Auto sales up for 2010
- Thread starter aquaknight
- Start date
deejeff442
Active Member
it sure dont.why would someone pay an extra $10,000-$15000 for a car that saves gas but costs electric?those are 220 volt batteries and take alot of juice to charge.
J
jstdv8
Guest
Reef,
I'm pretty sure that is a leading question....
I'm sure you are aware that the electricity used by these cars takes no where near the same resources as the gas that our cars currently burn no matter how you slice it.
In addition there is far more natural gas to be had than oil. It is able to be used more efficiently with less refining and lower emmisions to the atmosphere.
The real downside at this point is the batteries and the lack of recharging stations and the miles before it needs charged.
Someday the batteries will be able to hold a longer charge making these cars more effective.
Right n ow they are just fine for most city driving but for those of us that commute say 50 miles one way they aren't getting thier full moneys worth.
I'm pretty sure that is a leading question....
I'm sure you are aware that the electricity used by these cars takes no where near the same resources as the gas that our cars currently burn no matter how you slice it.
In addition there is far more natural gas to be had than oil. It is able to be used more efficiently with less refining and lower emmisions to the atmosphere.
The real downside at this point is the batteries and the lack of recharging stations and the miles before it needs charged.
Someday the batteries will be able to hold a longer charge making these cars more effective.
Right n ow they are just fine for most city driving but for those of us that commute say 50 miles one way they aren't getting thier full moneys worth.
J
jstdv8
Guest
the other thing to be considered is that some electricity can be made by the use of infinite resources like hydro, solar and wind driven electrictity that doesnt take any non renewable resources at all. Right now our cars have none of those options.
deejeff442
Active Member
they might not cost as much to drive but .how long does it take to recoup the extra cash that is spent up front.plus the batteries dont last forever .from what i have heard it costs $1200-$1500 to replace them every 5 years or so.
reefraff
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jstdv8 http:///forum/thread/383172/auto-sales-up-for-2010/20#post_3349576
Reef,
I'm pretty sure that is a leading question....
I'm sure you are aware that the electricity used by these cars takes no where near the same resources as the gas that our cars currently burn no matter how you slice it.
In addition there is far more natural gas to be had than oil. It is able to be used more efficiently with less refining and lower emmisions to the atmosphere.
The real downside at this point is the batteries and the lack of recharging stations and the miles before it needs charged.
Someday the batteries will be able to hold a longer charge making these cars more effective.
Right n ow they are just fine for most city driving but for those of us that commute say 50 miles one way they aren't getting thier full moneys worth.
And 10 years ago everyone just knew Hydrogen was going to be the solution. How many companies are even working on that now?
While it is easier to process natural gas doesn't produce the many byproducts oil does that we use in our daily lives. I forget the exact number but oil provides numerous chemicals as a by product of refining gasoline. It is possible to make a nice Diesel/Jet fuel from natural gas as well. There is also a well known manufacturer that is developing a NG engine for heavy equipment and trucks that could take the place of diesels. NG has it's place in the solution but generating electricity is a very small part of it.
Battery cars are going to find a home in big cities with mild winters but it's a waste to try to force them on people in other areas, at least until they move light years ahead in battery technology. For distance commuter cars and cold weather I think combustion engines or hybrids are the only way to go for the foreseeable future.
We know we need the oil. It makes no sense for the government to keep known or promising reserves locked up. Heck they could dedicate the royalty money generated from new production on federal land towards battery research and perhaps some low cost financing for cities that wish to install charging stations.
Originally Posted by Jstdv8 http:///forum/thread/383172/auto-sales-up-for-2010/20#post_3349576
Reef,
I'm pretty sure that is a leading question....
I'm sure you are aware that the electricity used by these cars takes no where near the same resources as the gas that our cars currently burn no matter how you slice it.
In addition there is far more natural gas to be had than oil. It is able to be used more efficiently with less refining and lower emmisions to the atmosphere.
The real downside at this point is the batteries and the lack of recharging stations and the miles before it needs charged.
Someday the batteries will be able to hold a longer charge making these cars more effective.
Right n ow they are just fine for most city driving but for those of us that commute say 50 miles one way they aren't getting thier full moneys worth.
And 10 years ago everyone just knew Hydrogen was going to be the solution. How many companies are even working on that now?
While it is easier to process natural gas doesn't produce the many byproducts oil does that we use in our daily lives. I forget the exact number but oil provides numerous chemicals as a by product of refining gasoline. It is possible to make a nice Diesel/Jet fuel from natural gas as well. There is also a well known manufacturer that is developing a NG engine for heavy equipment and trucks that could take the place of diesels. NG has it's place in the solution but generating electricity is a very small part of it.
Battery cars are going to find a home in big cities with mild winters but it's a waste to try to force them on people in other areas, at least until they move light years ahead in battery technology. For distance commuter cars and cold weather I think combustion engines or hybrids are the only way to go for the foreseeable future.
We know we need the oil. It makes no sense for the government to keep known or promising reserves locked up. Heck they could dedicate the royalty money generated from new production on federal land towards battery research and perhaps some low cost financing for cities that wish to install charging stations.
reefraff
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jstdv8 http:///forum/thread/383172/auto-sales-up-for-2010/20#post_3349579
the other thing to be considered is that some electricity can be made by the use of infinite resources like hydro, solar and wind driven electrictity that doesnt take any non renewable resources at all. Right now our cars have none of those options.
Treehuggers don't want hydro or Nuclear. Wind is iffy unless people living along the coast, like the Kennedy clan, will pull the stick out their NIMBY butts and allow windmills on the coasts. Solar still has a long ways to go before it can make a real difference. Thermal solar seems promising but still only really effective in certain areas.
There is a big push in Colorado to get rid of the coal plants rather than updating them and the power company is mandated to produce a percentage of the electricity from renewable resources, and our power bills are starting to show it. All this fun new technology is expensive and for the difference it makes not worth it in many cases.
Originally Posted by Jstdv8 http:///forum/thread/383172/auto-sales-up-for-2010/20#post_3349579
the other thing to be considered is that some electricity can be made by the use of infinite resources like hydro, solar and wind driven electrictity that doesnt take any non renewable resources at all. Right now our cars have none of those options.
Treehuggers don't want hydro or Nuclear. Wind is iffy unless people living along the coast, like the Kennedy clan, will pull the stick out their NIMBY butts and allow windmills on the coasts. Solar still has a long ways to go before it can make a real difference. Thermal solar seems promising but still only really effective in certain areas.
There is a big push in Colorado to get rid of the coal plants rather than updating them and the power company is mandated to produce a percentage of the electricity from renewable resources, and our power bills are starting to show it. All this fun new technology is expensive and for the difference it makes not worth it in many cases.
J
jstdv8
Guest
agreed, but we are just on the cusp of this technology, all of it will get better and cheaper the more we use it and the more people becoem familiar with it.
reefraff
Active Member
Power generation is a pretty long way off because of the transmission lines, there aren't many in the areas suitable for windfarms or huge solar arrays. There are a few big wind projects that have been built where the wind and lines are. Also getting to the point the treehuggers are complaining about windmills too HEADSLAP!!!
There is a fairly new technology call thermal solar that might be the most promising, at least in certain parts of the country.
There is a fairly new technology call thermal solar that might be the most promising, at least in certain parts of the country.
aquaknight
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/383172/auto-sales-up-for-2010/20#post_3349557
so I guess all the electricity to charge these plug in cars will magically appear with no help from say, natural gas fired power plants? That and the resources that go into manufacturing the batteries doesn't make electric cars all that green anyway.
Actually the EPA figured that into the MPG ratings for the Leaf and the Volt. Since the Leaf is solely battery powered, they roughly calculated the kW energy-equivalent of a gallon of gasoline.
As for power generation, we should have been mostly Nuclear years ago.
For this almost illogical push for electric/hybrid cars, just so we can drive up gas prices, I clearly do not understand. If most people would bother to do research, they would find where the bulk of 'our' oil comes from. They are 3 countries, Canada, Saudi Arabia, and Mexico. I have virtually no problems with getting our oil from these countries. The Saudi's have always been a strong adversary with the US. Shouldn't have to explain Mexico or Canada. We have a dependency on a lot of things. To be 100% honest, our dependency on goods from China, far outweighs any so called dependency on oil.
Necessity is the mother of invention. Because we don't have a strong enough reason to change our habits, we likely won't. While our oil supplies are limited, they all will not run on the same day. If retarded political reasons don't inflate the price of gas first, as gasoline slowly becomes more scarce, we will change our habits then, free of our own doing. Not being forced into irrational decisions by our government. If people what their lives dictated by the government, go move to Europe where they'll use heat-imaging cameras mounted on helicopters to detect if your house is "too warm" during winter, and fee you accordingly. When we want to change, we will. However for the moment, go back and look at the top-10, specifically spots #1 & #2, and see how much we want to reduce oil consumption.
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/383172/auto-sales-up-for-2010/20#post_3349557
so I guess all the electricity to charge these plug in cars will magically appear with no help from say, natural gas fired power plants? That and the resources that go into manufacturing the batteries doesn't make electric cars all that green anyway.
Actually the EPA figured that into the MPG ratings for the Leaf and the Volt. Since the Leaf is solely battery powered, they roughly calculated the kW energy-equivalent of a gallon of gasoline.
As for power generation, we should have been mostly Nuclear years ago.
For this almost illogical push for electric/hybrid cars, just so we can drive up gas prices, I clearly do not understand. If most people would bother to do research, they would find where the bulk of 'our' oil comes from. They are 3 countries, Canada, Saudi Arabia, and Mexico. I have virtually no problems with getting our oil from these countries. The Saudi's have always been a strong adversary with the US. Shouldn't have to explain Mexico or Canada. We have a dependency on a lot of things. To be 100% honest, our dependency on goods from China, far outweighs any so called dependency on oil.
Necessity is the mother of invention. Because we don't have a strong enough reason to change our habits, we likely won't. While our oil supplies are limited, they all will not run on the same day. If retarded political reasons don't inflate the price of gas first, as gasoline slowly becomes more scarce, we will change our habits then, free of our own doing. Not being forced into irrational decisions by our government. If people what their lives dictated by the government, go move to Europe where they'll use heat-imaging cameras mounted on helicopters to detect if your house is "too warm" during winter, and fee you accordingly. When we want to change, we will. However for the moment, go back and look at the top-10, specifically spots #1 & #2, and see how much we want to reduce oil consumption.
cranberry
Active Member
I'm glad I was born in these times.... the future is pretty scary. Eventually our numbers will flood every piece of liveable space. That's if these stupid little countries don't stop fiddling with nuclear stuff.
I have an electric car plugs in my garage. How can I convert it to something usable? Do I need an electrician to do that? Sorry... off topic.
I have an electric car plugs in my garage. How can I convert it to something usable? Do I need an electrician to do that? Sorry... off topic.
reefraff
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cranberry http:///forum/thread/383172/auto-sales-up-for-2010/20#post_3349817
I'm glad I was born in these times.... the future is pretty scary. Eventually our numbers will flood every piece of liveable space. That's if these stupid little countries don't stop fiddling with nuclear stuff.
I have an electric car plugs in my garage. How can I convert it to something usable? Do I need an electrician to do that? Sorry... off topic.
Special plugs in the garage? Is that some lame law they passed out there or did the previous owner have a electric car. If you know someone who can change the outlets it isn't rocket science. Main thing is to know whether it's 110 or 220v and even if it's 220 it isn't a big deal.
Originally Posted by Cranberry http:///forum/thread/383172/auto-sales-up-for-2010/20#post_3349817
I'm glad I was born in these times.... the future is pretty scary. Eventually our numbers will flood every piece of liveable space. That's if these stupid little countries don't stop fiddling with nuclear stuff.
I have an electric car plugs in my garage. How can I convert it to something usable? Do I need an electrician to do that? Sorry... off topic.
Special plugs in the garage? Is that some lame law they passed out there or did the previous owner have a electric car. If you know someone who can change the outlets it isn't rocket science. Main thing is to know whether it's 110 or 220v and even if it's 220 it isn't a big deal.
J
jstdv8
Guest
Consideringt he wind energy that is produced in the upper canyon of the columbia river is being sent right past all the residents of OR and WA (Where the columbia is) and all the way down to LA. I'd say they aren't very far off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/383172/auto-sales-up-for-2010/20#post_3349649
Power generation is a pretty long way off because of the transmission lines, there aren't many in the areas suitable for windfarms or huge solar arrays. There are a few big wind projects that have been built where the wind and lines are. Also getting to the point the treehuggers are complaining about windmills too HEADSLAP!!!
There is a fairly new technology call thermal solar that might be the most promising, at least in certain parts of the country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/383172/auto-sales-up-for-2010/20#post_3349649
Power generation is a pretty long way off because of the transmission lines, there aren't many in the areas suitable for windfarms or huge solar arrays. There are a few big wind projects that have been built where the wind and lines are. Also getting to the point the treehuggers are complaining about windmills too HEADSLAP!!!
There is a fairly new technology call thermal solar that might be the most promising, at least in certain parts of the country.
reefraff
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jstdv8 http:///forum/thread/383172/auto-sales-up-for-2010/20#post_3350054
Consideringt he wind energy that is produced in the upper canyon of the columbia river is being sent right past all the residents of OR and WA (Where the columbia is) and all the way down to LA. I'd say they aren't very far off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/383172/auto-sales-up-for-2010/20#post_3349649
Power generation is a pretty long way off because of the transmission lines, there aren't many in the areas suitable for windfarms or huge solar arrays. There are a few big wind projects that have been built where the wind and lines are. Also getting to the point the treehuggers are complaining about windmills too HEADSLAP!!!
There is a fairly new technology call thermal solar that might be the most promising, at least in certain parts of the country.
Problem is most of the areas with consistent wind that is near existing power lines have already been used. Oregon and Washington made a great move sending the expensive wind power to LA. Most of their power is hydro and nuclear which is a lot cheaper. Unfortunately there is pressure to dismantle existing hydro rather than build more.
This map shows the problem with wind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Wind_Resources_and_Transmission_Lines_map.jpg
Texas has one they want to do that will require over 200 miles of new lines. Boone Pickens plan that he claims could produce 20 percent of our power will need billions in new power lines in addition to the money to build the wind farms.
One of the stocks I trade is a company that builds and services the wind farms, I study this stuff
Originally Posted by Jstdv8 http:///forum/thread/383172/auto-sales-up-for-2010/20#post_3350054
Consideringt he wind energy that is produced in the upper canyon of the columbia river is being sent right past all the residents of OR and WA (Where the columbia is) and all the way down to LA. I'd say they aren't very far off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/383172/auto-sales-up-for-2010/20#post_3349649
Power generation is a pretty long way off because of the transmission lines, there aren't many in the areas suitable for windfarms or huge solar arrays. There are a few big wind projects that have been built where the wind and lines are. Also getting to the point the treehuggers are complaining about windmills too HEADSLAP!!!
There is a fairly new technology call thermal solar that might be the most promising, at least in certain parts of the country.
Problem is most of the areas with consistent wind that is near existing power lines have already been used. Oregon and Washington made a great move sending the expensive wind power to LA. Most of their power is hydro and nuclear which is a lot cheaper. Unfortunately there is pressure to dismantle existing hydro rather than build more.
This map shows the problem with wind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Wind_Resources_and_Transmission_Lines_map.jpg
Texas has one they want to do that will require over 200 miles of new lines. Boone Pickens plan that he claims could produce 20 percent of our power will need billions in new power lines in addition to the money to build the wind farms.
One of the stocks I trade is a company that builds and services the wind farms, I study this stuff