Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Earth Power Transportation

Mercedes To Phase Out Gasoline By 2015 908

arbitraryaardvark sends in a story a couple of weeks back in Yahoo's Ecogeek blog, reporting that Mercedes will phase out petroleum-powered cars by 2015 (mirror), and notes: "Story is unconfirmed but well sourced." "In less than 7 years, Mercedes-Benz plans to ditch petroleum-powered vehicles from its lineup. Focusing on electric, fuel cell, and biofuels, the company is revving up research in alternative fuel sources and efficiency."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mercedes To Phase Out Gasoline By 2015

Comments Filter:
  • Thank god! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RabidMoose ( 746680 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @04:57PM (#24105849) Homepage
    Maybe this precedent (if true) will prompt the other automakers to follow?
  • by RichMan ( 8097 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @04:58PM (#24105865)

    GM failed to appreciate the coming change.

    Good for Mercedes to be acting ahead of the curve. That is how you build technology and establish markets and presence.

    Nobody killed the electric car. They killed their own opportunity. [wikipedia.org]

  • Re:In other news (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AuMatar ( 183847 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @04:58PM (#24105877)

    Why? Nobody really gives a damn what fuels their cars, they care about cost and acceptable performance (can I make 70-80 on the freeway, or will I have a top speed of 40). If they can solve the problem of refueling infrastructure and sufficient mileage per refuel, there's no reason why not to go with a non-gas car.

  • I'll wait (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fishybell ( 516991 ) <fishybell.hotmail@com> on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @04:59PM (#24105889) Homepage Journal
    As this isn't an official announcement, I'm not holding my breath. Sure Mercedes have been at the forefront of vehicle technology for quite some time, but do you really see their entire truck line going non-petroleum in 7 years? Maybe the passenger cars, but not the trucks.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @05:00PM (#24105911)

    are still left in the 70's building 5 litre v8 guzzlers with solid rear axles

    though looking at GM and Fords financial statements they wont be building much of anything if they dont change, fast.

  • Re:Thank god! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by digitrev ( 989335 ) <digitrev@hotmail.com> on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @05:04PM (#24105975) Homepage
    Only if the technologies aren't locked up and hidden away by patents. The fact is, we either need a better infrastructure (so electric cars are possible), or a reasonable and standard selection of fuels. If the average consumer has to think too hard about which fuel his car uses, he won't be getting that car. Of course, the real solution is to get urban centers off of a car based infrastructure, and go to a different system, such as good subway or bus system, coupled with a public taxi type system, as in Hominids [wikipedia.org] , by Robert J. Sawyer.
  • Shifting Focus... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Lumenary7204 ( 706407 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @05:05PM (#24105985)

    Until we convert to completely non-combustive and non-fissile energy production, all vehicles will continue to use a certain amount of nuclear, petroleum and/or carbon-based fuels as a source of power.

    All that these so-called electric and fuel-cell vehicles do is shift the point source of the pollution and fuel consumption away from the vehicle and onto the electrical grid (and by extension to coal, nuclear, and natural gas generating stations), because charging vehicle batteries and capacitors (or splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen, so the hydrogen can be used as a fuel) takes electricity.

    Besides, the vehicles will still probably depend on petroleum-based products for lubricants.

  • by eln ( 21727 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @05:06PM (#24106007)

    How does a car that costs $109,000 address the "cost" concern? Sure, Mercedes vehicles aren't exactly the cheapest, but few of their models go for over 6 figures.

  • by John Hasler ( 414242 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @05:08PM (#24106031) Homepage

    Don't get too excited. It will be difficult to make a "biofuel" engine that won't run just fine on petroleum. And they won't try. As soon as they have biofuel capability across their product lines they will declare themselves "green" regardless of what the customers are actually putting in the tanks.

  • by holden caufield ( 111364 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @05:09PM (#24106047)

    Since this isn't an official announcement coming from MB themselves, I'm going to guess that "phasing out gasoline" and "focusing on biofuels" still means that they will still be running on diesel for their internal combustion engines. Not knowing much about automobile engines, or diesel in particular, I'm going to guess that they'll focus on the lower-sulfur diesel fuel that Europe has mandated (I believe, again, too lazy to look this stuff up), but it doesn't mean "no petroleum products ever"

    Not to mention, there's still going to be plenty of oil in that engine, not to mention plenty of petroleum products in the rest of the car.

  • Re:biofuels (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mini me ( 132455 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @05:11PM (#24106083)

    Since when has there been a corn supply shortage? There is more corn in storage now than there ever has been before.

  • Re:Thank god! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by eln ( 21727 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @05:11PM (#24106091)

    If electric cars can be made to charge from ordinary outlets, isn't the infrastructure already there? I suppose the trick would be to get the cars to charge fast enough and/or to last long enough on one charge that you don't have to stop every 4 hours to charge the car for 12 hours at a time, but assuming we can solve that, replacing all those gas pumps at fuel stations with extra outlets shouldn't be that big of a deal.

    Basically, I think electric cars are the only real way to handle this stuff long term, but battery technology has to get better. Today's batteries are too heavy and don't last long enough.

    I think better public transit is a good step, but I don't think you can put the private vehicle genie back in the bottle at this stage. People are accustomed to private transport, and the more efficient and environmentally friendly we can make that private transport the better.

  • Seems fitting (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Lucas123 ( 935744 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @05:13PM (#24106113) Homepage
    Mercedes invented the modern automobile, now they're leading in innovation again. Now if only American automakers would muster up the grit to do the same. Electric motors have been around since 1881 for Pete's sake. Howabout it folks?
  • by realmolo ( 574068 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @05:15PM (#24106167)
    "Until we convert to completely non-combustive and non-fissile energy production..."

    Why would we phase out fissile energy? We should be using that for everything. Nuclear power is the best thing we have.

    "Besides, the vehicles will still probably depend on petroleum-based products for lubricants."

    Not so much, actually. If you have a 100% electrically-powered car, you simply put an electric motor on every wheel. Electric motors don't need much lubrication.
  • Re:Thank god! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AuMatar ( 183847 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @05:18PM (#24106217)

    Never going to happen. Nothing will ever beat the private car for convenience. Its right there, whenever you want it. Its fast, it can be used by almost anyone, regardless of physical health. No wait times to use it, no sharing it with the smelly unbathed guy, the psycho homeless person, or the screaming infant. No stops along the way. And it can be used for trips of any length, to any location, without being forced to walk a mile from a bus stop to the destination. And depending on where you're driving, it can be quite pleasant- driving in the mountains with the top down is *fun*. I've never had a fun bus ride.

    On top of that- cars, to a large portion of the population, are freedom. Freedom to go where you want, when you want. Freedom to live where you want. Freedom to just say "fuck it" one day and go on a road trip. Freedom from the clock- I don't have to leave the bar with my friends to make that last 10:30 pm bus, I can stay til closing time (assume I'm sober for this one). There is no substitute for this.

    The people will never give up their cars. Don't bother trying to make us- we won't. We'll use every last drop of gasoline first. Find a better way to power them instead, they will never go away.

  • by oldhack ( 1037484 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @05:19PM (#24106229)
    Such news should have come out of Detroit, not Germany. We need our fancy business schools gutted.
  • by Red Flayer ( 890720 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @05:20PM (#24106245) Journal
    And what is the problem with that?

    Then it will be up to economics (with a "graceful" nudge from subsidies and taxes) to determine what consumers put in their tanks... the point is that petrofuels will not be required.

    Seriously, I fail to see what the problem is... what exactly would you want Mercedes to do instead? Make power trains that will get all borked up if someone tries to use petrol? That's a great way to make sure no one buys their product.

    I think that fuel flexibility is one of the answers. When the cars support multiple fuel streams, it allows for a gradual infrastructure and production change to biofuels (or eletric-only vehicles, etc). One of the big issues with changing to alternate fuel- and power supplies is that it requires wholesale change of the delivery infrastructure and production capabilities. Cars that run on petro-fuels and bio-fuls help bridge the gap.
  • by trickno ( 1227142 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @05:24PM (#24106311)
    It is going to be with an electric car. I'll admit, the electricity distribution system needs a drastic overhaul, but it is for all intents and purposes, in place. Can Mercedes do it? Absolutely. As previously mentioned, Tesla Motors is doing it right now, and that's with a sports car faster than almost all exotics off the line. Toning down performance and allowing the technology to mature will all attribute to a successful conversion.
  • Re:In other news (Score:2, Insightful)

    by RanCossack ( 1138431 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @05:26PM (#24106335)

    There are a lot of great reasons to bike, but $$ isn't one of them.

    It is in this city -- and, I imagine, many others -- but that's due to how expensive it is to park rather than gas.

    Of course, it all depends on location, location, location.

  • Re:In other news (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LandDolphin ( 1202876 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @05:30PM (#24106405)
    "lot of us do care"

    With 300 million people in America and 6 billion in the world, "a lot" of people do a lot of things. But the Majority does not care.
  • Re:I'll wait (Score:3, Insightful)

    by idontgno ( 624372 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @05:32PM (#24106429) Journal

    "Petrol" != "Petroleum"

    Diesel is a petroleum derivative. A diesel-burning truck is still petroleum-fueled. So, the question (and skepticism) about non-petroleum-using trucks stands.

  • Re:In other news (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gnick ( 1211984 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @05:32PM (#24106433) Homepage

    There are a lot of great reasons to bike, but $$ isn't one of them.

    It is in this city -- and, I imagine, many others -- but that's due to how expensive it is to park rather than gas.

    Good call - I've never had to work anywhere where I had to pay for my own parking. I only factored in price-per-mile (and left out all kinds of random overhead - If you can actually eliminate a car from your life, it makes a big difference). Sometimes I forget that not everyone shares my life-style - Shallow, I know.

    Cheers.

  • by Budenny ( 888916 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @05:35PM (#24106487)

    As usual, people assume that the problem is the fuel. Its not. Its the lifestyle. People are right to say that nothing can replace gasoline for the lifestyle we currently live. That is why the lifestyle is going to change, because there is not going to be affordable gasoline enough to live like that, and there are going to be no substitutes.

    Folks, the 20th century is over. It was great while it lasted, suburbs, drive ins, shopping malls, long distance commutes. But its over. What is going to replace it will not be different fuels, electric cars, whatever. What will replace it is commuting by mass transit, living closer to where you work, moving into high density cities, walking to shops. Biking to work in some places. It will be a lot like Europe in the fifties. The suburbs will vanish.

    And you won't like it.

  • Re:Thank god! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by AuMatar ( 183847 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @05:36PM (#24106493)

    Hey, I'm all for having buses and subways as well as cars. But even in urban centers, you're not going to noticeably reduce car use. Its just too convenient. I live in downtown Seattle, and the only reason I don't drive everywhere is because parking is too hard to find, not due to the cost of gas. So I might replace the car with walking for short trips. But if I'm going to the other side of town, or even more than a mile or two, I'm jumping in my car- its just less hassle.

    As for park and rides- those are epic failures. You're already in your car. Unless you hate driving, its more efficient of your time, less of a pain in the ass, and likely a more pleasant drive to just drive in. Especially if you'd have to make a route change somewhere- if you aren't going to somewhere right on a main route, it can easily change a 20 minute drive into an hour long bus transit.

  • by wattrlz ( 1162603 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @05:36PM (#24106497)
    All they need is a few stickers that say, " warranty void if fueled with petroleum products. Deliberate misuse by fueling with petroleum products could result in personal injury and damage to the vehicle." placed strategically and all is well. Most customers will probably think the cars can't run on petrol and the ones that try anyway would be breaking misusing the product anyway, so it's not the company's fault.
  • Re:Thank god! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lymond01 ( 314120 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @05:38PM (#24106523)

    Wish I had some mod points. The car offers too much freedom to be done away with entirely. But we can design better cities and public transportation to make it so you don't need or want to use it as much.

    The town I live in is made up almost entirely of 4 lane roads (or it feels like it) -- I'd never bike there for fear of getting squish (just like grape), everything is 2 miles away from anything else, etc. I'd trade my two car garage and 1000 sq foot back yard for a decent apartment with a view if I could walk to the local wine, cheese, and bread stores, to the large park with rowboats and bike trails...heck, even throw in a movie theatre in the apartment building.

    The American Dream, last I checked, isn't suburban hell...it's raising a family in a secure, healthy environment. Planned right, even smaller towns can avoid the sprawl. But it takes planning, and buy-in from developers of corporations as well as condos.

  • by mobby_6kl ( 668092 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @05:43PM (#24106609)

    > are still left in the 70's building 5 litre v8 guzzlers with solid rear axles

    And so is Mercedes. Well not solid axles or leaf springs, but they certainly do put 6.2 litre V8 [edmunds.com] engines in many of their cars.

    Anyway, this article is pretty much pointless, as at best MB will just make all cars E85 compatible or something.

  • by frosty_tsm ( 933163 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @05:44PM (#24106613)
    This raises one issue as to why Mercedes might actually be the best car company to make this jump. Their cars are luxury ones, not aimed at the Everyman. Their customers would be able to afford the fancy technologies and pay for the investment in infrastructure. Once one company does it and succeeds, others will follow.
  • by SBrach ( 1073190 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @05:45PM (#24106637)
    I think Lotus actually manufactures much of the car as well as having been integral in its design. On another note, if a small firm can design a car as fast as the Tesla using laptop batteries while achieving a 250 mile range and a 3-4 hour charge time, why can't Honda or Toyota do the same. They could only make it as fast as a civic or camry and under $40,000. I really see no logical engineering problem stopping a major manufacturer from releasing an electric car that could complete performance-wise,range-wise, and cost-wise with the current small cars offered.
  • by RichMan ( 8097 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @05:51PM (#24106731)

    How does a car that costs $109,000 address the "cost" concern?

    Factor in the gas costs and savings over time.

    52 weeks * $100 * 10 years = $52K.
    $109-52 = $57k.

    What happens if the gas prices double?

    Still pricey but a whole lot nicer than a top end SUV.

  • by RDW ( 41497 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @05:55PM (#24106827)

    Well, since Slashdot is now getting its stories from blogs that seem to be finding their 'well sourced' information in UK lowest common denominator tabloid The Sun:

    http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/motors/phil_lanning/article1314732.ece [thesun.co.uk]

    we might as well link to their story about Jet Packs!:

    http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article744857.ece [thesun.co.uk]

  • by goatpunch ( 668594 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @06:00PM (#24106909)

    Haven't you heard? If it gets warmer it's proof of GLOBAL WARMING, if it gets cooler it's proof of GLOBAL WARMING, and if it stays exactly the same it's still proof of GLOBAL WARMING!

  • by jhfry ( 829244 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @06:05PM (#24106977)

    He is saying that current fission, not fusion, is still the best source of energy we have. I agree. However I stipulate that the "waste" must be used to create electricity as well!

    Through transmutation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_transmutation) much of the "waste" of current reactors (30 years old here in the US) can be further used to create electricty. And the result is less, and less dangerous, waste.

    There are valid reasons to fear nuclear, however the benifits outweigh the results by billions of tons of carbon emissions. If we moved to a purely nuclear society, the innovations made in the long term would virtually eliminate the risks... making electrical power generation a truly clean enterprise... especially compared to current methods!

    I would take a nuclear plant in my back yard before another coal one within 100 miles!

  • by BobMcD ( 601576 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @06:06PM (#24106991)

    This is the most uninformed post on an electric car ever

    Until, perhaps, your own. Indulge me for a minute, please...

    Have you ever operated such an automobile? Have you ever considered that a car that did not shift, had no 'VROOM' sound, and wasn't powered by some beastly, powerful motor would just, well, suck?

    People LIKE cars. Electric cars will need do more than go fast and cost less to be widely adopted. They need to be macho, sexy, and powerful.

    Still not convinced? Look, then, at Harley Davidson adoption vs, say, the Honda Goldwing.

    People LIKE their rumbly, loud, inefficient motorized vehicles. They like how they make them FEEL. They don't call it 'Americas love affair with the automobile' for nothing, you know.

    Equip one with a vibration mechanism and a loudspeaker, and perhaps you'd see adoption go way up...

  • Re:Thank god! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AuMatar ( 183847 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @06:09PM (#24107027)

    Automated toll roads won't happen either. Any city council who tried to push that stuff through would quickly find himself out of a job. You'd end up pissing off

    *All the business owners downtown
    *All the people who live downtown
    *All the people who work downtown
    *All the people who go downtown semi-regularly

    The only people you'd make happy are
    *The people who go downtown once in a long while. And maybe not even them.

    Despite what some ultra left Sierra Club people want, that kind of tolling isn't going to fly anywhere in the US. It works in Europe only because downtown infrastructures predate the car and they have to restrict the number of cars going into the area. There's no such excuse for any American city.

  • Re:Thank god! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by AuMatar ( 183847 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @06:11PM (#24107071)

    Unless you have a subway system that will pick me up less than a block from where I am (no matter where I am), drop me off less than a block from where I want to go, and do so with a no more than 5 minute wait for said subway, it just won't replace the car. Its the transportation form of the last mile problem. But unlike in networking, here it is solved- the car.

  • by PRMan ( 959735 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @06:13PM (#24107105)

    People don't want to change their lifestyle and if somebody comes up with a plan where they don't have to, they'll jump on it.

  • Re:Thank god! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Mantaman ( 948891 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @06:18PM (#24107179)
    Mr Mercedes and Mr Benz where the first to bring us the car. They where the first to fit powerstearing as standard They where the first to fit ABS as standard They where the first to fit SatNav as standard (well in most of the range) They where the first to bin petrol/gas? They do inovate at Mercedes so it wouldnt surprise me if they did it.
  • Re:In other news (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NoodleSlayer ( 603762 ) <ryan@@@severeboredom...com> on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @06:21PM (#24107215) Homepage

    Mass Transit? California? Hah. California performs an epic fail when it comes to public transit.

    In the Bay Area no one single public transit system will get you around the whole bay. Getting from say Oakland to San Jose requires a number of rather inconvenient transfers. Actually trying to get around San Jose at all on public transit is a mess. BART was supposed to go to San Jose, but never did and trying to get funding to finish it has become a bureaucratic nightmare.

    Down south, supposedly there's a subway system in LA but I've never met anyone that's actually used it. I think it exists purely so east coast writers can use it in their movie plots. Wikipedia lists its ridership as being 258,710 in a county with 9 million people. (NYC's subway system by comparison has 5mil daily riders). Southern California (and the whole state really) is very car centric, which is partly why the traffic around LA is so messed up.

    As for trying to get between the major population centers in California (let's say, The Bay Area, LA, San Diego and Sacramento), your only options pretty much are Amtrak and Greyhound, both of which generally cost more then the cost in gas to just drive to whatever your destination is---assuming you have a car which most Californians do. If you start taking into account multiple passengers then the cost difference really becomes noticeable.

    There is one potentially bright spot though. If high speed rail actually could somehow materialize into a reality it could offer a compelling alternative to driving or flying, in reasonable time. A major bond measure is on the November ballot to support funding for building the high speed train network in California. (Not to mention could actually solve the SJ to SF issue--- now if they'd only add a line along the Central Coast.)

  • Re:In other news (Score:4, Insightful)

    by UltraAyla ( 828879 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @06:21PM (#24107221) Homepage

    it still consumes more resources to walk/bike than it does to drive - Do the math.

    I think you would be hard pressed to prove that point for any person with a decent diet.

    1) Cars require more resources to build initially
    2) Cars require more resources to run per mile (not just in terms of the fossil fuels themselves vs. human energy, but also in terms of the energy required to transport those fossil fuels around the world [hint, it's much greater than the energy used to bring you a peach or two] - 50% of the world's energy is burned just in transporting OTHER energy around the planet).
    3) Cars cost more to maintain
    4) Exercise is good for you and there are dozens of uncounted, beneficial health effects which will save you money later.

    There are a lot of great reasons to bike, but $$ isn't one of them.

    I'm sorry, but this is just pure FUD

  • by Anpheus ( 908711 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @06:27PM (#24107327)

    If I owned a Tesla, I'd show it off at the lights. Who cares what sound it makes when I'm already going 60 a mere three to four seconds later?

  • by kklein ( 900361 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @06:29PM (#24107353)

    Yeah! And while we're at it, these membrane keyboards are never going to catch on either. People like the satisfying 1-inch key depth of their manual typewriters, the resistance on the key, and the way you have to type just right to avoid having the letter arms collide and get stuck. It's how they feel that counts, not whether they allow you to do your things faster and easier (and quieter)!

    Expect insanely fast electric cars to end up in the same technological ghetto as computer keyboards--An interesting toy, perhaps, but they just don't deliver the experience people are looking for.

  • Re:In other news (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SlowMovingTarget ( 550823 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @06:32PM (#24107377) Homepage

    I was under the impression that there's not enough "waste oil" to meet the kind of demand that a majority-bio-diesel solution would call for. The result would be that much of the stuff getting pumped into tanks would have to come straight from rapeseed oil (for example), and not by way of the deep fryer at the local pub. With the possible exception of cellulosic biofuels, every current method of producing combustible fuel somehow links food production to the fuel tank of your vehicle.

    The net result for biofuel, even biodiesel, is that we starve people in developing nations by the millions so we can drive our cars. Let the internal combustion engine die alongside oil reserves. We need something very different, and if food supply is involved anywhere in that chain, it had better be burned in the cells of horses not the tanks of the latest S Class. That's why the focus ought to be on things like electric or mechanical (flywheel) means to powering vehicles.

  • Re:Thank god! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ceoyoyo ( 59147 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @06:33PM (#24107413)

    I don't like swapping my propane tank because I have a fairly new one. I really don't think I'd like to swap my nice new $5000 battery pack for whatever the last guy left at the station.

  • by JordanL ( 886154 ) <jordan.ledouxNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @06:35PM (#24107443) Homepage
    There is a huge difference between the car companies and the airlines. The car companies are largely where they are because of bad business decisions and an inability to adapt business models.

    Airlines have literally no way out. For all the work done on alternative fuels, almost none of it is being applied to aeronautics, and their fuel-to-weight ratio of the commercial planes they can fly, even the newest ones, is getting really close to making it impossible to turn a profit given the supply-demand curves of our current economy for air travel.

    In the end car manufacturers will survive whether or not we bail them out, because there is a giant void that must be filled. Our entire way of life depends on it.

    But the problem the airlines are in is a middle area where it is important enough to drastically impact our day to day lives, but not drastic enough to ensure self-correction. When all is said and done the largest casualty of the oil companies may be international air travel. Someone is going to have to bail the airlines out soon, because Boeing/Exxon/Lockeed-Martin etc. are not providing them with the technologies to adequately meet demand or lift supply.

    With car companies, the technologies exist, and it's a matter of infrastructure and implementation. With airlines, the technology does not, and no one is worried about that except for the airlines themselves.
  • Re:Thank god! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by prisoner-of-enigma ( 535770 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @06:37PM (#24107465) Homepage

    I've seen it proposed many times, here's the solution:

    You pull into a gas station and they swap out your battery for a completely charged one.

    You drive away and they recharge the battery.

    Problem solved.

    Your powers of problem solving are amazing! You've just singlehandedly solved the entire electric car/battery issue by typing a few words into your browser!

    Of course, you gloss over the "few issues to be worked out" as if they weren't the biggest, most difficult, impractical problems confounding your whole idea, such as:

      - How would "refilling stations" store the massive number of batteries needed to support such rapid changeout procedures?

      - How would these stations charge the batteries quickly enough for a fast turnaround?

      - Batteries -- especially Li-Ion ones -- begin to degrade as soon as they're manufactured, usually losing 40% or more of their charge capacity in 18-24 months. How is a station going to deal with customers dropping off old battery packs and picking up new ones?

      - How is the station going to physically handle the battery packs? Lead-acid cells are cheap and sturdy but heavy as...well, lead. Not to mention the environmental concerns.

      - Where is the national grid going to get the power to charge all these wonderfully swappable packs?

    These are not trivial issues. In fact, they're the most non-trivial piece of the whole let's-all-plug-in-our-cars-and-feel-warm-and-fuzzy-about-being-green hysteria. And these are just the few I can come up with in five minutes are less.

    There are many more reasons why this is a silly idea that will do little or nothing to help the environment. It may, in fact, actually harm the environment if we (meaning the U.S.) turn to our most abundant power-producing resource (coal) to provide the needed power.

    I'd be in favor of this idea if we'd get our heads out of the sand about nuclear power, but the tree huggers seem quite intent on keeping that option off the table.

  • Re:Thank god! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by AuMatar ( 183847 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @06:39PM (#24107487)

    No? How about walking out of your house and to the nearest subway station (for me, 4 minutes), waiting for the next train (3-8 minutes, depending on the time of day) and being taken to your destination, or within a five-minute walk of it. There's no need to buy fuel, no need to have a car serviced, freedom to do what I want while I travel (read, use a phone, sleep, be drunk), much greater safety.

    Walk to the garage (2 minutes), start immediately (0 minutes), park within 3 minutes of your destination. Seems like I just saved 7-12 minutes of my day. And no need to put up with psychos, annoyances, etc. I'll take the car any day of the week.

  • Re:Thank god! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Red Flayer ( 890720 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @06:53PM (#24107687) Journal

    - How would "refilling stations" store the massive number of batteries needed to support such rapid changeout procedures?

    The same way they store liquid fuel -- in a storage container designed for the purpose.

    How would these stations charge the batteries quickly enough for a fast turnaround?

    That's a question of inventory on hand. See my answer to your first objection.

    Batteries -- especially Li-Ion ones -- begin to degrade as soon as they're manufactured, usually losing 40% or more of their charge capacity in 18-24 months. How is a station going to deal with customers dropping off old battery packs and picking up new ones?

    By factoring in the replacement cost into their pricing, either on a blanket basis, or by assessing a surcharge based upon battery age.

    How is the station going to physically handle the battery packs? Lead-acid cells are cheap and sturdy but heavy as...well, lead. Not to mention the environmental concerns.

    Pneumatic lifts? Hydraulic lifts? There is plenty of mechanical assistance available for lifting heavy objects. As for environmental concerns, how do garages cope with the same wrt engine coolant, petrol, motor oil, transmission fluid, etc?

    It may, in fact, actually harm the environment if we (meaning the U.S.) turn to our most abundant power-producing resource (coal) to provide the needed power.

    Who says we need to use coal? Maybe as a stop-gap, but nuclear and renewables are good options in the future. Especially if we reduce our wasteful need for so many vehicles. I know you mention the nuke-blockers, but most of the hard-core anti-nuke reactionaries are getting old, and I firmly believe that a massive information campaign could be successful in swaying the enough people.

    In short, every problem has a solution, and while the economics need to be worked out, it sure seems to me that you're an obstructionist and would rather look at the problems and say, "Why bother?" than look at the problems and say "How can that be solved?".

    I personally believe that electric cars are part of the solution in the long run, but in the short-to-medium term, we've got to work on alternative fuels that can make use of the existing infrastructure (with modifications).

  • Re:Thank god! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by HockeyPuck ( 141947 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @06:54PM (#24107703)

    why do you assume that we all want to live in high rise apartment buildings in large cities? Can a city of 100k people support a subway system? Doubt. Maybe the county of surrounding towns can support the bus system, but surely the bus system won't be going into every neighborhood.

    Also, I and many other people on this planet live in the suburbs. I like having a lawn, not hearing heavy-footed neighbors upstairs walking around. I like grilling out in the backyard on a warm summer night. Going up to a 'rooftop garden' isn't even close to it, as how many apartments can invite their X closest friends up there?

    Sure, I guess I could load up a couple of carts with a bbq, charcoal and coolers of food/beer and walk a few blocks, get on the subway with this stuff and take that to a park, whereby if I forgot something, I'm truly f-cked, b/c I can't run back into the house and get the g-ddamn ice.

    I don't want to have to go to special cordoned off area of the city just to see grass, trees, birds and squirrels. I actually like putting up a bird feeder and seeing what shows up. Or planting a small tree when my son was born, or putting up a basketball hoop in the driveway, instead of having him walk down to the same park that 5000 other kids are trying to use.

    You may love living in the city, but I'll give up my lawnmower when you take it from my cold dead hands.

  • Re:In other news (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @06:56PM (#24107725)

    Mass Transit? California? Hah. California performs an epic fail when it comes to public transit.

    As a Californian, I have to angrily retort: "Uhh... well.. yeah, that's pretty much it."

    In the Bay Area no one single public transit system will get you around the whole bay. Getting from say Oakland to San Jose requires a number of rather inconvenient transfers. Actually trying to get around San Jose at all on public transit is a mess. BART was supposed to go to San Jose, but never did and trying to get funding to finish it has become a bureaucratic nightmare.

    Getting from my house in Berkeley to the car rental at the Oakland International Airport (where I had to drop it back off) was a nasty exercise in transfers, from a cab to BART, BART to the airport, board a slow bus that eventually takes you to the car rental.. my God, what a pain. And every time someone suggests something reasonable, like, say, extending BART to San Jose, it gets tied up by regional transportation buslines who don't like the "big guys" coming in and taking their business (not kidding.. Santa Clara VTA lobbied nicely against the SJ extension).

    Want to get from Berkeley to Windsor, Ca where my mom lives? The last time I tried it it involved taking a BART train to San Francisco, then Golden Gate Transit up to Santa Rosa, then a bus from Santa Rosa to Windsor. Total travel time? 3.5 hours. Travel time if I drive? 55 minutes, or 1.5 hours if 101N traffic is particularly ghastly.

    The last time I tried to use Amtrak (long ago), a round-trip ticket between Berkeley and Davis (near Sacramento) involved a train and a bus (despite there being an Amtrak train station in Davis and Berkeley) and cost around $50. The last time I had a 6 hour delay on Amtrak was the last time I rode on Amtrak.

    Down south, supposedly there's a subway system in LA but I've never met anyone that's actually used it. I think it exists purely so east coast writers can use it in their movie plots.

    And for 24, which is usually set in LA.

    When I took a trip to London and traveled around on the Tube... man, how refreshing that was.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @07:00PM (#24107797)

    This is the most uninformed post about a car enthusiast ever. You do realize that to some people the act of driving is more than just speed? The main flaw in your argument is the assumption that the OP doesn't just PREFER to shift their own gears as part of that experience. Sure the OP could make do with one or two gears, but the experience just wouldn't be as authentic.

    Edit: Interestingly enough the captcha I got for this was "linkages"

  • Re:Thank god! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by benhattman ( 1258918 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @07:00PM (#24107799)
    OH? Like how I can always park within 1 block of my destination, regardless of how popular it is?

    Get real. In any dense city, you're parking and walking anyways.
  • Where are you going to find a mechanic to service your Tesla's electric motor, or the batteries?

    Unless your mechanic rebuilds alternators from scratch, he'll be able to do comparable maintenance on a Tesla Roadster. (And don't even try to say your mechanic does more than clean, test, and replace your battery.)

    Diagnose the broken part, repair if practical, replace if not. Your mechanic will figure it out.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @07:16PM (#24108043)
    You have an amazing talent, being able to insightfully tell exactly what people want from a car. You should be in marketing.

    Oh wait, you probably are.
  • by LtCmdrJoel ( 1115635 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @07:57PM (#24108495)

    So if you travel less than 50 miles a day you would be driving completely for free.

    If you travel less than 50 miles a day you should look into buying a bicycle.

  • Re:EV1 revisited (Score:2, Insightful)

    by DotDotSlasher ( 675502 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @07:58PM (#24108501)
    I think GM made the right decision to stop the EV1. Let's think about this - GM spent about $1.5B to build 1500 cars. That's $1M/car. This is back in the 90's, when a million dollars was a lot of money. They leased them for 2 years at ~$700/mo. That's a loss leader. They were banking on a leap in battery technology which never happened.
    And no - nickel metal hydride batteries would not last the life of the car. Typically, NiMH have (best case) 1000 recharge cycles before they are pretty useless. I wouldn't want to depend on them to get me home the last few hundred cycles. The Prius' battery pack costs about $8k to replace. That's after 11 years of improvements in battery technology, and that battery will only move the car a few miles - much smaller battery capacity than the EV1. Also, the Prius only uses about 5 or 10% of the range of the battery (it is not fully charged or discharged in normal driving) to maximize battery life.
    So you're left with a car with a very expensive battery pack (let's guess north of $20k) which needs to be replaced every 3-5 years. You paid a million dollars per car. Economies of scale can build the car for less. But that doesn't solve the battery problem. The breakthrough that GM was counting on in battery technology failed to materialize. The requirement of selling a percentage of zero-emission-vehicles in California began to show signs of weakness. What do you do - ask lessees to pay the true cost of >$20k for a new battery when they are needed in a few years? Do you continue to subsidize the car by selling batteries for less than you pay for them -- and figure out a way to stop people from buying the batteries and selling them for a profit? Where was the future in this car? There was no way for GM to even break even on it.
    I agree that GM should have continued working on their EV line - maybe building a dozen prototypes a year, lending vehicles to magazine editors and car shows, but the battery issue was the killer.
  • Re:Thank god! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by xaxa ( 988988 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @08:09PM (#24108605)

    Unless you have a subway system that will pick me up less than a block from where I am (no matter where I am), drop me off less than a block from where I want to go, and do so with a no more than 5 minute wait for said subway, it just won't replace the car. Its the transportation form of the last mile problem. But unlike in networking, here it is solved- the car.

    Any Americans wondering why they have a reputation for being lazy should read the quoted comment.

  • by MightyYar ( 622222 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @08:10PM (#24108619)

    They aren't a great option when you have hills or inclement weather, and if you don't have a shower at work. It's also not very safe in many places - which is the reason I avoid a motorcycle.

  • by PsyckBoy ( 669954 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @08:11PM (#24108639)
    True. It won't happen overnight. You'll have to wait until dawn.
  • by Goaway ( 82658 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @08:12PM (#24108657) Homepage

    Well, how about you buy an electric car and install some goddamn speakers to make noise for you?

  • by Tikkun ( 992269 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @08:25PM (#24108775) Homepage

    They don't call it 'Americas love affair with the automobile' for nothing, you know.

    I am an American, and I for one am disgusted that many of us are willing to trade the future for some nice gold bars.

  • by domatic ( 1128127 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @08:25PM (#24108783)

    In a sports car? Yes.

    Also, I'm talking about an Elise... it's a small two door Lotus, not a Ford Mustang.

    This is nothing more than "That's the way they've always been. It's what I grew up with. Everything else is sacrilege." If the damn thing can press me back in my seat and leave that punk in the Mustang with his jaw hanging down then I could care less what it sounds like. These things are damn near silent? Good. You can get yer noise from a decent stereo. I gather a close gated 6-speed to authoritatively bang up and down is quite the man-toy. It is pointless in a vehicle with a torque curve that is very very flat and very very wide. I'll allow that it may take too long to recharge the thing after flogging it around 50 or 60 miles of curvy road. I'm not saying it's without flaws but not mimicking a gasoline powered vehicle to every last detail isn't one of them. I think gobs of quiet buttery smooth power could be quite fun in it's own right.

    I've even heard that some CVT equipped cars have synthetic bumpy shifts due to untrained consumers. Gee, now what was the point of a CVT again? Let's have unnecessary wear and tear and both power and economy loss because a 21st century vehicle doesn't shift like a '72 Dodge. Sheesh!

  • Re:In other news (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DerWulf ( 782458 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @08:33PM (#24108869)
    no no no! It's all local co-op, no pesky hydrocarbons involved there. Don't you know, energy usage, transportation and civilization are bad, bad, bad and we should all take this young lad as our example!
  • Yes, getting up hours earlier, probably before sunrise, riding for 5 times as long through any weather from sleet to baking sun, up and down hills, in your suit with your briefcase, and arriving worn out and sweating, possibly soaked in rain or covered in dust is a great way to start your day at work.

    Personally I'll retain my brain and use my bike for trips of under 5 miles. For longer trips, try the bus.
  • Re:Thank god! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DerWulf ( 782458 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @08:48PM (#24109007)
    Mass transportation stinks literally, it slaves you to it's schedule, it's run as a public institution and therefore constantly battles with reliability issues. If you ride during rush hours you'll never get a seat or even miss the bus/train because it's full. If you go on off hours schedules are often erratic or require you to take a large detour. I tried riding the train for half a year and it's just hell on earth and this in germany! There is always some fucker who needs to eat kilos of garlic appearantly, children screaming, girls bickering etc etc etc pp. How in the hell can you read with this noise? If you need to change trains/bus/tram you always need 5-10 minute buffer so you'll not miss your connection when something goes wrong (like fucking rail-cleaners at 9 on a work day that the tram needs to wait for). Now change 2 times: 15 minute buffer time that you spend standing around in the cold. You can't work late because the stupid bus won't go past 8 etc etc. The tram station is 15 minutes by food so I take the bike, except it get's stolen because some asshole decides to steal all bikes at the tram station that day and NOBODY notices or even cares, certainly not the tram operators ... Mass transportation sucks! Individual transpotation is an evolution over mass transit and we are not going to go back!
  • Re:In other news (Score:3, Insightful)

    by UltraAyla ( 828879 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @09:04PM (#24109125) Homepage

    Oddly enough, that fact is actually the best documented part of what I said. See https://eed.llnl.gov/flow/images/LLNL_Energy_Chart300.jpg [llnl.gov] for more. Over 50% of energy is simply lost (heat, transportation, and high voltage requirements all play in) during the generation and transportation of energy.

    However, it does look like I mistated this. Turns out that over 50% of energy is lost in generation, transmission, and distribution (and not just in transmission and distribution alone). I think the point still stands though

  • Re:Thank god! (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @09:07PM (#24109153)
    Let's take a city like Chicago for example. Sure public transportation's fine if you haven't any commitments. Myself, I need to drop my son off at daycare and make it to work in a reasonable time, put in my 8 hours and then head back to get my son before the daycare closes. My average commute per day by car is 2.5 hours, give or take 10 minutes. Mapping it out with google maps using public transportation says it would take 3 hours 47 minutes.

    Sorry even if I dropped my son off at 7:00am, I'd spend the next 75 minutes getting to work. Then I put in my 8 hours (still following me? It's now 4:15, assuming I was able to just throw my son into the daycare and rush out the door. That saddens me when I see other parents do that.) The ride back to my son's daycare is another 81 minutes. The clock strikes 5:36, assuming there are no delays anywhere along the line. The daycare closes at 6pm, and every minute after that is more money out of my pocket. Do that too many times and they'll say sorry, don't bring him back anymore.

    I can't count the number of times I've heard the announcement on the train "We apologize for the inconvenience, but we are waiting for signals ahead." Or waiting for workers on the tracks.

    With my car, I can take my time in the morning with my son, turn it into a routine (though yes I could do the same thing if I and my son woke up earlier, which means he would need to go to sleep earlier too). When I pick him up I can take him home, we can play for a little bit, and then eat dinner.

    If I was on public transportation I would be running all the time, trying to rush to get everywhere on time, and my son would only get to see me while I was taking him to and from the daycare and making meals. And the weekends, which would be when all the errands would have to be done.

    Yeah public transportation is the life for me.
  • Re:Thank god! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dpilot ( 134227 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @09:32PM (#24109531) Homepage Journal

    Nor has anyone mentioned the thing that could keep suburbia practical, telecommuting.

    Perhaps one of the best things we could have to solve the energy problem would be advancements in virtual presence, to broaden usage of telecommuting. I've done it some, and while it fits my job occasionally, true presence is necessary too often. Maybe better virtual presence could make telecommuting work more often for people like me.

  • by tekrat ( 242117 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @09:33PM (#24109539) Homepage Journal
    Anyone who cares about what they pay at the pump cannot vote Democratic (and have a leg to stand on when prices go up even faster) in the next election if they want the price to come down
    -----

    That's an interesting statement when you consider it was the insane policies of the Republicans that got us into this mess in the first place.

    If wacko, insane, bumbling moron GWB hadn't destablized the entire mideast with his WMD-hunt (when Saddam had been a known, contained, and closely monitored element), then we'd still only be paying $1.50 per gallon at most. But, because of a few greedy individuals, we are now shoveling hundreds of billions into the pockets of a few and we've created the largest transfer of wealth in human history.

    So, go on, spout on about how the democrats are to blame for everything. In the meantime, GWB will continue to lose popularity, and will likely be considered "Worst President in American History". Just remember the party he came from -- the party that represents wealthy, greedy, self-centered, fat white people who couldn't give a shit about the rest of the world.
  • by Smeagel ( 682550 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @09:42PM (#24109679)
    No, I don't. But I do think you need to work on your reading comprehension. Tesla is talking of distributing *solar panels for your house* to use to charge the car, not solar panels for the roof of their *convertible* which you seem to be suggesting.
  • Re:Thank god! (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @09:46PM (#24109759)
    Disclaimer: I'm not AuMatar.

    You lost your driving time though: I spent my travelling time reading the free newspaper (if I'm going out in the evening) or a book (going to/from work), or just spaced out. I didn't have to look (and pay) for a parking place either. There are very few annoying people, I always assume that's an American thing.

    Even with the annoyance/entertainment provided by other drivers, I wouldn't say I've lost the driving time - that's prime "decompression" time for me. Driving is relaxing, even when I have to pay extra close attention (bad weather, heavy traffic, etc). No place I commonly go is beyond 12 miles from home, so I wouldn't get any meaningful reading done on public transit anyway, particularly not with all the distractions (other people's conversations, frequent stops, other people's odors...).

    Other than the city center, which I avoid like the plague, there is no pay parking around here. And for me, there is no time spent looking for a parking spot. For example, at the grocery store, I pick any lane that isn't delayed by some doofus slowly circling the lot 5 times so that he doesn't have to walk an extra 40 feet, and I park far enough away that parking isn't a chore, and I'm close to an exit.

    Also, AuMatar forgot to mention the time saved in going directly to his destination(s) without changing subway lines or waiting through multiple bus stops.

    You're also a very relaxed driver if other drivers don't annoy you.

    So far as I can tell, all the other drivers are human, and for me humans are just as potentially annoying in the role of commuters or shopping-cart-pushers or nearly anything else I can imagine. I have no basis for comparison to say whether Americans are more annoying than any other group, but I suspect all of them would be just as annoying to me (which is of course, my problem). Within the confines of my car, I can safely emit all sorts of creative verbal abuse toward other drivers, thus ameliorating the inevitable annoyances and providing for release of unrelated stresses, but such behavior would be considered impolite at best on a bus or subway car (possibly resulting in getting my ass kicked, or worse). Regardless of all that, where I live now, the drivers, even the college students with sports cars, just aren't that annoying compared with most other places I've lived or visited. It helps that I try to arrange my work schedule to drive at less congested times of day.

    - T

  • by Shados ( 741919 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @09:47PM (#24109779)

    Im not talking about work. I'm talking about people taking a car to go buy milk one block away. Or for those who do use public transportation, use their car to get to the bus stop thats just across the block. The people who take their car to go to the gym thats 10 minutes away (come on...you're being lazy on your way to go exercise, the hell?)

    Some people don't have a choice: but if the people who DO have a choice, made a different one, I feel a lot of fuel would be saved.

  • by AJ Mexico ( 732501 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @10:32PM (#24110417) Homepage
    It seems no electric car is truly available now. Everybody is talking about concept cars, limited production runs, cars that are only available in limited geographic areas and vehicles available to fleets only, and they are promised for 2010. For the Tesla, which is ahead of most, even if you have the 100 K$ burning a hole in your pocket, you better hope you are already on the waiting list, and located in California, or your chances are slim-to-none of getting one. I'm hoping Mercedes will make the electric version of the smart car available in the US. Eventually. Sigh.

    - Looking for an Electric Car Before the Gas Price Surge
  • by guruevi ( 827432 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @10:47PM (#24110613)

    You could better compare the Mercedes in Europe to the Buick in the USA. Almost everybody can buy one certified pre-owned, middle-class can buy it brand new and it gives you the status symbol that you are a little higher on the income ladder, a little more refined than the rest.

    Ford's are and have been for the last few years cheap pieces of junk that barely last until the last payment is complete. Too bad Volvo has been taken over by Ford, their latest models have been degrading in both quality and innovativeness. In Europe you would get a Skoda (which is currently owned by VW), a second grade brand which the owner apparently uses to recycle the less acceptable parts for the premium VW brand QA.

  • Re:Thank god! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by prisoner-of-enigma ( 535770 ) on Tuesday July 08, 2008 @11:18PM (#24111027) Homepage

    The same way they store liquid fuel -- in a storage container designed for the purpose.

    You make it sound so easy! I wish I had your easy genius. Now, since batteries have an energy density far less than gasoline, explain to me where your typical filling station is going to get the 300%-400% more storage space they're going to need. I know! Maybe they can store the batteries underground in a large tank and pump them through pipes to waiting cars!

    That's a question of inventory on hand. See my answer to your first objection.

    I'm continually amazed at your problem solving skills. Again, without offering a shred of evidence, you've completely destroyed my objection.

    By factoring in the replacement cost into their pricing, either on a blanket basis, or by assessing a surcharge based upon battery age.

    And station owners will be able to discern the age of the packs...how? With printed dates? Like that won't get faked. Or perhaps with some sort of electronics in the pack? How long until some 733t h4x0r cracks the code and lets everyone designate their depleted packs as "brand new"? Silly me. Here I am bringing up practical problems in the real world when all I need to do is wait for you to type "no problem" and make it all go away.

    Pneumatic lifts? Hydraulic lifts? There is plenty of mechanical assistance available for lifting heavy objects. As for environmental concerns, how do garages cope with the same wrt engine coolant, petrol, motor oil, transmission fluid, etc?

    Your average gas station has none of the above equipment, nor does it have any facilities for adding it. Further, your average gas station doesn't deal with engine coolant, petrol, motor oil, transmission fluid, etc. because it's a gas station, not a garage. You'll find lots of the former but far fewer of the latter. Perhaps you'll now explain how all the gas stations will magically morph into full-fledged garages, and how the cost of all of this infrastructure will somehow magically not get passed on to the customer, taxpayer, or both in exorbitant amounts.

    Who says we need to use coal? Maybe as a stop-gap, but nuclear and renewables are good options in the future.

    It takes roughly a decade or more to bring a nuclear plant online. In the meantime, people are rushing pell-mell onto this absurd electric car idea as if that's the only practical solution. It is not the only solution, and it's actually one of the less practical ones.

    In short, every problem has a solution, and while the economics need to be worked out, it sure seems to me that you're an obstructionist and would rather look at the problems and say, "Why bother?" than look at the problems and say "How can that be solved?".

    Perhaps you are unaware of the difference between being an "obstructionist" and being a pragmatist. Allow me to educate you. You, my friend, are an idealist. You believe every problem has a neat, tidy, why-didn't-somebody-already-think-of-this solution just waiting around the corner. I admire your optimism, but it masks a greater naivete. Fact is, people much smarter than either of us have thought about this, far longer than both of us put together. And guess what? It's not practical, even at $200/barrel for oil. It is not economically feasible. You want it to be feasible so you overlook the glaring holes in your solution.

    Here's some advice: if you come across a major problem facing the world and you think you've got a simple solution to it, you can pretty much say with 99.99999% certainty that you have no grasp of the situation. Things are the way they are for a reason, and if you don't see that reason, you haven't looked hard enough or thought long enough about all the ramifications.

    And it's not that I'm saying "why bother?" I'm instead saying "show me somet

  • OT: What is a good online British paper for your American cousins to read? From our side, the BBC does some great reporting. As a result, we kind of give any British paper more credit than perhaps its due.
  • Re:Thank god! (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 09, 2008 @02:40AM (#24112855)

    Any Americans wondering why they have a reputation for being lazy should read the quoted comment.

    Of course, the requisite slur against "Americans", a group that comprises 300 million people with a full spectrum of beliefs. One *could* also say that people who are content to waste time aimlessly waiting for a subway don't have much to contribute to the world. One *could* also say that any Europeans wondering why they have a reputation for not working very hard should read your comment.

  • by TheThiefMaster ( 992038 ) on Wednesday July 09, 2008 @02:47AM (#24112907)

    Though I wouldn't be surprised if it was 80mph for 30 miles or 30mph for 100 miles...

    The real question is: "What's its range under normal motorway/town driving?"

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 09, 2008 @03:36AM (#24113295)

    What is a good online British paper for your American cousins to read?

    The Guardian [guardian.co.uk] is better than most, especially for science and tech.

  • by Stephen Ma ( 163056 ) on Wednesday July 09, 2008 @03:45AM (#24113351)
    there is NO way that the present $4+ is $1.50 plus $2.50 risk premium because of Iraq.

    Actually, the invasion of Iraq is probably one of the main causes of the current (prematurely) high price of gas. The reason is that Iraq's oil production is still far below what it was pre-invasion. If Iraq's oil producers had not been damaged, they would have comfortably absorbed the new demand from China and India, and the price of gas would have stayed reasonable. So you can thank Bush's "all guns and no brains" policies for the current pain at the gas pumps.

  • by BlackPignouf ( 1017012 ) on Wednesday July 09, 2008 @04:16AM (#24113551)

    "and usually use higher energy fuels than gasoline as well"

    I call this bullshit. Could you please elaborate, and give us an example?
    With around 10kWh/l for gasoline, there's not so many "higher energy fuels" except uranium.

    Even $50/gallon would still be cheap for so big an energy density. 4$/gallon is virtually free, and only takes into account extraction/distribution costs, not the real energy value of gasoline.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density [wikipedia.org]

  • by sticky_charris ( 1086041 ) on Wednesday July 09, 2008 @05:15AM (#24113877)
    BBC News (or the television based reporting at least) has become quite tabloidy in my opinion. Too many stories relating to celebtities. The presenters also appear to lack depth of knowledge on current affairs. Channel 4 news is much better, although John Snow doesn't seem as sharp as he used to be.

New York... when civilization falls apart, remember, we were way ahead of you. - David Letterman

Working...