But even stopped and shut off in traffic, your Volt is still draining the battery with lights, heat/AC, stereo, wipers etc that is no problem at all with the idling ICE.

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: At $0.14/kwh (national average), a full charge would cost $1.40 and would take you 35 miles.

So compared to your average 35mpg sedan, that EV could save you up to $2.00 a day in fuel cost. (yes, the Volt only gets 35mpg after the electric-only range). How many years out does that put the payoff point on the $20k price difference then ? A little over 27 years, assuming no interest cost on the additional price, that you drive the full 35 mile electric range 365 days a year, that there's no cost difference in maintaining the two vehicles, that electricity rates don't rise faster than gasoline prices, and that the EV lasts you the 350,000 miles it has to go to reach that break-even point.

[This message has been edited by D B Cooper (edited 02-15-2012).]

quote Originally posted by D B Cooper: So compared to your average 35mpg sedan, that EV could save you up to $2.00 a day in fuel cost. (yes, the Volt only gets 35mpg after the electric-only range). How many years out does that put the payoff point on the $20k price difference then ? A little over 27 years, assuming no interest cost on the additional price, that you drive the full 35 mile electric range 365 days a year, that there's no cost difference in maintaining the two vehicles, that electricity rates don't rise faster than gasoline prices, and that the EV lasts you the 350,000 miles it has to go to reach that break-even point.

In my area the price of electricity is tiered, so regardless of what the average price/KW, you would be paying the upper tier rate to charge this thing.
Will look at my bills and see what it would cost to add it to my bill each month.
Bet it is close to $4/charge.

At least use accurate numbers instead of cherry picking those that make your point look better.

quote Originally posted by D B Cooper: So compared to your average 35mpg sedan

What "average sedan" gets a combined MPG of 35? The most efficient gas powered car is the Cruze Eco, which gets 32 mpg combined with the automatic.

quote that EV could save you up to $2.00 a day in fuel cost. (yes, the Volt only gets 35mpg after the electric-only range).

At $3.52 (today's national avg) you'd save $2.45 for the first 35 miles. After that, the Volt gets 37 combined compared to the Cruze's 32, so it continues to save a small amount of fuel.

quote How many years out does that put the payoff point on the $20k price difference then ?

You mean the $15k price difference, which would give you two vehicles with similar option content (and again, i'm ignoring the tax rebate)

quote A little over 27 years

About 16 years.

Look, I get it - at current fuel prices, the car doesn't save money. You don't care for EVs. You don't like tax subsidies for EVs. But at least use accurate data to show your point. And personally, I would rather have EVs be a viable option in the market (even if it takes a few years of subsidies to get there) because generally, having all your eggs in one basket (depending on motor fuel almost exclusively to make the country run) is a bad idea.

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: The subsidy is to allow the new technology to compete in the market while the economies of scale reduce the cost.

If it is competing in the market, it is not new technology, .
"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for the country". John F Kennedy.

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: The end result is new technology that can directly compete in the market. Without the subsidy, it would never exist (or take longer to penetrate the market).

What subsidies did Bill Gates or Steve Jobs get ? They didn't get subsidies and their technology changed the world. I think Steve Jobs started by setting up shop in his Mom's garage. Did Henry Ford get subsidies ? No. Other people/countries were making cars then. Did Thomas Edison get subsidies ? Did Alexander Graham Bell ? No !
Was the electric car a private inspired idea ? Where are our flying cars ?

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: You can argue all day whether affordable EVs are "worth" the cost of the government subsidy.

No I can't. What the frack is an EV ? ?Environmental Vehicle? Is this a Global Warming argument you are trying to make ? Worth the cost of a government subsidy ? Government ? Government is bought, . The presiding whores have their fingerprints all over the Climate Change/Carbon Credit stock market they tried to set up with the Global Warming scare. By the way, how come that died ?

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: Since the US is certainly not the manufacturing juggernaut it used to be, we rely a lot on innovation to maintain our high standard of living. We lose our cutting edge and everyone here loses. Subsidizing new products isn't perfect by any means, but I think it's better than the alternative and not innovating at all.

Our innovation allowed us to become a manufacturing juggernaut which gave us a high standard of living. Gooberment innovates $500.00 hammers, . Ask yourself a question. Did private enterprise make a case for subsidies or did gooberment make a case for them ? By the way, the only reason we were a manufacturing juggernaut was because, because, World War Two destroyed every other manufacturing entity of meaning on Earth.
We got fat, we got lazy. We expect. How is it that all the other "lessor endowed" took over our innovative monopoly ? Would it be innovation ? It has to be. They invented the better mousetrap.

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: At least use accurate numbers instead of cherry picking those that make your point look better. About 16 years. Look, I get it - at current fuel prices, the car doesn't save money. You don't care for EVs. You don't like tax subsidies for EVs. But at least use accurate data to show your point. And personally, I would rather have EVs be a viable option in the market (even if it takes a few years of subsidies to get there) because generally, having all your eggs in one basket (depending on motor fuel almost exclusively to make the country run) is a bad idea.

Oh I have nothing against the electric vehicle; but you're correct that I have a problem with all subsidies. Products don't make it in the real world due to subsidies; they make it because they offer real improvements and value to large customer bases. And for the record, I'm all for alternatives; I just prefer alternatives that add little or no cost, offer comparable range, and make use of inexpensive resources we have in abundance... like compressed natural gas.

quote Originally posted by D B Cooper: Oh I have nothing against the electric vehicle; but you're correct that I have a problem with all subsidies. Products don't make it in the real world due to subsidies; they make it because they offer real improvements and value to large customer bases. And for the record, I'm all for alternatives; I just prefer alternatives that add little or no cost, offer comparable range, and make use of inexpensive resources we have in abundance... like compressed natural gas.

Products can't live on subsidies forever, but EVs, like all new technology, will come down in production cost once their production volume increases. EVs offer significant operational savings (and thus provide consumer value) because they use less energy and use a cheaper form of it (grid power), but their main hurdle is initial cost. CNG is a good alternative but it requires additional infrastructure. The Volt design, IMO, is a good one because it has no loss in flexibility and requires no additional infrastructure with a very high potential for fuel savings.

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: Products can't live on subsidies forever,

Like ethanol or wind for electicity generation?

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: Like ethanol or wind for electicity generation?

That was meant as, "Subsidies should not live forever", although they are finally killing the ethanol subsidy this year.

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: That was meant as, "Subsidies should not live forever", although they are finally killing the ethanol subsidy this year.

I get you. I wasn't meaning to nitpick. I was trying to point out that while it often becomes obvious (to us) that something has failed and should no longer be subsidized, it is hard for politicians to reach that point and stop them after they have been implemented.

They are FINALLY getting their with ethanol.

How long do you think it will be before they figure out that wind generation of electricity isn't viable and not worth subsidizing?

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: That was meant as, "Subsidies should not live forever", although they are finally killing the ethanol subsidy this year.

I would have thought this would have been a firestorm in the media, especially in a election year. What will ADM do without the government money and will this lower corn prices. Id like to see some info on this. Thanks Norm

quote You don't think the Volt (or EVs) is new technology?

This technology is over 100 years old and hasn't changed very much since these type of vehicles were first mass produced. The problems they faced back then are basically the same ones their modern counterparts face.
Read about them here:
http://inventors.about.com/...lectric-Vehicles.htm

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: You don't think the Volt (or EVs) is new technology?

First, thanks for the reply.
Electric vehicles new technology ? There is no yes or no answer. It's evolving technology. The idea has been around for a long time. Electric golf carts first came into being in 1932, during the Great Depression. It has never been economically feasible for transportation needs, not to mention it being inconvenient due to the time it takes to refuel and the facilities needed to recharge. Do you really think people will only recharge overnight ? They will want to top off at work, while they shop. Will parking garages be required to have charging stations ? How many vehicles will we see on the side of the road, or in the middle of the road (batteries are heavy to push), because they ran out of juice ?
You did say, "Without the subsidy, it would never exist (or take longer to penetrate the market)" and "Fewer innovative products would become economically viable."
Does not customer demand play a part of the equation ? This is a demand by the "cradle to grave" gooberment. A gooberment in which many hands are dirty in the Global Warming scam. This is an attempt by goobermnt to force us to support what gobberment thinks is best for us. Used to be, if you had a good idea, you could get investors. They subsidized the product. You had to sell the idea though. Gooberment did not sell the idea to us. The thing is here, is that gooberment is demanding we taxpayers subsidize "gooberment knows best" all the while they are picking the winners and losers.They proclaimed it the answer all the while stifling advancements to other existing technologies.

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: This has nothing to do with global warming. It's about providing consumers in the future with a choice of propulsion ...

We have choices already. You tout this as a commuter car. That's what the bus and the train is for. We can bicycle or walk. Thanks for offering your argument is not for global warming but it is being touted as "green energy", by the current regime.

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: Clinging onto the notion that oil is the only way is not innovative and is going to put us (the country as a whole) at a severe economic disadvantage, should fuel prices continue rising.

'Ya know, if you want to talk about an economic advantage, oil is the best bang for the buck as far as efficiency goes. Technology is evolving there too. From obtaining it to better use of it. People have projected "peak oil availability" about as accurate as weathermen predict weather. New discoveries are made often as well as new methods of recovery. We are the Saudia Arabia of natural gas and vehicles can be ran from natural gas. Where is the present regime's policy on subsidizing that technology ?
Regarding the $500.00 hammer. You got me, I did not do any fact checking. It was a belief I clung to from a time when I didn't fact check. I used it as a cliche. I would think that I could argue that we see the same thing going on here. Gooberment justification.

quote Originally posted by avengador1: This technology is over 100 years old and hasn't changed very much since these type of vehicles were first mass produced. The problems they faced back then are basically the same ones their modern counterparts face. Read about them here: http://inventors.about.com/...lectric-Vehicles.htm

I was posting last night, finished just now. You beat me to the submit button. Your link is better than the one I referenced, .

I have a close comparison from personal experience. For some of the bigger car shows like the Mopar Nationals and Carlisle, I bought a small sit down electric scooter I could charge up and take with me in the trunk or just set on the passenger floor. It lacked power to barely move in grass or gravel at all. It ran out of charge in a few hours and I had to carry it back. I bought a small gas powered one roughly same size and weight. I can go all over the grounds for the whole day on a quart of gas and even refill it if necessary. Its also 3-4 times as fast. I threw the electric one in the dumpster. The electric one cost me more than the gas one did.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Do you really think people will only recharge overnight ? They will want to top off at work, while they shop. Will parking garages be required to have charging stations ?

Not at all, but the EV was never meant for everyone. It fills a role. There are some who could charge overnight, some could not. Obviously at our current infrastructure level (not many public charging areas) EVs will make the most sense for those who can charge them at home overnight.

quote Gooberment did not sell the idea to us. The thing is here, is that gooberment is demanding we taxpayers subsidize "gooberment knows best" all the while they are picking the winners and losers.They proclaimed it the answer all the while stifling advancements to other existing technologies.

Agreed, the gov't shouldn't pick winners and losers. It would be far better to raise the price of gasoline to its real societal cost, which I believe is much higher than its price at the pump (factoring in environmental problems, national security costs, etc). Or even tax gasoline more heavily and offset it with a reduction in income taxes, which i've suggested many times. The problem is that the public will not tolerate ANY increase in gasoline taxes and thus the gov't is forced to accomplish its goals in other ways.

quote We have choices already. You tout this as a commuter car. That's what the bus and the train is for. We can bicycle or walk. Thanks for offering your argument is not for global warming but it is being touted as "green energy", by the current regime.

People cannot feasibly take the bus in many cases, it simply takes too much time and is not convenient enough. Bicycles and walking are great, until you have to go more than a few blocks. The EV, for commuting purposes, is just as convenient as an ICE vehicle, but with lower operating expense.

"What "average sedan" gets a combined MPG of 35? The most efficient gas powered car is the Cruze Eco, which gets 32 mpg combined with the automatic."

Ive pointed out a few times before I have an 04 Sebring conv. It gets 32 mpg which is 90% of my driving, 29 combined. I can prove it. Its a peppy v6 auto. Sportier than an average sedan. Bone stock with 95K. So at best the Volt beats me by 5 mpg. Thats just not worth $30,000 no matter how you want to put it. I couldnt burn up 10,000 gallons of gas in the rest of my life. Electric wouldnt get me downtown and home. I had to run some errands all around town one day last week. I didnt go outside the city limits and put over 80 miles on it. What ill agree with you on, is that there are a few people that could benefit. Those that live very close to work, retired, dont drive often (groceries and church). The number is so small, if it was the only car a company produced, they wouldnt survive. Im not dead against electric...give me one that looks nice, dont use any gas and will give me 150-200 mile range and not cost more than a Porsche and Ill look at it.

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: At least use accurate numbers instead of cherry picking those that make your point look better.

Why not use the government's figures. They may not be perfect, but they should be consistent between the various cars.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov

2012 Chevy Volt
35 City / 40 Highway (Premium Fuel)
95 City / 93 Highway (Electric only gas-equivalent)
Estimated annual fuel costs: $1541 ($648 if you manage to never use the ICE and run only as a plug in electric)

2012 VW Jetta TDI
30 City / 42 Highway (Diesel)
Estimated annual fuel costs: $1738

So, the Volt will on average save almost $200/year in fuel costs over a Jetta TDI.

2012 Chevy Cruze Eco
26 City / 39 Highway (Regular gas)
Estimated annual fuel costs: $1703

2012 Toyota Prius
51 City / 48 Highway (Regular gas)
Estimated annual fuel costs: $1056

2012 Ford Fusion Hybrid
41 City / 36 Highway (Regular gas0
Estimated annual fuel costs: $1354

So for all the subsidy, R&D and extra cost to buy, the Volt is slightly better than two different ICE cars and is nowhere near competitive with a gas/electric hybrid.
The only possible reason to buy a Volt would be if you expected to be able to use it as a plug in electric most of the time, and you're paying a heck of a premium to do that.

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 02-18-2012).]

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Why not use the government's figures. They may not be perfect, but they should be consistent between the various cars. http://www.fueleconomy.gov 2012 Chevy Volt 35 City / 40 Highway (Premium Fuel) 95 City / 93 Highway (Electric only gas-equivalent) Estimated annual fuel costs: $1541 ($648 if you manage to never use the ICE and run only as a plug in electric) 2012 VW Jetta TDI 30 City / 42 Highway (Diesel) Estimated annual fuel costs: $1738 So, the Volt will on average save almost $200/year in fuel costs over a Jetta TDI.

The "estimated annual fuel cost" for the Volt is if you NEVER plug it in, which is not exactly what the car is designed for. Check the numbers if you don't believe me.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: What the hell is "real societal cost?" Of course, the only way for that type of price fixing to happen is for government to decide what gasoline should sell for. You're in favor of this? (no, that doesn't really surprise me) How about the real societal cost of electric cars? We're paying tax dollars to offset their purchase price, and that doesn't consider the "societal cost" of the mercury mining, battery production or disposal. If you want "societal cost" on gas, why not on everything? And how exactly to you propose that cost be determined? Naturally, you'll need a government agency for it. So much fail for just one sentence.

I probably shouldn't have posted that because I don't have the data to prove it, but I would guess the "real" cost of gasoline per gallon is a lot more than you pay at the pump.

My point was that, the best way to reduce fuel consumption, without picking winners or losers, is to increase the price of fuel and let the market adjust to it.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Here you go. The Honda FCX Clarity. Pure electric, but runs on Hyrdrogen powered fuel cells instead of batteries. Nothing to recharge. When you run out of Hydrogen, you fill it up at a filling station just like a gas engine. (one that has a Hydrogen pump, of course). It's the future. You drive it just like a normal car today and you fill it up the same way. Just like diesel was hard to find when they started building diesel cars, it'll take time for Hydrogen pumps to start appearing, but the infrastructure is already in place. It drives just like any other Honda, only there's no ICE. As the tech improves, more and more types of cars will use this tech. The battery is already a dinosaur as far as mobile transportation goes. They just weight and cost too much. They are a poor stop-gap step between ICE and fuel cells.

Future belongs to pure electric (battery) vehicles, not hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. They are going to come up with much lighter, cheaper and higher capacity batteries that will enable an "electron infrastructure" that will leave the nascent "hydrogen infrastructure" behind in the dust. Too many hard problems to overcome with hydrogen. High cost to produce hydrogen, and negative impacts on the atmosphere from the hydrogen that would be inevitably leaked from hydrogen pipelines and storage and refilling stations.

My "two cents" worth..

Let's dig up this post after ten more years pass and review it!

OK, 80 mile trip. I used less than 3 gallons at $3.10 @ gallon = $9.30 -

Volt, 25 miles on $8 battery charge, other 50 miles on 1 1/2 gallons of premium gas @ 3.45 @ gallon. =$13.80

and I didnt have to buy a $30,000 car.

based on dealer quote of average of $2.00 for 10 hour charge, and figuring my 400% rate increase startling last month. gas prices are a known number. No one will get close to a 40-50 mile all electric range unless its all downhill and they turn off everything except the motor.

And sorry Formula, that def dont fit my idea. Thats FUGLY as most of the other asian crap out there already. Tesla Roadster is up my alley, but about double what Id pay for it. I cant see myself moving from this to that....

[This message has been edited by rogergarrison (edited 02-19-2012).]

Roger - So your electric rate is $1.00/kwh?

And you keep saying you won't get the advertised mileage, yet you say you get way better mileage than the average person. I don't get it.

There is a tesla roadster on eBay right now for $77,900 or offer. 3800 miles and warranted to April 2013. Isn't that porsche prices? I think that it is probably a future collectable car too. they stopped production at 2000 cars.

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: "What "average sedan" gets a combined MPG of 35? The most efficient gas powered car is the Cruze Eco, which gets 32 mpg combined with the automatic." Ive pointed out a few times before I have an 04 Sebring conv. It gets 32 mpg which is 90% of my driving, 29 combined. I can prove it. Its a peppy v6 auto. Sportier than an average sedan. Bone stock with 95K. So at best the Volt beats me by 5 mpg. Thats just not worth $30,000 no matter how you want to put it. I couldnt burn up 10,000 gallons of gas in the rest of my life. Electric wouldnt get me downtown and home. I had to run some errands all around town one day last week. I didnt go outside the city limits and put over 80 miles on it. What ill agree with you on, is that there are a few people that could benefit. Those that live very close to work, retired, dont drive often (groceries and church). The number is so small, if it was the only car a company produced, they wouldnt survive. Im not dead against electric...give me one that looks nice, dont use any gas and will give me 150-200 mile range and not cost more than a Porsche and Ill look at it.

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: Future belongs to pure electric (battery) vehicles, not hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. They are going to come up with much lighter, cheaper and higher capacity batteries that will enable an "electron infrastructure" that will leave the nascent "hydrogen infrastructure" behind in the dust. Too many hard problems to overcome with hydrogen. High cost to produce hydrogen, and negative impacts on the atmosphere from the hydrogen that would be inevitably leaked from hydrogen pipelines and storage and refilling stations. My "two cents" worth.. Let's dig up this post after ten more years pass and review it!

What negative impacts on the atmosphere are you referring to?
Hydrogen is the only element light enough to escape the earth's gravitational pull, so it's not going to accumulate in the atmosphere.

When they figure out how to make a battery that can fuel a car for 200-300 miles and recharge in under 10 minutes without requiring the mining of any heavy metals, it might be a better choice than Hydrogen.
If you can't hop in the car and drive coast to coast without stopping overnight every 100 miles for a charge, it'll never be more than a 2nd commuter car.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: What negative impacts on the atmosphere are you referring to? Hydrogen is the only element light enough to escape the earth's gravitational pull, so it's not going to accumulate in the atmosphere. When they figure out how to make a battery that can fuel a car for 200-300 miles and recharge in under 10 minutes without requiring the mining of any heavy metals, it might be a better choice than Hydrogen. If you can't hop in the car and drive coast to coast without stopping overnight every 100 miles for a charge, it'll never be more than a 2nd commuter car.

Thanks for your response, Formula88.

As far as negative impacts on the atmosphere, I think the jury is still out. That is just my very inexpert impression, based on some small Google searches that I did. But there was concern as far back as 2003 that hydrogen would go to the stratosphere and accelerate the process of ozone depletion and also have something of a greenhouse (warming) effect.

Aside from any effects in the atmosphere, I still have an inexpert impression that electric battery technology will advance as fast or faster than the technology to produce and supply hydrogen to road vehicles.


Does a Hydrogen Economy Make Sense?
http://www.efcf.com/reports/E21.pdf

Hydrogen Effects on Climate, Stratospheric Ozone, and Air Pollution
http://gcep.stanford.edu/re...effects_climate.html

The Five Myths of the Hydrogen Fueled Vehicle
http://www.dalefield.com/sl...ers/hydrogen_fm.html

Why Fuel Cells Won't Work: Honda FCX Clarity
http://articles.latimes.com...3/business/fi-neil13


So now you have my "three cents" worth!

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-23-2012).]

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: Hydrogen Effects on Climate, Stratospheric Ozone, and Air Pollution http://gcep.stanford.edu/re...effects_climate.html

This is beautiful.

quote One effect of hydrogen in the stratosphere is that it increases water vapor in the ozone. H2O emitted near the surface does not readily penetrate to the stratosphere, but H2 can penetrate readily into the stratosphere, where it can form H2O by the reaction H2 + OH. This is one of the few sources of water in the stratosphere (e.g., Khalil and Rasmussen, 1990; Dessler et al., 1994; Hurst et al., 1999). Increased water in the stratosphere may increase the occurrence and size of Polar Stratospheric Clouds and stratospheric aerosols, both of which enhance stratospheric ozone reduction in the presence of chlorinated and brominated compounds. This issue will be examined as part of this project.

You know what that means, right? Water is now going to be classified by the EPA as a pollutant.

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: Agreed, the gov't shouldn't pick winners and losers. It would be far better to raise the price of gasoline to its real societal cost, which I believe is much higher than its price at the pump (factoring in environmental problems, national security costs, etc). Or even tax gasoline more heavily and offset it with a reduction in income taxes, which i've suggested many times. The problem is that the public will not tolerate ANY increase in gasoline taxes and thus the gov't is forced to accomplish its goals in other ways.

Wow, . I do realize your follow up post of this ...

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: I probably shouldn't have posted that because I don't have the data to prove it, but I would guess the "real" cost of gasoline per gallon is a lot more than you pay at the pump.

I can just not see this imagined added cost. Who decides what it is ? Which leads me to another alarming statement you make. Government is forced to accomplish it's goals in other ways, ? We and the products we make/use are not tools of the government. This is a country founded on freedom. From our personal liberties to our economic markets. Whereas a company has the right to dictate to it's employees, and use company resources as they see fit to further it's agenda, government is not a business. Government is corrupt and has proven it time and time again.
National security costs ? Drill here, drill now ! Did 'ya know that the last time gas prices were at record highs, right before Obama got elected, President Bush opened up off shore and federal lands to oil exploration ? Gas prices fell from above four dollars a gallon to $1.61 a gallon. Did you know that the Chinese are drilling for oil in international waters in the Gulf of Mexico ? What are the national security costs by not drilling here drilling now ?



Environmental costs ?

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: This has nothing to do with global warming.

What environmental costs ? How can they even be measured ? Do we add increased pricing to homes because they use wood ? Do we add increased pricing to anything plastic because plastic does not break down in landfills ? While not quite Newton's third law of physics (for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction) I do agree that things affect the environment. Including hunting to the point of extinction or tearing up wetlands. But to say one can add a dollar amount it takes to do it, to prevent environmental costs, is ridiculous.

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: People cannot feasibly take the bus in many cases, it simply takes too much time and is not convenient enough.

Feasible ? Who defines what that is ? The gooberment or the people ? How much more time and inconvenience will it take to earn more money to pay a higher artificial price for gasoline ? The bus is very feasible. Your argument is now convenience, convenient enough. Why should I have to kick in tax dollars for someone else's convenience to have a inefficient car for commuting purposes ? A 1997 Geo Metro will get 53mpg using existing dinosaur technology (which is new in the sense that it is still evolving). Motorcycles get even better than that.

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: Bicycles and walking are great, until you have to go more than a few blocks.

A few blocks ? Pathetic, . Did 'ya know that Obamas stimulus plan just spent zillions for , and mandated bicycle lanes be created ? What a colossal waste of money, .

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: The EV, for commuting purposes, is just as convenient as an ICE vehicle, but with lower operating expense.

Lower operating expense ? Does that include purchase and societal costs. Electricity is not inexpensive and gets very expensive at peak times, such as air conditioned summers. Throw in 300 million commuters to the electric grids which are at capacity. Operating expense plus cost equals real life expense.

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 02-20-2012).]

No my rate is much lower than that, the thing is the electric company boosted a delivery fee surcharge thats added to the bill. Theres probably a link somewhere to the Columbus rate increases online. One local beauty salon went from $200+ dollars a month to like $1500. My bill went from $30 to $120 for same amount of power. This new rating system is now under review by Public Utilities Commission since they have recieved hundreds of complaints this month.

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: This new rating system is now under review by Public Utilities Commission since they have recieved hundreds of complaints this month.

The Public Utilities Commission approved it to begin with.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: The Public Utilities Commission approved it to begin with.

Yes, they did. It was supposed to recover costs incurred in updating. Now theyre thinking it got out of hand and reviewing it.

http://www.dispatch.com/con...ller-businesses.html

[This message has been edited by rogergarrison (edited 02-20-2012).]

quote Originally posted by cliffw: The Public Utilities Commission approved it to begin with.

yup, the commissions pretty much put a stamp of approval on anything the power company puts before them. Sad. Happened here. So much for protecting the consumer.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: I can just not see this imagined added cost. Who decides what it is ? Which leads me to another alarming statement you make. Government is forced to accomplish it's goals in other ways

It's goals, i.e., reducing national oil consumption, which I think is a fairly level-headed goal to make. Having your transportation needs of the entire country dependent on a hugely volatile commodity doesn't seem like a wise decision. I do agree though that we should be exploiting more of our own oil resources.

quote What environmental costs ? How can they even be measured? Do we add increased pricing to homes because they use wood ?

The costs associated with cleaning up pipeline breaks or oil spills can be quantified to some extent. I'm pretty sure wood spills don't cause environmental disasters.

quote Feasible ? Who defines what that is ? The gooberment or the people ?

The people do. You're argument would hold water if EVs were to exist, subsidized, forever. My entire point was that subsidizing EVs initially to help them get over the expense of bringing new technology to market. If the market truly does not want EVs, people still won't buy.

quote A 1997 Geo Metro will get 53mpg using existing dinosaur technology

True, on a 49 hp 3-cylinder, 1.0L engine, with essentially no safety features or creature comforts. Not really comparable to a new vehicle. And besides, it's rated at 26/31 mpg with the automatic transmission (look it up at www.fueleconomy.gov) -- Not exactly stellar.

quote Did 'ya know that Obamas stimulus plan just spent zillions for , and mandated bicycle lanes be created ? What a colossal waste of money

Zillions? If that's true, then yeah -- sounds like a waste.

quote Lower operating expense ? Does that include purchase and societal costs. Electricity is not inexpensive and gets very expensive at peak times, such as air conditioned summers. Throw in 300 million commuters to the electric grids which are at capacity. Operating expense plus cost equals real life expense.

Operating expense is the cost after purchase. I'm making the argument that purchase price will come down to a level comparable with ICE-powered cars once they become mass produced. The day-to-day expense of running an EV is far lower than a conventional vehicle ON AVERAGE using average electric rates and gasoline prices. I would think EV charging would occur mostly at night, off peak hours, precisely to avoid peak power rates. This would actually help level electrical demand on the grid.
And its not like 300 million EVs are going to appear overnight. For one, there aren't 300 million commuters in the country (there's about 220 million people of driving age, IIRC) and there's going to be plenty of non-EVs for the foreseeable future. It would be decades before EVs could even make 10%, 25% market penetration, which would be plenty of time for the grid to accommodate it.

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: The costs associated with cleaning up pipeline breaks or oil spills can be quantified to some extent. I'm pretty sure wood spills don't cause environmental disasters. .

Well, in your defense trees do produce oxygen which is good for our environment.

Well, not much related to the thread, but to continue a part, the Utilities Commission listened to small businesses and revolked AEPs new rate system. We go back to December rate again.

http://www2.nbc4i.com/news/...increases-ar-942369/

quote Originally posted by 2.5: Well, in your defense trees do produce oxygen which is good for our environment.

Not when it's burned.

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: The costs associated with cleaning up pipeline breaks or oil spills can be quantified to some extent. I'm pretty sure wood spills don't cause environmental disasters. .

No, but harvesting wood does cause deforestation - something that drilling for oil doesn't do. Add up those costs, too.
If you keep blinders on and only see one specific problem, your "fix" is likely to make matters worse. (something I wish our government would learn)

Wind energy - it's wonderful, clean, no spills! Yeah!
Now, about all those migratory bird deaths.....

There are up and down sides to everything.