-Original Message-
From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] 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 dsummersmi...@comcast.net
To: 'Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion' brin-l@mccmedia.com
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 0.980.60 0.40 0.37
2001 0.940.58 0.40 0.37
2002 0.960.58 0.39 0.37
2003 1.030.57 0.40 0.38
2004 1.120.56 0.40 0.37
2005 1.130.55 0.39 0.36
2006 1.120.52 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.
Wellthe 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
discussionG)
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. (ReallyI'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
