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."
Re:In other news (Score:4, Interesting)
In other news, the public will phase out Mercedes purchases by 2015.
Which public is that?
Mercedes is kind of a big deal in Countries that are not the USA.
Not to mention that it'll be a lot easier to build the necessary infrastructure in Europe, rather than in the USA, to support fuel cells & biodiesel.
Re:In other news (Score:2, Interesting)
Nobody really gives a damn what fuels their cars
That's not true, I'm proud that the food that I eat powers me across town not some hydrocarbons bought in some country I really don't give a damn about. In other words, I walk or take a bike. Revolutionary! And I do it in Idaho, a state with let's just say an unproven track record in sustainability. Mass transit, clean air and energy efficiency that's for the Californians to worry about!
Or what about the fact I don't buy cat food that utilizes fish products? If I'm going to help deplete the world's fisheries I at least want to taste the devastation. I figure my cat can survive on beef and poultry and be happy knowing he's eating the product of over grazing, over feeding, over fertilizing, under paying, subsidization, etc., etc..
No the problem is a lot of us do care about the costs of our actions and choices. But an announcement like this is just a red herring. It says they will also concentrate on bio fuels. So they really aren't changing anything. Since I have yet to hear of a viable bio fuel that doesn't run in an engine compatible with petroleum.
Biodiesel FTW (Score:4, Interesting)
tremendous energy density, easy to transport, not even hazardous when spilled, near-identical performance to diesel /50 mpg in my VW
2016: Mercedes sales tumble (Score:2, Interesting)
As owners of new Mercedes can't find places to fill up their cars.
Look, I'm all for alternative power sources, (I've been driving a Honda Civic hybrid since 2004), but a unilateral decision like this is just silly. Mercedes just isn't a big enough player (even in Europe) to force the construction of the infrastructure needed to support common use of fuel cells, etc. by 2015.
And don't biofuels lead to worldwide food shortages? A better route for Mercedes would be to ease the transition with regular hybrids and plug-in hybrids, then take the leap into leaving gasoline and diesel.
Me? When I sell my Civic Hybrid in a few years (like, say, six or so), I'll probably get a Chevy Volt. 40 miles on batteries only = never having to use gas on my way or going home from work.
Sounds nice, but not very credible (Score:2, Interesting)
Even if a car manufacturer is serious about going to alternative fuels, I don't see it happen within 7 years for the major brands. Because the alternatives are not at the point where they could do as well as gasoline motors in all aspects. A small company might choose to make only electric cars and sell enough to make a profit, but I doubt the market would absorb the numbers a large manufacturer makes.
Besides, it is Mercedes we're talking about. Historically they tend to be late to adopt technology trends. With direct injection diesels and cars that could use unleaded gasoline, they were among the last on the German market.
Which is not to say Mercedes are incompetent, my impression of their cars is that they offer solid quality and a friend of mine who is a car mechanic agrees. But they are rather conservative, which means they offer mature technology but are rarely the first to do something.
Re:In other news (Score:5, Interesting)
the USA only seems to import the luxury cars from Europe. In Spain and Italy, I have seen Mercedes-Benz garbage trucks, which shocked the hell out of my the first time when I was 15. Trips since then, barely noticed.
But the thing about a lot of Mercedes and BMWs and stuff -- especially the older ones: turbo diesel engines. Can't any diesel engine run biodisel unmodified? That was my understanding.
Re:In other news (Score:4, Interesting)
Lamborghini makes tractors (Score:5, Interesting)
Mercedes truck division is way bigger than its car division.
And plenty of Italian farmers drive a Lambo [lamborghini-tractors.com] to work.
Re:and US car companies ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:In other news (Score:3, Interesting)
Sadly, the emphasis is on biofuels rather than electric. Basically this boils down to burning food. At best, arable land that could be used for food crops will get used for fuel crops instead (this is already happening).
Electric cars, on the other hand, can be powered by nuclear reactors. And dang it, where's my flywheel?
Re:Gasoline (Score:3, Interesting)
No matter how we choose to generate power in the future, we have very few options for switching to anything other than gasoline for transporting that power.
Butanol is a direct gasoline replacement produced by bacteria from any organic matter. It can be carried and delivered via the existing infrastructure.
Biodiesel is a direct diesel replacement produced by transesterification of fatty acids. You can use animal or plant oil as a feedstock and it can be produced from algae which can be grown in seawater.
That's two liquid fuel options there. You do have your weasel words at the bottom of the article ("or at least a similar liquid fuel") but this is about getting off of petrofuels, not about getting off of liquid fuels.
Can you imagine what kind of electrical infrastructure you would need to transfer the same power over mere wires?
Yes, high voltage DC.
But beyond that, most people's daily vehicle needs can easily be served by charging overnight, when your objection does not apply.
About the only alternative I can imagine that would be comparable would be to hot-swap whole huge batteries at gas stations.
About the only alternative to going extinct if we ruin our biosphere is to move into a bunch of bio-domes.
It may be too late, though, in which case we might as well just keep having drag races and flying across a nation criss-crossed with rail.
Re:Thank god! (Score:5, Interesting)
To summarize:
My point is not to get rid of cars, I understand that. My point is to give people better alternatives for urban transportation.
Re:Thank god! (Score:5, Interesting)
If electric cars can be made to charge from ordinary outlets, isn't the infrastructure already there?
Absolutely not. At least in the US, electrical power distribution networks are already are at capacity, and are not even *close* to what they'd need to be:
* Total electrical power consumed in the US - about 12 Exajoules (for more is generated, but most power is lost in generation and distribution).
* Total petroleum power used for transportation in the US - about 28 Exajoules.
The way these numbers are measured, electric cars are significantly more efficient, but still we'd need to distribute *triple* the electrical power distributed in order to stop using gas for transport. That's significantly harder than replacing the tanks and pumps at every gas station.
Re:In other news (Score:5, Interesting)
You only have to swap out fuel lines on pretty old diesels. The injectors should be no problem.
The only real problem with bio diesel is that it tends to "clean" old diesel engines. You get a bunch of old crude floating around and hopefully clogging your filters.
Any modern diesel can run bio right now. Now straight vegetable oil takes some mods.
So to meet the goals all MB has to do is drop there gasoline power plants.
Of course what people tend to forget is that you can make gasoline from a lot of non petroleum sources including water and air. The only thing that prevents it is cost.
EV1 revisited (Score:5, Interesting)
You know, GM really stepped on it's dick when it decided to crush the EV1. Here they had the chance to become the biggest auto manufacture on the planet, design a fully electric car, nearly maintenance free. Nickel metal hydride batteries that would outlast the life of the car, a motor good for a 1,000,000+ miles, regenerative breaking, would go 130+ miles between charges (NiMH), 300+ with L-ion.
If I had the chance I would buy a fully electric car, my commute is 60 miles round trip. However, not using gas would get me labeled as a thief by the state and federal governments since I wouldn't be paying the gas tax that never seems to go towards it's intended purpose (and never goes down when said road project is finished).
Re:The electric car you want is ready now: (Score:2, Interesting)
"Patriotic" consumers killed American autos (Score:5, Interesting)
That's right, all of the "buy American" dolts destroyed the American auto industry. That is, the American-based carmakers, I'm not talking about foreign companies that build cars in the US like Honda and Toyota and BMW and Mercedes and.. well, probably just about everyone. For what it's worth, my BMW was built in South Carolina, and the quality is identical to the previous one built at the Motorsport factory in Germany, which is to say pretty damn good.
My car's in the (body) shop and I ended up with a Ford Taurus rental. 2 miles down the road and I concluded that every person involved in the Taurus should be immediately fired. The car sucked so much that I took it back the next day and ended up with a Mazda 6 instead (which I know from previous rentals to be a decent car).
The Taurus is a wholly incompetent car. I shudder to think that it was built in 2007. It droves like a 1984 Lincoln. Wallows all over the place, can't turn, can't brake, slow as hell, doesn't track straight, hard to see out of, big enough to require its own zip code, and ugly as sin, inside and out.
So, thanks for continuing to "buy American", thereby allowing our auto industry to maintain sales despite utterly worthless products.
Though I admit the Focus is a pretty decent car, that's actually what I had hoped to get in exchange for the Taurus.
Re:Gasoline (Score:3, Interesting)
High voltage DC: even if you could make a 7 MW outlet that came even close to being safe, good luck finding a battery that can charge that fast.
Electric is inconvenient AND inefficient to deliver. The environment doesn't care how we carry our fuel around, and liquid fuels have a LOT of advantages over electric, at least until we discover super batteries, niling d-sinks, or the equivalent.
What does matter is where we get that energy from. Pumping it out of the ground doesn't seem to be such a good solution anymore, but that doesn't mean we should abandon liquid fuels simply because the particular liquid fuel we use today tends to be produced by pumping it out of the ground.
Re:Thank god! (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't forget that when I'm on a long trip and my tank is running low, it's currently about a 5 minute process to refill it, then I'm on my way.
How long does it take to charge batteries?
This alone will severely hamper the adoption of purely electric vehicles until the charging technology improves.
Picture yourself on the way home from grandma's house after visiting the family for Christmas. It's 1:30 AM. It's snowing and the wind is whipping. Everyone's tired and your wife is bitching up a storm because your mom put her in a bad mood. Your batteries are running low and you're still 200 miles from home. And it's going to take 4 hours to charge them.
Fuck that. I'll pay $50/gallon for gas before I buy a car that puts me in that situation.
Re:In other news (Score:4, Interesting)
Beyond that, your walking shoes have the same issues, as does your bicycle.
I'm not saying trying to help in this way is BAD, but you have to pause to consider that EVERY bit of energy we use pretty much comes from petroleum or coal, with the exception of a small percentage from other sources.
Societies that aren't industrialized rely on food at their ONLY energy source. They have to be able to grow more energy than it took them to plant and harvest, or they would have starved to death. Discovery of fossil fuels is the ONLY thing that's broken us out of the Malthusian trap, and your ability to walk or bike instead of drive a car is completely dependent on fossil fuels -- especially petroleum.
Having said all that, hydrogen is the only viable fuel we have right now. Not fuel source, but fuel. Even if we are using solar power to run electric cars, we still need to make fuel for them to run on. Hydrogen is being proposed in fuel cells, but that's a VERY new technology. The idea of burning fuels is thousands of years old and works well enough. There's nothing inherently bad about hydrocarbons. If we could produce and oil or gasoline from purely organic sources, we'd be as well off doing that as any other idea I've heard of. When you really think about it, oil is a hydrogen fuel. An oil economy is a hydrogen economy.
The problem is the environment and political problems associated with using the stored reserves of oil in the ground. We are using oil as an energy source -- that's BAD. But using it as a fuel, just as a way to easily transport energy around; there's not inherently bad about it. We have the technology to synthetically make oil, and I think that's the best route to go. Making oil from renewable resources. There will likely be a period of time where we mix synthetic and natural oil to make gasoline (think E85), but eventually, as natural oil reserves dwindle, synthetic oil will replace it. As we being mass producing synthetic oil, we'll figure out ways to make it better and cheaper, too. It's really just a matter of time...
Re:The electric car you want is ready now: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why does everyone automatically assume the Tesla would operate at zero (or close to zero) dollar's cost?
If this were the case, we'd already be seeing them everywhere.
Trust me, I'd LOVE it to be true, but there is no magical, mystical free energy source that's gonna make all our woes vanish overnight.
Re:Why the parent post is _really_really_ stupid. (Score:3, Interesting)
Look up the numbers. Total oil from oil crop production versus gasoline+diesel consumption.
Re:Thank god! (Score:3, Interesting)
What I have consistantly wanted to see is land ferries. Give us some heavy rail that only goes to one point in each urban area. Put 'loading' ramps on one side, and 'unloading' ramps on the other. Last mile is one of the major problems with public transportation. This would let you drive to the train. Park on the train so that you can sleep/talk on your cell/read the newspaper/whatever. Then drive off at the other end. Privacy would not be a problem. Noise would not be a problem. Gas would be massively saved. AND you could get to where you want to go.
If you really wanted to make it change the transportation scene, you could make it only hold those street legal golf carts they were selling a few years ago. Top speeds of 35 mph wont seems so bad if your not going to leave the city streets anyways. Limited range becomes less of an issue when you are not going to leave the city. Parking becomes less of an issue. And if cities want to develop there own in city transportation, it would no longer be a requirement that their central bus station be located at the exact same spot as the out of city system.
Re:Nobody wants to be the next GM (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Thank god! (Score:3, Interesting)
Picture yourself on the way home from grandma's house after visiting the family for Christmas. It's 1:30 AM. It's snowing and the wind is whipping. Everyone's tired and your wife is bitching up a storm because your mom put her in a bad mood. Your batteries are running low and you're still 200 miles from home. And it's going to take 4 hours to charge them.
Not to mention the fact that you don't have a controlled explosion going on generating heat which can be pumped into the car as a benefit, so your wife is freezing her ass off, your windshield is covered in a block of ice and your headlights are getting dim. I hope the kids can entertain themselves and don't need a radio, tv, etc to placate them for the 4 hour wait in addition to the 4 hours of driving still left since that, too, is drawing down your stored fuel.
Re:Thank god! (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Of course, there are a few issues to be worked out, like standardization of batteries (or being dependent on a single chain for swaps), liability for defective/damaged batteries, etc.
Re:Thank god! (Score:5, Interesting)
Never going to happen. Nothing will ever beat the private car for convenience.
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.
The car is only convenient if the place you live has been shaped around its use.
Its right there, whenever you want it.
So is a good transportation network. Your car isn't available if you've drunk alcohol, or if you're really tired.
Its fast, it can be used by almost anyone, regardless of physical health. No wait times to use it,
Traffic lights, junctions, traffic jams, filling with petrol, servicing, cleaning it.
no sharing it with the smelly unbathed guy, the psycho homeless person, or the screaming infant.
Hardly ever a problem round here.
No stops along the way.
Do you have traffic lights?
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.
Unless the place you want to go to is on a road which forbids cars (quite common in Europe in the centre of towns and cities). And in any case, that just means there aren't enough bus routes.
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.
Bus rides are usually commutes to work, done out of need rather than for pleasure. Driving in the mountains with the top down is different, that's for pleasure. I've never had a fun commute to work in a car (though I used to like my commute by train, the scenery was nice).
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.
A decent transportation system is an excellent substitute. If the buses run all night you can stay as late as you like (and drink as much as you like).
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.
The distance driven in Britain is falling, the distance travelled by rail is increasing. I read that the yearly distance driven by Americans didn't increase for the first time for years too.
Re:The electric car you want is ready now: (Score:5, Interesting)
On TOP of this, Tesla is looking into distributing solar panels for your roof with the car that would be able to generate about 50 miles a day in energy. So if you travel less than 50 miles a day you would be driving completely for free.
Also maintenance of an electric motor is significantly cheaper than that of a traditional gas engine in a car, due to significantly less moving parts and not constantly trying to harness mini-explosions for power.
Re:Gasoline (Score:2, Interesting)
First, hydrogen has an energy density of 142 MJ/kg, whereas your gasoline is 45.8.
Second, huge amounts (~70%) of the energy in a tank of gasoline is wasted as heat, whereas a motor can convert closer to 80 or 90% into motion. So we can slash the tank size if we're not going to burn two thirds of it.
Third: why hot swap batteries? They're big and heavy. A small, ultra-high capacity capacitor can actually hold very high potential for quite awhile, and can charge in seconds.
I appreciate that the simplicity of gasoline and it's relatively high energy density was indeed the best thing for the last century, allowing energy to be moved and used anywhere anytime with relatively simple machines. But I think to assume that because it was the best means it is the best and to ignore newer technologies is to miss a possible solution to a looming catastrophe as the days of the petroleum based economy are certainly dwindling.
Re:biofuels (Score:1, Interesting)
The World Bank "leaked" report sums this up rather nicely.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080704/ts_afp/climateenvironmentbiofuelsworldbankusbritain
Re:The electric car you want is ready now: (Score:3, Interesting)
Cute, but meaningless (Score:2, Interesting)
Step 1: Make grandiose statement about something that will happen 7 years from now.
Step 2: Enjoy the PR boost now.
Step 3: There is no Step 3. You don't even have to do what you said in Step 1. Nobody will remember the claim by then! And even if someone digs it up, it will be dismissed as an inconsequential footnote, something someone wistfully said 7 years ago.
Re:In other news (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Thank god! (Score:5, Interesting)
You're kidding right? Have you done the numbers yourself, or are you also pulling figures from the same place I did? (Well, not the _same_ place, since I'll assume you pulled them from your ass, and I pulled from mine :) )
If you live in the inner city, look at:
$100/mo for insurance (+/-)
$100-200/mo for parking (more if you're in Manhattan).
Inner city is a bad example for fuel, but a good guestimate would be $25/mo for a very short commute. Average commute probably ranges from 10-30 miles each way, so 200-600 miles per month @ (very generously) 30 mi/gal == 6-20 gal or roughly $25-$80/mo. Actual figures are probably more like $50-$200.mo.
Car payment (lease) say $300/mo. Car payment (purchased) say $150/mo factoring in life of vehicle. Maintenance say $50/mo over life of car (again, on the low side).
So, realistically, you're looking at $600 per month.
Now look at mass transit. I was paying $320/mo for railpass and subway card. Add in $150/mo for car rental for weekend trips, and it's still better than owning a car. Never mind the fact that parking would have cost me $500 for both sides, plus tolls.
OK, so NY is an extreme. But you are severely underestimating the cost of owning and operating a car.
Ethanol and performance (Score:5, Interesting)
As an interesting note, an engine designed with ethanol in mind will actually produce more power than a gasoline vehicle of similar displacement. This is because, while ethanol has a lower energy density per volume of fuel, it has a much higher octane rating and a higher synchromatic reatio (you can burn more fuel for a particular volume of air.) So, you can design an engine to run at a much higher compression for better efficiency (more power from the same amount of fuel,) or you can design a turbo engine to run with more boost (useful in a flex fuel design.)
A great example of this is the Koenigsegg CCXR [wikipedia.org]
There are other issues with Ethanol, however. Some countries with a primarily agricultural economy are converting much of their production to produce bio-fuel. This is exasperating some of the world starvation issues.
Re:The electric car you want is ready now: (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:and US car companies ? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Sounds to me that if that really proves to be the case then the market will have judged airlines to be of less value then alternative uses of the wealth. I don't see why the Gov needs to mess with that outcome. Infact we could cut huge federal expenditures in that area without an airline industry.
Maybe only international air travel will be offered. Get you ass to NYC or LA by train/auto and then you fly over the ocean. That would be plenty practical. Air travel by and large is wasteful! It takes lots of fuel to move a little load. A train makes much more sense, given the rising cost of energy. Air travel was only selected by the market in the first place because the cost of the extra fule was less then the cost of building/maintaining all the extra railroad infrustucture that would be needed to serve the customer with trains. Airlines and interstate trucking all but killed rail because fule was cheap and plenty. Now that fule is expensive it might make more sense to build out railroad and if the airlines go the way of the doddo that could happen more quickly. Their is nothing wrong with these transitions its how a market is supposed to work. I don't know why our public officials refuse to understand that.
The buggy whip industry died with Ford, the canal industry died by the rail, the rail industry nearly died by the Ford and air freighter/liners. Rail cold come back and kill both and why not. It does not need to be your great grand pappy's railroad either we can run modern high speed trains with great fuel efficency as well if we replace our 120 year old track.
Re:Thank god! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Its not the fuel that counts (Score:2, Interesting)
To paraphrase from Who Killed the Electric Car [imdb.com]:
"I don't want to turn down my thermostat in winter (or up for AC on hot days in California), I don't want to drive around in a small car, I don't want to live like a European"
This is basically how the average American feels about the present situation. Whichever political party pushes us to live like Europeans will be politically dead in the next election. The Unites States has more oil locked up in oil shale than anyone else, 1.5-2.6 trillion barrels. How about we work on getting that out of the ground before our economy has a very hard landing? To say that we should NOT exploit the natural resources that we have here in the United States is insane and that is what the left is saying. 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 because "no drilling" ala Obama is a prescription for extremely high gas prices and punitively taxing the oil companies on top of that will make them even higher. To which the left responds, "well let's pass a law making it illegal to pass the cost of the taxes onto the consumers." Which sounds great until reality sets in and people realize that the lawmakers might just as well have passed a law saying that water is not wet or that gravity is suspended for all the good it will do.
Re:Thank god! (Score:5, Interesting)
The current solution to not wanting to live in a city is horribly broken in the US. The basic plan has been to build huge, sprawling housing developments that literally require people to use a car for every trip. In american suburbs cars are required because the nearest convenience store is two miles away. Because cheap energy is basically over this situation is untenable, sorry. Electric cars are a stop-gap, but we need to stop depending on private vehicles to get you to work, get a gallon of milk, get the kids to school, etc. This is just too expensive.
Luckily the solution to not living in cities but not depending on cars for everything is solved. Its called small towns. Back in the days of Normal Rockwell do you think every family had two cars?
Generally this means getting away from sprawling hierarchal street suburbs and moving towards denser small towns, focused on transit to urban centers.
This is what exists in western europe. For example: my cousin lives in a suburb of paris in her own house with a backyard. She walks half a mile to the train station to commute into work in the city and keeps one small car for (rarish) long trips. The town is small but dense, so she can walk to the grocery store, walk to the market, walk to the bank. Her kids walk to school. I promise, promise you that you will like this lifestyle. Its very consistent with the lifestyle you lead now. You do not have to live in an apartment, you do not have to live in a high density city. And once you have the option to take a train to work rather than drive you won't believe you ever spent all that time in traffic.
Re:The electric car you want is ready now: (Score:5, Interesting)
And those cars are frequently a better solution to the MPG problem, when compared to new hybrid and electric cars. Buying a new car has a huge impact on the environment, as does discarding old cars.
In order:
1. Change your driving habits to achieve better mileage out of the car you already own. ($0)
2. Fix and maintain your existing car to get the best mileage out of it. ($0-500)
2. Buy a reasonable used car that is more efficient than your current car if your actual fuel savings will pay for the car in a reasonable amount of time. ($500+)
3. Buy a new car, following the same rules as the above. Unless your current vehicle is a semi that gets 7 MPG on diesel, this probably isn't a realistic cost-effective solution. ($10,000+)
Now, if you want to buy a car anyway, that's fine, but the fallacy of buying a different car to save tons of money on gas is ridiculous. Unless you're buying a $500 beater, chances are low that you'll really save any money.
I think most people are pretty short-sighted when it comes to finances and they think that paying less at each fill-up means they're saving money, even though they may have spent $4,000 on another car and are paying more in auto insurance.
Now, I'll admit that I don't really care about the environmental impact of buying new cars. If you want one, buy one. That just means more cheap used cars for me to play with.
What amuses me is that people who claim to care about the environment would trade in their old reliable Volvos (blatant stereotype ftw) for a new Prius. The environmental effect of that used car happened a good 5-25+ years ago most likely, and the ongoing effects of driving it (if maintained properly) are negligible compared to the production of a single Prius.
Buying used cars is environmentally-friendly and an excellent and effective form of recycling that requires no additional energy. YMPGMV.
Re:Its not the fuel that counts (Score:1, Interesting)
I'm talking about Japan here, so bear that in mind.
Gas prices have gone up to $6.7/gallon, and finally people in Tokyo are starting to give up their cars. These people aren't frequent drivers, mostly just weekend excursion people, but at those prices (in addition to the $400 parking spaces and various taxes) it has started to make no sense. The public transportation is excellent, and most people use it regardless of car ownership.
I'm a car buff, so I can justify spending more money on my "hobby". I still used public transportation when in Tokyo for my day to day stuff, but most people won't find this viable.
I now live in a rural part of Japan called Hokkaido (northern most island), which accounts for 23% of the entire country's land mass but only 4.3% of the population, while it is the biggest producer of agricultural products in the country.
Here, public transportation is a joke. You can use it if you don't mind walking 3 miles to the station (to catch a train that only comes once every 1 to 2 hours) and then take 1 hour to get to your destination, which is the nearest big town, just 18 miles away. Never mind that if your destination doesn't happen to be right in front of the station, you may be looking at another 1 hour bus ride as the bus stops every 100 yards, and doesn't take the shortest route.
For those that live in areas where the population density is high enough to sustain mass transportation, go for it. There are, however, a LOT of areas in the world where this is absolutely not a viable solution. And you can't farm in the city.
Your suggestion works in areas that are heavily reliant on automobiles simply because fuel is cheap. In Japan, fuel never was "cheap" like it was in the U.S., and we've already modernized transportation in ways you suggest, but there is STILL a problem with the fuel prices and lack of viable alternatives.
Simply not liking it is an understatement.
Re:Its not the fuel that counts (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't buy into this theory that everyone's going to move into urban areas because of gas prices. There are too many people, too much existing infrastructure, and too much cultural momentum behind the idea of owning your own home for people pull up their stakes and start living on top of each other in tiny apartments.
Market forces will keep people pushed out to the fringes - If a large number of people do move towards the city, it will have the effect of driving up real estate prices and rents. At some point, the savings in fuel costs won't make up for that monthly payment. Widespread public transport in the US is simply a fantasy. Most of our cities are way too spread out for it to work. Here in LA, the only thing the Metrolink is good for is if you work in LA or somewhere close to a terminal. If you want to go from east Los Angeles County to, say, South Orange County, you're going to get sent all the way into LA proper or San Bernardino and bounce back into Orange County. You're probably looking at 80-100 miles one way and at least 10 stops either direction you go. That's great if you don't mind spending half of your day on a train.
Even assuming we have a large number of people moving into the city (and who can afford it) we will be left with a large number home homes in suburbia that need to be sold. They're not going to just sit there and rot - The depressed economy and fuel prices will continue to push their values down, but they WILL move once the price gets to that sweet spot. Again, the idea of owning your own land and not being subjected to rent increases or unreasonable whims by a butthead landlord is just too appealing to Americans. Also, most downtown areas and their immediate surroundings in the US tend to be cesspools of crime, noise, and crappy schools. I think most families would rather live with their commute even with gas prices being what they are.
Here's what I think will happen - Instead of cutting down on the commute, people will start to look at ways to use less gas during it. That means econoboxes, hybrids, and motorcycles will rule the day. People who already live a short distance from their workplace may start biking and ditch the second family car. We'll probably see things like 4 day workweeks and, thanks to widespread VoIP and broadband tech, more telecommuting. We're going to see huge capital being dumped into alternative fuels and energy generation tech. I am very excited about the developments I'm seeing in hydrogen technology and hyper-efficient solar cells, and as gas prices keep going up it just makes more and more business sense to fund research into these technologies. Sorry, but we're going to see that stuff way before we see cramped highrises and decent public transport in our cities.
Re:The electric car you want is ready now: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think it sounds pretty good [youtube.com], actually.
Nowadays, when I see a noisy, rumbly sportscar on the road, I tend to think: "klunker!!""
Re:Thank god! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The electric car you want is ready now: (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Yes it is - take a look at this: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Thank god! (Score:2, Interesting)
Every time a discussion of the relative merits of urban vs. suburban living comes up on slashdot, there's someone like this, who declares a neat partition: that it's either an idyllic fantasy with sunny bbqs and kids playing in the yard and riding lawnmowers, OR tiny apartments with paper-thin walls in epic highrises in crime infested streets with not a patch of green to be found that isn't crawling with people you haven't ever seen before.
Private yard in the burbs, public needle-littered park in the city. Basketball in the driveway, urban courts with undesirables in the city.
*Such* bullshit. What planet are you from?
One explanation is that these folks have only ever been to downtown manhattan, (and never, you know, any of the other boroughs) or inexplicably toured the most burnt out dc ghetto and have used this experience to form opinions on every other big city.
Rooftop fucking gardens. *Such* bullshit. I thought americans were only supposed to be ignorant about OTHER countries.
I grew up in downtown Toronto, Canada. We had a big house with a big front and back yard in a residential neighborhood. Tree, sandbox, fort, garden. Driveway along the entire side of the house. Minutes on foot to subway, minutes to park with playground (and basketball courts, and hockey rink, and soccer field). There was a mall (with a big parking lot, if you absolutely need to drive) My dad was at a university and walked most days. We never did not have a car. I rode either the subway or streetcar to the school across town my parents wanted me to go to (there were "normal" schools within walking distance if I had gone there) and frequently rode a bike to high school. I don't have any reason to believe the schools were worse than those in the burbs.
My parents put a lot of effort into finding our house, and it paid off, but it is possible. It was a nice house, but there were smaller ones in the neighborhood.
My time spent in american cities bears this out too. I see the same mixed neighborhoods, the same parks and shopping. I live in oakland, ca now and there is no doubt there are some rotten neighborhoods here, but just living here does not automatically imply moving to those neighborhoods! There are a lot of middle-rise apartments here, but you don't have to live in those, either!
There is a good economic reason people still live in suburbs: you can get more for less. Our family was firmly in the middle class, but I don't know how far that would get you currently in a good neighborhood in a big city. If that's the reason, if you can't or don't want to afford it, fine. Then say that. I can't afford to own (currently), either. But enough with these nonsense dichotomys, this made up bullshit. I don't care if you lie to yourself about the motivations behind your lifestyle decisions, but please don't spread your misconceptions.