Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    3:14 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Should the government be encouraging cars that never need gas? Back to Topics
101Speedster

Champion Author
Ventura

Posts:31,478
Points:2,825,055
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2010 11:08:05 AM

Cars that never need gas. Maybe our tax dollars should be going to solar, wind, and other alternative energy companies than to the major oil companies

>>There are hybrids. There are electric cars that plug into a wall and get their juice from whatever mix the electric company is offering. And then there are electic cars that are charged by solar panels on the roof of one's house. They never need gas, and the power is free after the set-up cost . . .

. . . Asked how long it will take for the PV system to pay for itself, Dickey replies: ". . . the instant I turned my system on." Dickey had been paying $75 a month for electricity. He took a loan out to buy the PV system, and pays $70 a month toward that loan. "My electricity and gasoline bills are now zero, and next year when my loan is paid off, this investment will be paying me probably for the rest of my life. My PV system covers the power for my home and my car. It displaces $90 worth of electricity and over $100 worth of gasoline every month. So my estimate of how long until the system pays for itself is no time at all!"<<

Other links mentioned in the article above:

evnut.com
eaaev.org
pluginamerica.org

[Edited by: 101Speedster at 12/5/2010 11:10:17 AM EST]
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
TimEum
Champion Author Huntsville

Posts:14,390
Points:2,664,140
Joined:Dec 2005
Message Posted: Mar 22, 2014 2:22:34 AM

I think that the more we can do to become energy independent and not reliant on foreign oil is not only good economically but good for national security.

My next car will probably be a Toyota Prius, Ford C-Max, or other hybrid.

However, I do not believe the government should provide tax breaks, subsidies, or spend any money to promote or hinder the industry.

Simply allow market forces to work.

If hybrids and/or all electrics make sense they will prosper without government intervention. If they really do make sense, then the government should consider buying some for government transportation use, perhaps even military use.
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:22,452
Points:2,515,355
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Mar 12, 2014 5:57:45 PM

"You need to get out of your liberal academia world, Shock, and come join the real world."

The only one living in a fantasy world seems to be you speedy...
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:22,452
Points:2,515,355
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Mar 12, 2014 5:56:32 PM

"How exactly does Shock driving a Prius make him a hypocrite?"

I too would like an answer to that...
Profile Pic
HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,168
Points:53,830
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Mar 10, 2014 11:32:57 AM

"You are a typical hypocrite driving your little Prius."

How exactly does Shock driving a Prius make him a hypocrite? It would seem just the opposite.
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,006
Points:322,590
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Mar 10, 2014 10:57:09 AM

The big difference between the prius and any tesla product is the prius is actually affordable and usually doenst come with a huge tax payer hand out.
Where the tesla has the huge tax payer hand out and still isnt affordable.
Any one that buys there stock above $240/share will learn a fool and money are soon parted.
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,478
Points:2,825,055
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Mar 10, 2014 10:34:26 AM

You need to get out of your liberal academia world, Shock, and come join the real world. You are a typical hypocrite driving your little Prius.

[Edited by: 101Speedster at 3/10/2014 10:35:11 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:22,452
Points:2,515,355
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2014 1:18:56 PM

BTW speedy, I see your buddy Obama wants to increase the taxpayer handout from $7500/auto to $10,000/auto.

Your liberal wet dream continues...



Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:22,452
Points:2,515,355
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2014 1:16:00 PM

How many Tesla (or EV's) do you own Speedy? On that's right, you don't own any, in fact you own a gas guzzler. Why is that?

Don't you believe in putting you money where your mouth is?

For all your praise speedy, Tesla has yet to make a substantial profit of any sort.

Of course you and your Liberal friends think handying over taxpayer funds to keep them in business is a good idea...
Profile Pic
AnotherOne
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:21,651
Points:546,695
Joined:Aug 2010
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2014 11:23:42 AM



Motley Fool was VERY high on Tesla.

Now they have changed their minds and recommend AGAINST buying Tesla stock.

They call the cars 'toys for billionaires'.

;-)

Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,478
Points:2,825,055
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2014 11:15:34 AM

Please tell me, Shock, that you shorted Tesla Motors (TSLA) stock. :)
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,478
Points:2,825,055
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Feb 28, 2014 4:58:38 PM

>>Didnt GM buy up part of tesla?<<

Never heard that one before.

Tesla's stock had a bad day today. Tesla's stock is down to $244.81 per share today. ;)
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,478
Points:2,825,055
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Feb 28, 2014 4:56:52 PM

That's good to know, Shock.
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:22,452
Points:2,515,355
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Feb 10, 2014 3:25:53 PM

"I guess this topic is now a dead issue since it is my understanding all of the government tax credits for electric vehicles expired on December 31, 2013."

As usual speedy, you are wrong.

"The qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicle credit phases out for a manufacturer’s vehicles over the one-year period beginning with the second calendar quarter after the calendar quarter in which at least 200,000 qualifying vehicles manufactured by that manufacturer have been sold for use in the United States (determined on a cumulative basis for sales after December 31, 2009)"

The handout will continue for some time in order to reach the 200,000 sold mile marker...
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,006
Points:322,590
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Feb 10, 2014 3:00:55 PM

Didnt GM buy up part of tesla?
Of course their stock will do well now that they are part of good ole "too big to fail" GM.

A companies stock price is not the loan indicator of a companies health.
Proof? The dot com stock market bubble bursting in the late 90s.
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,478
Points:2,825,055
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Feb 10, 2014 2:52:23 PM

I guess this topic is now a dead issue since it is my understanding all of the government tax credits for electric vehicles expired on December 31, 2013.

Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,478
Points:2,825,055
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Feb 10, 2014 2:37:50 PM

Just saw on CNBC that used Tesla Model S's are worth more than new ones.

Also, take note that Tesla Motors stock is at new record highs.
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,006
Points:322,590
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Jan 15, 2014 12:10:05 PM

Batteries will always remain too expensive so long as fossil fuels don't become insanely expensive.
Profile Pic
PopcornPirate
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:4,856
Points:1,354,480
Joined:Nov 2006
Message Posted: Jan 15, 2014 10:45:01 AM

Battery technology is not there yet.Still too expensive.
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:22,452
Points:2,515,355
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jan 15, 2014 10:35:59 AM

The "affordable" EV that Tesla promised as being "just around the corner" is still at least three years away...

$35,000 EV 3 years away
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:22,452
Points:2,515,355
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jan 11, 2014 10:30:50 AM

No problem. They should develop a standard icon to denote sarcasm...
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:21,781
Points:2,687,800
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Jan 10, 2014 1:04:42 PM

Sorry. It's hard to see sarcasm with just text.
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:22,452
Points:2,515,355
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jan 10, 2014 12:20:22 PM

I was being sarcastic...

AOL is not much of a player today, so I don't see how their opinion has much significance..
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:21,781
Points:2,687,800
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Jan 10, 2014 11:46:54 AM

America Online. Used to be significant during the dial-up internet era.
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:22,452
Points:2,515,355
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jan 10, 2014 11:36:14 AM

Who or what is AOL???
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,478
Points:2,825,055
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Jan 10, 2014 10:38:54 AM

AOL Bestows Tesla’s Supercharger With Its Top Tech Honor

>>So what makes the Supercharger such an engineering feat, deserving of such an intense name? For one, it charges a ModelS 20 times faster than most public charging stations: 80 percent of the car’s charge can be had in 40 minutes.<<
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,006
Points:322,590
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Dec 31, 2013 10:30:50 AM

Oh great now tesla will be too big to fail...

But which is the lesser of 2 evils:
Tesla+GM
or
China buys tesla.
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:22,452
Points:2,515,355
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Dec 30, 2013 9:17:15 PM

"Heard something the other day on CNBC about GM possibly buying Tesla Motors. I don't think Elon Musk would go for that"

Whats that got to do with the topic: Should the government be encouraging cars that never need gas?
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,478
Points:2,825,055
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Dec 30, 2013 1:51:56 PM

Heard something the other day on CNBC about GM possibly buying Tesla Motors. I don't think Elon Musk would go for that.
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,006
Points:322,590
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Dec 10, 2013 1:16:06 PM

"Our grid system is badly in need of maintenance and is near capacity. Pointless to waste money encouraging people to further strain it. "

Unless that was the plan all along....
Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:17,966
Points:782,965
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Dec 10, 2013 12:29:15 PM

No, I don't want the government spending one penny of my tax dollars encouraging coal-powered [electric] cars. Our grid system is badly in need of maintenance and is near capacity. Pointless to waste money encouraging people to further strain it.
Profile Pic
HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,168
Points:53,830
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Dec 9, 2013 2:19:04 PM

"What appears impossibly to many is simple to some. It's just a matter of having the skill and desire to develop those ideas."

No, accomplishing some things IS impossible. What seems simple to some, others are smart enough to know cannot be done; if it seems simple to you, but nobody else thinks so, you're probably missing something important. Other ideas are technologically feasible, but are not economically feasible, and have no chance of becoming economically feasible in the near future. Spending time and effort attempting things that violate the laws of physics is a wasting that time and money. Developing technologies that are not economically feasible is also a waste.
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,006
Points:322,590
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Dec 9, 2013 11:25:26 AM

"Sure, but do you know how big and how many more generators you would need in a base camp to be able to provide enough power to recharge a motor pool of vehicles?"

The bases I have been to that generate their own power could handle some electric vehciles being plugged in.
The generator system I set up at my tent city were utlized at between 10% and no more than 60% capacity.
All that power was generated with diesel. So what would be the point of going electric? Its cheaper just to bring a diesel gator from home or go into town and buy a diesel toyota pickup.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
All-Star Author Illinois

Posts:931
Points:16,760
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Dec 9, 2013 10:09:23 AM

"That has to be the dumbest thing you've said, SoylentGrain."

I never said morons were going to pave the way to the future. What appears impossibly to many is simple to some. It's just a matter of having the skill and desire to develop those ideas.
Profile Pic
HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,168
Points:53,830
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Dec 9, 2013 9:41:04 AM

"What can be accomplished is limitless."

That has to be the dumbest thing you've said, SoylentGrain. Of course there are limits to what can be accomplished; the laws of physics apply, whether you want them to or not, and they place limitations on everything we build. Energy density for batteries, in particular, has limits, which is the one that EVs are running up against.

"Batteries have become more powerful, lighter and cheaper."

...and yet, still cannot compete with petroleum fuels for energy density, nor ICE-powered vehicles for cost.
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:22,452
Points:2,515,355
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Dec 9, 2013 9:28:50 AM

"every unit in the U.S. Army carries generators and tents for their base camps"

Sure, but do you know how big and how many more generators you would need in a base camp to be able to provide enough power to recharge a motor pool of vehicles?

Plus these EV's would not be staying just at base camp, then you have the issue of having to pull these generators to wherever your short ranged EV's need to go away from the camp...

So when you consider there is no fuel savings and you make things much more complicated, what's the point?



[Edited by: Shockjock1961 at 12/9/2013 9:30:08 AM EST]
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
All-Star Author Illinois

Posts:931
Points:16,760
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Dec 9, 2013 8:56:14 AM

Good point Tim. What can be accomplished is limitless. In most cases,, the resources and answers are right in front of you. just, no one has put the pieces together, yet.
Profile Pic
TimEum
Champion Author Huntsville

Posts:14,390
Points:2,664,140
Joined:Dec 2005
Message Posted: Dec 9, 2013 3:43:09 AM

I am surprised by the skepticism over the future of electric vehicles given the progress we have seen over the last ten years. Batteries have become more powerful, lighter and cheaper. Performance has improved greatly. We are seeing more and more manufacturers produce electric/hybrid vehicles. Some even have racing car performance. And this is just the first ten years. We can expect even better in the next generation. Past failures with old technology does not necessarily predict outcomes for newer technology. If that were the case all the failures in attempting to build flying machines would have always failed -- but today it is commonplace to fly. I believe that this is one technology that has actually reached a mature enough level to make a good business case where investments will yield success in the near future. By the way, I was a logistics officer in the U.S. Army and later a civilian in the Defense Energy Suppy Center (the part of the Defense Logistics Agency that supplies fuel to the DoD military services) and every unit in the U.S. Army carries generators and tents for their base camps.
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,006
Points:322,590
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Dec 8, 2013 11:06:58 PM

"adding electric motors and batteries big enough to effectively drive these vehicles would take up valuable space, space that could be used to haul munitions or food."

I think that is why the army lost interest in the hybrid hummer.
All the extra electric stuff took up room, reduced carry capacity and reduced reliability.
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:22,452
Points:2,515,355
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Dec 8, 2013 5:59:08 PM

"By the way hybrid vehicles don't need to rely on generators"

Most vehicles used during an assault are massive, and adding electric motors and batteries big enough to effectively drive these vehicles would take up valuable space, space that could be used to haul munitions or food. Sounds impractical to me...
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:22,452
Points:2,515,355
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Dec 8, 2013 5:55:47 PM

"It would take a lot less fuel to power generators than would go into all the trucks, tanks, and other things requiring fuel"

It would probably take MORE fuel to run the generators then all trucks, tanks, and other things. After all you will have losses as the mechanical action of the generator is turned into electricity, losses as you recharge the battery, losses as the battery discharges, plus you would be hauling extra weight around in the form of batteries. so the amount of fuel you use would not decrease it would increase...

" Generators are already part of the supply chain and so using them does not add complication to the logistics effort"

Transportation and tank units don't use generators so having to have them to keep these vehicles charged do indeed add to the logistics problem. You also have the added problem of hauling all the generators around as the units advance...
Profile Pic
TimEum
Champion Author Huntsville

Posts:14,390
Points:2,664,140
Joined:Dec 2005
Message Posted: Dec 8, 2013 1:00:02 PM

By the way hybrid vehicles don't need to rely on generators. Hybrid vehicles could also operate normally for most of their travel and yet go all electric for the last mile (into contact with the enemy) where the "quiet" operation becomes a real tactical advantage.
Profile Pic
TimEum
Champion Author Huntsville

Posts:14,390
Points:2,664,140
Joined:Dec 2005
Message Posted: Dec 8, 2013 12:51:50 PM

It would take a lot less fuel to power generators than would go into all the trucks, tanks, and other things requiring fuel. So yes, fuel would still have to be supplied, but overall the amount would be reduced significantly. Generators are already part of the supply chain and so using them does not add complication to the logistics effort. There has been a lot of technical advances over the last 10 years and so I'd believe that a relook at creating tactical vehicles with electric engines or hybrids is deserved. Another advantage is that electric vehicles are much more "quiet" than combustion engines --- that in itself would be a tactical advantage.
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,006
Points:322,590
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Dec 8, 2013 10:11:05 AM

" I would love seeing more military vehicles become powered by electricity rather than by gasoline or diesel or at least become plug-in hybrid. It even makes tactical sense"

The army doesn't think so. Several years ago they tested a vehicle that was dubbed the "hybrid hummer". It never went any where.

I have been places where they run vehicles 24 hours a day. When you going to charge it if you have to use it continuously all day and all night long?
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:22,452
Points:2,515,355
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Dec 8, 2013 9:55:01 AM

"It even makes tactical sense -- it would be easier logistically to set up generators than to transport and distribute fuel in remote areas"

????

You would still need fuel to power the generators, so all you are doing is adding another link to an already very long, complicated logistical chain...

[Edited by: Shockjock1961 at 12/8/2013 9:55:00 AM EST]
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
All-Star Author Illinois

Posts:931
Points:16,760
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Dec 8, 2013 8:41:35 AM

What fuel would you use to power the generators?
Profile Pic
TimEum
Champion Author Huntsville

Posts:14,390
Points:2,664,140
Joined:Dec 2005
Message Posted: Dec 8, 2013 3:30:03 AM

By the way, back to topic, I would love seeing more military vehicles become powered by electricity rather than by gasoline or diesel or at least become plug-in hybrid. It even makes tactical sense -- it would be easier logistically to set up generators than to transport and distribute fuel in remote areas.
Profile Pic
TimEum
Champion Author Huntsville

Posts:14,390
Points:2,664,140
Joined:Dec 2005
Message Posted: Dec 8, 2013 3:25:52 AM

I work in the Department of Defense. It really has fewer government civilians and military personnel than it did thirty years ago. Other federal agencies may have grown during this time, but not the DoD. During the 1980's and 1990's there were even "reformers" who believed that things were better done with outside contractors and so even more government workers were cut and contracting out was increased. As I said before, I do not think the problem with inefficiency within the government is with the civilian/military workforce but rather with a system that allows "political appointees" or other senior leadership to force doing things that do not make efficient good business sense to do. Congress has made DoD buy systems it recommended be terminated; Congress had made DoD keep bases open it thinks should be closed; etc.
Profile Pic
HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,168
Points:53,830
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Dec 7, 2013 8:11:43 PM

"Today, what is most typical is for a small "cadre" of government civilian/military personnel to manage a contractor workforce. Long gone are the days of government personnel doing everything "in house" with "organic" personnel and resources."

You're kidding, right? There are far more employees of the federal government now than ever before. The feds are taking over things that should be done by private companies and contracting things (like military operations) that they should be doing. Btw, I'm one of those "government" employees too, except I don't work for the feds, at least not directly. I work for the Wyoming DOT. Most of our money is federal, although it collected here in the form of federal gas taxes. They collect it here, send it to D.C. where it gets thrown into the pot, and what's left after the bureaucracy takes their cut to "administrate" gets distributed back to the states with lots of strings attached.

"Indeed, the word 'incompetent' might describe contractors who had 3 years to build a website with more than adequate funding and still 'failed'."

...and yet private companies have built thousands of websites of the same scale that work incredibly well and didn't cost a fraction of the Healthcare.gov site. What was the difference? No government involvement. When you hire a company that failed at a similar project for the Canadians because the owners have an "in" with the First Lady, and then change everything at the last minute so that nobody would find out beforehand that they'd have to provide a bunch of personal information in order to find out how much more their health insurance is going to be, it's destined to be an epic fail. If you think they had no idea how it would turn out, you're incredibly naive. If you think it wasn't done on purpose to hide the price hikes, you have far more faith their integrity than I.
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:22,452
Points:2,515,355
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Dec 6, 2013 10:33:08 PM

As I said before...

Politics and wise decisions seldom go together...

I agree with HotRod10

"Let the free market work and let the government do its job as the referee, instead of allowing the government act as both competitor and referee"
Except I would add one thing the government should not be in the business of picking the "winner" among competitor, like they try to do with alternative energy and automotive technologies. Let the market alone decide which is most competitve and viable...

Profile Pic
TimEum
Champion Author Huntsville

Posts:14,390
Points:2,664,140
Joined:Dec 2005
Message Posted: Dec 6, 2013 7:00:00 PM

Without contractors the United States government could not operate. In fact, cost cutting measures over many years has reduced the size of our military and our government civilian workforce. Today, what is most typical is for a small "cadre" of government civilian/military personnel to manage a contractor workforce. Long gone are the days of government personnel doing everything "in house" with "organic" personnel and resources. There are many procurement laws and regulations that is supposed to ensure that contractors are chosen purely on good "business" reasons, but it seems that unless those laws are enforced, many politicians are getting away with hiring "sole-source" for less than optimal contractors. Indeed, the word "incompetent" might describe contractors who had 3 years to build a website with more than adequate funding and still "failed".
Post a reply Back to Topics