As more homes generate their own power, typically with the help of state
or federal subsidies, they're buying less electricity from traditional
utilities.

Jeopardizing Grid
PG&E Corp., California's biggest, has said this jeopardizes the power
grid because there's less revenue to maintain the infrastructure. In
response, utilities are raising rates, a burden that's a slightly
heavier burden for people without solar power. In California they may
eventually pass on as much as $1.3billion in annual costs to customers
who don't have panels.




As I have said time and again in the past, Changing your source of power
only does that, you are going to pay one way or another for what you use.

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:
As more homes generate their own power, typically with the help of state
or federal subsidies, they're buying less electricity from traditional utilities.

Jeopardizing Grid
PG&E Corp., California's biggest, has said this jeopardizes the power
grid because there's less revenue to maintain the infrastructure. In
response, utilities are raising rates, a burden that's a slightly heavier
burden for people without solar power. In California they may eventually
pass on as much as $1.3billion in annual costs to customers who don't have panels.




As I have said time and again in the past, Changing your source of power
only does that, you are going to pay one way or another for what you use.

Hell, when the cost of swimming pool chemicals and private schools rises
for upper management, ya gotta make it up somewhere.

--
www.ewoodshop.com (Mobile)

On 9/16/2013 8:37 AM, Swingman wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:
As more homes generate their own power, typically with the help of state
or federal subsidies, they're buying less electricity from traditional utilities.

Jeopardizing Grid
PG&E Corp., California's biggest, has said this jeopardizes the power
grid because there's less revenue to maintain the infrastructure. In
response, utilities are raising rates, a burden that's a slightly heavier
burden for people without solar power. In California they may eventually
pass on as much as $1.3billion in annual costs to customers who don't have panels.




As I have said time and again in the past, Changing your source of power
only does that, you are going to pay one way or another for what you use.

Hell, when the cost of swimming pool chemicals and private schools rises
for upper management, ya gotta make it up somewhere.

Eggsactly!

Government is not going to allow a huge source of taxable income go away
with out raising taxes. You pay one way or another.

On 9/16/13 9:12 AM, Leon wrote:
As more homes generate their own power, typically with the help of state
or federal subsidies, they're buying less electricity from traditional
utilities.

Jeopardizing Grid
PG&E Corp., California's biggest, has said this jeopardizes the power
grid because there's less revenue to maintain the infrastructure. In
response, utilities are raising rates, a burden that's a slightly
heavier burden for people without solar power. In California they may
eventually pass on as much as $1.3billion in annual costs to customers
who don't have panels.

I've been following Solar Power progress for some time now. The weak
link is still storage. My cost can be zero from sun-up to sun-down, but
we'll need power the rest of the day for years to come. That guaranteed
power will come at a cost.

When storage is so cheap the overnight backup isn't needed, and a
generator (I'm thinking natural gas, not gasoline) can kick in after the
5th cloudy day, the grid might no longer be needed. That point is still
decades away and yes, there's a struggle with taxes trying balance
things out. But, tax the non-solar home and drive up their cost, and
you'll push them to solar even faster.

On 9/16/2013 10:12 AM, JoeTaxpayer wrote:
On 9/16/13 9:12 AM, Leon wrote:
As more homes generate their own power, typically with the help of state
or federal subsidies, they're buying less electricity from traditional
utilities.

Jeopardizing Grid
PG&E Corp., California's biggest, has said this jeopardizes the power
grid because there's less revenue to maintain the infrastructure. In
response, utilities are raising rates, a burden that's a slightly
heavier burden for people without solar power. In California they may
eventually pass on as much as $1.3billion in annual costs to customers
who don't have panels.

I've been following Solar Power progress for some time now. The weak
link is still storage. My cost can be zero from sun-up to sun-down, but
we'll need power the rest of the day for years to come. That guaranteed
power will come at a cost.

The problem with a back up generator is that even with natural gas the
cost of running it will pretty much offset the savings. My sister and a
neighbor have whole house back up generators and the expense to generate
electricity with the generator is around 25~30 cents per kWh. We pay
about 9 cents per kWh from the utility.





When storage is so cheap the overnight backup isn't needed, and a
generator (I'm thinking natural gas, not gasoline) can kick in after the
5th cloudy day, the grid might no longer be needed. That point is still
decades away and yes, there's a struggle with taxes trying balance
things out. But, tax the non-solar home and drive up their cost, and
you'll push them to solar even faster.


You also have to keep in mind that the government is heavily reliant on
energy tax dollars. While taxing the non solar home to persuade them to
go solar or what ever, when that is accomplished every one will
eventually will be taxed for their own generation of energy.

On 09/16/2013 10:33 AM, Leon wrote:
On 9/16/2013 10:12 AM, JoeTaxpayer wrote:
On 9/16/13 9:12 AM, Leon wrote:
As more homes generate their own power, typically with the help of state
or federal subsidies, they're buying less electricity from traditional
utilities.

Jeopardizing Grid
PG&E Corp., California's biggest, has said this jeopardizes the power
grid because there's less revenue to maintain the infrastructure. In
response, utilities are raising rates, a burden that's a slightly
heavier burden for people without solar power. In California they may
eventually pass on as much as $1.3billion in annual costs to customers
who don't have panels.

I've been following Solar Power progress for some time now. The weak
link is still storage. My cost can be zero from sun-up to sun-down, but
we'll need power the rest of the day for years to come. That guaranteed
power will come at a cost.

The problem with a back up generator is that even with natural gas the
cost of running it will pretty much offset the savings. My sister and a
neighbor have whole house back up generators and the expense to generate
electricity with the generator is around 25~30 cents per kWh. We pay
about 9 cents per kWh from the utility.





When storage is so cheap the overnight backup isn't needed, and a
generator (I'm thinking natural gas, not gasoline) can kick in after the
5th cloudy day, the grid might no longer be needed. That point is still
decades away and yes, there's a struggle with taxes trying balance
things out. But, tax the non-solar home and drive up their cost, and
you'll push them to solar even faster.


You also have to keep in mind that the government is heavily reliant on
energy tax dollars. While taxing the non solar home to persuade them to
go solar or what ever, when that is accomplished every one will
eventually will be taxed for their own generation of energy.


That's true now. Even though my solar generates more than I use, the
utility taxes and fees are $18-19/month.


--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On 9/16/13 1:33 PM, Leon wrote:

I've been following Solar Power progress for some time now. The weak
link is still storage. My cost can be zero from sun-up to sun-down, but
we'll need power the rest of the day for years to come. That guaranteed
power will come at a cost.

The problem with a back up generator is that even with natural gas the
cost of running it will pretty much offset the savings. My sister and a
neighbor have whole house back up generators and the expense to generate
electricity with the generator is around 25~30 cents per kWh. We pay
about 9 cents per kWh from the utility.

Understood. So, forget local generators.

There will be a balance where the power companies are providing
overnight service. They will scale down a bit as that demand won't ever
be as high as daytime peak demand was.

My only point is that there will be an equilibrium, that even if solar
cost were zero (the absurd extreme) that bridging the gap would take
another level of effort, another cost curve or service.

To your numbers - I'm guessing the overnight is less than 1/3 or less of
daily usage. So paying 3X to bridge that gap seems absurd. If it were
less than 2X, or if the gap were just 1/6 daily power, the story changes.

On 9/16/2013 1:56 PM, JoeTaxpayer wrote:
On 9/16/13 1:33 PM, Leon wrote:

I've been following Solar Power progress for some time now. The weak
link is still storage. My cost can be zero from sun-up to sun-down, but
we'll need power the rest of the day for years to come. That guaranteed
power will come at a cost.

The problem with a back up generator is that even with natural gas the
cost of running it will pretty much offset the savings. My sister and a
neighbor have whole house back up generators and the expense to generate
electricity with the generator is around 25~30 cents per kWh. We pay
about 9 cents per kWh from the utility.

Understood. So, forget local generators.

There will be a balance where the power companies are providing
overnight service. They will scale down a bit as that demand won't ever
be as high as daytime peak demand was.

My only point is that there will be an equilibrium, that even if solar
cost were zero (the absurd extreme) that bridging the gap would take
another level of effort, another cost curve or service.

To your numbers - I'm guessing the overnight is less than 1/3 or less of
daily usage. So paying 3X to bridge that gap seems absurd. If it were
less than 2X, or if the gap were just 1/6 daily power, the story changes.


For those few individuals it will become cheaper.


Until the balance is upset. We as a society are not going to be able to
not pay for our energy whether we reduce the cost to produce it or not.
The government will see to that.

Right now the government subsidies that encourage you to go solar cost
the rest of us more.

Robbing Peter to pay Paul.


If we don't pay for it our great grand kids will.

Basically changing for the sake of changing is not letting the free
market thrive, it creates a false economy. Oil is what people want, it
is the least expensive fuel to use and probably better for the
environment than all the caustic batteries that are going to have to be
dealt with some time in the future.

For the individual the alternative fuels are good but not for the society.

On 9/16/2013 5:35 PM, Leon wrote:

Until the balance is upset. We as a society are not going to be able to
not pay for our energy whether we reduce the cost to produce it or not.
The government will see to that.

Right now the government subsidies that encourage you to go solar cost
the rest of us more.

Robbing Peter to pay Paul.


If we don't pay for it our great grand kids will.

Basically changing for the sake of changing is not letting the free
market thrive, it creates a false economy. Oil is what people want, it
is the least expensive fuel to use and probably better for the
environment than all the caustic batteries that are going to have to be
dealt with some time in the future.

For the individual the alternative fuels are good but not for the society.

+1

"Mr Peabody's coal train done hauled it away."


--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

"Leon" lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in message
...
On 9/16/2013 1:56 PM, JoeTaxpayer wrote:
On 9/16/13 1:33 PM, Leon wrote:

I've been following Solar Power progress for some time now. The weak
link is still storage. My cost can be zero from sun-up to sun-down, but
we'll need power the rest of the day for years to come. That guaranteed
power will come at a cost.

The problem with a back up generator is that even with natural gas the
cost of running it will pretty much offset the savings. My sister and a
neighbor have whole house back up generators and the expense to generate
electricity with the generator is around 25~30 cents per kWh. We pay
about 9 cents per kWh from the utility.

Understood. So, forget local generators.

There will be a balance where the power companies are providing
overnight service. They will scale down a bit as that demand won't ever
be as high as daytime peak demand was.

My only point is that there will be an equilibrium, that even if solar
cost were zero (the absurd extreme) that bridging the gap would take
another level of effort, another cost curve or service.

To your numbers - I'm guessing the overnight is less than 1/3 or less of
daily usage. So paying 3X to bridge that gap seems absurd. If it were
less than 2X, or if the gap were just 1/6 daily power, the story changes.


For those few individuals it will become cheaper.


Until the balance is upset. We as a society are not going to be able to
not pay for our energy whether we reduce the cost to produce it or not.
The government will see to that.

Right now the government subsidies that encourage you to go solar cost the
rest of us more.

Robbing Peter to pay Paul.


If we don't pay for it our great grand kids will.

Basically changing for the sake of changing is not letting the free market
thrive, it creates a false economy. Oil is what people want, it is the
least expensive fuel to use and probably better for the environment than
all the caustic batteries that are going to have to be dealt with some
time in the future.

For the individual the alternative fuels are good but not for the society.


++++1
This is *almost* what has happened in UK over the past few years and
continues unimpeded.
Solar & wind power energy production. Developed at huge costs with outputs
varying from little to Foxtrot Alpha. We don't have the rays that CA enjoys
and it is rare that the breeze is of the right flavour to enable wind farms
to operate at any efficiency.
Meanwhile, bill paying energy consumers subsidise the green revolution. Big
Time.
One good thing about a revolution, it always goes full circle.
Up there /\ /\ /\ is quoted 'We pay about 9 cents per kWh from the utility'.
I'm currently paying 15.5 pence per kWh. That's £sterling not $USD.
On top of that we have tax @ 20% and CCL (Climate Change Levy,
cough/choke/splutter).
So I reckon we are paying more than double than you guys.
If that is not enough to deter you from rushing to UK, the weather is p***
poor and the beer is room temp.[1]

I really like this group. Knowledgeable folk telling it like it is.
Good luck to all,
Nick.


[1] Mild in summer, bitter in winter.

On 9/16/2013 3:35 PM, Leon wrote:
On 9/16/2013 1:56 PM, JoeTaxpayer wrote:
On 9/16/13 1:33 PM, Leon wrote:

I've been following Solar Power progress for some time now. The weak
link is still storage. My cost can be zero from sun-up to sun-down, but
we'll need power the rest of the day for years to come. That guaranteed
power will come at a cost.

The problem with a back up generator is that even with natural gas the
cost of running it will pretty much offset the savings. My sister and a
neighbor have whole house back up generators and the expense to generate
electricity with the generator is around 25~30 cents per kWh. We pay
about 9 cents per kWh from the utility.

Understood. So, forget local generators.

There will be a balance where the power companies are providing
overnight service. They will scale down a bit as that demand won't ever
be as high as daytime peak demand was.

My only point is that there will be an equilibrium, that even if solar
cost were zero (the absurd extreme) that bridging the gap would take
another level of effort, another cost curve or service.

To your numbers - I'm guessing the overnight is less than 1/3 or less of
daily usage. So paying 3X to bridge that gap seems absurd. If it were
less than 2X, or if the gap were just 1/6 daily power, the story changes.


For those few individuals it will become cheaper.


Until the balance is upset. We as a society are not going to be able to
not pay for our energy whether we reduce the cost to produce it or not.
The government will see to that.

Right now the government subsidies that encourage you to go solar cost
the rest of us more.

Robbing Peter to pay Paul.


If we don't pay for it our great grand kids will.

Basically changing for the sake of changing is not letting the free
market thrive, it creates a false economy. Oil is what people want, it
is the least expensive fuel to use and probably better for the
environment than all the caustic batteries that are going to have to be
dealt with some time in the future.

For the individual the alternative fuels are good but not for the society.



Leon, don't forget that oil is heavily subsidized, both explicitly in
the forms of various tax credits and almost no charges for taking oil
that is on what could be reasonably argued as land belonging to all of
us, but also in the hidden costs of environmental and health
degradation. Oil is not cheap.

On 9/21/2013 9:42 AM, scritch wrote:
On 9/16/2013 3:35 PM, Leon wrote:
On 9/16/2013 1:56 PM, JoeTaxpayer wrote:
On 9/16/13 1:33 PM, Leon wrote:

I've been following Solar Power progress for some time now. The weak
link is still storage. My cost can be zero from sun-up to sun-down,
but
we'll need power the rest of the day for years to come. That
guaranteed
power will come at a cost.

The problem with a back up generator is that even with natural gas the
cost of running it will pretty much offset the savings. My sister
and a
neighbor have whole house back up generators and the expense to
generate
electricity with the generator is around 25~30 cents per kWh. We pay
about 9 cents per kWh from the utility.

Understood. So, forget local generators.

There will be a balance where the power companies are providing
overnight service. They will scale down a bit as that demand won't ever
be as high as daytime peak demand was.

My only point is that there will be an equilibrium, that even if solar
cost were zero (the absurd extreme) that bridging the gap would take
another level of effort, another cost curve or service.

To your numbers - I'm guessing the overnight is less than 1/3 or less of
daily usage. So paying 3X to bridge that gap seems absurd. If it were
less than 2X, or if the gap were just 1/6 daily power, the story
changes.


For those few individuals it will become cheaper.


Until the balance is upset. We as a society are not going to be able to
not pay for our energy whether we reduce the cost to produce it or not.
The government will see to that.

Right now the government subsidies that encourage you to go solar cost
the rest of us more.

Robbing Peter to pay Paul.


If we don't pay for it our great grand kids will.

Basically changing for the sake of changing is not letting the free
market thrive, it creates a false economy. Oil is what people want, it
is the least expensive fuel to use and probably better for the
environment than all the caustic batteries that are going to have to be
dealt with some time in the future.

For the individual the alternative fuels are good but not for the
society.



Leon, don't forget that oil is heavily subsidized, both explicitly in
the forms of various tax credits and almost no charges for taking oil
that is on what could be reasonably argued as land belonging to all of
us, but also in the hidden costs of environmental and health
degradation. Oil is not cheap.



Never said that oil was cheap, I mentioned that it is cheaper than the
so called environmentally friendly energy sources.

On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 10:38:06 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
Never said that oil was cheap, I mentioned that it is cheaper than the
so called environmentally friendly energy sources.

Sure, you're right, but that doesn't for one minute mean that the
search for environmentally friendly and sustainable energy sources
shouldn't continue. And, it's also possible that the current flock of
those so called environmentally friendly energy sources might well
eventually turn into true environmentally friendly energy sources.

wrote:
On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 10:38:06 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
Never said that oil was cheap, I mentioned that it is cheaper than the
so called environmentally friendly energy sources.

Sure, you're right, but that doesn't for one minute mean that the
search for environmentally friendly and sustainable energy sources
shouldn't continue. And, it's also possible that the current flock of
those so called environmentally friendly energy sources might well
eventually turn into true environmentally friendly energy sources.

Agree that we should continue too look, there might be a better solution in
the future. But now oil is king and will be for decades to come. Right now
however oil is considerably more environmentally friendly than it has been
in the past and compared to batteries.

On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 17:33:17 -0500, Leon wrote:
however oil is considerably more environmentally friendly than it has been
in the past and compared to batteries.

I'd argue the ethics of that comment. There maybe more stringent
controls on oil harvesting, but when you get disasters on the scale of
the gulf coast oil spill, the description of "environmentally
friendly" is completely out there.

Running oil rigs in our oceans is a more screwed up act than I could
ever imagine.

"Leon" wrote:


Never said that oil was cheap, I mentioned that it is cheaper than
the
so called environmentally friendly energy sources.
snip
Agree that we should continue too look, there might be a better
solution in
the future. But now oil is king and will be for decades to come.
Right now
however oil is considerably more environmentally friendly than it
has been
in the past and compared to batteries.
-------------------------------------------------------
The Koch brothers have got to love you.

They have at least one person who buys the crap they try to
spread around.

Wonder how many so called "dirty" batteries are required to equal
the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico?

Oil has been "cheap" because it is heavily subsidized, easy to
get and has not been required to clean up the pollution
it creates.

There is no question that electric vehicles are the future; however,
in the near turn, natural gas will be the fuel that transitions from
oil
powered to electric powered vehicles.

Oil and coal are both on stage for their final performances.

The king is dead, long live the king.

Here in SoCal, Nissan has introduced an electric vehicle and seems
to be enjoying some success.

50 years ago, the Japanese invaded the SoCal auto market and had
more than modest success.

Are we poised for a repeat performance?

Time will tell.

Lew

An Update:

Seems a new Nissan dealer in the SF Bay area accepted
delivery of about 28 Nissan Leaf (Plug-in-electric) cars the
first of the month (09/01/13) and have sold 24 units thru
Friday (09/20/13).

They have more on order.

Guess there is a demand after all.

Lew

"Lew Hodgett" wrote:
An Update:

Seems a new Nissan dealer in the SF Bay area accepted
delivery of about 28 Nissan Leaf (Plug-in-electric) cars the
first of the month (09/01/13) and have sold 24 units thru
Friday (09/20/13).

They have more on order.

Guess there is a demand after all.

Lew

There is always going to be the odd entries that lure those looking for
something different. Remember the Edsel?

And FWIW dealers normally "take" delivery of new vehicles that they
ordered. Dealers that accept delivery typically are accepting those units
which they did not order. Read that as they accepted vehicles as a favor
or trade. They accept just about any kind of vehicle that they can get
their hands until they can start building a supply of vehicles that they
have actually ordered. New dealers typically jump through hoops with the
factory until they get their feet on the ground.

A new dealer accepting a load of unique vehicles is not as good as it
sounds.

"Lew Hodgett" wrote:
"Leon" wrote:


Never said that oil was cheap, I mentioned that it is cheaper than
the
so called environmentally friendly energy sources.
snip
Agree that we should continue too look, there might be a better
solution in
the future. But now oil is king and will be for decades to come.
Right now
however oil is considerably more environmentally friendly than it
has been
in the past and compared to batteries.
-------------------------------------------------------
The Koch brothers have got to love you.

They have at least one person who buys the crap they try to
spread around.

Pot, Kettle



Wonder how many so called "dirty" batteries are required to equal
the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico?

That oil spill is all but forgotten.



Oil has been "cheap" because it is heavily subsidized, easy to
get and has not been required to clean up the pollution
it creates.


Please! Not required to clean up pollution??????? Did CA ax the
automobile emissions laws?


There is no question that electric vehicles are the future; however,
in the near turn, natural gas will be the fuel that transitions from
oil
powered to electric powered vehicles.

No question it the greenies have their way.




Oil and coal are both on stage for their final performances.


LOL


The king is dead, long live the king.

Here in SoCal, Nissan has introduced an electric vehicle and seems
to be enjoying some success.


Electric vehicles are all over the place and enjoying the success of
selling to the .05% of buyers that think they are making a difference.



50 years ago, the Japanese invaded the SoCal auto market and had
more than modest success.

Are we poised for a repeat performance?

Time will tell.

Lew

wrote:
On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 17:33:17 -0500, Leon wrote:
however oil is considerably more environmentally friendly than it has been
in the past and compared to batteries.

I'd argue the ethics of that comment. There maybe more stringent
controls on oil harvesting, but when you get disasters on the scale of
the gulf coast oil spill, the description of "environmentally
friendly" is completely out there.

As opposed to dealing with nuclear waste? Do you think Russia or Japan
would agree?



Running oil rigs in our oceans is a more screwed up act than I could
ever imagine.

It sounds screwed up until you realize that the ocean oozes more oil
naturally than any oil spill on any given day.

"Leon" wrote:

A new dealer accepting a load of unique vehicles is not as good as
it
sounds.
-------------------------------------------------
Trust me as a salesman that if I get a chance to place an order for 28
widgets that
cost in excess of $20K each and resell 24 of them at a profit in 20
days, you can
bet your sweet rear end I'm a happy salesman.

Lew

On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 00:46:08 -0500, Leon wrote:
As opposed to dealing with nuclear waste? Do you think Russia or Japan
would agree?

Who mentioned nuclear waste? Certainly not me. Yes, I know, the vast
bulk of the world runs on oil and nuclear generated electricity.

And, just because the US hasn't experience any all encompassing
nuclear accidents lately, it's sheer arrogance to even think that it
couldn't happen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear..._and_incidents

Running oil rigs in our oceans is a more screwed up act than I could
ever imagine.

It sounds screwed up until you realize that the ocean oozes more oil
naturally than any oil spill on any given day.

So, that means we should just go blithely ahead without any concern as
to how we might be adding to the pollution quotient? In addition,
those natural oozes are not man made either.

wrote:
On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 00:46:08 -0500, Leon wrote:
As opposed to dealing with nuclear waste? Do you think Russia or Japan
would agree?

Who mentioned nuclear waste? Certainly not me. Yes, I know, the vast
bulk of the world runs on oil and nuclear generated electricity.


I did not mean to indicate that oil spills are not a disaster of a
particular size, only to point out that disasters of nuclear flavor are a
problem that never goes away. Nuclear is sold as clean and friendly.
Basically all forms of friendly energy comes with its own baggage when
something does not go as planned. But put into perspective how much each
actually is used and how much energy it actually generates and oil looks
better when the problems surface for each type of disaster.



And, just because the US hasn't experience any all encompassing
nuclear accidents lately, it's sheer arrogance to even think that it
couldn't happen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear..._and_incidents


Three Mile Island. And nuclear disasters relatively last for ever.




Running oil rigs in our oceans is a more screwed up act than I could
ever imagine.

It sounds screwed up until you realize that the ocean oozes more oil
naturally than any oil spill on any given day.

So, that means we should just go blithely ahead without any concern as
to how we might be adding to the pollution quotient?

No, we should look for alternatives but so far none are better than oil.


In addition,
those natural oozes are not man made either.

Precisely! Our man made ocean disasters don't compare to what nature
produces, and nature takes care of those on its own.

"Lew Hodgett" wrote:
"Leon" wrote:

A new dealer accepting a load of unique vehicles is not as good as
it
sounds.
-------------------------------------------------
Trust me as a salesman that if I get a chance to place an order for 28
widgets that
cost in excess of $20K each and resell 24 of them at a profit in 20
days, you can
bet your sweet rear end I'm a happy salesman.

Lew

Of course, the salesman always get paid, profit or no profit. And yes it
is not a stretch to loose money on the sale of a traded vehicle. Hopefully
the loss is made up when the trade-in is finally sold.

"Lew Hodgett" wrote:

Wonder how many so called "dirty" batteries are required to equal
the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico?
------------------------------------------------------
"Leon" wrote:

That oil spill is all but forgotten.
-------------------------------------------------------
Wonder if that is the reason BP is in the middle of a pubic relations
campaign across the country using the national media?

Somehow I don't think so.

That BP spill simply exposed what an environmental risk off shore
drilling can be.

This time around it won't be forgotten so quickly.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Leon" wrote:

Please! Not required to clean up pollution??????? Did CA ax the
automobile emissions laws?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
We are gaining on it in CA, too bad much of the rest of the country
has it's collective head where the moon doesn't shine.
----------------------------------------------------------------
"Lew Hodgett" wrote:

There is no question that electric vehicles are the future;
however,
in the near turn, natural gas will be the fuel that transitions
from
oil
powered to electric powered vehicles.
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Lew Hodgett" wrote:


Here in SoCal, Nissan has introduced an electric vehicle and seems
to be enjoying some success.

---------------------------------------------------------------
"Leon" wrote:

Electric vehicles are all over the place and enjoying the success of
selling to the .05% of buyers that think they are making a
difference.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Too many of the big boys are getting into the electric vehicle market
for it not to grow significantly.

VW as one comes to mind.

My guess is that in 10 years or less, the majority of vehicles
manufactured
will be electric.

Lew

On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 21:16:54 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
My guess is that in 10 years or less, the majority of vehicles
manufactured will be electric.

I'm not quite that optimistic, but I can envision it happening within
the next quarter century. With entrepreneurs like Tesla fully
committed to electric vehicle promotion, it will happen sooner than
later. Add onto that the fact that the Tesla *looks damned good* IMHO,
the electric car field has nowhere to go except up.

wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 21:16:54 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
My guess is that in 10 years or less, the majority of vehicles
manufactured will be electric.

I'm not quite that optimistic, but I can envision it happening within
the next quarter century. With entrepreneurs like Tesla fully
committed to electric vehicle promotion, it will happen sooner than
later. Add onto that the fact that the Tesla *looks damned good* IMHO,
the electric car field has nowhere to go except up.

Tesla is going to have to cut pricing by 2/3 to have a serious alternative
to gasoline vehicles. The bigger less expensive vehicle that will go long
distances will drive the market.

That said Tesla is toying with a prototype battery exchange station to give
the vehicle the ability to leave one city to go to another. Unfortunately
those stations will have to be 3 times closer than gas stations and I
suspect that a charged exchange battery will be pretty pricey.

On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 23:57:38 -0500, Leon wrote:
Tesla is going to have to cut pricing by 2/3 to have a serious alternative
to gasoline vehicles. The bigger less expensive vehicle that will go long
distances will drive the market.

Sure, there's going to be some difficulties, but certainly many fewer
difficulties than Ford had when he started producing his model T.
The main thing is that the ball is rolling. I truly believe it's an
inexorable ball too. Go back a little as a twenty years. Who would
have believed that the electric car would be or *is* now a practical
reality.

Yeah, ten, twenty, twenty five years is a huge amount of time
considering our drive to produce new technology.

"Lew Hodgett" wrote:

My guess is that in 10 years or less, the majority of vehicles
manufactured will be electric.
--------------------------------------------------
wrote:

I'm not quite that optimistic, but I can envision it happening
within
the next quarter century. With entrepreneurs like Tesla fully
committed to electric vehicle promotion, it will happen sooner than
later. Add onto that the fact that the Tesla *looks damned good*
IMHO,
the electric car field has nowhere to go except up.
------------------------------------------------------
That 10 year number comes from the industry itself, not me,
I'm just the messenger.

Lew

"Leon" wrote:

Tesla is going to have to cut pricing by 2/3 to have a serious
alternative
to gasoline vehicles. The bigger less expensive vehicle that will
go long
distances will drive the market.
---------------------------------------------------------
Tesla is already committed to producing a vehicle that will sell
for about $30K within 3-5 years.

Since the average daily auto trip is about 29 miles, per Nissan,
long distances are the exception, not the rule.

200 miles between recharge is already here.

Economy has not been addressed in this thread.

A KWH of power generated by an internal combustion engine is
considerably more expensive than a KWH produced by a fixed utility.

Reduced operating costs help to offset initial costs.



Lew

wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 23:57:38 -0500, Leon wrote:
Tesla is going to have to cut pricing by 2/3 to have a serious alternative
to gasoline vehicles. The bigger less expensive vehicle that will go long
distances will drive the market.

Sure, there's going to be some difficulties, but certainly many fewer
difficulties than Ford had when he started producing his model T.
The main thing is that the ball is rolling. I truly believe it's an
inexorable ball too. Go back a little as a twenty years. Who would
have believed that the electric car would be or *is* now a practical
reality.

Yeah, ten, twenty, twenty five years is a huge amount of time
considering our drive to produce new technology.

I believe the electric car will evolve but I still believe it will take
decades at a minimum before they become an actual benefit to the
environment.. You still have to factor in the impact they have on the
environment during manufacture, the maintaining of their components, and
their eventual disposal/recycling. There should be disclosure statements
with each unit as to what the impact is going to be on the environment much
like the carbon foot print that is determined for each fossil fuel vehicle.


Ford's issue was building a vehicle fast enough to meet with demand.
Demand for the Model T was hundreds of times greater than it is for
electrics or hybrids. Yes demand for the electrics/hybrids are greater
than they were 15 + years ago, but there are more to choose from. The
problem is that they are still as much of an I'm pact on the environment as
ever and still pretty much have down time limitations for recharging when
they can't be used. They will be popular for those that believe that they
are doing the environment a good deed and have relatively small needs for
having a vehicle that will take them to a destination 60 miles away from
home and back. There are countless people that make a treck this far on a
daily basis just to go to work. In particular these commuters live in
heavy population areas, ironically this is where the electrics should be
most popular.. Time will tell how fast this transition will take place if
it actually does take place. IMHO electrics in the foreseeable future will
be more of a novelty to those that can afford..

"Lew Hodgett" wrote:
"Leon" wrote:

Tesla is going to have to cut pricing by 2/3 to have a serious
alternative
to gasoline vehicles. The bigger less expensive vehicle that will
go long
distances will drive the market.
---------------------------------------------------------
Tesla is already committed to producing a vehicle that will sell
for about $30K within 3-5 years.

Committed. But that still is not yet a reality. Oldsmobile was committed
to build a Diesel engine. GM was committed to build a competitive small
car, Saturn. Karmen Fiscar was committed. The question will be, will they
be able to produce a vehicle that buyers will want at 1/3 their current
price and still be able to remain in business selling that cheaply in as
little as 3~5 years. It is only if the masses find the cheaper vehicle to
be at least equal to the traditional vehicles will that vehicle have a
chance of succeeding.




Since the average daily auto trip is about 29 miles, per Nissan,
long distances are the exception, not the rule.

Seriously, 29 is not even in the ball park for any relative big, not large
city, commuter. I was in the automotive business for most all of my
professional career and in particular in the repair end of the dealership
business. 32 miles a day every day is just under 12,000 moles a year.
When you see a vehicle that is only driven that distance it is considered a
below average low mileage vehicle. 24,000 miles a year is the actual
normal mileage that is placed on a vehicle and as one would expect a
majority of those miles are going to and from work. Since the 5 day work
week excludes weekend driving those a majority of those 24,000 miles are
racked up in 250 ish days vs 365 days. Now the daily travel distance for
the average city driver goes up to almost 100 miles a day.

While Nissan claims that the average auto trip is 29 miles a day I highly
suspect that what they are not telling you is that the average daily trip
for a Leaf driver will be 29 miles a day.




200 miles between recharge is already here.


And not as affordable as a gasoline equally equipped vehicle. Hell, those
experimental solar electrics go 1,000 miles in the desert but they too are
not yet affordable or practice.

I'm not saying that I'm against electrics but being a realist and observing
what is actually happening vs what the media wants to report I am looking
at what the electrics are going to have to offer that will be an advantage
over the competition before you see any majority shift in how the vehicle
is fueled.

Economy has not been addressed in this thread.

A KWH of power generated by an internal combustion engine is
considerably more expensive than a KWH produced by a fixed utility.

Reduced operating costs help to offset initial costs.

And I will add to that, 10 plus years ago it was a reality that a an
electric powered motor was 4 times efficient to power vs an internal
combustion engine. Read that as the electric only required 1/4 the energy
as the gasoline consumes to produce the same amount of power.

BUT a battery pack for storing generated electricity is countless times
more expensive than a gasoline fuel tank and today the capacity of the
electric power storage is 25~35% of the average energy stored in a gasoline
fuel tank.

And then finally, the biggest obstacle for the all electric vehicle is the
time it takes for replenishing to a full charge vs the five minutes it
takes to refuel a gasoline tank.

Unfortunately for the electrics is that they are going to end up at home
for recharging. It is next to impossible to consider it to be a practice
alternative for driving from Houston to the next largest city and back in
the same day. That fact in itself will be one of the deal breakers..










Lew

"Lew Hodgett" wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote:

My guess is that in 10 years or less, the majority of vehicles
manufactured will be electric.
--------------------------------------------------
wrote:

I'm not quite that optimistic, but I can envision it happening
within
the next quarter century. With entrepreneurs like Tesla fully
committed to electric vehicle promotion, it will happen sooner than
later. Add onto that the fact that the Tesla *looks damned good*
IMHO,
the electric car field has nowhere to go except up.
------------------------------------------------------
That 10 year number comes from the industry itself, not me,
I'm just the messenger.

Lew

Well first Lew, you say "your guess" is that in 10 years or less the
"majority" of vehicles will be electric. Now you say this number comes
from the industry.

That industry naturally will make that claim, it's make it or break it
time. That industry needs an enormous infusion of cash from investors to
be able to mass produce a vehicle that will actually perform and go the
distance and be at least equal in amenities as the much much lower price
vehicles available right now with gasoline/diesel engines.

I hope that 10 years is a realistic and achievable time frame but I don't
see the trend growing that fast. It seems to be growing fast because of
all of the attention it is getting but I am still seeing, in Houston, the
vast majority of new vehicles being equipped with the traditional internal
combustion engine. Many more hurdles will have to be over come before the
"majority of new vehicle buyers make the switch.

On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 11:12:42 -0500, Leon wrote:

"Lew Hodgett" wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote:

My guess is that in 10 years or less, the majority of vehicles
manufactured will be electric.
--------------------------------------------------
wrote:

I'm not quite that optimistic, but I can envision it happening
within
the next quarter century. With entrepreneurs like Tesla fully
committed to electric vehicle promotion, it will happen sooner than
later. Add onto that the fact that the Tesla *looks damned good*
IMHO,
the electric car field has nowhere to go except up.
------------------------------------------------------
That 10 year number comes from the industry itself, not me,
I'm just the messenger.

Lew

Well first Lew, you say "your guess" is that in 10 years or less the
"majority" of vehicles will be electric. Now you say this number comes
from the industry.

That industry naturally will make that claim, it's make it or break it
time. That industry needs an enormous infusion of cash from investors to
be able to mass produce a vehicle that will actually perform and go the
distance and be at least equal in amenities as the much much lower price
vehicles available right now with gasoline/diesel engines.

I hope that 10 years is a realistic and achievable time frame but I don't
see the trend growing that fast. It seems to be growing fast because of
all of the attention it is getting but I am still seeing, in Houston, the
vast majority of new vehicles being equipped with the traditional internal
combustion engine. Many more hurdles will have to be over come before the
"majority of new vehicle buyers make the switch.

My bet is that in ten years there will be FEWER electric and hybrid
cars on the market than there are now. Cars won't be smaller or get
much better mileage and barring (even more) government meddling, gas
won't be much more expensive in a decade, either. Two decades, even.

wrote:
On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 11:12:42 -0500, Leon wrote:

"Lew Hodgett" wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote:

My guess is that in 10 years or less, the majority of vehicles
manufactured will be electric.
--------------------------------------------------
wrote:

I'm not quite that optimistic, but I can envision it happening
within
the next quarter century. With entrepreneurs like Tesla fully
committed to electric vehicle promotion, it will happen sooner than
later. Add onto that the fact that the Tesla *looks damned good*
IMHO,
the electric car field has nowhere to go except up.
------------------------------------------------------
That 10 year number comes from the industry itself, not me,
I'm just the messenger.

Lew
Well first Lew, you say "your guess" is that in 10 years or less the
"majority" of vehicles will be electric. Now you say this number comes
from the industry.
That industry naturally will make that claim, it's make it or break it
time. That industry needs an enormous infusion of cash from investors to
be able to mass produce a vehicle that will actually perform and go the
distance and be at least equal in amenities as the much much lower price
vehicles available right now with gasoline/diesel engines.

I hope that 10 years is a realistic and achievable time frame but I don't
see the trend growing that fast. It seems to be growing fast because of
all of the attention it is getting but I am still seeing, in Houston, the
vast majority of new vehicles being equipped with the traditional internal
combustion engine. Many more hurdles will have to be over come before the
"majority of new vehicle buyers make the switch.
My bet is that in ten years there will be FEWER electric and hybrid
cars on the market than there are now. Cars won't be smaller or get
much better mileage and barring (even more) government meddling, gas
won't be much more expensive in a decade, either. Two decades, even.

Mercedes, IIRC, suggests they will have a "self-driving car" by the end
of the decade. I expect an increase in mass transit, and fewer cars. A
self-driving car would seem to support various forms of "sharing".

Already a system is currently going up in Indianapolis, where you can
"share" an electric car--dropping it off at one of numerous designated
recharge stations.

On 9/24/2013 12:19 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 11:12:42 -0500, Leon wrote:

"Lew Hodgett" wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote:

My guess is that in 10 years or less, the majority of vehicles
manufactured will be electric.
--------------------------------------------------
wrote:

I'm not quite that optimistic, but I can envision it happening
within
the next quarter century. With entrepreneurs like Tesla fully
committed to electric vehicle promotion, it will happen sooner than
later. Add onto that the fact that the Tesla *looks damned good*
IMHO,
the electric car field has nowhere to go except up.
------------------------------------------------------
That 10 year number comes from the industry itself, not me,
I'm just the messenger.

Lew

Well first Lew, you say "your guess" is that in 10 years or less the
"majority" of vehicles will be electric. Now you say this number comes
from the industry.

That industry naturally will make that claim, it's make it or break it
time. That industry needs an enormous infusion of cash from investors to
be able to mass produce a vehicle that will actually perform and go the
distance and be at least equal in amenities as the much much lower price
vehicles available right now with gasoline/diesel engines.

I hope that 10 years is a realistic and achievable time frame but I don't
see the trend growing that fast. It seems to be growing fast because of
all of the attention it is getting but I am still seeing, in Houston, the
vast majority of new vehicles being equipped with the traditional internal
combustion engine. Many more hurdles will have to be over come before the
"majority of new vehicle buyers make the switch.

My bet is that in ten years there will be FEWER electric and hybrid
cars on the market than there are now. Cars won't be smaller or get
much better mileage and barring (even more) government meddling, gas
won't be much more expensive in a decade, either. Two decades, even.

That is entirely possible too. In 1975 I bought an Oldsmobile Starfire
with a 3.8L V6, Vega/Pinto sized car. 110 HP. I got 25 mpg on the
highway, top speed around 95 mph

In August of last year I bought my wife a 2012 Camry SE with 3.5L V6,
268 HP and pretty much loaded. Top speed is supposed to be about 130
governor limited, nope I have not seen this but don't doubt the capability.

This past spring we took a few days off with come close friends, 4 of
us, on a 2 night away trip. The trunk was full of luggage.

Shortly after getting to highway speed, which I maintained with cruise
control for 1 hour, I zeroed the computer and after 1 hour of driving we
stopped for a break. Actually not really a break but the women saw a
store 6 miles down the road and we were going to stop, IYKWIM.
We went 72 miles in that hour and used 2 gallons of gas.

In town driving we average 26 MPG.

On 9/24/2013 1:05 PM, Bill wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 11:12:42 -0500, Leon wrote:

"Lew Hodgett" wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote:

My guess is that in 10 years or less, the majority of vehicles
manufactured will be electric.
--------------------------------------------------
wrote:

I'm not quite that optimistic, but I can envision it happening
within
the next quarter century. With entrepreneurs like Tesla fully
committed to electric vehicle promotion, it will happen sooner than
later. Add onto that the fact that the Tesla *looks damned good*
IMHO,
the electric car field has nowhere to go except up.
------------------------------------------------------
That 10 year number comes from the industry itself, not me,
I'm just the messenger.

Lew
Well first Lew, you say "your guess" is that in 10 years or less the
"majority" of vehicles will be electric. Now you say this number comes
from the industry.
That industry naturally will make that claim, it's make it or break it
time. That industry needs an enormous infusion of cash from
investors to
be able to mass produce a vehicle that will actually perform and go the
distance and be at least equal in amenities as the much much lower price
vehicles available right now with gasoline/diesel engines.

I hope that 10 years is a realistic and achievable time frame but I
don't
see the trend growing that fast. It seems to be growing fast
because of
all of the attention it is getting but I am still seeing, in Houston,
the
vast majority of new vehicles being equipped with the traditional
internal
combustion engine. Many more hurdles will have to be over come
before the
"majority of new vehicle buyers make the switch.
My bet is that in ten years there will be FEWER electric and hybrid
cars on the market than there are now. Cars won't be smaller or get
much better mileage and barring (even more) government meddling, gas
won't be much more expensive in a decade, either. Two decades, even.

Mercedes, IIRC, suggests they will have a "self-driving car" by the end
of the decade. I expect an increase in mass transit, and fewer cars. A
self-driving car would seem to support various forms of "sharing".

Not a stretch, GM was playing with this idea some 15~20 years ago with
sensors built into the highway that guided the vehicle. And today some
vehicles will automatically parallel park.





Already a system is currently going up in Indianapolis, where you can
"share" an electric car--dropping it off at one of numerous designated
recharge stations.


share a car?? As in leave your vehicle and take some one else's?

I would not, maybe you would, be OK with lending my vehicle to a
stranger and I cant begin to fathom the liability issues associated with
this arrangement.

Leon wrote:
On 9/24/2013 1:05 PM, Bill wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 11:12:42 -0500, Leon wrote:

"Lew Hodgett" wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote:

My guess is that in 10 years or less, the majority of vehicles
manufactured will be electric.
--------------------------------------------------
wrote:

I'm not quite that optimistic, but I can envision it happening
within
the next quarter century. With entrepreneurs like Tesla fully
committed to electric vehicle promotion, it will happen sooner than
later. Add onto that the fact that the Tesla *looks damned good*
IMHO,
the electric car field has nowhere to go except up.
------------------------------------------------------
That 10 year number comes from the industry itself, not me,
I'm just the messenger.

Lew
Well first Lew, you say "your guess" is that in 10 years or less the
"majority" of vehicles will be electric. Now you say this number
comes
from the industry.
That industry naturally will make that claim, it's make it or break it
time. That industry needs an enormous infusion of cash from
investors to
be able to mass produce a vehicle that will actually perform and go
the
distance and be at least equal in amenities as the much much lower
price
vehicles available right now with gasoline/diesel engines.

I hope that 10 years is a realistic and achievable time frame but I
don't
see the trend growing that fast. It seems to be growing fast
because of
all of the attention it is getting but I am still seeing, in Houston,
the
vast majority of new vehicles being equipped with the traditional
internal
combustion engine. Many more hurdles will have to be over come
before the
"majority of new vehicle buyers make the switch.
My bet is that in ten years there will be FEWER electric and hybrid
cars on the market than there are now. Cars won't be smaller or get
much better mileage and barring (even more) government meddling, gas
won't be much more expensive in a decade, either. Two decades, even.

Mercedes, IIRC, suggests they will have a "self-driving car" by the end
of the decade. I expect an increase in mass transit, and fewer cars. A
self-driving car would seem to support various forms of "sharing".

Not a stretch, GM was playing with this idea some 15~20 years ago with
sensors built into the highway that guided the vehicle. And today
some vehicles will automatically parallel park.





Already a system is currently going up in Indianapolis, where you can
"share" an electric car--dropping it off at one of numerous designated
recharge stations.


share a car?? As in leave your vehicle and take some one else's?

Actually, now that I think about it, it's a "pay by the hour" system.
One takes a car from any designated spot, and drops it off at any other
available designated spot. So the advantage is, you don't need to own a
car to use one of these. It is expected to appeal to many of our
conventioneers. My understanding is that it is being built now.

With regard to your concern, hopefully there will be some quality
control! I assume a borrower would be responsible for not leaving
french fries and related items in the car...




I would not, maybe you would, be OK with lending my vehicle to a
stranger and I cant begin to fathom the liability issues associated
with this arrangement.
Maybe my explanation about resolves your concern about this issue. To
me, it seems to resemble "renting a car".

Bill wrote:
Leon wrote:
On 9/24/2013 1:05 PM, Bill wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 11:12:42 -0500, Leon wrote:

"Lew Hodgett" wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote:

My guess is that in 10 years or less, the majority of vehicles
manufactured will be electric.
--------------------------------------------------
wrote:

I'm not quite that optimistic, but I can envision it happening
within
the next quarter century. With entrepreneurs like Tesla fully
committed to electric vehicle promotion, it will happen sooner than
later. Add onto that the fact that the Tesla *looks damned good*
IMHO,
the electric car field has nowhere to go except up.
------------------------------------------------------
That 10 year number comes from the industry itself, not me,
I'm just the messenger.

Lew
Well first Lew, you say "your guess" is that in 10 years or less the
"majority" of vehicles will be electric. Now you say this number
comes
from the industry.
That industry naturally will make that claim, it's make it or
break it
time. That industry needs an enormous infusion of cash from
investors to
be able to mass produce a vehicle that will actually perform and
go the
distance and be at least equal in amenities as the much much lower
price
vehicles available right now with gasoline/diesel engines.

I hope that 10 years is a realistic and achievable time frame but I
don't
see the trend growing that fast. It seems to be growing fast
because of
all of the attention it is getting but I am still seeing, in Houston,
the
vast majority of new vehicles being equipped with the traditional
internal
combustion engine. Many more hurdles will have to be over come
before the
"majority of new vehicle buyers make the switch.
My bet is that in ten years there will be FEWER electric and hybrid
cars on the market than there are now. Cars won't be smaller or get
much better mileage and barring (even more) government meddling, gas
won't be much more expensive in a decade, either. Two decades, even.

Mercedes, IIRC, suggests they will have a "self-driving car" by the end
of the decade. I expect an increase in mass transit, and fewer cars. A
self-driving car would seem to support various forms of "sharing".

Not a stretch, GM was playing with this idea some 15~20 years ago
with sensors built into the highway that guided the vehicle. And
today some vehicles will automatically parallel park.





Already a system is currently going up in Indianapolis, where you can
"share" an electric car--dropping it off at one of numerous designated
recharge stations.


share a car?? As in leave your vehicle and take some one else's?

Actually, now that I think about it, it's a "pay by the hour" system.
One takes a car from any designated spot, and drops it off at any
other available designated spot. So the advantage is, you don't need
to own a car to use one of these. It is expected to appeal to many
of our conventioneers. My understanding is that it is being built now.

With regard to your concern, hopefully there will be some quality
control! I assume a borrower would be responsible for not leaving
french fries and related items in the car...



Here your go. I haven't read the whole article:
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articl...tric-car-share

And on a related note (rent-a-bike!):
http://www.wibc.com/news/story.aspx?ID=1984395

On 9/24/2013 4:54 PM, Bill wrote:
Leon wrote:
On 9/24/2013 1:05 PM, Bill wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 11:12:42 -0500, Leon wrote:

"Lew Hodgett" wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote:

My guess is that in 10 years or less, the majority of vehicles
manufactured will be electric.
--------------------------------------------------
wrote:

I'm not quite that optimistic, but I can envision it happening
within
the next quarter century. With entrepreneurs like Tesla fully
committed to electric vehicle promotion, it will happen sooner than
later. Add onto that the fact that the Tesla *looks damned good*
IMHO,
the electric car field has nowhere to go except up.
------------------------------------------------------
That 10 year number comes from the industry itself, not me,
I'm just the messenger.

Lew
Well first Lew, you say "your guess" is that in 10 years or less the
"majority" of vehicles will be electric. Now you say this number
comes
from the industry.
That industry naturally will make that claim, it's make it or break it
time. That industry needs an enormous infusion of cash from
investors to
be able to mass produce a vehicle that will actually perform and go
the
distance and be at least equal in amenities as the much much lower
price
vehicles available right now with gasoline/diesel engines.

I hope that 10 years is a realistic and achievable time frame but I
don't
see the trend growing that fast. It seems to be growing fast
because of
all of the attention it is getting but I am still seeing, in Houston,
the
vast majority of new vehicles being equipped with the traditional
internal
combustion engine. Many more hurdles will have to be over come
before the
"majority of new vehicle buyers make the switch.
My bet is that in ten years there will be FEWER electric and hybrid
cars on the market than there are now. Cars won't be smaller or get
much better mileage and barring (even more) government meddling, gas
won't be much more expensive in a decade, either. Two decades, even.

Mercedes, IIRC, suggests they will have a "self-driving car" by the end
of the decade. I expect an increase in mass transit, and fewer cars. A
self-driving car would seem to support various forms of "sharing".

Not a stretch, GM was playing with this idea some 15~20 years ago with
sensors built into the highway that guided the vehicle. And today
some vehicles will automatically parallel park.





Already a system is currently going up in Indianapolis, where you can
"share" an electric car--dropping it off at one of numerous designated
recharge stations.


share a car?? As in leave your vehicle and take some one else's?

Actually, now that I think about it, it's a "pay by the hour" system.
One takes a car from any designated spot, and drops it off at any other
available designated spot. So the advantage is, you don't need to own a
car to use one of these. It is expected to appeal to many of our
conventioneers. My understanding is that it is being built now.

With regard to your concern, hopefully there will be some quality
control! I assume a borrower would be responsible for not leaving
french fries and related items in the car...

I think my concern would be with someone having an accident and the
hassle of filling out paperwork for rental by the hour each time you
rent one.