^opinion with no proof.

Then again, it's rickyp, so that's redundant.

Cell phones: few moving parts, nothing that has to be moved via motor; automobiles: 2500 lbs. and not worth much if they cannot move.

Great comparison.

Let me know when there are cars with 200 miles on a charge and when that charge takes an hour or less.

Better yet, put all your money in one of those cars. Then drop me a note when you're broke.

Doctor Fate wrote:Yet, the Volt goes 25 miles, according to some, on its battery alone.

The Volt is a hybrid. The range is around 35 miles battery alone, but much greater than that with gas.

Over and over again, the battery is the problem. If it weren't, electric cars would be ubiquitous. Cars are not quite the same as cell phones--have a look. The size, the scope of what they have to do, etc., are dramatically different.

I know that they are 'different'. But it's also fairly obvious that battery technology has improved massively in the past few decades, and that will feed into development of all kinds of batteries.

For example, Chevrolet are saying that their next generation battery will have twice the capacity and cost less to produce.

It's amazing what a modicum of technology and a good dose of government subsidy can accomplish. And yet, what is their market share?

I believe that Lamborghini and Maclaren have a very low market share. Not sure what your question is designed to prove...

But yes, it is amazing what technology and government subsidy can achieve. It got men to the Moon, it gave us the internet...

Frankly, it's not a great question. Our grid is not efficient and is losing plants, thanks to the EPA. Beyond that, some of these cars are being sold on the idea that you will be able to charge them at work. If you think you can sell millions of them and only expect them to be charged at night, you don't understand human behavior. Furthermore, the grid is incapable of supporting a large number of them. If there were a million more of them on the road tomorrow, we would not have the infrastructure for them. That energy has to come from somewhere.

[/quote]That the US national grid is underinvested is no great surprise. It's anti-market to have a properly centrally managed electrical grid, ain't it?

Oh, and I don't defend the EPA or whatever bogey-man, neither to I defend the idiocy of the Enron and similar companies gambling on energy rather than simply working on supply. There are several reasons for energy problems in the USA, not just 'Libruls'.

We all know there won't be a million electircal cars tomorrow. There will be a trend. And yes, charging in the daytime will also happen, but the main opportunity to charge up a car will be overnight - which as I said is when demand is lower. The main issue with the grid is problems with peak demand. Smoothing demand would make things a lot easier.

Smart Grid is that the one were the electric company can change the temperature setting in my house thermostat?

Archduke Russell John wrote:Smart Grid is that the one were the electric company can change the temperature setting in my house thermostat?

Paranoid?

It's a lot more complicated and a lot less sinister than that:

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

danivon wrote:It's a lot more complicated and a lot less sinister than that

Well yes but that is why it isn't here yet. We have had the capability to do it for at least the last 5 years. I remember sitting in an informational community meeting as the Senator's Rep.

Most people reacted negatively to getting the smart grid thermostats because it gives someone other then themselves control over their home temperature. They don't care that it would reduce their overall energy bills.

I stand with the people who are in favor of improving the national grid,including smart grid technologies, and in believing that battery technology will continue to get better (and perhaps rapidly), and for NOT subsidizing individual companies.

archduke

Well yes but that is why it isn't here yet. We have had the capability to do it for at least the last 5 years. I remember sitting in an informational community meeting as the Senator's Rep.
Most people reacted negatively to getting the smart grid thermostats because it gives someone other then themselves control over their home temperature. They don't care that it would reduce their overall energy bills.

If you wait till the technology is here, you become the market and not the market provider....
If the development of a Smart Grid (an industry that is growing masively as the market advantages are enormous and the pay back to areas that enjoy them rapid....) can be curtailed by luddite reactions and uniformed opinions enunciated by statemetns like "They ain't controlling my thermostat", then the competitiveness of industry in those geographic areas where the luddite hold sway will be diminished.
Smart Grids are going to be essential to the industrial policies of nations with efficent industrial sectors.


ray

I stand with the people who are in favor of improving the national grid,including smart grid technologies, and in believing that battery technology will continue to get better (and perhaps rapidly), and for NOT subsidizing individual companies

Ray, aren't the electrical car subsidies available to all US entrants in the sector?
Moreover, when the US government has been involved in early stage investment with individual companies there are spinoffs that accrue to entire sectors. Mitchell Energy might have been the early partner in Frakking but other companies now use similar technology and the attendant benefits to the economy have spread widely.
Similarly IBM was the early benficiary of US involvlement in the development of computers, and Microsoft the early "Software" benficiary. But literally thousands of entrants into computerization grew from that early stage core investment.
Need we mention that the development of the Internet had very few corporate beneficiaries early on....

If the government looks and sees that, for strategic reasons, it would be wise to have a thriving domestic industry associated with a specific developing technology or industrial technique..... they then have to choose who to work with...
In Frakking they apparently had only one company to deal with in the early stages.... With Computers, it was felt only IBM had the ability to deliver .... With cars, you gotta dance with who got their dancing shoes on..... GM was interested....

The market will eventually decide the fate of the electric vehicle. And there are dozens of entrants in the field. If the US government wants to be sure that one or more are American, they can't sit idly by and watch the Germans, and Asians steal a march. (The Asian and German governments are heavily involved in assisting their domestic partners in developing this market.)
Thats what happend in the 80s and 90s with a lot of other high tech industry. You can't bemoan the loss of both low and high tech manufacturing and development in the 80s and 90s without realizing that nations compete for their share of industrial sectors the same way companies compete for their share of a market. International corporations don't give a damn about a nation's success, only the corporations.... They aren't the same thing. Despite what General Bull Moose used to say "Whats good for General Motors is Good for the USA". For most corporations, the nationality of their production staff, development staff or even management .... matters not. But it should to the US government, don't you think?
When the US government has made those investments in the past they've reaped the benefits. Its probably wise to ensure that the US auto sector is a part of the electric car business if it takes off, as battery technology improves.
If it doesn't they've spent some money keeping technologists working and learning and one should expect spin off benefits from their experience and attained knowledge - just as there were in the development of the computer and Internet (for instance).

The point being that there's a load more to smart grids than that, and there are other alternatives for household bill management, most of which are about usage reporting and information for smart charging or switching off unused systems.

If that's all you got from smart grid, ARJ, it was probably a very poor briefing.

Ricky:

Ray, aren't the electrical car subsidies available to all US entrants in the sector?

Yes. The credit doesn't particularly favor US manufacturers. So, this particular subsidy has nothing to do with your theories on developing an internal industry.

Unless I read wrong, for the credit to apply the car must be of US manufacture. That does include the Leaf which i think is manufactured in Tennessee.

Nah, the Leaf is made in Japan. They don't start production in TN until later this year. Nissan is also getting a bundle of English and European cash to set up leaf manufacturing in England. Seems this Japanese company is getting subsidies from all over the world!

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

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Yet, the Volt goes 25 miles, according to some, on its battery alone.

The Volt is a hybrid. The range is around 35 miles battery alone, but much greater than that with gas.

Yeah, I said "25 miles, according to some." Consumer Reports says 20-50, depending on the driving conditions. It says it did best on rural roads--how many $170K a year folks live out in "flyover country?"

I know that they are 'different'. But it's also fairly obvious that battery technology has improved massively in the past few decades, and that will feed into development of all kinds of batteries.

For example, Chevrolet are saying that their next generation battery will have twice the capacity and cost less to produce.

Massively? I guess previous batteries could push a mini-bike around the block? The Volt battery is nice, but . . . imagine if it had the Toyota/Prius tech too and could recharge itself. Now, there you might have something. It would probably go 3 or 4 times as far.

As to what Chevy says, we'll see, won't we?

What about disposing of the batteries? I don't know that this issue has been addressed (sort of like the mandated mercury light bulbs--how many towns have programs for disposal?).

The real issue is demand. People don't want these cars. How dare I say such a thing? Oh, I don't know . . . facts?

Washington— Electric vehicle sales have been slow out of the box, despite marketing hype, government incentives and the hopes of green car advocates.

Total sales last year were 17,425, which is less than 0.1 percent of the U.S. car and light truck market.

More reasons to sell short:

Even with gas prices flirting near $4 a gallon nationwide, most consumers remain reluctant. Plug-ins or fully electric cars cost $8,000 to $20,000 more than comparable gasoline versions, and it can take years or decades to recoup the higher initial cost.

Drivers worry about limited driving range in fully electric cars. Even some executives admit doubt.

"Right now, from a cost standpoint and a performance standpoint — range for customers — I don't think EVs are ready for primetime," said Toyota Motor USA Sales CEO Jim Lentz.

Toyota will launch two electric vehicles later this year. Toyota sold nearly 900 of its new plug-in Prius in March, but that was 3 percent of the more than 28,000 plug-in and gasoline-electric vehicles that Prius sold last month.

Ford Motor Co. sold about 12 Focus Electrics in December and January to fleet customers — and none in February and March, said Erich Merkle, a Ford spokesman. The Dearborn automaker plans a slow ramp-up as it begins production this spring for retail sales; the New York area and California are the first markets.

Only the government mandating buying the cars is going to make this happen. Commerce clause anyone?

It's amazing what a modicum of technology and a good dose of government subsidy can accomplish. And yet, what is their market share?

I believe that Lamborghini and Maclaren have a very low market share. Not sure what your question is designed to prove...

What a (shockingly) disingenuous question! Do Lamborghini or Maclaren require subsidies?

We all know there won't be a million electircal cars tomorrow. There will be a trend.

No, no there won't be. Not unless the Democrats violate the Constitution. Again.

Only comment I have is that the LSDs (Liberal/Socialist/Democrats) have so distorted the Constitution that George Washington is probably wondering why we ever left good old King George. So the Commerce Clause!!! I hope that was sarcastic. The intent was to make sure that states didn't impede trade among/between themselves with tariffs and the like. Not the overreach that the Supreme Court has fostered on us. The Commerce Clause is one of the justifications for the abortion of a health care plan in the court now.

I want to be happy that the Senate has agreed to the biggest cut in farm subsidies ever, but then I read this:

The notion of establishing an income floor for farmers, the centerpiece of the Senate committee plan, was first proposed by President Harry Truman in the 1940s. Critics say the move will effectively lock in farm subsidies at levels tied to today’s record income and could trigger higher costs when crop prices fall.

So what I need to do to have "an income floor" is to become a farmer? Damn, I wish I looked good in overalls.

More here:http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-04-26/senate-farm-panel-approves-u-dot-s-dot-spending-cuts-60-years-in-making

George, thank you for dinner ...

One detriment to our farm policy is that we subsidize mostly unhealthy food such as sugar and corn (for syrup and cattle), and not healthy food such as fruits and vegetables. First we pay for the subsidy, and then we pay for the health care costs.