<p>BCEagle, you kind of epitomize what I was saying. The current paradigm is set up for a certain answer. If the paradigm were to change, the answers would change. The country is designed for people to own gas-powered cars, but it wasn’t always so. Seriously - zoning, city planning and building codes since the 1950’s have been deliberately designed to encourage the use and ownership of gas-powered automobiles. It’s an interesting story - at least if you’re a zoning and planning wonk. That’s why it’s currently “convenient” to do so.</p>
<p>A different paradigm generates different solutions. To take your example - 30 miles in a traffic jam in an electric car doesn’t use any more battery power than 30 miles at freeway speed (maybe less) whereas with gas power you could run out of fuel, wear out your engine, create smog and contribute to global warming - all while standing still. It’s just a different power source, with different limitations and benefits. And typically you would charge up at home at night every night, while parked - so you’re not outside, at all. </p>
<p>But you’re right - the way things are now, it’s more convenient to own a gas car. (I do.) I’m just saying that that’s not inherently the only (or best) answer.</p>
<p>An engineer friend of mine once pointed out that the most significant criterion in different energy sources was whether they were fixed or mobile. Fossil fuels are good power sources for mobile applications but they’re not very efficient. (Even the newest car engines operate at less than 20% efficiency.) Fixed power plants can be much more efficient and utilize a much wider selection of energy sources; driving a car powered by batteries which are recharged by on-site solar energy is far more efficient still. </p>
<p>Right now energy efficiency isn’t that important to us. It probably will be to our grandkids; the less fuel we leave behind the more important it will be. The paradigm will shift, sooner or later. And while it’s shifting a lot of people will complain about it.</p>
<p>I own a tribrid. It has a solar skin and charges its own battery when parked outside in sunny weather and plugs into a standard plug in my garage overnight. It has a gas back up system. (In my dreams.) My other car is a Tesla. (IMD!) I also have a hover craft that is especially useful in snowy weather (no sliding). I.M.D. </p>
<p>I would seriously love to own a Tesla. We were looking forward to the Leaf for years but it came out priced about twice what we pay for real cars. Oh well.</p>
<p>The country is designed for people to own gas-powered cars - but there
are a lot of good technological reasons for them to do so.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Of course I already anticipated your answer when I wrote mine. I was
just curious to see if you’d bring it up.</p>
<p>Let’s say that it’s 5 degrees outside. Or 110 degrees. Now you could
just run at zero-power consumption at those temperatures. But it could
get very uncomfortable. Or deadly.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I suppose that this is true if you have a garage. But if you drive
down Commonwealth Avenue or Beacon St in Boston, you’ll find that
many people park on the street overnight.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I’m right pragmatically but also technologically. Electric vehicles
simply aren’t there right now. I can see them eventually getting there
as I’ve worked in a technology industry for thirty years and can see
progress made in a dazzling array of areas. But we aren’t there with
electric vehicles yet - even if we had huge infrastrucutre
improvements.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I’d agree with your friend.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>It may be; but there is only a certain amount of energy available from
sunlight in a given amount of area. Apple can build a 20 MW solar
power plant to power their North Carolina iCloud center. I was at a
solar website that states that you need 4.6 120 Watt panels (I guess
those are about the largest available) to generate 3.85 kWh per
day. They Chevy Volt requires 35 kwh/100 miles (30 if you drive it
more efficiently) so you’d need something like 45 panels per 100
miles. Is that practical for the average person?</p>
<p>Now fixed power plants give you more flexibility but they also have
their problems. You need transmission lines to get power to people and
organizations and you typically don’t store capacity if the
transmission lines or the power plants go offline. Fixed power plants
can also be quite inefficient and themselves generate more pollution
than gasoline or CNG vehicles.</p>
<p>There is also some attenuation of power going through transmission
lines too so it isn’t 100% efficiency. It’s more efficient than the
internal combustion engine but the ICE gives you a lot of spare
capacity for things like heat and cooling.</p>
<p>Fuel cells are generally 40-60% efficient (up to 85% if heat can be
captured) which may be why Apple Computer is using Bloom Boxes at 60%
efficiency to generate 5 MW of electric capacity, also at thier NC
iCloud plant. Fuel Cells are an extremely expensive way (in terms of
fixed costs) to generate electricity but they appear to be quite clean
and work when it’s dark out.</p>
<p>I suspect that the cost issue is keeping them out of cars. Perhaps
that could be solved one day.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Energy efficiency has always been important to us. But that’s
translated in terms of cost/benefit and that’s different for ever
individual. There’s been a widespread shift to CFL bulbs (I am in the
process of moving to LEDs because I don’t like the problems associated
with CFLs). In general, I prefer capital costs to recurring costs.</p>
<p>I made a lot of money in energy stocks (electricity, coal, oil, natural
gas, uranium, etc) over the last 12 years. I’ve had very little exposure
to energy companies for almost a year. Why? We have a glut of energy.
Crude prices didn’t reflect that for quite some time but they are starting
to reflect it now. One of the theories that has been popular among energy
bulls is the idea of peak oil. We had crude at $140+ and then pop! Is peak
oil correct? Maybe; maybe not. But we seem to be able to tap more oil,
more natural gas, and increase the efficiency of the devices that we
use.</p>
<p>Look at the computer chips that we’re using today. Intel is selling 22
nm CPUs. Ten years ago, they were something like 130 nm - those chips
typically used 90 to 130 watts of power. Modern chips use a fraction
of that while providing many times the compute power. Process and
efficiency allow us to fit a warehouse of computer equipment into our
pockets today.</p>
<p>Are we going to run out of energy? I’m sure that some thought that we
were going to run out of wood or coal and have no way to heat our homes.</p>
<p>I used to be the biggest energy bull around because of what I saw as
wild and crazy consumption and a dwindling of supplies. That’s not a
position that has done well as of late.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I think that things are changing but things need to make technological
and economic sense…</p>
<p>I had a thousand shares of TSLA within the last year. I held it for a few weeks on a suggestion on a true believer of the company but this was more of a hot-tip gambling-type thing instead of the type of company that I really like to own. A thousand shares of TSLA will buy you about a third of a car - if you can’t own the car, you could own a chunk of the company.</p>
<p>We could buy a Tesla. But there’s nothing wrong with our 2000 Toyota with 242,000 miles on it that feels like it is brand new. We would get better mileage with a newer edition but 29 MPG is not bad for being able to carry five people and luggage.</p>
<p>We’ve had two Pruises (ii!) and now we have a Prius and a Leaf. The Leaf has a range of about 100 miles. My husband drives the Leaf to work (in a small city); we live on the I-5 corridor and supposedly could drive it to Portland/Seattle, but dh hasn’t tried yet. We see the Leaf as a short commuter distance car, which, as mentioned above, is the use for the vast majority of American cars. There is a portable charger in the trunk which can be used in an emergency. The garage charger is small and unobtrusive; dh charges is about once every four days and could probably do it every five or six but he gets nervous if there’s less than 25 miles or so left. But this is a guy who didn’t used to like letting his cars gas tank get lower than 1/4 full, either. Over cautious, I think.</p>
<p>It’s very quiet, and has a high-pitched whistle (that you can turn off, thank goodness) for pedestrians and bicyclists. It lacks a bit in pickup but easily gets to highway speeds and once there, is zippy. </p>
<p>"Nationwide, EVs charged from the electricity grid produce lower global warming emissions than the average compact gasoline-powered vehicle (with a fuel economy of 27 miles per gallon)even when the electricity is produced primarily from coal in regions with the dirtiest electricity grids.</p>
<p>In regions with the cleanest electricity grids, EVs produce lower global warming emissions than even the most fuel-efficient hybrids.</p>
<p>EVs charged entirely from renewable sources like wind and solar power produce virtually no global warming emissions."</p>
<p>"Nearly half of Americans (45%) live in the best regions where EVs produce lower global warming emissions than even the most fuel-efficient gasoline hybrids on the market today (greater than 50 mpg).</p>
<p>Another third (37%) live in better areas where EVs produce emissions comparable to the best gasoline hybrid vehicles (41 50 mpg).</p>
<p>A minority (18%) reside in good regions where emissions from EVs are comparable to the most fuel-efficient non-hybrid gasoline vehicles (31 40 mpg)."</p>
<p>BC - You seem to be basing your arguments for the EV on your bad stock trades. While natural gas stocks have drastically decreased in price, oil is fluctuating sightly as it has for years, and there are utility stocks doing well, even while converting from coal. Tesla is a main stock being shorted now and it is expected to double in the next few months. </p>
<p>However, EV decisions aren’t only based on trading behavior and fuel costs. They are based on environmental concerns for the present and future. </p>
<p>Your comments are OPINIONS, and you use the method of treating your pronouncements as FACT - They are only OPINION.</p>
<p>I own one natural gas stock and it has done incredibly well in
the last year. A rarity, yes.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I’m looking for trending; not fluctuating slightly.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I would expect some to do well given the price of natural gas. But
I worry quite a bit about the demand side.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>It’s not really my kind of stock though the person that recommended
it to me is a very good trader. I just don’t care to play in the
timeframes that he plays in. At least for a company like this. I
prefer companies with earnings and history.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>That’s a luxury that most can’t afford.</p>
<p>That’s an emmissions argument but I also argue a lot of different
areas. Are EVs comparable in terms of safety, cargo capacity, towing
capacity, and comfort? Is this measured in the analysis? I am somewhat
surprised that the average compact fuel economy is stated so low as I
get 27-29 MPG from my full-sized car. Were actual emmissions measured
or was a calculation done based on an EPA number that I generally find
understates fuel economy?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>If you have complaints about my comments, please quote them and state
your concerns with them. Otherwise you paint with too broad a brush.</p>
<p>If you wish, I could find one mistake with one of your posts and claim
that all of your statements were wrong too. Would that be fair?</p>
<p>The vehicles are expensive. More importantly, the fuelling stations are incredibly expensive. Here in SoCal there are a grand total of two stations. The folks who are leasing or test-driving one of the very few available fuel cell cars (BMW and IIRC Honda) have to plan quite carefully. I remember reading about some wealthy individual who was very proud of their fuel-cell car’s green credentials…but the car was being transported on flatbed truck about 50 miles each way to be fuelled. :rolleyes: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This isn’t an “experiment”, because there have been CNG-fuelled cars for quite some time. Honda makes a CNG-fuelled Civic which is a good commuter car choice for people living in areas with handfuls of CNG fuelling stations. Cheaper fuel from a domestic source, very very low emissions, and significant fed tax credits when buying a new CNG-only vehicle. But the stations are still thinly distributed–better than for fuel cell cars, but nowhere near what one sees for gasoline.</p>
<p>I did a little digging and it appears that platinum is the gating factor in fuel-cell cars. It appears that there was a relatively recent discovery of a much cheaper combination of catalyst materials though. Toyota, Mercedes and Honda plan to introduce fuel-cell vehicles (I assume in mass-production) in 2015. The cost of these vehicles looks to be in the $50K area.</p>
<p>I also read about ideas for using other fuels for the hydrogen source - it appears that this hasn’t gone anywhere for commercial purposes.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>The experiment I see is in conversions - where you have individuals doing conversions
to make their own CNG vehicles. Perhaps this will improve as trucking companies convert
their fleets over to CNG for short-haul transportation.</p>
<p>I’m glad to see a lot of big names (Honda, BMW, Mercedes, Toyota) working in this area - they might have enough pull to get stations built to solve the chicken/egg problem.</p>
<p>BCE, you seem to know a thing or two about these new technologies. What’s the hangup with the natural gas? I visit my mom across the world every other year or so, and I notice that this is a very mature technology there. Most of the rickshaws and a significant portion of taxicabs run off cylinders of compressed gas. Is it the economics of substantially higher petrol prices there that makes natural gas economical or are there other downsides that are significant here and maybe not there?</p>
<p>I was going to get a Tesla roadster last year, but my Mom (yes, my Mom) said they aren’t reliable in snow. So I looked up the facts and they’re not reliable in snow. And my wife said, “See, they’re not reliable in snow”. And I said, “But what about my mid-life crisis?” And she said, “We should be more practical”. So I didn’t get my electric roadster. And then my wife turns around and buys a miniCooper.</p>
<p>As if that’s any good in snow, either.</p>
<p>She looks cute in it though. Cute girls get away with anything.</p>
<p>Natural gas was expensive in the US only a few years ago. There is now a big spread between NG and Crude and it appears that the NG supply is sustainable for a long time so those that can switch economically are doing so or looking at it.</p>
One of the biggest problems with it is transporting it since it requires special trucks to do so. Apparently the pipeline infrastructure isn’t that well developed for natural gas. Also the energy density is lower than gasoline so it takes a larger tank to go the same distance. These aren’t major obstacles. I think it boils down to the hassle factor of finding fuel stations that are accessible. A friend had a dual fueled vehicle and he really had to plan ahead to find a station and it was impractical for something like a road trip that involved multiple days.</p>
<p>
Before getting too excited about a Tesla check out their cost. They range from about $50K to $100K and that’s AFTER the huge $7,500 per car taxpayer subsidy (that’s right - taxpayers are subsidizing these very high-priced vehicles that’ll only be purchased by very well-off people).</p>
Well, BCEagle, since you anticipated my last response, I imagine you’ve anticipated this one, too:</p>
<p>Everything you say about gas vs. electric cars was true 100 years ago about horses vs. automobiles.</p>
<p>The infrastructure was well suited to horse-drawn vehicles. Dirt roads, easy to refuel with supplies (i.e., water and grain) widely available. Autos broke down, got stuck in the mud, and gas stations were rare. Autos just didn’t “make technological sense.”</p>
<p>But the paradigm shifted. It’s true that early adapters spent a lot of time fixing tires and pulling their cars out of the mud. But those who stuck with their buggy-whip manufacturing company stock lost out in the end.</p>
<p>In hindsight it can be pretty obvious where you are on the curve of the paradigm shift, but in real time – not so much. My guess is that we’re farther down that road than you realize right now.</p>
</p>