backtop

Print 52 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Jul 24 at 3:39 PM
GM has partnered with 30 utility companies to help with infrastructure for electric cars

Anyone who drives knows that the price we are paying for gas at the pumps is skyrocketing. Environmentalists and drivers looking to help the environment are looking to alternate fuel sources like electricity right alongside drivers merely looking to save at the pumps.

One of the most exciting plug-in electric vehicles on the horizon is the Chevy Volt. The Volt will have an all electric range of 40 miles, but has a gasoline motor that can be used to charge the batteries and allows for a much greater overall range. GM has always stressed that the Volt is not a hybrid and that the gasoline engine is merely there as a back up to allow for long trips.

GM announced that it is teaming up with 30 different utility companies in 37 different states as well as partnering with the Electric Power Research Institute to help develop a national charging infrastructure for electric cars. The lack of a charging infrastructure along with the very limited driving range for the majority of electric vehicles is the main reason plug-in vehicles are not a real alternative for the majority of drivers today.

The reason GM is teaming up with the utility companies is to find ways that will allow an already taxed electricity infrastructure to support the tens or hundreds of thousands of plug-in vehicles GM expects to take to the roads in the years to come.

GM Vice President of global product management Jonathan Lauckner says that he hopes another 50 to 70 utility companies will join the partnership by the end of 2008.

One of the hurdles that GM hopes to tackle with its partnerships is the ability for electric companies to know that what is plugged into an outlet is a vehicle according to The Wall Street Journal. This is important because it would allow the utility companies to control when the vehicle is charged and would allow for charging at night where excess capacity on the electric grid is at its highest and energy costs are the lowest.

The Wall Street Journal reports that Congress is considering legislation that would set a price on carbon-dioxide emissions and that utility companies that prove their electricity is helping to replace gasoline could get special consideration.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Think of it this way.
By William Gaatjes on 7/23/2008 1:36:49 PM , Rating: 3
Well, if i was a politician i would have used the oil prices and the global warming too to change people minds about how to not spill energy. Not every politician is about filling his or her's pocket. Because the point is in a free market the customer decides what product becomes a reality. If for example the oil prices did not stay as high as they did but went lower we would have had even bigger gazguzzling SUV's now. In the western world there is only 1 way to change peoples minds and that is through there wallet.

There are a lot of idealist people out there. But there are more people out there who do not have the time or the luxioury to have ideals any more. Some just don't have the brains for it. :)

I think it's a good thing , get people involved. Let them think.

Let's say the global warming is a non issue.

The worst that can happen is that we live in a cleaner enviroment, that our lights only produce light and have a very high effiëncy, this will be a lesser burden on the electrical grid.

That our cars don't pollute.

The only thing polluting with electric cars will be our power plants. But since power plants don't move around aka stationary, you can easily make a construction that takes care of the pollution by gathering it and re-using it or reprocessing it.

When a car pollutes you cannot capture that smoke easily.

The electric cars have high efficiëcy motors. Another win.

It is a win win situation in every way.
If the global warming is real, we will have done our job.
If it is not real, we will have done our job.

And that is making a future clean enviroment for our children and grand children and so on.

I read a lot of people comment that green products are not green because toxic chemicals are needed to manufacture those products.

Who cares. As i wrote above about the powerplants, the same goes for manufacturers. It is a building and therefore stationary, therefore easily to contstruct that any chemical can be gathered and be re-used
or reprocessed.

The trick is of making a closed circle.

And there are lot's of optimisations still to be made on many places.




RE: Think of it this way.
By William Gaatjes on 7/23/2008 1:38:52 PM , Rating: 2
woops typing errors : gasguzzling, theirs ...

exsqueeze me...


RE: Think of it this way.
By FITCamaro on 7/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: Think of it this way.
By William Gaatjes on 7/23/2008 3:12:22 PM , Rating: 1
That is capitalism baby.

We in europe have it too.

No big difference between the USA or EUrope when it comes to capitalism.

Use the free market to change the mentality of people.

If you want to change the people you can only do it through their wallets. By tax and/or grants.

Only a few people have the luxioury to choose for ideals without worring about the costs.

However i do agree that there are too many parasites in brussels. Too many people who just are some eurotician with out a reall job but with real paychecks.

But the eu is working on that.


RE: Think of it this way.
By ebakke on 7/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: Think of it this way.
By William Gaatjes on 7/23/2008 5:24:40 PM , Rating: 2
You are right.


RE: Think of it this way.
By cocoviper on 7/23/2008 11:39:41 PM , Rating: 1
You sir really must be from Europe...

Allow me to educate you a bit: capitalism = free markets = taxes and government grants.

One of these three is not like the other.

Free markets are exactly that, people allowed to freely buy or sell as their needs and situation merits. This is capitalism. I have no idea where you got the concept that taxes, grants, tariffs, other governmental interference is in any way part of free markets. This is the antithesis of a free market. It's socialism!

Keep your ignorant thoughts on economics to your own continent please, we already have enough people here that have forgotten how markets work.


RE: Think of it this way.
By William Gaatjes on 7/24/2008 4:24:54 AM , Rating: 2
As always , the truth lies in the middle.

There is nothing wrong with controlling the free market just enought that excesses which are bad for the end user (read citizen) cannot happen.

I don't know where you get this USA - commies feeling from but it shows a lack of intelligence. You give me the same feeling as those runaway enviromentalists or even worse people who do not think just act on emotions alone, do.

I am not for socialsm and i am not for a not controlled form of capatalism. Because in both extreme cases citizens are loosing. In scenario 1 some people live luxioury lifes while all other people have to work real hard for scraps.
In scenario 2 some people live luxioury lifes while all other people have to work hard for scraps.

Both scenario's feed corruption, feed crime and feed despair. If you take a capitalistic market but provide socialistic idea's aswell you get the best of both worlds.

That is a good thing in case you don't know.

Because with taxes / grants/ taxreductions here in europe people are stimulated to think about the enviroment.

Example :

We are allowed to buy sustainable alternative energy sources
(like sun boilers, solar panels. Just systems to install on the roof of your house)and we are stimulated to do so through grants/ tax reductions.

As a big plus the surpluss energy from these alternative sources can be delivered back to the electrical grid and actually saves more money on electric bills. This is a good way to change peoples minds through there wallet.
And the grid has more sources of energy.
And here comes the capitalistic nature, you have to work to be able to pay for these products.

Now different sources can supply these alternative energy products so the market is not undermind as well.

I am sure there are states in America that provide this kind of service as well.

It's a good thing. Really...


RE: Think of it this way.
By Hare on 7/24/2008 11:15:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If that doesn't smack of socialism I don't know what does. If you don't already live in Europe, please move there.

How would you know? You have never been abroad and propably base your view of the world on what you see on Fox...

Comments like yours are a perfect example of what make so many people around the world believe that Americans are a bunch of self centered rednecks (which obviously is not the case).

Btw. I didn't know that we (socialists/commies) are the only ones that lie. *sigh* live and learn...


RE: Think of it this way.
By Solandri on 7/23/2008 2:45:38 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The worst that can happen is that we live in a cleaner enviroment, that our lights only produce light and have a very high effiëncy, this will be a lesser burden on the electrical grid.

That our cars don't pollute.

It is a win win situation in every way.

You're forgetting that our current rate of economic output relies on energy having a certain cost. I don't think most people would care about a cleaner environment, high efficiency lights, and cars that don't pollute if they're living in the next Great Depression.

That's why all this progress in alternatives is happening now. Oil's dramatic rise in price has made it a moot point - sticking with oil for energy would cost as much as if not more than many of the alternatives. But before that price increase, forcing us to convert to alternatives unnecessarily carried with it an economic price, potentially a very stiff one.

Even with oil's increase in cost, it's still true. If you decide to force us into solar and wind at 10 cents - 20 cents per kWh, instead of nuclear at 4 cents per kWh, you pay for it in economic productivity. If you couple that with treaties like Kyoto which don't cap the biggest developing nations, you'll end up with a world where the biggest growing economies are the biggest polluters, while the cleanest nations have shrinking economies. Long-term that isn't going to make the world cleaner, it's just going to change who has the biggest economy.

The trick is cleaning things up without adversely affecting economies. We don't want environmental restrictions so lax that people can recklessly exploit it for their profit like in times past. But neither do we want them so strict that half the businesses have to file for bankruptcy because they can't afford to pay their electricity bills. Operating businesses with complete disregard for the environment will result in disaster. But likewise, cleaning up the environment with complete disregard for the economy will also result in disaster.


RE: Think of it this way.
By FITCamaro on 7/23/2008 2:54:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
cleaning up the environment with complete disregard for the economy will also result in disaster.


Something people like Al Gore don't get or care about. Well, he probably fully understands it. He's not stupid. He just doesn't care because guys like him are making a fortune telling the rest of us we're bad people for using oil and preaching about global warming.


RE: Think of it this way.
By omnicronx on 7/23/2008 3:34:13 PM , Rating: 2
The US economy is going to take a nosedive anyways if you continue to be totally dependent on foreign oil. While I don't agree one bit with his global warming findings, he is not too far off in regards to oil usage.


RE: Think of it this way.
By ebakke on 7/23/2008 3:54:02 PM , Rating: 2
We're dependent on oil, and will be for quite some time. The industrialized world is horribly reliant on oil. But the US economy being dependent on foreign oil is entirely do to our own choices (past, and present). If our goal is to relieve ourselves of our dependence on other nations, we could start that process immediately and we would have measurable results soon. If our goal is to relieve ourselves of our dependence on oil, that's going to take many times more resources, and it will take measurably longer.

The problem lies in the fact that our leadership (by that I mean elected officials) is split on the what the goal should be.


RE: Think of it this way.
By William Gaatjes on 7/23/2008 5:22:52 PM , Rating: 2
Every industrialized country is dependent on oil.

Common folks would maybe think only about fuel but we all
know that the plastics and the chemicals are as much as important.

We will always be dependent on oil even if we would all start driving purely electric cars.


RE: Think of it this way.
By andrinoaa on 7/23/2008 7:00:15 PM , Rating: 1
doing nothing to cleanup the economy, with complete disregard to the environment will also lead to disaster.
This I think is were Gore is coming from. You may criticise his motives but the agenda is morally sound. Unlike the boat anchors who think everything is just sweet.


RE: Think of it this way.
By William Gaatjes on 7/23/2008 3:33:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's why all this progress in alternatives is happening now. Oil's dramatic rise in price has made it a moot point - sticking with oil for energy would cost as much as if not more than many of the alternatives. But before that price increase, forcing us to convert to alternatives unnecessarily carried with it an economic price, potentially a very stiff one.


That's the point. Because now is the best time to do so. If oil is cheap nobody would think of alternatives.
Making them aware about the enviroment they live in just is something they don't care about. Nothing comes for free.

quote:
Even with oil's increase in cost, it's still true. If you decide to force us into solar and wind at 10 cents - 20 cents per kWh, instead of nuclear at 4 cents per kWh, you pay for it in economic productivity. If you couple that with treaties like Kyoto which don't cap the biggest developing nations, you'll end up with a world where the biggest growing economies are the biggest polluters, while the cleanest nations have shrinking economies. Long-term that isn't going to make the world cleaner, it's just going to change who has the biggest economy.


Very true...
I once wrote a post about a book i was shown by a friend.
Our economies have to keep expanding to make money because sooner or later we have satisfied ourself and there is no more economic growth.

Take it to the foreigners you would say. But they are developing economies too. And there is where the money lies for the us.

If we have superiour technology which we use to make a cleaner enviroment it is pretty easy to rent/lease/sell that to developing countries. Because they don't have the infrastructure yet we do. So we can effectively make them more efficiënt by selling products we make to keep the environment clean. And therefore help to keep the enviroment clean. Because of the higher efficiëncy less resources are necessary to provide energy. And it's not that those developing countries are sitting still either.

I mentioned the rubbiatron in a few posts. From what i have read only India and Japan are doing research. Maybe China too now. But we in the west don't. and that is just plain stupid.

Sooner or later some rich visionair in a certain developing country picks up the idea of the electric car. He has money to spend and ideals too.

I would really be surprised if those "green" politicians
would deny western companies to sell products that actually
provide for a cleaner enviroment. And when those products are sold, money is to be made to do more research to come up with solutions to change our own existing infrastructure.

quote:
The trick is cleaning things up without adversely affecting economies. We don't want environmental restrictions so lax that people can recklessly exploit it for their profit like in times past. But neither do we want them so strict that half the businesses have to file for bankruptcy because they can't afford to pay their electricity bills. Operating businesses with complete disregard for the environment will result in disaster. But likewise, cleaning up the environment with complete disregard for the economy will also result in disaster.


We all know the history of leaded gas.
A simple lesson :
A few people are very rich while all others have to pay more. And among those others are you and me.

Short term policies always cost more money then long term policies. Something especially greedy managers in business life cannot see.


RE: Think of it this way.
By William Gaatjes on 7/23/2008 3:37:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Take it to the foreigners you would say. But they are developing economies too. And there is where the money lies for the us.


Must be :

Take it to the foreigners you would say. But they are developing economies too. And there is where the money lies for us.

I mean the US and Europe.


RE: Think of it this way.
By Solandri on 7/23/2008 5:41:59 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I would really be surprised if those "green" politicians
would deny western companies to sell products that actually
provide for a cleaner enviroment.

Unfortunately, that's exactly the situation with nuclear. It's demonstrably cleaner than coal (and oil and gas). But the green movements would rather block all nuclear and require us to build cleaner alternatives which cost 2x - 5x as much.

I consider myself an environmentalist - I conserve, recycle, use CFLs, telecommute, contribute to land conservation efforts, etc. But I don't contribute to environmental groups because so many of their policies are irrational. They're even opposed to wetlands conservation groups like Ducks Unlimited because (gasp!) the people in those groups shoot the ducks, never mind that DU has bought and preserved more wetlands than all pure environmental groups combined. One of the founders of Greenpeace changed his mind and petitioned for nuclear power, and they ostracized him for it.

No, as much as I'd like to hope "green" politicians would support any cleaner technologies, they won't. They have a certain (arguably unattainable) ideal in their heads about how the world should work. Anything that falls short of that ideal, no matter how clean it is, is not "good enough" for them and thus they will oppose it. It's sad because I really do think there are a large number of people like me who believe in practical environmentalism, but the movement has been hijacked by those who believe in idealistic environmentalism.


RE: Think of it this way.
By William Gaatjes on 7/23/2008 6:33:21 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. I behave very similar like you when it comes to the enviroment. But you are very right. However politicians usually are adviced, so i guess it's our job to advise them.

quote:
Unfortunately, that's exactly the situation with nuclear. It's demonstrably cleaner than coal (and oil and gas). But the green movements would rather block all nuclear and require us to build cleaner alternatives which cost 2x - 5x as much.


When enough people understand that what happened in chernyobel is something that would not occur with modern designs of nuclear reactors. These designs are cooked up with the idea that the fission material cannot go critical.

And with the rubbiatron( i know, here i go again :) it is even better. When you shut down the particle beam, the amount of neutrons needed for the fission reaction drop and the fission reaction cannot maintain itself. Therefore it can never run away like those reactors designed in the 1950's. It just stops.

When enough people understand that it can be safely done, politicans will not feel like promoting nuclear energy is political suicide. It is all about the view of the public.
Maybe we should start a nuclear technology lobby :).

quote:
But I don't contribute to environmental groups because so many of their policies are irrational. They're even opposed to wetlands conservation groups like Ducks Unlimited because (gasp!) the people in those groups shoot the ducks, never mind that DU has bought and preserved more wetlands than all pure environmental groups combined.


And i know what you mean, sometimes these green folks start running away. For example because of our doing some species has come to thrive so good that other local species are diminishing. We make sure there is some equilibrium. And those enviromentalists only see that we are killing animals, not understanding that we actually save more then 1 species.

quote:
One of the founders of Greenpeace changed his mind and petitioned for nuclear power, and they ostracized him for it.


Sometimes i feel those runaway green hippies are like nazi's. Sorry for saying it so blunt but they have no logic just an insane passion.


Yay They smell a market.
By William Gaatjes on 7/23/2008 11:31:04 AM , Rating: 2
Tackle everything at once by working together with lot's of companies. Every company has it's own expertise. Set a standard and go.




RE: Yay They smell a market.
By Radnor on 7/23/2008 11:48:48 AM , Rating: 3
Somebody has to start. Usually starts of necessity, instead of vision, planning and all that things that we are talkign about for 10 years now.

Better now than never.


RE: Yay They smell a market.
By eye smite on 7/23/2008 12:15:28 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, what's really a shame is the people buying into the propaganda on these ideas and no one remembers the EV1 or other electric vehicles made in the mid 90s. That's the nature of the human animal though, if it's not in their little world around their house, they don't care.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1


RE: Yay They smell a market.
By Cosworth on 7/23/2008 12:20:50 PM , Rating: 2
...Which is why the Volt has a gas engine on board, so it can work with the existing infastructure in places where the new, developing one doesn't exist yet.


RE: Yay They smell a market.
By acer905 on 7/23/2008 12:34:15 PM , Rating: 4
No, whats really a shame is that no one remembers the other electric cars from the 1800's

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_electr...


RE: Yay They smell a market.
By Solandri on 7/23/2008 5:52:09 PM , Rating: 2
The problem back then was, and still is, battery technology. It limited the range and drove up the cost of the electric vehicles back then as it does now. If there's anything that's a shame, it's how little batteries have improved in 150 years. Either there hasn't been enough research into it (unlikely IMHO), or we should just accept that this is a technology without a lot of room for improvement and start look elsewhere for our energy storage needs.


RE: Yay They smell a market.
By mindless1 on 7/23/2008 8:43:27 PM , Rating: 2
Is it a problem though, or just a matter of inconvenience? It would make people think more about where they travel and make shorter trips which isn't such a bad thing.

In order to conserve energy people need to start accepting that they can't just make token gestures like switching the engine in their car, they need to actually stop using as much including not travelling so far on a regular basis that they would need do so in a personal vehicle. There is public transportation, and rental cars for occasions where one needs to occasionally travel.

Otherwise, someone's bound to state blahblahblah I demand the right to drive 200 miles each way to work every day and that is the kind of senselessness we face, that people feel wasting power for convenience is ok, as it is certainly not a need to be 200 miles away from work unless you work in a very remote area and even then, it is not something most people actually need, to be able to travel long distances inbetween charges.

The other option for those who do is a swappable battery pack where you go to a *filling station*, swap the pack, and are billed based on % of total battery pack estimated lifespan used, with an initial deposit.


RE: Yay They smell a market.
By Spuke on 7/24/2008 12:05:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Otherwise, someone's bound to state blahblahblah I demand the right to drive
Actually, in the US, we don't have the right to drive. It is a privilege. We DO have the right to buy a car and take it where we want but don't have the right to DRIVE it there. :)

quote:
Is it a problem though, or just a matter of inconvenience?
In your brain maybe. In my brain, it's a step back to go from my present 330-350 miles a tank to 100. I have no desire to "fill up" my electric car every night when I didn't have to do it on my "old dinosaur" car before.

I would have to make damn sure I didn't forget to plug it in or I'm spending the next day at home on my companies dime while my car charges up. Hmmm. I wonder how many people will use that as an excuse not to come into work.


RE: Yay They smell a market.
By mindless1 on 7/24/2008 1:55:47 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, it is indeed a step back in some respects to start conserving energy instead of using it like there is an infinite supply. Who wouldn't like to have it *ALL*? Me too. Unfortunately the reality conflicts with this, though if there were battery swap stations or you were too far away to travel to one with what little remaining charge you could put into your car in an *emergency* quickcharge for a few minutes, that would be a reason to have a spare battery pack and jack at home to change it. This does seem inconvenient as well, but similarly so if someone had too little petrol in their tank and had to keep gas cans around to handle that situation.


RE: Yay They smell a market.
By Spuke on 7/24/2008 12:42:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes, it is indeed a step back in some respects to start conserving energy instead of using it like there is an infinite supply
Don't put words in my mouth! I stated what I meant and there is no other meaning to it. We CAN conserve energy without taking steps backwards. If you think YOU need to step backwards then do so by all means. But I will not.

Moderate inconvenience is no big deal and we all experience that on a daily basis. I don't think any of us will have issues with that. But going from 330-350 miles per fill up to making sure I plug in my car EVERY night is not a moderate inconvenience. Simple forgetfulness can turn into a huge problem. A few forgetful evenings can turn into, at best, an irked supervisor or, at worst, loss of your job.

That's WAY more than an inconvenience. Gloss over it if you will. I'll make this a priority consideration when making future purchases.


RE: Yay They smell a market.
By mindless1 on 7/24/2008 3:39:25 PM , Rating: 2
I put my words in writing, not yours. We can conserve energy a little with things like car motor changes, but think about whether it is enough.

Is it enough if mankind ran out of enough energy producers to supply the same luxuries of travel we enjoy, 120 years from now instead of 150? Either way, the overly simplistic concept of "stepping backwards" is being misused in your argument, because we are being wasteful, excessive, ignoring increases in consumption vs a finite supply of energy even if we invest in new infrastructures to produce more (electricity).

I could waste toilet paper, use half a roll at a time. If the toilet paper is made thinner and I then end up using only 1/3rd of a roll at a time is that really good enough? Conserving energy is about making choices, especially choices about what we really, truely need to have in our lives like constant longer distance travels. If we have to step backwards it is because we stepped forwards too many times while ignoring the consequences.


RE: Yay They smell a market.
By mindless1 on 7/23/2008 8:33:25 PM , Rating: 2
Why? Why would it be a shame not to remember something, particularly when you aren't even remembering it yourself but rather had some leisure time to waste or a school project which randomly exposed you to this trivia, not the actual cars in their era ofproduction?

Some of you are very strange the way you invent reasons to dislike people. Today it's the type of engine in a form of transportation. Can't wait to see what it is next year.


RE: Yay They smell a market.
By acer905 on 7/23/2008 8:44:36 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, you seriously got the wrong message. First off, its not something i learned randomly at all. In fact, whenever i hear an issue i do what i can to research every bit of it, so i can make informed opinions about it, rather than simply take other peoples word at face value. If anything, i just find peoples ignorance of this "new" technology to be amusing.

And as a side note, i still say they didn't work then and they won't now. Bio-diesel is the way to go


RE: Yay They smell a market.
By mindless1 on 7/24/2008 2:11:23 AM , Rating: 2
You, like all of us, are constantly bombarded with info. What you choose to research is random, or based on a whim if you like, since it has no real usefulness and as such is a folly.

You are pretending to be enlightened when you write amused. There's nothing special about spending time learning something some other people dont' know then acting superior because they spent their time learning something else that YOU DON'T KNOW.

There is a difference though, that some of those people were learning something more significant, important, applicable in a constructive way.

Electric cars can definitely work, though of course it depends on what the definition of work is. They can reliably get people back and forth to the usual places they travel, reduce the carbon footprint and reliance on oil. Biodiesel is not a bad option either but key is recogizing we can't just selectively shun any energy sources, that any that are renewable are good to be using simultaneously.

However, IMO ultimately people will not want internal combustion engines in their car anymore. The mechanical complexity, maintenance, and more limited fuel (compared to so many modern ways that electricity is generated) will tend to make electric cars seem more dominant, even if it ultimately means an onboard electric generator for some situations.


RE: Yay They smell a market.
By omnicronx on 7/23/2008 2:27:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah, what's really a shame is the people buying into the propaganda on these ideas and no one remembers the EV1 or other electric vehicles made in the mid 90s.
I once believed this, but then I realized it is as simple as your government protecting their interests. For example here in Canada, their is an all electric vehicle called the ZENN (zero emmisions no noise). I recently had the pleasure of driving one of getting to ride in one of these, and I have to say its an amazing little vehicle. This vehicle is sold all over the world, with the primary market being the US.. yet the canadian government delayed and delayed its release in Canada because it did not pass the safety inspection even though when it recently received approval, barely any addional changes had been made. Whats worse is it now needs to be approved province by province, yet amazingly no province that has car plants of any kind has yet to approve of it, including the place where it is produced, Quebec.
This is probably going to be the second Canadian car company that produces eletric cars, that could potentially have to move production to another country. Its really sad if you ask me, and something has to be done about it.


So much for the convenience factor.....
By Wendell on 7/23/2008 1:12:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
....it would allow the utility companies to control when the vehicle is charged and would allow for charging at night where excess capacity on the electric grid is at its highest and energy costs are the lowest.


...now I have check to make sure the car was charging during the day so that I can get home from work? Do I have to ask for permission to charge my car during the day if I need to use it at night? =(




By dubldwn on 7/23/2008 1:27:53 PM , Rating: 3
You have to fill out government form adm-0238, “Request for Charging of Personal Vehicle During Daylight Hours”, in triplicate, with justification attached. Turn this form in to Blassie in Accounting Tuesday through Thursday, 8-11, 1-3. Allow 6-8 weeks for processing.


RE: So much for the convenience factor.....
By 4play on 7/23/2008 1:28:08 PM , Rating: 2
I doubt utility companies would actually have direct control over your charge times, but there would need to be a system in place that ensures your car is charged at night. Like some kind of timer that one could override if needed.

There mights be some cost incentive to charge at night too.


RE: So much for the convenience factor.....
By FITCamaro on 7/23/2008 2:37:56 PM , Rating: 2
Cities can already control when you water your grass or when you wash your car. What makes you think this would be any different?


RE: So much for the convenience factor.....
By 4play on 7/23/2008 3:23:45 PM , Rating: 2
Are you suggesting that they will ration power during the day, and cut it if you go over?


RE: So much for the convenience factor.....
By kattanna on 7/23/2008 4:15:14 PM , Rating: 2
actually they can, and do.


By hubajube on 7/23/2008 5:24:38 PM , Rating: 2
Yep. They're called Southern California Edison.


Scary
By FITCamaro on 7/23/2008 11:54:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Wall Street Journal reports that Congress is considering legislation that would set a price on carbon-dioxide emissions


Sounds like the carbon offset tax or whatever Obama called it when he said he'd like to implement it. From what it sounded like he wants to tax you and me for using gas. Just another crazy idea from the mouth of a socialist.




RE: Scary
By mdogs444 on 7/23/2008 12:22:33 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah but Gore buys carbon credits, they must be good!


RE: Scary
By Ringold on 7/23/2008 12:42:08 PM , Rating: 2
If we get that, the next step is to point to China and whine about how industries there have a competitive advantage because the government doesn't cripple their businesses with carbon costs. The call would then be for tariffs. Then China would respond in-kind.

Then we'd have the first major trade war of the 21st century, if we stuck to our CO2 and protectionist guns.

If people think this pseudo-recession is painful, they have no idea what that would feel like. Even if we avoid a trade war by slapping tariffs on imports, our exporters would still be at a disadvantage. There's nothing that can be done about that, it's just a cost inherent in a national rather than global CO2 restriction plan.

I hope that there will be a lot of sound and fury, but no real action. Looking at the political environment though... I'm not optimistic. :P


RE: Scary
By FITCamaro on 7/23/2008 2:41:36 PM , Rating: 2
Even without carbon caps, there's already a disparity and true conservatives have been pointing it out for years. Other nations have even accused the Chinese at keeping the value of their currency low so they enjoy a favorable advantage.


RE: Scary
By Darkskypoet on 7/23/2008 7:33:34 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah... so? They keep their currency pegged to the U.S. Dollar. roughly 8 to 1, although they've been very slowly letting it come up. However, its not China that has been actively spending like a drunken sailor to destroy their currency. So now it's a little less then 8:1, but the 1 is worth much less.

China is a developing country, it is going through its industrial revolution as we speak. All the western nations got to do this at one point or another in their histories; all without a care for human rights, workers rights, pollution, etc. And yet for some reason we are supposed to deny this same process to them?

The entire reason kyoto left the developing nations without hard caps, is that they are still in the process of industrializing. The idea was that the developed countries which had been making a killing off of these 'backwards' countries for decades are probably in a superior technological position to address such issues. Further, our people tend to consume the highest amounts of energy, foodstuffs, etc per capita, far more then ANY Developing country.

So if we want to be fair, and to minimize "disparities" we would leave these countries alone with their emissions productions until they come close to ours on a per capita basis. Until then, quite frankly we have no right to expect them to adhere to a hard cap far lower then ours just cause they got to the party late. Further, we should then transfer technology to them to clean up their act, if we care so much for the environment.

China represents almost (and by some figures more then) one quarter of the earth's population. This chunk of the population either also deserves a shot to live like we do, or no one does. If the former, then shut up about developing nations not having hard caps yet, if the latter, then get off the sanctimonious rights crap and socialism rants and cut the hell out of your own consumption first, before you open your mouth about others.

If people on this board are really stupid enough to somehow believe we will continue to to keep such a large portion of the population living below us over the next hundred or so years, I pity your children. Because empires and regimes fall, political and economic ones alike. Usually because they come to a point where they simply think they are entitled to everything. Then those who are truly hungry start to win, and then the once so superior starts to go down hard.

If you know anything of global issues, you know how much the industrialized states screw the others around. Hell, we screw each other around, but at least that is kind of fair. With a straight face you will complain about China's low currency? Yet don't feel bad at all for a protectionist agricultural policy that is completely designed to protect our farmers at the expense of entire countries abilities to feed themselves? If agriculture was fair, or even really exhibiting the characteristics of free trade, we would see the poorest nations become much better off within 5 years. Hell, we as developed nations would see our food bills drop, as we would actually be engaging in global capitalism, not the current form of socialism we call our agricultural policy. Do have any idea the sheer level of subsidy involved in US ag policy? F***ing hypocrites the whole lot of 'true conservatives'.

FITCamero, we F*** developing nations over. We make foreign aid deals to the poorest of nations, not out of generosity, but to sell more of our crap, to ship things with our boats and planes, and because we we work hard at ensuring they can't build a decently productive exporting agricultural industry. We screw most lower end countries over on a daily basis, we say free trade, and control the rules of trade to such an extent that it is in no way fair, or free. And your whining because they decide to go export heavy, and keep their currencies low?

They are adapting to our rules, and some are doing well. They know we have artificially high labour rates, and are exploiting that fact. We are beholden to these wages that are far and above reasonable if examined on a 'capitalistic' basis, and that is why we will continue to manufacture less and less. This manufacturing is what led us to the world of plenty, we enjoyed the long run negative terms of trade that so pins non industrialized economies to poverty. Now, they are simply making it up that ladder with or without our help. Europe, Japan, etc did it before them because we needed a market to sell our crap, and we wanted strong allies.

We weren't better then other nations, we just got to control the rules. Now the rules don't do as much for us as they once did. Capitalism rewards those with the lowest cost of production. Its not us, it won't ever really be us again, and we can fight them with stupid policies and rules, etc until our economic and political capital is completely exhausted, or we can back down and perhaps start to deal with them fairly, so when that day comes where even the most ignorant of ourselves realizes they can no longer look down at these masses struggling forward, they might remember policies of ours other then those meant to choke their forward progress as peoples.


RE: Scary
By foolsgambit11 on 7/23/2008 2:56:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
From what it sounded like he wants to tax you and me for using gas. Just another crazy idea from the mouth of a socialist.

Yeah.... because there are no federal taxes on gas right now. Oh, wait. It's 18.4 cents per gallon. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_tax) Lots of people disagree with what some portion of their tax burden goes to. Some people don't like Welfare, or Social Security, or the Iraq War, or whatever. I guess you won't like the carbon tax, if it's imposed. But to argue that it's crazy, or a socialist idea is a little far fetched.

The government needs some revenue to execute its essential functions. Unless you're an anarchist (in which case, I'll never convince you of anything), you surely must concede that government has some essential functions. Now the choice of how to raise that revenue is wide open, but I'd argue that it's not crazy to raise that revenue through direct taxation of a commodity of which you want to encourage moderation of use. Even without arguing the environmental aspect of gasoline usage, you can make a convincing argument based on conservation of oil reserves and the limitations of refining capacity that current usage should stay in line with global production capacity and development. This at least provides a logical reasoning for why a gasoline tax is reasonable. You can still argue that another means of generating revenue is better, based on potential negative economic impacts of an increased price at the pump, etc. But ad hominem attacks don't contribute to the debate.

I know your statement was the Obama is a socialist, not that the idea of a carbon tax is socialist, but I will treat it as if you said the carbon tax is socialist, since a policy debate should have no relation to the person advancing the idea, but rather should focus solely on the merits of the policy under question. As for the argument of it being a socialist concept, I would simply say that socialism should be more defined by what actions the government takes with the generated revenue than the means of generating that revenue. I will readily concede that taxes which are aimed at changing behavior can be said to fall in between those two categories, but certainly they lean more toward the latter than the former. And if this tax is socialist, then alcohol and tobacco taxes are too. And I bet you'll agree with that. How about tariffs? They are designed to modify the market for specific goods. Very socialist in it's economic engineering. So all trade protections are out. Embargoes and sanctions are out - who does the government think it is, telling Americans and American corporations where they can and can't do business? Goodbye schools - they're the ultimate propaganda and indoctrination tools. What I'm getting at is that all government policies can be called socialist, since they all have social impacts of once sort or another. And many of these policies have legitimate uses that the vast majority of Americans can support, even if they don't like Socialism. So really, whether or not a policy is socialist or not should not be considered when debating a policy decision on the merits of the issue.

If you feel that the government shouldn't tax carbon emissions, please explain why you feel it would be an unwise policy. But leave out the vitriol.


Billing
By chmilz on 7/23/2008 2:29:33 PM , Rating: 2
All this electric car stuff and yet I still haven't heard a peep about how anyone is going to pay to recharge their car.

Will it require a special outlet that sends information to the utilities so they know who to bill?
If it's a special outlet have they accounted for the 3rd-party devices that will inevitably surface to circumvent the outlet and use a regular outlet to steal power?
What if I loan my car to my friend and he/she wants to "top it up" for me in return?
What if my neighbor's cat licks the socket and kitty gets cooked, am I liable or is the utility company?

These questions need answers... ANSWERS!!!




RE: Billing
By chmilz on 7/23/2008 2:37:40 PM , Rating: 2
From Tesla's website:
quote:
Unlike EVs of the past, the Tesla Roadster has a built-in battery charging system that can basically plug into any outlet. The car ships with a particularly easy-to-use Home Charging Station that is installed in your garage by a qualified electrician. There is also an optional mobile charging kit that allows you to charge from any available electrical outlet (110V or 220V) wherever you happen to be.


http://www.teslamotors.com/learn_more/faqs.php

Mobile charging kit? Great, make someone else pay for your fuel. This needs to be regulated, fast.


RE: Billing
By Oregonian2 on 7/23/2008 2:56:40 PM , Rating: 2
I can just see long extension cords hanging out the windows of Motel 6 out to one's car in the parking lot....

Or "Porta-a-powwwwwer!!!" batteries that look like suitcases (with the normal wheels, etc) where one can charge them in one's hotel room then transfer the power out to one's car....

:)


RE: Billing
By hubajube on 7/23/2008 3:03:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Mobile charging kit? Great, make someone else pay for your fuel. This needs to be regulated, fast.
This is going to be a mess and I can't wait!!!!!

PS - How many people have already figured this out and never said a word? Raise your hands!


RE: Billing
By cokbun on 7/24/2008 5:53:09 AM , Rating: 2
rotating wheels > generator > batery recharge.


"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki