Gas Tops $4 A Gallon

[ERD50]

Originally Posted by mb

I think that CA would have been better off legislating incentives/penalities to reduce overall emmissions and then let market figure out how best to do it.

MB

Yes, instead of going for 'zero emissions' ( a lie in itself - the emissions are just shifted to the electric company) on 2% of the fleet, simply going for a 3% reduction in emissions overall would have been more effective and more cost effective (and wouldn't shift the emissions elsewhere). And in the end, it probably actually would have happened.

I hate it when politicians try to become technology experts. Of course, CA did not learn - aren't they the ones who tried to decrease electrical consumption with a 'ban' on low % lights, and actually getting down to technology details of what specific bulb designs are exempted? Just like car emissions, if they want them reduced, provide some sort of incentive/mandate for reduction, and let the free market figure out *how* to do it.

-ERD50

[Zathras]

Originally Posted by ERD50

From what I've read - the 'who killed the electric car' is rubbish.

Biased perhaps, but certainly not rubbish.

Originally Posted by ERD50

The history - CA required companies to sell x% of the fleet as zero-emissions cars, or they could not do business in CA. So, GM offered the EV-1. But, no one was going to buy them at the price they would need to sell them at. And, if they sold at a loss, people would probably strip the cars and sell the parts. So they leased them, so they could retain some control over the process.

First part is correct to my understanding, second part is way off.
Saturn, which was selling the EV1, had a waiting list for the EV1s. They leased every last vehicle they built and had more waiting. This was even after their lack of advertising and commercials that pointed out the weaknesses rather than highlighting strengths.
After GM tracked down and reclaimed all the EV1s, a group of people picketed one of the sites GM was storing some of the cars at (20-30 I believe). They wanted an option to buy the cars from GM.
GM mentioned a price the cars actually cost, and the picketers offered to pay the full price to buy the cars outright.
GM refused, loaded up the EVs, drove them to another facility and crushed them.

Toyota Rav4 EVs are still sold today on ebay.

Also, while Ca did remove the zero emmissions rule, it did so because major car companies SUED them.

No, GM didn't do this single handedly, but they played a significant role.

If you haven't seen 'who killed the electric car' I recommend it highly. It details a number of issues that contributed to the downfall of the electric car.

Personally, I think (and this has no foundation, pure speculation) they not only scrapped the cars, but they also shredded the blueprints and plans. They could build EV1s today and they would sell. Upgrade them to lithium batteries and I would buy one this afternoon.

As for the Volt, I will believe it when it is available for sale.

[ERD50]

Zathras - sure, people were lined up to lease them at the artificially low lease rate. Also GM did not want the responsibility of the safety and maintenance issues on a few hundred cars - it makes no economic sense for them

Also, while Ca did remove the zero emmissions rule, it did so because major car companies SUED them.

Good - it was a stupid law. Much better ways to reduce emissions (see above).

But, I'm sure we could throw various quotes back and forth with various charges of bias of the source - so let's skip that and keep it simple and do an end-run around the conspiracy theories:

If there is so much demand for electric cars, and it really is so easy to provide them at a cost that meets demand, how come no one is doing it? The only way Tesla could do it is by wrapping it up as a high end sports car so they could justify the $100,000 plus price tag. Not exactly something that 2% of CA is going to buy.

They could build EV1s today and they would sell. Upgrade them to lithium batteries and I would buy one this afternoon.

I think the Tesla has ~ $50,000 worth of lithium batteries. And that lightweight, aerodynamic car NEEDS that many to get a 200 mile range (the performance is a byproduct of range). OK, cut the range to 40 miles, but than add some back for a 4 seater, and you still have a lot of cost in batteries. And a lot of people would not buy them because they occasionally need to travel more than 40 miles.

Tell me where I can buy a 4 seater, sub $30,000 electric with 40 mile range - I'd like to take a look.

As for the Volt, I will believe it when it is available for sale.

Me too. And you won't see it until the batteries become affordable. Right now they are not. I read that GM estimates they would need to price it at $48,000 in 2009 - too steep for me to decide to shift my pollution to a coal plant.

-ERD50

[Zathras]

Zathras - sure, people were lined up to lease them at the artificially low lease rate.

You seemed to miss the part where people offered to BUY them at full price.

Tell me where I can buy a 4 seater, sub $30,000 electric with 40 milre range - I'd like to take a look.

Home - Think (but please check the amount, I am not sure as the price).
Now, this is available in Norway and France, but will be available in the US in 2010 or 2009.

Seriously though, if you haven't seen 'who killed the electric car' watch it. There is a lot of good information in there and then you will know more about the history of those events.

One peice of speculation was that GM didn't want the EV to succeed as GM makes a large amount of their money with parts and repairs. The repairs and parts for an EV are dramatically reduced, so this source of income would decrease.

Could you post a link to the $48k price estimate? I would appreciate it, the most I found is that they are shooting for 40k.

Funny thing is I can get a similar gas expenditure today with a Prius + PHEV module for 35K. This is one of the reasons I don't think GM is serious about the Volt. I would be happy to be proven wrong in a couple of years though

[ERD50]

Originally Posted by Zathras

You seemed to miss the part where people offered to BUY them at full price.

What was that 'full price'? And GM would still be resonsible for safety and service support. Sure, I'm sure you could find links that say people would waive this - but that means GM would need to have their lawyers go over all this, and then if something happens it goes to a jury, and then who knows?

Like I said - skip the conspiracy theories and just answer the question - why doesn't someone else offer an EV-1 equivalent if the demand was so great? Are all these companies just passing up this gold mine?

Home - Think (but please check the amount, I am not sure as the price).
Now, this is available in Norway and France, but will be available in the US in 2010 or 2009.

As you said - I will believe it (and evaluate it) when I see it

Seriously though, if you haven't seen 'who killed the electric car' watch it. There is a lot of good information in there and then you will know more about the history of those events.

I've read about it, listened to an interview with the authors. IMO, based on what I've read and heard, they are shysters playing on a gullible public's desire to blame everything on big, bad companies. Why doesn't greenpeace just make energy efficient products that don't create any pollution, don't use any raw materials, never wear out, and are cost effective, rather than complaining that no on else does?

One peice of speculation was that GM didn't want the EV to succeed as GM makes a large amount of their money with parts and repairs. The repairs and parts for an EV are dramatically reduced, so this source of income would decrease.

Again - conspiracy theory. None of that keeps a competitor from making one, so why don't they?

Could you post a link to the $48k price estimate? I would appreciate it, the most I found is that they are shooting for 40k.

Chevrolet Volt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At the time of unveiling, the Volt project had been in existence for less than a year. The Volt was targeted to cost around $20K to 30K,[8] but Bob Lutz has indicated that $30-40K is more likely.[9] As of April 2008 Lutz said that the realistic unsubsidised cost has risen to $48k.[10]

Funny thing is I can get a similar gas expenditure today with a Prius + PHEV module for 35K. This is one of the reasons I don't think GM is serious about the Volt.

Exactly - the all electrics just are not cost effective... yet. When they are, I'll buy one, and GM will probably sell them. I have always loved the idea, the simplicity, of an all electric. I hope that cost effectiveness is the result of lower battery costs, rather than higher gas prices, but it will probably be a combination.

-ERD50

[Marquette]

I've seen a SMART around town with Ontario plates... and there was one in my parent's town (middle of nowhere Indiana). I'm tempted to get one. Part of the problem, though, is that I'm now, temporarily, driving a section of 70mph highway every day that I happen to share with Bob the farmer in his F350 King Ranch and Suzy soccer mom and her Excursion (complete with 1 kid in the back).

Part of my problem is that there's no way I'd be able to justify getting a new vehicle for any reason. We own one car, we carpool to work, and we have no need for a second car. So, even if it was free, it'd still cost too much to get a second car.

If I did, though, I'd be tempted to get a Prius and convert it to a PHEV. However, I'd rather get a PHEV as an OEM option rather than trying to decide which aftermarket kit (which vary by quite a bit) is best. a Volt would be an interesting option too... or maybe something 'exotic' like the SMART, Aptera, or VentureOne.

[HFWR]

Originally Posted by Marquette

(middle of nowhere Indiana)

Isn't this redundant...

I expect my next vehicle will be a small, ICE-powered 5-door, like a Rio5 or something. And I'll keep my pick-em-up truck until the wheels fall off...

[Wags]

USA Today - Ga. church: Call this number for free gasoline

Ga. church: Call this number for free gasoline - On Deadline - USATODAY.com

Very INTERESTING.

The church motto might be "Fill up your tank and fill up your soul."

GOD BLESS US ALL

[TromboneAl]

Personally, I don't like the idea of two energy systems in a single car - too complex. At least with a series hybrid, the two systems are not so closely intertwined.

I agree, but don't forget, as someone on this forum pointed out to me, that every one of the cars in our garages has two energy systems in it.

[ERD50]

Originally Posted by TromboneAl

I agree, but don't forget, as someone on this forum pointed out to me, that every one of the cars in our garages has two energy systems in it.

I had to think about that second - but you are right (or are you joking?.. I never can tell...).

Yes; starter motor, battery, generator, control systems. And, in most hybrids, I think the motor does serve as the starter, so it isn't an additional motor. But, when you make all that part of the motive system, it does get a bit more complex.

But, simpler still (and probably where my electric train of though was going at the time) is the all-electric. At least in theory - the potential reliability will be very nice. No spark plugs, valves, piston rings, crankshafts, oil changes, exhaust system, etc, etc, etc. In practice, will batteries, motors, and high power electronics prove to be reliable? It may take a while.

I'm amazed at just how reliable something as complex as an ICE has become. Just goes to show what a hundred years of refinement can do.

-ERD50

[Wags]

CNN Money - Why $120 oil is good
Speculators are often blamed for artificially inflating crude prices, but some experts say high prices are needed to cut demand and develop new resources

Why $120 oil is good, and speculators don't matter - May. 8, 2008

Interesting article.

The high prices just might make us all conserve more, change our drivng habits, change our choices on the type of vehicles we drive and buy, lead to the research and developement of new technolgy, the use of alternate fuels, etc..., etc....., etc......

GOD BLESS US ALL

[megacorp-firee]

Originally Posted by steve88

I too wonder why we compare ourselves to europe? In dubai and venezuela the gas is less than 50 cents a gallon.

maybe because most people don't want to live in dubai or venezuela. ?

[chinaco]

Originally Posted by ERD50

Well, I agree that they are slow to react, and put too many eggs in one basket, but....

according to Fortune's records, from 95-2005 they typically made between 2 BILLION and 7 BILLION $ in profit, just two years (2002 ,2003) that were less (0.6B, 1.7B). Maybe you could just say they were making hay while the sun shined?

FORTUNE 500: 2004 Archive Full List 1-100

-ERD50

Yes you could look at it that way... but not having a strategy for tomorrow based on a known critical dependency that has gotten them into troubles in the recent past is kinda dumb! So yes, they made some $ in the Push massive vehicle years... they will likely give much of it back in losses over the next several years.

[Wags]

Yahoo Finance . com - Oil surpasses $126 per barrel ahead of US driving season

Oil surpasses $126 per barrel ahead of US driving season: Financial News - Yahoo! Finance

Folks I guess the summer vacation just got cut short a few days and maybe a look at a different des·ti·na·tion is in order.

GOD BLESS US ALL

[Wags]

USA Today - Gas prices rattle Americans

Gas prices rattle Americans - USATODAY.com

Excerpts from the article

Record high gas prices are prompting Americans to drive less for the first time in nearly three decades, squeezing family budgets and causing major shifts in driving habits, federal data and a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll show.

As prices near — or in some places top — $4 a gallon, most Americans say they are cutting back on other household spending, seriously considering buying more fuel-efficient cars and consolidating their daily errands to save fuel.

End of excerpts.

It appears that the high gas prices are just now beginning to get us all concerned and in some cases probably a little & .

God Bless Us All

[ERD50]

Well, if gas prices STAY high, people will probably start to take some measures to reduce consumption.

Gas Tax Holiday = STUPID. Hillary could not name one single credible economist to defend her plan.

This talk about gas prices affecting vacation plans is just media babble. The numbers just don't make sense. Let's say a family was to drive 1000 miles out and 1000 miles back on vacation. That is a pretty good drive.

So, 2000 miles, say 20 mpg on the highway, is 100 gallons of gas. Pick a number, say gas is up a whole $1 (it is actually more like 50 cents). That adds a total of $100 to the cost of a 2000 mile trip. If they squeeze it all in in 7 days, that is just $14 a day. Considering hotels, food, entertainment, mementos, and everything else you would do on a vacation like this, is $14 a day the 'deal-breaker'. I can't see it.

-ERD50

[Walt34]

You're right about the numbers not being a "deal-breaker" on one trip, but overall people do notice. I sure do when I'm looking at $80 to fill the pickup truck instead of $45-50. It's not a daily driver so it's not going to make me get rid of it (we do use the truck's capabilities often) but I wouldn't pick that to drive to work.

Here's an alternative that I'm sure gets great mileage. Motorized bicycles, various bike motors, electric bikes or TLE 43 bicycle engines for Dahon folding motorized bikes and tricycles. We're going to look at two lightly used ones tomorrow.