Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Are automobiles a major cause of global warming?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I saw an interesting special on History Channel or something like that, about alternative energy. It's a must see. They talked about huge advances in Solar panel production that's dropping pricing significantly and that the solar energy that hits the earth in a day, could provide energy for the entire earth for a year!!! A MEGA solar farm in Nevada could provide power for USA easily.... Cool stuff
And environmentalists wouldn't have anything to say? Have you read how hard it is for companies to put up a few windmills? Environmentalists seem to have a problem with any site the power companies pick, AND never offer a solution - sites that would work. Why? Because every square inch of the Earth and the oceans have an eco-syystem, and they'll also use the change to that eco-system as a reason not to develop something.
Most of the West is "conserved" land, military use, or Indian nations. Wait maybe instead of the Indians opening casinos, they have sovereignty and could use their large stretches of wate-land for solar-panels. They'll be the new sheiks of energy!
But yes someday a breakthrough in materials might aoccur that makes solar-power feasible. in that article you'll note that Germany gets only 3% of their power from solar, and even with an aggressive policy and incentives of 4X the electric rate for sale of solar energy, they don't expect to have that much by 2020. And Germany is not really a country where population growth is expected.
In the meantime the world population grows, our energy usage increases, and the poorer people and countries of the world will continue to use increasing amounts of carbon-based fuels that they dig up. The guy buying a $3K car in india or Mexico is not going to have a hi-tech solar car made for $20K. The people in China are not one day going to wake up and their coal-stove is gone and solar panels and an electric stove will have appeared.
That is exactly the phrase I have a problem with. There is no free lunch. I don't want a government as inefficient as the Germans. You are not looking realistically at the PV solar cells. The efficiency at the very best is like 13%. Any clouds cut that efficiency by a large percentage. From your article here is the major problem with the German PV system. Do you want to pay triple for your electricity? Someone has to pay. It is the typical robbing Peter to pay Paul marketing scheme.
By tapping the daylight for electricity -- which power companies are obliged to buy for 20 years at more than triple market prices
At the heart of the scheme is a "feed-in tariff" giving anyone who generates power from solar PV, wind or hydro a guaranteed payment from the local power company. The power firms are obliged to buy solar electricity for 49 cents per kilowatt hour -- or nearly four times market rates.
Many companies in the US have spent millions on research to develop better, longer lasting PV cells. It is kind of on a par with battery development. Not too bad, but not good enough to satisfy the needs.
You are not far off. And no stinking environmental groups can block them. It also keeps our flailing government out of the picture.
Electricity from the Kumeyaay Wind Project's 25 turbines that generate 2 MW each has begun flowing from the wind farm on Campo Indian Reservation atop the Tecate Divide into San Diego Gas & Electric's grid after eight months of construction and a month of testing.
For the Campo tribe, the wind farm diversifies its income from the lease of the land beneath the turbines. The Kumeyaay Wind farm annually will produce power sufficient for about 30,000 homes and will save approximately 110,000 tons a year in greenhouse gas emissions, compared with equivalent fossil fuel generation. It will help San Diego Gas & Electric meet its target of supplying at least 20 percent of its customers' electricity from renewable sources by 2010.
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=41006
Environmentalist groups have blocked every alternative energy source at one time or another. Whether it is Solar, Wind, Nuclear, Hydro or Geo-Thermal. I am sure without all the lawsuits and roadblocks we would be way ahead of where we are now. And when the environmentalists are not blocking projects the NIMBY homeowners fill in the gaps. I personally like geothermal. It is renewable and works 24/7. Wind and Solar have limitations. Hydro is questionable on many rivers. Nuclear is great if highly regulated and protected.
Now, that's a start. And further note that, "At the heart of the scheme is a 'feed-in tariff' giving anyone who generates power from solar PV, wind or hydro a guaranteed payment from the local power company. The power firms are obliged to buy solar electricity for 49 cents per kilowatt hour -- or nearly four times market rates."
Solar electric power is production heavily subsidized by the local power company. That is a policy choice made by the German government, and it may be an entirely valid way to go about this. But I wonder what will happen to the financial status of the power company - not to mention the rates paid by its customers - if said power company has to buy ever-larger amounts of solar electricity at four times the market rate. It is not good public policy to have utilities in financial straits.
Also note that the climate in Germany is typically milder than the climate in the U.S. Air conditioning is not nearly as common, especially for private homes, because Germany does not have the brutal summers that are common in large parts of the U.S. And German winters tend to be milder than that experienced by much of the northern U.S.
larsb: Now, please, let us end the arguments that the USA could not generate enough of it's own solar power if there was a breakthrough which made it cheaper.
Of course not, just as we should end the arguments that beautiful starlets would dump their rich husbands and boyfriends for Edmunds.com posters if there was a breakthrough love potion that overpowered their thought processes.
How we get to that point - or even whether that is the best path to follow - is another matter entirely (regarding the solar electricity, not the love potion), and that is going to be a source of argument, like it or not, because there isn't really one "correct" way.
It doesn't matter where the energy is used. What matters is, savings in energy bills, reducing oil consumption and not adding continuously to pollution to meet that part of energy solution.
And this was before Katrina and FEMA! Yes you are right, the government wouldn't get an F, but I give it a D- since Reagan left office. And I do commend FDR's foresight and management during WWII of the Manhattan Project. But that was before the explosion of committees and Dept. in the government.
"Where the energy is used" is not the point.
The point is that because of climate, the heating and cooling needs of American homes and businesses are quite energy intensive, and whether solar power can ever keep up with those needs is critical. Unless we all move to San Diego, where the temperature is a wonderful 70 degrees all year, which is great (at least, until the fires hit).
In southern Pennsylvania, temperatures regularly hit the 90s (with 90+ percent humidity) in July and August (despite a fair amount of cloud cover). If solar energy can't supply enough power to keep homes and businesses air conditioned, it is a real problem. In Germany, where 80 degrees is considered a heat wave, this is less critical.
In the winter months, temperatures in southern Pennsylvania well below freezing are common in from late December through the end of February. Northern Pennsylvania is even more brutal (never mind Minnesota, upstate New York, the Dakotas, etc.).
When climates face extremes of temperatures, what works in Germany (where, even now, there is a whopping 3 percent of electricity generated by solar, and that is with hefty state-mandated subsidies paid by utilities to solar-power generators) may not work here, and not just because of "big oil" or the new scapegoat du jour.
If the German electric utility is paying 49 cents per KWH to those with solar panels feeding back into the system. How much are they going to charge per KWH to the poor [non-permissible content removed] living in an apartment complex? Can you say $500 electric bills? Even Hawaii with its horrible electric costs it is only 28 cents per KWH. They generate most of their energy with coal that is shipped into the islands. They have good geo-thermal potential. That is blocked by native superstition. Wind has gotten some foothold in spite of environmental opposition.
As for poor folks, I wonder if the incentive to sell solar is worse than the impact from rising oil prices.
I'm glad this appears to be working on a small scale in Germany. But that doesn't mean it will work in other areas (or even on a larger scale in Germany), and the fact that it may not work in other areas is not the fault of Exxon, the Bush Administration, etc.
And speaking of being "reliable", how far can we go to see oil being that reliable source, and without looking at alternatives?
It's working on a small scale, and with very heavy subsidies. So far, we don't know what those subsidies will do to utilities, or to other utility customers, if this becomes increasingly popular.
robertsmx: One of the points raised in the (TV) program was that Germany isn't one of the places one would expect reliance on solar energy to take shape, yet, there it is. It may not completely replace it all, but it has certainly taken a chunk of energy requirement out that previously made oil a pre-requisite.
Having been there several times, I can assure you that Germany's heating and cooling requirements are not as intensive as ours are. What works for Germany may not work for large parts of the U.S. That is all I am saying.
robertsmx: And speaking of being "reliable", how far can we go to see oil being that reliable source, and without looking at alternatives?
No one said we shouldn't look at alternatives. The key is to look at those alternatives realistically, and realize that what may work in one country may not work in another (or, at least, has to be heavily altered for application in that country). And oil looks to be a reliable source of energy for many, many years to come.
And I'm sure that most German homes aren't heated by electric, and they have very few electric cars. So if you want to rely on solar to replace fossil fuels for heating, to recharge electric cars batteries or fuel cells, and for general electricity needs, Germany does not even meet 1% of its energy needs with solar.
Some thoughts on our future galactic adventure: I've seen we're on a collision-course with the Andromeda Galaxy in about a billion years. If we get lucky maybe we can get a 2nd sun (binary system) to orbit around.
"Give the world AFFORDABLE solar.........."
See the word you missed? I want more money thrown at solar research so a breakthrough can be made and solar can be AFFORDABLE.
Gee, why don't you just click your heels 3 times,and you can be back in Kansas?
Just what breakthrough are you looking for?
You can't change the laws of Physics, or supply and demand.
For those not paying attention, there have been MANY "solar breakthroughs" in the past three decades which have not turned out to be "the answer." But that does not mean, "OK, smart guys, just throw up your hands and give up !! Go home !!!"
It means keep plugging away. Hybrid cars and clean diesel technology took a while to develop, as do many great technology breakthroughs.
I'm not saying use science fiction, but just keep putting money into alternative power research, into VALID and hopefully someday PRODUCTIVE research.
Is anyone questioning the premise of this discussion forum that global warming is a scientific fact? The latest date that I have from NASA indicates that the earth has not warmed in the last 100 years. As a matter of fact the earth was substantially warmer 1000 years ago than it is today. Furthermore the latest NASA study indicates that the earth is cooling in the last 10 years.
If the premise of global warming is true than why have so many scientists called Global Warming a fraud?
Michael Crightons book State Of Fear which is an incredible read has 41 pages of footnotes regarding Global Warming and you may find his discussion very enlightening.
As most of you know Fear is the easyiest way to influence human behavior and in the 1970s we were told that we were approaching the next ice age and we would all starve to death.
Most sales presentations use fear of loss to motivate an individual to take action.
And of course we all should pay a carbon tax to appease the Gods of Global Warming.
I think it is good that BP, Sanyo & Mitsubishi are dumping a lot of money into PV research. It should be obvious to the casual observer that the Feds are inept at doing anything right. Look at the current mess we have with ethanol. And the MTBE before that. Most if not all innovation comes about in the private sector or at Universities. The Feds need to stick to what the Constitution empowers them to do. Leave energy alternatives to the market place. The end result will be better than the mess the Germans are making with solar. If the government got involved under your idea of what is good, we would all be paying 50 cents a KWH for electricity right now. Instead of a $140 per month bill we would be paying $500+ per month. KEEP the FEDS out of alternative energy.
Tell me exactly what the Feds did to bring about the current hybrid cars? We know the roadblocks they have thrown up to keep us from driving diesel cars.
Sadly not enough, a big portion of the scientific community has become dependent on Federal money for research. Their findings will reflect what the people granting the money want to hear. Global Warming is big right now with the promise of gobs of tax revenue in the form of carbon credits. This current Congress will do anything and push any program that will yield more taxes to spend on their individual Pet Pork Projects.
If the American people do not have the foresight to vote these flakes out of office we will be paying a lot more for a lot less in the future.
This is the truth and I'm sticking to it!
Too bad we can't get the truth from them!
For starters, they scared the Japanese carmakers with the Clean Car Initiative:
On September 29, 1993, President Clinton and Vice President Gore joined with General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler to announce an historic new partnership. The Clean Car Initiative aims to strengthen U.S. competitiveness by developing technologies for a new generation of vehicles that are both safer and up to three times more fuel efficient (80 miles per gallon or better) than today's cars. Major collaborations with the Big Three U.S. automakers are under development. On the government side, a high-level coordinating committee chaired by Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology Mary Good is directing R&D in a strategic plan to avoid duplication, focus on priority areas, and make the most of existing resources. The first stage of the plan is in fast-track development, to be completed before the end of the year.
That IN PART led to the Dodge diesel hybrid car (the ESX-3) and putting tons of money into the EV-1 program, and PZEV engine technology.
All that led to Honda and Toyota realizing they needed to produce some high-efficiency cars to compete with whatever the USA produced; thus the Prius and the Insight were born, ushering in the current hybrid car phenomenon.
And, of course, let's not forget the ongoing "Hybrid Car Tax Credits" which, although in my mind not necessary, DID nonetheless help bring hybrid cars to many more people who might not have purchased them without the tax benefit (of which I am NOT one - I didn't factor the tax credit into EITHER of my hybrid purchases.)
Dang, I love this country !!!! LOL.......
I get it. You throw enough money at something it is bound to have some kind of result. Sorry, I cannot agree with wasting money like that. I would not blame GM or Chrysler for that gigantic waste of money. It was CA and their ignorance that ran that money down the toilet. The ZEV mandate did exactly nothing but cause problems. The automakers are looking for sales. When the government sticks their nose in it muddies the water. The price of oil will dictate what people buy clear and simple. I know you would like to give the government credit for doing something right. I cannot think of anything since Nixon and removing the lead from our gasoline. CAFE was meaningless just cost us more for our vehicles. The truth is the difference in actual pollution from cars is little changed since the catalytic converters were added in the 1980s. All that has been done is add sensors to tell us if the car is polluting. Adding more complexity and shortening the useful life of our vehicles. Thanks for NOTHING EPA & CARB...
"Smart money" can be and is being spent. I just think not enough emphasis is put on clean technology as should be, in part because of Big Oil's stranglehold on the economy and the government coffers.
I thought you did not like conspiracy theories. I think the media is a worse problem for our society than the evil oil companies. We are going to be burning fossil fuel for a long time. Clean up the real pollution, cars are more than clean enough. Go after the ships, trucks, trains & planes.
Not only is our government NOT doing anything significant about the real pollution problems. They just expanded the problem. They are now allowing trucks from Mexico to travel across our nation. No regulations for emissions are imposed. They buy that 80 cents a gallon sulfur rich diesel and have enough range to go half way across the country and return to Mexico. In the mean time they make the price of our fuel and cars spiral out of control, so they can claim they have done something. And the people buy into it.
Personal autos is a part of all transportation. All our transportation autos, buses, trucks, planes, boats, and ships emit about 25% of manmade CO2.
Now manmade CO2 in itself is a very small part of the total CO2 emitted, most is emitted to the atmosphere from natural sources.
And then you consider that CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas, and is not very effective. Methane for example is 20X more effective at trapping heat than CO2. (1) CH4 = (20) CO2.
Scientists estimate that the Håkon Mosby mud volcano emits some hundred tons methane per year to the upper water column. "The number of submarine mud volcanoes is estimated to several thousands world-wide", explains Eberhard Sauter, geochemist at the Alfred Wegener Institute.
http://www.physorg.com/news11323.html
Until there is a collection of better fuel alternatives, we are stuck in the 1920's.
Why do you say it was California that ruined the electric car deal in the late 1990's. This is what I'm talking about when it comes to the strange haphazard things that General Motors does. We were the ones that wanted the EV-1 car to succeed. Celebrities were buying them just to support the cause, not because they particularly liked the vehicle. I heard the EV-1 was only leased, you couldn't buy it, once the lease was over, they took all the cars back
Now Chevrolet is making all this hoopla over the Chevrolet Volt that isn't even available yet. And they have been doing that for several months now.
This is a vehicle that is only going to go 40 miles on a charge and the lithium batteries have proven to be not ready for market.. This is GM's standard way of doing things ---rush it to market before it is ready.
CA passed the law requiring 10% ZEV. Then when GM and a couple others came out with EVs CA rescinded the law. Why would GM or Toyota keep making vehicles that were money losers? The only difference is Toyota sold a few of the RAV4 electrics before pulling the plug. GM just did not want the liability and ended the program.
For some reason CA thinks they can mandate invention. It does not work that way. CA needs to butt out of the auto business. All they do is screw it up.
You are right there is no real good EV battery yet developed. EVs are still for the tinkerer enthusiast. I believe GM is hopeful the Volt will come to pass. It is a plug-in Hybrid from what I have read.
We are addicted to food also. So what is your point? Last I was at the supermarket half the produce was from some other country. Our balance of trade is lopsided in many areas besides oil. Try finding any toys or shoes that are not made in China. We seem to be addicted to wearing cloths also. There are very few alternatives that are practical for us to use. Hybrids still use oil at a slightly slower pace. How is it any different buying a Prius made in Japan or oil from Canada and Mexico?
We are addicted to a lot of things in this country. Some good, some not so good.
Translated, for the laymen among us:
"Because the AMERICAN PEOPLE have not spoken with their votes, we have allowed Big Oil and the Big Three to stifle every single clean-car idea in history other than finally allowing Hybrids and clean diesel cars. This is a MAJOR PROBLEM because the average USA driver could care less what fuel is in their car as long as it's reasonably affordable, as was their car. Until the PEOPLE DEMAND reducing oil usage and consumption, we are stuck."
For those not paying attention, there have been MANY "solar breakthroughs" in the past three decades which have not turned out to be "the answer." But that does not mean, "OK, smart guys, just throw up your hands and give up !! Go home !!!"
It means keep plugging away. Hybrid cars and clean diesel technology took a while to develop, as do many great technology breakthroughs.
I'm not saying use science fiction, but just keep putting money into alternative power research, into VALID and hopefully someday PRODUCTIVE research.
For a whole host of reasons, Solar power on Earth simply isn't the answer.
Yes, you can make solar cells cheaper, but you can't make them any smaller.
If you want science fiction, it would make more sense to build big orbiting solar platforms and beam the power back to Earth as microwaves.
We do have a useful alternative today, nuclear power.
The French get 80% of their electricity from their nuclear reactors,and thsoe are perfectly safe.
Actually, the American people HAVE spoken.
With their votes and pocketbooks.
We want cheap gas and big cars.
People can demand reducing oil usage,but are they willing to pay the price?
Of course not.
"Cheap gas is gone, and big, cheap cars are on their way out too. With near-future technology and alternative fuels, you can have your big car and fuel it cheaper and cleaner. Stop accepting the "unleaded" status quo and get with the program."
This is a message to anyone who has not come to that conclusion yet: As soon as you get this message into your little noggin, the better off we will be.
"Not only is 50 Hz 20% less effective in generation, it is 10-15% less efficient in transmission, it requires up to 30% larger windings and magnetic core materials in transformer construction. Electric motors are much less efficient at the lower frequency, and must also be made more robust to handle the electrical losses and the extra heat generated. Today, only a handful of countries (Antigua, Guyana, Peru, the Philippines, South Korea and the Leeward Islands) follow Tesla’s advice and use the 60 Hz frequency together with a voltage of 220-240 V."
http://users.pandora.be/worldstandards/electricity.htm
larsb, Keep the faith, my friend. Many of the things and processes we take as commonplace today would have been either unheard of, or deemed fantasy, only 50 - 100 years ago; less for some things.
Today's science fiction has a habit of becoming tomorrow's science fact. (O.K., we still don't have the flying jet car but that was auto-industry sci-fi so doesn't count
Man is endlessly inventive and the "Laws of Physics" as we understand them today may look different tomorrow.
What we know today is only what we know today. :shades:
In actuality, the majority of the vehicles being sold in the U.S. the last few years have either been imported or produced by foreign companies. The market-share of the Big 2.5 is under 50%. So who is producing these gas-guzzlers? I' m sure the rest of the world would like to have our style-vehicles too, but are only inhibited by their governments' tax policies.
Personally I've found GM to have the most fuel efficient vehicles for their power and size.
"Cheap gas is gone, and big, cheap cars are on their way out too. With near-future technology and alternative fuels, you can have your big car and fuel it cheaper and cleaner. Stop accepting the "unleaded" status quo and get with the program."
The second paragraph contradicts itself. First you say that big, cheap cars are "on their way out," then you say that with technology and alternative fuels, "you can have your big car and fuel it cheaper and cleaner."
That's an awfully muddled statement, especially if it represents the thinking of the "better informed" segment of the population.
Incidentally, one is not well informed if one blames everything on big oil, the Big Three, etc. The simple fact is that Americans, when given the choice, will prefer a larger vehicle, because we travel longer distances. Larger vehicles with better sound insulation (which adds weight) are more important to Americans than Europeans or the Japanese.
That is why the Big Three make SUVs and full-size sedans, why the Europeans have historically not bothered selling their smallest vehicles here (VW Polo, for example) and why the American Accord is larger than the European Accord (which is sold here as the "sports sedan" Acura TSX).
That's not a conspiracy; that is called making money by selling what customers want. Automobile manufacturers hailing from three separate continents have all come to the same conclusion - most Americans like larger vehicles - so they must be on to something.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-11/tu-fdb111407.php
If this is true then global warming may be caused by nature herself.
I said "big CHEAP cars are out." I did not say "big cars are out." The difference is that BIG cars with advanced fuel technology will be available in the future, but not for CHEAP because the technology will raise the price. So people CAN have their "big car" and it will be "cheaper to fuel and drive" but not to PURCHASE.
I have never declared a "conspiracy" at all. As all informed people understand, there ARE "private" things done and said behind closed doors, as there are in ALL industries where big money is involved.
There is no doubt that Big Oil wants cars to be driven on gasoline and diesel FOREVER if it were up to them. That's why all advanced technology fuel systems have been met with doubts and beset with problems all these years.
The Big Three in part "poo-pooed" hybrids for a long time because it was a minimally profitable car and they felt like no one would buy them. Shows their short-sightedness.
We, technologically speaking, could have been driving electric cars for our short commutes for decades by now, and hybrids for nearly as long, if only someone in the Big Three would have shown some cojones and built them. Even if they had targeted them for and marketed them to "rich people" only, the effect would have been used vehicles trickling down to Joe Public eventually.
And yes, MOST Americans "like big cars." That does not mean it's the correct decision. The masses can and do make dumb decisions all the time (i.e. Bill Clinton elected twice)....LOL. The SUV craze was a perfect example of said idiocy.
Everytime I see a Soccer Mom in a Hummer alone by herself at the mall I want to jerk her out of the vehicle and slap some sense into her. Her husband too. I travel with four people many times and I have a hybrid car, a Segway, and an electric bicycle, and I'm far from wealthy. Smaller cars can do the job just as well as SUVs. If you need to move something, borrow a pickup from a friend or rent one for a day.
You can buy a lot of hybrids for the cost of a well-equipped Hummer. In the case of the Saturn Vue hybrid, about three of them.
This is what you wrote: Cheap gas is gone, and big, cheap cars are on their way out too. With near-future technology and alternative fuels, you can have your big car and fuel it cheaper and cleaner. Stop accepting the "unleaded" status quo and get with the program.
You didn't make that distinction, and I fail to see what is gained by making larger cars so expensive that most people can't buy them, especially if they are still cheap to run.
I'd like to know where these "big cheap cars" are today. Except for the Crown Victoria (a fleet only model for the past two years) and the Grand Marquis (which is based on an ancient platform, and thus sells primarly to rental car companies and an ever-shrinking segment of older buyers), most big cars (i.e. those bigger than an Accord or Camry) aren't that cheap today.
larsb: I have never declared a "conspiracy" at all. As all informed people understand, there ARE "private" things done and said behind closed doors, as there are in ALL industries where big money is involved.
You said this in an earlier post: Because the AMERICAN PEOPLE have not spoken with their votes, we have allowed Big Oil and the Big Three to stifle every single clean-car idea in history other than finally allowing Hybrids and clean diesel cars.
That sounds like you are alleging a conspiracy to me.
I'm also baffled as to what "clean car idea" the Big Three have smothered in the crib.
Hybrids are on the market, so they failed to stop that one.
Electric cars are impractical to use on a regular basis for most people, which is why consumers have rejected them and why no company makes them (given that automobile companies, like every other company, are in business to make money by offering products large numbers of consumers want).
As an informed person, I don't see any conspiracies, or backdoor collusion. I see some ideas that cost lots of time and money to be even remotely competitive with what is on the market now, hence the reluctance of many companies (including the Big Three, who are strapped for cash) to spend money on them.
larsb: There is no doubt that Big Oil wants cars to be driven on gasoline and diesel FOREVER if it were up to them.
And I'm sure that VW would want everyone to drive a Rabbit, Jetta or Passat if it were up to them. Or that ABC would prefer that everyone watch its shows and completely shun NBC, CBS, Fox and CW.
That doesn't mean VW or ABC have the necessary power to bring this about, just as I'm not seeing how Big Oil can make this happen, especially if oil prices get so high that alternative forms of energy become more cost effective.
larsb: That's why all advanced technology fuel systems have been met with doubts and beset with problems all these years.
No, they have been met with doubts because they have been beset with several problems - most notably that they don't provide the energy per unit that oil does, they are difficult to package efficiently and safely and they cost too much to either extract or develop.
larsb: The Big Three in part "poo-pooed" hybrids for a long time because it was a minimally profitable car and they felt like no one would buy them. Shows their short-sightedness.
True, but that's not part of a conspiracy. That's called dumb management. They also pooh-poohed the quality gap, the need for better interiors, the need for better brand definition and the need for consistent updates of key vehicles.
larsb: We, technologically speaking, could have been driving electric cars for our short commutes for decades by now, and hybrids for nearly as long, if only someone in the Big Three would have shown some cojones and built them. Even if they had targeted them for and marketed them to "rich people" only, the effect would have been used vehicles trickling down to Joe Public eventually.
Unless the electric car has the same range, carrying capacity, comfort and convenience as a gasoline car - no.
Sorry, but we don't have the money to spend on one car that will be used only for short commutes. Both my wife and I use our vehicles - a 2003 Accord and 2005 Ford Focus - for both short commutes and long commutes on a regular basis.
To follow your suggestion, we would have to get ANOTHER car and use it strictly for short commutes. (Actually, given our busy schedules, we would need TWO other cars - one for each of us - to use solely for short commutes).
If we are getting a third car, we are either getting a classic car, or a Honda S2000.
larsb: And yes, MOST Americans "like big cars." That does not mean it's the correct decision. The masses can and do make dumb decisions all the time (i.e. Bill Clinton elected twice)....LOL. The SUV craze was a perfect example of said idiocy.
As someone who drove from Harrisburg to Indiana (Pa.) this weekend and back (a three-hour trip each way, crossing lots of hilly terrain, and a few mountains) in a Ford Focus, I can understand why people prefer bigger cars.
You may not like them, and that is certainly your perogative, but that doesn't mean they aren't the right choice for others. Comfort, more room, improved sound deadening, better power (lots of mountains between Harrisburg and Indiana) make it easier to understand why some people might prefer a bigger car.
larsb: I travel with four people many times and I have a hybrid car, a Segway, and an electric bicycle, and I'm far from wealthy. Smaller cars can do the job just as well as SUVs.
I'm glad that you have found a mix of transportation choices that meet your needs, but those choices don't fit our lifestyle, and anyone who has tried to stuff two car seats (required even beyond the toddler years now) and other assorted paraphenelia that come with children into Civic-sized car would disagree.
Also, try taking a loaded Focus over a mountain at 70+ mph...you'll see why people want larger (or, at least, more powerful) vehicles.
I know what I like, and what is needed for our lifestyles, based on how we use our vehicles, what we can afford and what we prefer when driving. Just because our choices differ from what you would prefer that others drive doesn't make us "uniformed" or prove that our choice is the wrong one.
That is your perogative, althought if you don't want the conversation to go off-topic (or just don't have a good answer for someone you may have thought was not well-informed), then it might be a good idea to refrain from raising them in the first place.
Believe me, I've got rebuttals for all your little statements in my little head. I'm just not going to be a person who veers the topic hugely off course to prove my valid and unassailable points.
Bingo,
As someone that just made a quick 700 mile trip to Phoenix and back, I felt fortunate that I could afford to do so in our new Sequoia. Granted it did not get great mileage only 17 MPG. The comfort, safety and pleasure were well worth the little extra gas. When the oil runs out, we will along with a couple billion other people on the planet, be forced to use some other means of getting around. Maybe walking or riding a horse. I find it hilarious that a few politically motivated people can try to sway the minds of the masses with hysteria about the coming doom of "Global Warming". You got to wonder if Al Gore went anywhere for the Thanksgiving week. If he flew his jet with a few close friends. And just how much Jet A did he burn? And he has the cajones to suggest the rest of us should drive a Yugo so he can squander a bigger allotment of CO2. The whole GW madness is riff with hypocrisy and ignorance. You got to wonder if an earlier species of humans drove Hummers. How else can you explain the warming that brought about the end of the ice age? Was that more than one degree in 100 years?
PS
Phoenix could use a dose of that global warming. I froze my tail off over there. I do not see what draws the masses of snow birds to that city. It is either too hot or too cold to enjoy the outdoors.
I heard he walked to the White House to accept Nobel congrats from the president.
I haven't plugged my gas/miles into my spreadsheet yet for my 1600 mile jaunt over the Continental Divide down to Taos and back for turkey day. One tank on the Outback came in at 26 mpg.
On the carbon footprint upside, we lived off the grid at our friends' straw bale solar home for a few days, not counting petrol for tooling around.