> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of xponentrob > Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 9:11 PM > To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion > Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dan M" <[email protected]> > To: "'Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion'" <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 1:24 PM > Subject: RE: Scouted: U.S. > Heh! I'm aware of the math involved. > Frex: http://www.gunaxin.com/chevy-volt-bmw-mini-tesla-roadster/4055 > Worth reading.
Especially the part where he stated he has no idea why gas prices dropped so much. :-) > The problem with breaking down the math is that it pretty well preaches to > the already-decided. People are going to buy what they want to buy unless > they just can't afford to, and that is likely the only math that counts. > That pretty much means that some people will take a premium hit if they > believe that there will be other indirect benefits. > Then too, it must be repeated that these are initial estimates, and that > the > prices will inevitably lower. It is just a question of how much, and that > kind of market forcasting is near impossible at the moment for anyone. But, to first order, curve fitting of past prices aren't bad for things that are technology based (this clearly doesn't work for commodities that show both highly inelastic supply and highly inelastic demand). That is why bioengineering is an area that has potential; its costs are dropping a factor of 2 per year. Battery costs aren't. Now, we only need a factor of 10 for batteries, so it is possible that nanotech will provide a solution. So, I'd say fund nanotech, not the present technology, which won't give us the home run that is needed. > > > > > > >> > >> Vaporware? > > > > The Tesla can be bought. The others are still being configured and are > > not > > available for sale. I've always been skeptical about what the price and > > performance will be. The engineering rule is that projects take twice > as > > long and cost twice as much. Cutting this factor down, because they are > > in > > prototype stage, a conservative estimate is that costs are 30% higher > than > > discussed. They talked about 5 people, they talked about 240 miles, but > > never said that 5 people could be taken 240 miles. My guess is that the > 5 > > person seating is tight, and only for the 80 mile version of the > > car....otherwise they'd explicitly say otherwise (If I were the project > > manager I'd be all over the tech. writer's back to make sure that the > > capacity was stated explicitly if it existed...if it wasn't there, I'd > be > > happy with what they wrote). > > > > Second, the 240 miles would probably be under ideal conditions. > > Exactly the same as with gasoline vehicles, only no one ever questions > this. For some reason I find that humorous. Because we have real personal benchmark against which we can measure the difference and because someone other than the companies themselves test MPG ratings? > > You also have to factor in the lower costs of using electricity as an > energy source. I was assuming 0 electricity costs. >Depending on where one lives, gas is 3 - 5 times as costly as the > equivilent in watts. What is the value of a vehicle you may have zero > maintainance with in the first 5 years? Like my computer power supplies? The car that isn't built yet is like the backup quarterback when the team is struggling.....no problems are reported. > > Eventually, I think the answer is Yes. I'd say the answer is "it depends." If the money is thrown at electric cars now, before the battery breakthrough happens, it will be as useful as ethanol. > I don't think there is any question that there is a need to get away from > carbon based fuels and from millions of mobile units burning them at > various rates of inefficiency. IMO ethanol is not really a helpful > long term solution. I agree, but bioengineered fuels are not ethanol. There are algae that exist right now that produce aviation fuel with 1000x the efficiency of ethanol. The basic process is taking CO2 and H2O + solar energy to make complex hydrocarbons and O. These can be burned, producing CO2 and H2O. The net effect of the cycle is constant CO2, no net emissions. Now, there are problems with these algae being suspect to infections by fungi. But, with bioengineering exploding even faster than computers did, its quite possible that we can bioengineer solutions to this problem. The fact that venture capitalists are dropping good sized investments in startups in this field (Sapphire Energy has received 100 million in capital) indicates that there is at least some potential here. It may not work, there may be problems scaling up that are unanticipated. But, there exist in that field the same sort of fast learning curve that we had seen with computers between say 1955 and 1980. > I expect such taxes are coming, but phased in over a number of years. > This too has the scent of inevitability whether BEVs and Hybrids succeed > or fail to win in the market. Well, the US public will have to drastically change its nature to become pro-tax....even though you and I, and JDG for that matter, think it's a good idea. > > to CNN, SUV and Trucks are now outselling cars again > > > > http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/22/autos/trucks_back/ > > Watch C-Span much lately? Nope, when I did it was always politicians posturing and lying. :-) > > As I said earlier, "People will buy what they want to buy". True, and the best guess is that something has to change for what they want to buy to change. > I'm working with a guy, I give him a carpool home everyday so we have > plenty > of time to chat, and this guy has a great desire to own a 1500 or an F-250 > truck. He admits that he doesn't need or have a use for one, he just wants > it. And I expect he will buy one. He will drive it to work in the morning > and it will sit in a parking lot all day. He will drive it home in the > evening where it will sit in the driveway. He will take it out on > Saturdays > and spend a couple of hours cleaning his precioussssssssss. > I know lots of people just like him. I'm related to quite a few. > I, because of this, do not tend to be swayed by practicality arguments > because I don't see all that many people who make decisions based on > practicality. > But I did see many people who's heads got twisted 180 degrees by gas > prices last summer. Most still plan to buy that big monster truck, but > I get the feeling they all recognise it as a chance at a last hurrah. What happens when gas is still relatively cheap in 5 years? Remember, oil consumption was still going up while gas was under $4.00. I think that in 5 years, the energy shock of 08 will be like the gas lines of 79, forgotten. >>Long term >> solutions might very well include electric cars, but I think the > > government > > should not be in the business of subsidizing electric cars. > > Already happening to a small degree. And there is serious lobbying for > more. Yup, and I predict all the success we've seen with ethanol repeated. > Query: Are you impling that a breakthrough is not a breakthrough until it > makes market? No, there are breakthroughs in many fields that are never mass marketed. What I am saying is that we don't know until we know. In my own career, there have been many times, before I ran an experiment, I was pretty sure I knew how something would work, but it didn't, and I had to scramble. Take for example, scaling up the recent Stanford breakthrough of increasing the Li-I battery capacity 10x. According to them, it looks scaleable. Stanford is a good school, and I think they are being straightforward. But, I also know that there is a conspiracy against them, as well as every engineer. Nature conspires with the hidden flaw. So, I'd be for government support of the next step in development, but know that the next step may find an unseen problem that will be so difficult to circumvent that this line will turn to a dead end (at least temporarily). > I ask because it would help clarify what you mean by "future > breakthroughs". We need a breakthrough somewhere between the development of the transistor and the development of geosteering. We need a game changer. From experience, the best bet is to fund basic research because, even though every avenue is a long shot, after enough hands of poker, someone will get a straight flush. Most new ideas don't work; it's the few that do which pay for all. So, I argue strongly against developing electric cars that use inherently inadequate technology. The key is clearly cost/density of energy storage via batteries, fuel cells, etc. Once that falls into place, any one of a 100 companies can build a good electric car. Before it does, none can. So, why waste money building, if you were, gigantic tube based computers when we need the development of transistors and their compaction onto chips to have computers that transform the economy? If the government spent Manhattan project type money on tube based computers, would we even be a year ahead of where we are now in computer development? Dan M. > > Rather, it > > should be in the business of funding research in the litany of areas > that > > might work and then let companies use that research to fund concerns > that > > make economic sense. > > I suppose we differ greatly here. IMO the government should also be in the > business of putting an eventual end to ICE for personal transportation. It > should be quite obvious by now that there is no fuel beyond hydrogen that > ICE can use cleanly, and hydrogen requires a "future breakthrough" to even > be a viable choice. Ice would be an inferior choice when compared to fuel > cells in any case. > > > > > Personally, I'd bet a beer that bioengineered fuels, that have >10x the > > efficiency of ethanol production will have a significant market share in > > 10 > > years (say 10% of jet fuel), but electric cars will not be a significant > > player (>5% of cars sold worldwide in 2019) in that time. But, I have > no > > problem in placing chips on battery development, because the payoff from > a > > given winner should be substantial....we just don't know which bet will > > pay > > off. > > > > I agree with you on the bioengineered fuels. But I would hold my money on > the electric car bet until you do some research on the state of electrics > worldwide. This discussion about electrics is not happening just in the US > and Europe, but in China and India too. If strides are made in the two > most > populous countries in the world (where so many engineers in the US seem to > come from), then game changers become possible. > > > xponent > May The Fuel Source Be With You Maru > rob > > _______________________________________________ > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
