Cars aren't selling...

[Isidore]

The technical solution or the mix of technical solutions to transportation energy sources is not clear. In the late 19th century there were extrapolations of the increase in horse drawn traffic that predicted London would be 6 ft deep in manure by about 1912. Well fortunately it never happened, though I do have a photograph of the street outside Kensington Town Hall in London, Hornton Street, taken in 1903. The street is much as it is today (which is quite weird) except for the fact that it is about 4-6 inches deep in the brown stuff. What I was trying to say in my comparison between chemical fuels and electrically stored energy systems is that there is a very big intrinsic gulf which may be unbridgeable. For most uses, an electric vehicle with the one essential mod of being able to recharge in say 15 minutes would work just fine. The solution the rest of the time may or may not be something quite similar to the current car technology, though from a European perspective almost certainly a diesel. There are diesel cars now that make a Prius look very poor in terms of CO2 emissions and with catalysts their NOx emissions are also able to meet the strictest US rules. There is even a proposed design that has no engine cooling system but uses the waste heat from the engine to drive a sterling engine to run all the electrical ancillaries. Of course you still have to have/ make a source of chemical fuel. The vehicle market is changing and will return to a technological battle rather than one about styling and features we didn't know we needed and which are ultimately irrelevant. Depending on your viewpoint this is either very exciting or very scarey! Although I've always been a petrolhead, I think the days of huge numbers of chemical fuel driven vehicles in commuting traffic jams are drawing to a close just like the 6 inch deep horse manure in Hornton Street is now gone.

[gbrandwood]

Originally Posted by Isidore

The vehicle market is changing and will return to a technological battle rather than one about styling and features we didn't know we needed and which are ultimately irrelevant.

Hey - I didn't even know I needed a flip out unfolding expandable drinks holder. But now I have one, I couldn't go without!

I like your reference to the 6ft of manure. Might be able to use that (the reference, not the manure, although it is good for the garden...). It's a bit like the argument I occasionally hear about the Segway, saying that the last thing we want is everyone using a Segway on narrow pavements. They don't get the fact that in order to achieve a point where everyone uses Segways, it would take a lot of time, and through the process of adoption, cause changes in the design of pavements, cycles lanes and road priorities etc. If car use declines in city centres, pedestrianised areas (or cycles lanes)/public transport can increase.

As to the whole "cars aren't selling..." debate, I think we all agree they ARE selling and in quantities far greater than Segways. But if sales do slow and continue to drop, are people really willing to substitute a car purchase with a Segway? Basic economics should see if sales slow, prices will come down to encourage demand. If cars become cheaper, highly price sensitive individuals may find it hard to choose a Segway. Cheaper cars = relatively more expensive Segway (especially as a Segway will cost the best part of £5k in the UK - heck my car isn't worth that - hmm a thread needed for this).

Remember this last year? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7180396.stm

[Civicsman]

Well, it was clear from the start that this forum isn't the place to try to argue politics and personal beliefs on global warming, and science in general.

The current economic mess is a classic example of an uncontrolled system, defined in this case as "free market capitalism". People (LOTS of people worldwide) saw a way to make lots of money and they jumped on it. It was kind of like a ponzi scheme, except without regulation, it was completely legal. Now it has crashed. This is referred to as a "free market correction". This innocuous-sounding event has cost millions of jobs and destroyed lifetime savings worldwide....so far. But, this is exactly what one expects from an uncontrolled system.

I once worked for a Forbes 100 company. I was lucky enough to be invited to a presentation by one of the men who had taken the company from humble beginnings to the top of the heap; a capitalist if there ever was one. He drew a sine wave (hills and valleys), and described the job of the top managers in the company as simply, "Make both the hills and valleys smaller". He understood that uncontrolled growth also fosters uncontrolled losses. Both sides must be managed.

I think that's a good analogy for what government should strive to do (as no other entity is capable of it), and I think that's exactly what they are trying to do right now with the stimulus programs.

For those not familiar with history, read up on the Great Depression. After the stock market crash, the US government adopted a free-market, do-nothing strategy, just as some here are proposing. Without management, the system collapsed. Unemployment went to 25-30%. This failure lasted almost 10 years, before a massive government spending stimulus program (World War II), put an end to it.

That's a pretty good example, I think, of what CAN happen when regulation and control of those hills and valleys is inadequate, and also a good example of a governmental economic jump start that worked.

In conclusion....... cars aren't selling. If that doesn't change soon, you ain't seen nuthin' yet.

[Bob.Kerns]

Originally Posted by KSagal

Artificially raising the cost of something thru punitive taxes does not work. If it did, no one would smoke cigarettes. Often what it does is hurt the lower economic ranks more than the rest, that is all.

Actually, the evidence is, I believe, pretty strong (though I haven't personally reviewed it), that higher cigarette taxes are more behind the decline in smoking than all the anti-smoking education efforts.

Economic incentives DO work. But they have to be on a scale commensurate with the opposing incentives.

If using gasoline confers major convenience advantages in obtaining employment, food, medical care, and transporting kids to playdates -- guess what. People will not curtail their gasoline use until gasoline prices are quite high. But there comes a point (varying by individual), when they will, in fact, do so.

The problem is that it affects people very differently.

Still, I believe Civicsman's comment is about something much more specific. Right now, as things stand, every time you fire up your beat up old gas guzzler, you are paying for the gasoline, but you are imposing a number of costs on everyone else:

• Air pollution
• CO2 injection into the atmosphere
• Traffic congestion
• Petroleum depletion
• Risk of injury and death
• Environmental costs associated with production and final disposition of the car and all of its parts (including tires over its lifetime).

Now, that sort of thing is true of most anything we do, and it's hard to quantify. Lots of problems with monetizing it. But it's hardly communism to want people to pay their full share of the costs they impose on others, nor is it communism to try to remove artificial economic incentives to make anti-social decisions.

[GlennO]

I was trying to imply sort of what has been mentioned since - a change can/will come along to get at least some of us to switch to a local-use electric vehicle.

I know that it won't work for everybody, but the "Big 3" isn't every auto maker in the USA - there are others down South, as they say.

No, cars aren't selling because between the low mortgage rates going up after their first year and the price of gas last summer left quite a few people broke, and we don't even need to get into any Ponzi schemes too.

If you did have an electric car that used a battery that went about a hundred miles on one charge you could live with it for most uses, and leave it plugged in at a (gas-powered) rental place while you did those bigger jobs. Gas stations should be able to swap out your batteries too - for a fee of course.

The urban/suburban factor is important too. If you have a fifty mile a day/each way/ commute electric might not work for you. There are millions of Americans that do drive a short distance to get to work, though. I was just hoping to give it a little kick to get it going.

However, I do agree that using zero-point-modules would be the best way (that I can think of) to go.

Glenn

[Bob.Kerns]

Originally Posted by Bob.Kerns

Actually, the evidence is, I believe, pretty strong (though I haven't personally reviewed it), that higher cigarette taxes are more behind the decline in smoking than all the anti-smoking education efforts.

Economic incentives DO work. But they have to be on a scale commensurate with the opposing incentives.

If using gasoline confers major convenience advantages in obtaining employment, food, medical care, and transporting kids to playdates -- guess what. People will not curtail their gasoline use until gasoline prices are quite high. But there comes a point (varying by individual), when they will, in fact, do so.

The problem is that it affects people very differently.

Still, I believe Civicsman's comment is about something much more specific. Right now, as things stand, every time you fire up your beat up old gas guzzler, you are paying for the gasoline, but you are imposing a number of costs on everyone else:

• Air pollution
• CO2 injection into the atmosphere
• Traffic congestion
• Petroleum depletion
• Risk of injury and death
• Environmental costs associated with production and final disposition of the car and all of its parts (including tires over its lifetime).

Now, that sort of thing is true of most anything we do, and it's hard to quantify. Lots of problems with monetizing it. But it's hardly communism to want people to pay their full share of the costs they impose on others, nor is it communism to try to remove artificial economic incentives to make anti-social decisions.

I should also mention that currently we do a similar thing with gasoline taxes, which are supposed to be used to pay the costs of building and maintaining the roads. It doesn't always work out that way -- they sometimes go elsewhere, and many calculations suggest they don't come close to covering the costs. I don't think they come anywhere near coming the costs if you include law enforcement, etc.

So the proposal is to extend this to other costs.

It would be a bad idea, IMO, to take any such $$$ and spend them in any direction other than ameliorating the same negative effects.

[KSagal]

There was large scale government spending that was tried during the Great Depression, and many economists feel it worsened the depression... Some have said that this large spending (the new deal?) would have ended the great depression, had WW2 not done it for us...

I would consider that 1929 was the crash (and the economy was not good before that, but stocks were...) and we got attacked by Japan in 1941. That is 12 years, on my calendar. That means we will still be in a depression in 2020 at least, unless we go to war first. And there was lots of spending by the government at that time.

History is full of many different views of this and that, so if you do the research, you can find some expert to justify just about any position...

I like the fact that we are supposed to buy into this who giant spending program as a way out of this recession yet it was done in September or October, (It had to be done right away!?!) and it did not change anything except finance some nice retreats)

Now, the current administration wants to do it again. I guess they like George Bush's policies after all.

Since the New Deal spent a great deal of money, but did not end the Great Depression, we may want to consider that spending a $trillion on today's deal might not be such a good idea....

[Civicsman]

Glenn,

All of the car makers are driven by the same economics, not only the "Big Three" (meaning Toyota, GM, and Ford,
right?). A car that won't sell with a GM label won't sell with a Hyundai label either (although I'm surprised sometimes about what will sell with a Toyota label...)

I agree that an all electric car with 100 mile range (while running the of A/C or heater), that didn't cost a mint, that didn't require you to to purchase a new set of batteries in 10 years, would be have interest in the automotive marketplace. Unfortunately, it doesn't exist today. The limiting issue is power density of the batteries, coupled with the excessive vehicular mass so many people (uniquely in the US), believe they must have.

Lithium Ions, as expensive and as green-unfriendly as they are, are the best technology we have ...and aren't nearly good enough. (not to mention that the lithium-producing countries will have more power than OPEC and will have us by the base of the snarglies.)

Nevertheless, we agree that things must change, and I believe they are finally moving in that direction, although with some knuckle-dragging from those with the "Whut globel worming crisis?" or the "You'll take my Escalade from me when you unwrap my cold, dead hands from the wheel" mindset.

You get extra points in my book for acknowledging the superiority of ZPM technology. Maybe we can make some money on this....

[KSagal]

The Zero Point Modules that I am aware of are from a science fiction television show... I recall that although basicly cylindrical, they are actually about the size of a current segway battery...

Is there a real technology behind this concept? The ones in the television show may be a bit over the top for the amount of power needed for a car... Since they seem to be able to run cities for 10000 years or so...

Since we are here, what powers the puddle jumpers?

[Civicsman]

There was large scale government spending that was tried during the Great Depression, and many economists feel it worsened the depression... Some have said that this large spending (the new deal?) would have ended the great depression, had WW2 not done it for us...

Speculation. Are you arguing that what is needed to recover from a systemic collapse of confidence is the same as what is needed to prevent a systemic collapse of confidence? You're an engineer, Karl, so you know the energy expended to make control corrections is small, if done early enough. Once things get moving in the wrong direction, it takes much more energy to set it right.

What we know for certain is that there was a huge economic collapse starting around 1930. The US Government official took a "let the chips fall where they may" policy for several years, along with enacting protectionist tariffs. During this time, the situation got MUCH worse, bottoming out in around 1933. It dragged on for more years, and it didn't end until the war economy of WWII kicked in. These are facts.

The $700 billion TARP spending of October kept us from the falling into the chasm of banking system collapse. Nothing more.

I'm not happy with where some of that money went, and I hope we get most of it back. Nevertheless, I am convinced that we would all be much worse off if it hadn't been done. We've wasted that kind of money in Iraq without even a kick from the public. Why not spend it on saving our own butts?

We're all still on the edge of that chasm, and we can still go either way. The government is now trying to create a stimulus plan that will give borrowers and spenders enough confidence to take a step back from the brink.