> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
> Behalf Of xponentrob
> Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 7:47 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: Monday, January 12, 2009 2:05 PM
> Subject: RE: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
>
>
> > So, I'd say fund nanotech, not the present technology, which won't give
> us
> > the home run that is needed.
> >
>
> Well.....short to midterm..... we don't need a homerun, we just need a
> single. We don't need an electric car that matches a gasoline powered auto
> in every specification. Hybrids will do that job well enough. We need
> electrics for city driving and commuting. This involves some changes in
> habits, but nothing drastic. Most families own 2 vehicles and what most
> people are proposing is that 1 of them be more efficient and clean.
OK, let's say we do that. We decrease the US greenhouse gas emissions 15%
within the next 20 as a result of this happening. From normal development,
the availability of hybrids at a 4k premium now and the limited availability
of electric cars in several years (I'm inclined to take the Chevy, Honda,
and Toyota numbers with say 20% more cost as a good guess) at a 25k or so
premium for compact cars.
But, that won't have much of an impact on the total greenhouse gas emissions
because it doesn't address China, which will, barring a tremendous setback
in the Chinese growth, will overwhelm the emissions from the US and Europe
combined.
To see why this is critical, let's look at the 4 top GDP countries in terms
of tons of carbon per $1000 GDP. The figures for 2000-2006 are shown below.
(2007 isn't available yet).
China US Germany Japan
2000 0.98 0.60 0.40 0.37
2001 0.94 0.58 0.40 0.37
2002 0.96 0.58 0.39 0.37
2003 1.03 0.57 0.40 0.38
2004 1.12 0.56 0.40 0.37
2005 1.13 0.55 0.39 0.36
2006 1.12 0.52 0.38 0.36
You see that China has actually risen in their energy intensity per dollar
of GDP. The US has fallen, and will probably continue to fall, with the
singles that you are talking about. Germany and Japan have been fairly
steady, but will probably fall enough to drop their per capita emissions.
But, the singles you are talking about won't affect China because they are
in a totally different point in economic development than the US. People
there are demanding economic growth, and the 5%-7% expected next year in
China may be low enough to spark civil unrest. Unless electric cars are as
cheap as gas cars, then they won't switch.
> If you put together a series of singles, you can get a score. It doesn't
> have to be a perfect vehicle right off the bat. Virtually every car is
> more vehicle than people need on a day to day basis anyway, so it isn't
> as if folks are going to be suffering if they own an electric or a hybrid.
Sure, it's been argued for a long time that Americans can do with a lot
less. Let's say we do. The problem is that this argument doesn't hold for
the Chinese, who are now the leading emitter of greenhouse gasses. My view
was that the West had the money to buy a home run, and a home run will be
the only thing to get emerging economies, like China, to switch.
> Well....the government establishes MPG ratings, and they do it with only
> one passenger, the driver.
> I don't see that your criticism amounts to much in this case. (Ever notice
> the YMMV disclaimer? I think that is especially applicable in this
> discussion<G>)
Sure, but when they test a big SUV, they test it with one driver, but the
full load. They don't change the configuration of the car. That's where
the Will 240 rating is suspect. They replaced passenger space with battery
space, changing the nature of the car itself. It's like having a small
Hummer that can only squeeze three people in it with a shoehorn and then
using its mpg in ads for the full blown Hummer.
In contrast, the Tesla rating system seem fairly rigorous, and the numbers
they get are probably about as optimistic as nominal mpg ratings.
> Most auto manufacturers have BEVs in the works and almost all have hybrids
> either for sale of coming soon.
> I don't think that many manufacturers would be doing something obviously
> stupid or that they are all *that* corrupt. There has to be some advantage
> beyond simple demand or expediency. (Really....I'm thinking that Toyota,
> Honda, Tesla, Fisker, Lightning and several others have shown what can be
> accomplished, and dozens of 300 million dollar manufacturing plants are
> more
> than just PR. Literally billions are being spent to bring these vehicles
> to market, with private money, and I struggle to envision that thousands
> of engineers, accountants, CEOs and investors are tilting at a battery
> powered windmill, that they are all foolish.)
Given the billions available in government money, and the limited runs of
20k per giant company (e.g. Toyota at 2.6 million cars in 2007), that's not
surprising. Plus, these plans came about when oil was supposed to hit
$200/barrel. If hybrids sales remain in free fall, the introduction of
electric cars will be pushed back...unless governments throw money at them.
>
> Ethanol has been blended into our gasoline for.........20 - 30 years?
Well, it's been a big deal for a short period of time. In the last 6 years
its use has gone up 5x.
> I have a hard time understanding this line of reasoning, especially about
> the battery breakthrough.
> When the break through comes, you can replace the autos batteries with the
> new ones as soon as you need a replacement. (Not exactly that
> simple.....there is the charger to be considered also but.....)
>
Sure, but before then, you have 40k cars competing with 12k cars. And, they
are limited use cars. I know that I used my small commute car for longer
trips now and again, which doesn't work with electric cars. So, why should
the government spend hundreds of billions of dollars subsidizing the parts
that don't need to be improved that much by paying the difference (just
about the only way folks are going to buy more than a few of these cars).
>
> I agree, but you ignore the rest of the periodic table, some of which also
> comprises fuels and which will be emitted as pollutants.
Huh? Gasoline does have some trace elements of other chemicals, but the
basis for its measure, for example, is octane (C8H18). It's a hydrocarbon.
> >
> > 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.
>
> It won't be so painful if there is an alternative to using gas.
If there is a cheap alternative. As it stands, Toyota has announced they
have delayed their US hybrid plant indefinitely (e.g. until gas goes way up
again).
As I mentioned elsewhere, speculators can put temporary bubbles in a market,
but commodities are basically driven by supply and demand. That's why oil
rose in the 70s, hit a bottom in 86, rebounded a bit from that before
hitting rock bottom in '98, and rose from that time until last summer.
Given the available data, it would have been reasonable for a speculator
free market to peak earlier, say March at $110, but the present bad market
is all due to the lack of demand, due to the big world wide recession.
Dan M.
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
