
#138 Posted by Wasdie (53489 posts) -

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="Engrish_Major"] No I'm not. Insufficient income from gas taxes means that states and the feds have to end up paying for all of the direct and indirect consequences of cheap fuel. i.e., subsidies. And those are subsidies that are paid for by everyone, instead of them being paid for directly by the user himself.Engrish_Major
again, fuel is not cheaper because is it subsidized. if you think the gov't doling out ~ $4B yearly in tax breaks etc.. the oil industry will have a multi-dollar impact on the price/gallon that americans pay you're mistaken.

Again, that's not what I'm talking about. What my post stated is that insufficient taxes = subsidies. Also read my post right above this one to Wasdie.

You use the highways far more than you think, even if you don't drive.

Without the highways in the USA, the economy we know today wouldn't exist. Everything would be far more expensive and localized.

Avatar image for DroidPhysX
#139 Posted by DroidPhysX (17098 posts) -

Whilst I want to see electric cars gain more of a foothold, the Volt was an extremely poor start. Poor price selection and poor quality.

Avatar image for Engrish_Major
#140 Posted by Engrish_Major (17373 posts) -

You use the highways far more than you think, even if you don't drive.

Without the highways in the USA, the economy we know today wouldn't exist. Everything would be far more expensive and localized.

Wasdie
Don't get me started on the Interstate Highway System and how much that has negatively effected our country. But that's an entire different thread, so I won't go into that here.
Avatar image for comp_atkins
#141 Posted by comp_atkins (34385 posts) -
[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

You use the highways far more than you think, even if you don't drive.

Without the highways in the USA, the economy we know today wouldn't exist. Everything would be far more expensive and localized.

Engrish_Major
Don't get me started on the Interstate Highway System and how much that has negatively effected our country. But that's an entire different thread, so I won't go into that here.

not sure if serious...
Avatar image for Inconsistancy
#142 Posted by Inconsistancy (8094 posts) -

i'm sure similar arguments could have been made wrt transitioning to a gasoline infrastructure from an equine one ( you want to ship flammable liquids all over the place?!?? are you mad? ) it's been what, 100 years and we still struggle to produce an automobile that doesn't waste 85% of the energy put into it yet we accept it. i'm sorry that i'm not as pessimistic about ev future prospects as you. i guess i am just too shortsighted. comp_atkins

YES you are shortsighted.

That's not a similar argument, I wasn't even mentioning the hazards of transporting batteries, just the cycle they'd go through.

And fuel and batteries are just as hazardous as each other, one is flammable, one is highly caustic and often contains non 'earth friendly' metals... but moving a liquid between containers is Much easier than moving crates from one pallet to another. And again, don't forget the fuel is a 1 way trip, they don't have to reprocess it, batteries have to be recycled.

Batteries are what I'm pessimistic about, look how long we've been refining them (~150 years for rechargeable batteries, {2000+ years they've existed, but... }), and look where they are. Now look at computers, 60 years ago 'til now. You think batteries are progressing fast, that we're going to just find some silver bullet that solves all the issues with them Any time soon? They're crippled by the limitations chemistry and entropy.

You act like electricity is damn magic, it just comes out of faeries butts or something, you have to generate it, that's not free. And electric cars still waste plenty of energy as well, it's not like they're damn nuclear reactors (which still waste energy).

Have you ever wondered why trains have a third rail or power lines? It's 'cause batteries suck so much that it was much Cheaper to just lay track or power lines than try to use batteries.

Avatar image for topgunmv
#143 Posted by topgunmv (10736 posts) -

I don't think theres any way that electric cars will take over. Price tag is too high, takes too long to charge the battery, and you can barely leave your house. I do a lot of driving, more than most, I put about 40,000 km on my cars each year if not more. A lot of the time, I need to fill the car up and keep going. I can't stand around and wait 12 hours for a battery to charge hahahaha the nissan electric car (whatever its called) has a charge time of like 4 hours to 70% on a 240V outlet... 4 hours is even too long. They should have stuck with nitrogen cars... I would personally like to get an engine that runs off of uranium. If the world wasn't so scared of nuclear, it would be perfect. You could go several years easily before you'd have to dispose of the small amount of uranium it would take.DJ-PRIME90

Small amount of uranium x millions of drivers=not small amount of uranium.

Avatar image for MannyDelgado
#144 Posted by MannyDelgado (1187 posts) -
You think batteries are progressing fast, that we're going to just find some silver bullet that solves all the issues with them Any time soon? They're crippled by the limitations chemistry and entropy.Inconsistancy
Why entropy? Batteries aren't heat engines and therefore aren't Carnot-limited.
Avatar image for thegerg
#145 Posted by thegerg (18283 posts) -

[QUOTE="DJ-PRIME90"]I don't think theres any way that electric cars will take over. Price tag is too high, takes too long to charge the battery, and you can barely leave your house. I do a lot of driving, more than most, I put about 40,000 km on my cars each year if not more. A lot of the time, I need to fill the car up and keep going. I can't stand around and wait 12 hours for a battery to charge hahahaha the nissan electric car (whatever its called) has a charge time of like 4 hours to 70% on a 240V outlet... 4 hours is even too long. They should have stuck with nitrogen cars... I would personally like to get an engine that runs off of uranium. If the world wasn't so scared of nuclear, it would be perfect. You could go several years easily before you'd have to dispose of the small amount of uranium it would take.topgunmv

Small amount of uranium x millions of drivers=not small amount of uranium.

It's better, in most ways, than a large amount of fossil fuel X millions of drivers, no?
Avatar image for coolbeans90
#146 Posted by coolbeans90 (21305 posts) -

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Yes, worthless solar that allows one to have self-sustaining energy in their own home, decreasing their energy bill and reducing carbon emissions. Oh, when will the world learn just how useless solar power is?

Pirate700

You have no idea how solar energy in a home actually works, do you?

One of my neighbors has a brand new custom million dollar green home...they were telling me during the power outage that their full roof full of panels barely gave them enough to flush their electric toilet. :lol:

>electric toilet

why?

Avatar image for Serraph105
#147 Posted by Serraph105 (31886 posts) -

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]

When gas starts to increase, the demand for green energy will go up. We'll see more companies put R&D into hydrogen and other potential tech becuase the market will now be there.

You can't create artifical demand for an item just because you're afraid current prices will skyrocket. The market will balance itself out in this case.

Wasdie

Here we go again, talking about the "free market" coming into play, when current energy policy is anything but. Did you not get my point from three pages ago? Why does the green revolution have to be all about free market forces, when it is already competing against an artificial market?

You're assuming oil subsidies do anything.

Protip: they don't. They have been nothing but lining the pockets of oil execs for years. They don't even touch the actual economy. That's part of the reason why we need to end them.

The real economy is actually still not supply and demand based, it's run purly by speculators on Wall St.. If it was really supply/demand based, gas would even be cheaper in the USA. We refine it here and have dozens of oil exporters who work with the refineries. We export petrol we have so much of it.

This is what keeps it cheap.

You're advocating building artifical demand for an emerging market. The traditional energy market has widespread demand that is very real. There is a difference.

I wonder how much green energy products is subject to supply and demand. My bet would be that it's far more than oil is. In that way it's still not a fair fight.

Avatar image for MannyDelgado
#148 Posted by MannyDelgado (1187 posts) -
[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

[QUOTE="DJ-PRIME90"]I don't think theres any way that electric cars will take over. Price tag is too high, takes too long to charge the battery, and you can barely leave your house. I do a lot of driving, more than most, I put about 40,000 km on my cars each year if not more. A lot of the time, I need to fill the car up and keep going. I can't stand around and wait 12 hours for a battery to charge hahahaha the nissan electric car (whatever its called) has a charge time of like 4 hours to 70% on a 240V outlet... 4 hours is even too long. They should have stuck with nitrogen cars... I would personally like to get an engine that runs off of uranium. If the world wasn't so scared of nuclear, it would be perfect. You could go several years easily before you'd have to dispose of the small amount of uranium it would take.thegerg

Small amount of uranium x millions of drivers=not small amount of uranium.

It's better, in most ways, than a large amount of fossil fuel X millions of drivers, no?

It's a stupid idea. You need to reach critical mass in order to sustain a reaction, and the tiny amount of uranium that would be reasonable for a single car would be much too small for that.
Avatar image for MannyDelgado
#149 Posted by MannyDelgado (1187 posts) -
One of my neighbors has a brand new custom million dollar green home...they were telling me during the power outage that their full roof full of panels barely gave them enough to flush their electric toilet. :lol:Pirate700
Kind of a stupid point to make - plenty of stuff, eg camera flashes, requires an enormous amount of instantaneous power but only draws that power for a very short amount of time.
Avatar image for Inconsistancy
#150 Posted by Inconsistancy (8094 posts) -

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"]You think batteries are progressing fast, that we're going to just find some silver bullet that solves all the issues with them Any time soon? They're crippled by the limitations chemistry and entropy.MannyDelgado
Why entropy? Batteries aren't heat engines and therefore aren't Carnot-limited.

-.-

1. a thermodynamic quantity that changes in a reversible process by an amount equal to the heat absorbed or emitted divided by the thermodynamic temperature. It is measured in joules per kelvin. Symbol S See also law of thermodynamics [1]
2.a statistical measure of the disorder of a closed system expressed by S = klog P + c where P is the probability that a particular state of the system exists, k is the Boltzmann constant, and c is another constant
3.lack of pattern or organization; disorder