All Things Environment

[RedFromMI]

Market forces caused the automobile to replace the horse & buggy. It was not forced by the givt.

+1 that is what i was trying to say.

And market forces will also bring about the conversion to electric vehicles. There may be some help at first (in terms of making the market cost of using fossil fuels more appropriately reflect its true cost), but the ability to do more or less the same thing for cheaper is the ultimate incentive.

[cradleandshoot]

Market forces caused the automobile to replace the horse & buggy. It was not forced by the givt.

+1 that is what i was trying to say.

And market forces will also bring about the conversion to electric vehicles. There may be some help at first (in terms of making the market cost of using fossil fuels more appropriately reflect its true cost), but the ability to do more or less the same thing for cheaper is the ultimate incentive.

When does the issue of the power grid be rectified? We are HOPING renewable resources will fill the void. Nobody knows for sure where all that power will come from or how much it will cost. I am all for electric vehicles, i don't like them myself but I respect the folks that own them. Electric cars and trucks should be able to blend in as the market for them as their reliability and popularity increases. Forcing this choice on the entire nation is not right. IMO GM just made a huge mistake that they will pay for in lost customers and extremely negative publicity. It was stunning to me that the powers that be at GM are so clueless as to WHO their customers are. I know one thing, loyal GM customers do not want to be told WHAT they have to pony their hard earned dollars for. This is as monumental a foul up as new coke was. The only difference is it will take GM longer to realize the just screwed the pooch in monumental proportions. That is just MO, but I know I am loyal to several brands. If they ever dictate to me I must buy a product i don't want, I will find another brand to be loyal to. Unless the folks at Ford Motor Company decide to go down the same path, they will find themselves awash in new customers that still love their internal combustion engines.

[RedFromMI]

Market forces caused the automobile to replace the horse & buggy. It was not forced by the givt.

+1 that is what i was trying to say.

And market forces will also bring about the conversion to electric vehicles. There may be some help at first (in terms of making the market cost of using fossil fuels more appropriately reflect its true cost), but the ability to do more or less the same thing for cheaper is the ultimate incentive.

When does the issue of the power grid be rectified? We are HOPING renewable resources will fill the void. Nobody knows for sure where all that power will come from or how much it will cost. I am all for electric vehicles, i don't like them myself but I respect the folks that own them. Electric cars and trucks should be able to blend in as the market for them as their reliability and popularity increases. Forcing this choice on the entire nation is not right. IMO GM just made a huge mistake that they will pay for in lost customers and extremely negative publicity. It was stunning to me that the powers that be at GM are so clueless as to WHO their customers are. I know one thing, loyal GM customers do not want to be told WHAT they have to pony their hard earned dollars for. This is as monumental a foul up as new coke was. The only difference is it will take GM longer to realize the just screwed the pooch in monumental proportions. That is just MO, but I know I am loyal to several brands. If they ever dictate to me I must buy a product i don't want, I will find another brand to be loyal to. Unless the folks at Ford Motor Company decide to go down the same path, they will find themselves awash in new customers that still love their internal combustion engines.

Drawing power off grid actually will help to speed the conversion - more clean power feeding it (say putting solar cells on a lot of roofs), plus small compact fission reactors and hopefully fusion reactors taking the carbon based sources down more quickly. And there has been a pretty good change in usage in the sense that the former predicted growth rates have not occurred.

[a fan]

Market forces caused the automobile to replace the horse & buggy. It was not forced by the givt.

+1 that is what i was trying to say.

Not even close to true.

What are those black things called that you drive far heavier automobiles and trucks on again? And who pays for that?

[old salt]

Market forces caused the automobile to replace the horse & buggy. It was not forced by the givt.

+1 that is what i was trying to say.

Not even close to true.

What are those black things called that you drive far heavier automobiles and trucks on again? And who pays for that?

...so predictable. I knew you'd go there. Except for a few McAdam "pikes" constructed to allow westward expansion, the roads were not paved before motor vehicles. The motor vehicles generated the need for paved, engineered roads. Taxpayers demanded them & paid for them. e.g. tolls & gas taxes.

[a fan]

...so predictable.

As is your response. You're a Republican. And if I've learned one thing from this site, it's the Republicans don't think that something is socialism, or is a subsidy "if a Republican likes it".

Yeah, see, that's not how words work.

That ain't the free market, my man. Just because " a Republican likes it", doesn't mean that public roads (snicker) are the result of "free market forces".

Government owned and operated roads are the LITERAL opposite of allowing "free market forces" to work.

Free market forces would look like this: a need for roads is demonstrated (demand). A private company builds and manages the roads (supply), charging users for its use, and generating a profit.

But sure, let's keep pretending public services are free market.

[old salt]

...so predictable.

As is your response. You're a Republican. And if I've learned one thing from this site, it's the Republicans don't think that something is socialism, or is a subsidy "if a Republican likes it".

Yeah, see, that's not how words work.

That ain't the free market, my man. Just because " a Republican likes it", doesn't mean that public roads (snicker) are the result of "free market forces".

Government owned and operated roads are the LITERAL opposite of allowing "free market forces" to work.

Free market forces would look like this: a need for roads is demonstrated (demand). A private company builds and manages the roads (supply), charging users for its use, and generating a profit.

But sure, let's keep pretending public services are free market.

We did not have networks of govt constructed & maintained roads. The advent of motor vehicles drove their construction.
Henry Ford had more to do with the advent of the motor vehicles, & the road networks that supported them, than did govt advance planning or a govt initiative to replace the horse & buggy/wagon.

It's not a question of free or govt controlled markets. The question is what drove the change ? The govt or private interests.
The system evolved. It was not forced by the govt.

[MDlaxfan76]

Maybe I have to go back more pages to understand what this is about.

Is the government forcing anyone to buy electric cars???

[ABV 8.3%]

...so predictable.

As is your response. You're a Republican. And if I've learned one thing from this site, it's the Republicans don't think that something is socialism, or is a subsidy "if a Republican likes it".

Yeah, see, that's not how words work.

That ain't the free market, my man. Just because " a Republican likes it", doesn't mean that public roads (snicker) are the result of "free market forces".

Government owned and operated roads are the LITERAL opposite of allowing "free market forces" to work.

Free market forces would look like this: a need for roads is demonstrated (demand). A private company builds and manages the roads (supply), charging users for its use, and generating a profit.

But sure, let's keep pretending public services are free market.

We did not have networks of govt constructed & maintained roads. The advent of motor vehicles drove their construction.
Henry Ford had more to do with the advent of the motor vehicles, & the road networks that supported them, than did govt advance planning or a govt initiative to replace the horse & buggy/wagon.

It's not a question of free or govt controlled markets. The question is what drove the change ? The govt or private interests.
The system evolved. It was not forced by the govt.

Army Corps of Engineers.

A new government group, gathered under the Homeland Security umbrella.

or, perhaps West Point was established , originally, as an artist colony. Perhaps YOUR alma was established to pilfer the nations coiffers once the ice cream suit comes off, or, perhaps, during, aka Fat Leonard, etc.....

[a fan]

Maybe I have to go back more pages to understand what this is about.

Is the government forcing anyone to buy electric cars???

No. What FoxNation (Old Salt representing their "view") is arguing is that electric cars and sustainable energy is being jammed down our throats....

....while at the same time, cars and big oil (snicker) didn't receive subsidies and taxpayer largesse to get where they are.

OS thinks that the American Highway Act was the free market at work. Cars were ABSOLUTELY crammed down our throats. Suburban sprawl was PLANNED, and paid for by the taxpayer....making cars ESSENTIAL for life in America. Why not, instead of the American Highway Act...we instead chose the American Mass Transit Act, establishing a network of mass transit? Think about how much different our cities would look.

There are books and books and books about the CHOICES we made regarding cars, OS. You might find them interesting.

But for heavens sake, stop with the claims that car just "evolved", and government didn't choose cars over trains and mass transit. We CHOSE and gave money to the American automobile. CLEARLY the government chose cars, OS.

[MDlaxfan76]

Thought so...

Are you expecting a good faith discussion there, a fan?

It's downright silly, much less ahistorical, but then again, it's par for the course from some.

I'm not entirely sure why...there's plenty of room for debate as to what the right policies should be without faithless arguments.

[old salt]

Maybe I have to go back more pages to understand what this is about.

Is the government forcing anyone to buy electric cars???

No. What FoxNation (Old Salt representing their "view") is arguing is that electric cars and sustainable energy is being jammed down our throats....

....while at the same time, cars and big oil (snicker) didn't receive subsidies and taxpayer largesse to get where they are.

OS thinks that the American Highway Act was the free market at work. Cars were ABSOLUTELY crammed down our throats. Suburban sprawl was PLANNED, and paid for by the taxpayer....making cars ESSENTIAL for life in America. Why not, instead of the American Highway Act...we instead chose the American Mass Transit Act, establishing a network of mass transit? Think about how much different our cities would look.

There are books and books and books about the CHOICES we made regarding cars, OS. You might find them interesting.

But for heavens sake, stop with the claims that car just "evolved", and government didn't choose cars over trains and mass transit. We CHOSE and gave money to the American automobile. CLEARLY the government chose cars, OS.

As usual, you highjacked the discussion & recast it into something different to flog your same old tedious dead horse.

c&s & I were making the point that the govt push to elec vehicles is entirely different from the transition of horse to motor vehicle.

The horse to motor vehicle transition was driven by emerging technology. The govt played catch up to adapt.

In the current push to force elec vehicles, the govt is pushing the change & the technology has not caught up.

We were talking about the emergence of motor vehicles displacing the horse in the early 20th century.

Suburban sprawl, the National Hwy Act, & govt intervention did not push the horse & buggy off the road.
Developing motor vehicle technology did. That then prompted the development of suitable public roads.

The gubmit didn't choose cars over rail or mass transit. The govt built the transcontinental RR a century before the interstate system.
Early commuter rail & street cars (horse drawn then elec) were the first mass transit & preceded the car.
You demonstrate no sense of time & place.

[old salt]

Thought so...

Are you expecting a good faith discussion there, a fan?

It's downright silly, much less ahistorical, but then again, it's par for the course from some.

I'm not entirely sure why...there's plenty of room for debate as to what the right policies should be without faithless arguments.

Faithless arguments = butting in, highjacking the discussion, changing the premise, & ignoring time & history.

[a fan]

c&s & I were making the point that the govt push to elec vehicles is entirely different from the transition of horse to motor vehicle.

Sure. One very specific part of the car's evolution.

But those cars needed engineered, paved roads. And the free market wasn't going to provide them. So yep, you're right step A to B was free market.

But from B to Z? Entirely subsidized and accelerated by the .gov.

Your analogy is ridiculous. Moving from gas cars to electric cars isn't the same thing as moving from freaking horses to the internal combustion engine.

Suburban sprawl, the National Hwy Act, & govt intervention did not push the horse & buggy off the road.

True. But Govt. intervention did make trains unaffordable, and cars as essential as electricity for the average American.

You demonstrate no sense of time & place.

Yeah, that's me. By all means, lecture a Leopold about environmental sustainability and urban/rural design.

[old salt]

c&s & I were making the point that the govt push to elec vehicles is entirely different from the transition of horse to motor vehicle.

Sure. One very specific part of the car's evolution.

But those cars needed engineered, paved roads. And the free market wasn't going to provide them. So yep, you're right step A to B was free market.

But from B to Z? Entirely subsidized and accelerated by the .gov.

Your analogy is ridiculous. Moving from gas cars to electric cars isn't the same thing as moving from freaking horses to the internal combustion engine.

Suburban sprawl, the National Hwy Act, & govt intervention did not push the horse & buggy off the road.

True. But Govt. intervention did make trains unaffordable, and cars as essential as electricity for the average American.

You demonstrate no sense of time & place.

Yeah, that's me. By all means, lecture a Leopold about environmental sustainability and urban/rural design.

My analogy is ridiculous ? I did not raise the analogy. Doc B did. I was commenting on c&s's reply :

If you think the analogy is ridiculous, take it up with Doc. He raised it.

Doc B said : You’re like those conservatives who argued that “automobiles” would never replace horses and horse-drawn carriages.

c&s replied : People were not forced to buy cars to replace horses, people wanted to buy cars.

We were discussing a very narrow point (step A to B] & the distinction between Doc's analogy & what's happening with the force feeding of EV's on the driving public.

You butted in & used it as a launching point for your standard rant, which was irrelevant to what was being discussed.

Govt intervention did not make trains unaffordable. Another leap in technology did -- pressurized high altitude jet aircraft made long distance train travel obsolete. Long haul trucking on the Defense interstate highway system augmented freight rail (which is still viable) & made travel by car competitive with train travel. As soon as the Jewish space laser finishes burning the CA high speed rail corridor, rail travel will make a comeback.

The deterioration of our cities & their education systems drove families to the suburbs & generated the roads making sprawl possible.

[a fan]

We were discussing a very narrow point (step A to B] & the distinction between Doc's analogy & what's happening with the force feeding of EV's on the driving public.

Right wing nonsense. My brother loves his Telsa. No one made him buy one. Take a survey. Ask people you know if they'd like a Tesla. You're going to get whole lot of "yes".

You butted in & used it as a launching point for your standard rant, which was irrelevant to what was being discussed.

And your rant isn't standard from you? Are you forgetting we've discussed this before? And you played this same game of "subsidies for cars? What subsidies?"

Govt intervention did not make trains unaffordable. Another leap in technology did -- pressurized high altitude jet aircraft made long distance train travel obsolete.

Right. That explains all those DB trains I used in Germany. I must have been hallucinating.

The deterioration of our cities & their education systems drove families to the suburbs & generated the roads making sprawl possible.

No one has the time to unpack how wrong this is.

[cradleandshoot]

We were discussing a very narrow point (step A to B] & the distinction between Doc's analogy & what's happening with the force feeding of EV's on the driving public.

Right wing nonsense. My brother loves his Telsa. No one made him buy one. Take a survey. Ask people you know if they'd like a Tesla. You're going to get whole lot of "yes".

You butted in & used it as a launching point for your standard rant, which was irrelevant to what was being discussed.

And your rant isn't standard from you? Are you forgetting we've discussed this before? And you played this same game of "subsidies for cars? What subsidies?"

Govt intervention did not make trains unaffordable. Another leap in technology did -- pressurized high altitude jet aircraft made long distance train travel obsolete.

Right. That explains all those DB trains I used in Germany. I must have been hallucinating.

The deterioration of our cities & their education systems drove families to the suburbs & generated the roads making sprawl possible.

No one has the time to unpack how wrong this is.

I'm glad your brother likes his Tesla. At no point in this discussion am I advocating against electric vehicles. I am against the auto industry being pressured by the government to manufacture them exclusively. For every person who loves their Tesla there are probably many more car owners that flat out don't like the electric car concept. If electric cars are to be the wave of the future manufactures have a long ways to go to make it a viable alternative to a vast majority of car owners. You think in a tractor trailer they have developed an electric motor that can replace that beloved work horse the Cummins Diesel engine? When I was at Coca Cola they purchased an electric truck that from day one was the biggest piece of chit in the fleet. It had no power. On the open road fully loaded it struggled to reach 55 and could not handle an incline. That very expensive vehicle sat in the back of the lot because none of the drivers would use it. It went away completely, with no fanfare, several years ago. My personal experience with the hybrid service vehicles Coca Cola purchased was no better. They had 3 service vans that spent more time at the dealership trying to chase down all the demons coursing through their engines. They all also went away and they purchased good old Dodge Ram vans with those gosh darn internal combustion engines.

It becomes IMO a matter of preference for the consumer. That preference, in the purchase of buying a very expensive vehicle will be going away. IMO the electric cars should work on improving their problems that are inherent with electric engines. Their integration into the auto industry should occur naturally as the confidence in them grows and they become the choice that consumers want. When the automaker decides that in 30 years that is the only option they will give you, i think they are making a huge mistake. I find it hard to believe that GM wants to do this all of their own volition. If you woke up this morning a Fan and decided that for the sake of peoples health, your only going to make 20 proof hootch. It tastes okay and it takes some getting use to but do you think your customers that want high Octane will buy it? It is probably a very poor analogy on my part, but I would like to think you want to make what your customers ask for and want, not what you think they should be imbibing.

[MDlaxfan76]

Thought so...

Are you expecting a good faith discussion there, a fan?

It's downright silly, much less ahistorical, but then again, it's par for the course from some.

I'm not entirely sure why...there's plenty of room for debate as to what the right policies should be without faithless arguments.

Faithless arguments = butting in, highjacking the discussion, changing the premise, & ignoring time & history.

I see, so participation is "butting in" and "highjacking the conversation"...you are making a faithless argument again, Salty. Of course technological changes made possible various transitions, but that doesn't mean that government decisions to support and subsidize that change did not accelerate that change.

I say "faithless" because you don't acknowledge the reality that government did play a role, and instead attack even the notion that government can appropriately play a role going forward. That's a faithless argument.

Again, there's plenty of room for debate as to what the best policies should be without resorting to faithless arguments.

cradle, I asked the question earlier as to whether anyone is being forced to buy an electric car...you now suggest that the government is forcing manufacturers to make electric cars "exclusively"...really, that's happened??

Sure, the government has set successively more challenging emissions standards which car makers MUST achieve, yet this sort of regulation is actually preferred by the industry as the regulation sets a common playing field for them.

Perhaps I've missed some news, however.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Speaking to Bloomberg this week, General Motors CEO Mary Barra said the company “believes the transition” to electric vehicles will “happen over time,” and that the internal combustion engine is here to stay for a while longer. Bloomberg also asked her if she believes electric powertrains will have displaced the combustion engine in 20 years, to which she replied “it will happen in a little bit longer period [than 20 years], but it will happen.”

[RedFromMI]

(omitted)

I'm glad your brother likes his Tesla. At no point in this discussion am I advocating against electric vehicles. I am against the auto industry being pressured by the government to manufacture them exclusively. For every person who loves their Tesla there are probably many more car owners that flat out don't like the electric car concept. If electric cars are to be the wave of the future manufactures have a long ways to go to make it a viable alternative to a vast majority of car owners. You think in a tractor trailer they have developed an electric motor that can replace that beloved work horse the Cummins Diesel engine? When I was at Coca Cola they purchased an electric truck that from day one was the biggest piece of chit in the fleet. It had no power. On the open road fully loaded it struggled to reach 55 and could not handle an incline. That very expensive vehicle sat in the back of the lot because none of the drivers would use it. It went away completely, with no fanfare, several years ago. My personal experience with the hybrid service vehicles Coca Cola purchased was no better. They had 3 service vans that spent more time at the dealership trying to chase down all the demons coursing through their engines. They all also went away and they purchased good old Dodge Ram vans with those gosh darn internal combustion engines.

It becomes IMO a matter of preference for the consumer. That preference, in the purchase of buying a very expensive vehicle will be going away. IMO the electric cars should work on improving their problems that are inherent with electric engines. Their integration into the auto industry should occur naturally as the confidence in them grows and they become the choice that consumers want. When the automaker decides that in 30 years that is the only option they will give you, i think they are making a huge mistake. I find it hard to believe that GM wants to do this all of their own volition. If you woke up this morning a Fan and decided that for the sake of peoples health, your only going to make 20 proof hootch. It tastes okay and it takes some getting use to but do you think your customers that want high Octane will buy it? It is probably a very poor analogy on my part, but I would like to think you want to make what your customers ask for and want, not what you think they should be imbibing.

The electric motor is NOT the problem. That technology, given the proper power supply can outstrip the diesel or conventional gas (Otto cycle) engine.

The issue is in the power supply. Until recently, batteries were not capable of storing enough energy in a small enough size to really work. But we are basically at the threshold of that working quite well as long as we are talking about a limited number of miles travel in a day (which covers the vast majority of trips like commuting/errands, etc.). The other issue is the time it takes to charge these batteries. Overnight in a garage at home is easy peasy. A 5-10 minute "fill-up" on a long road trip currently is not. The latest Chevy Bolt has over 250 miles range. Certainly enough for anything but a long road trip. But it costs over $36K (you can get I think $7500 back in tax credits) and takes 10 hours to fully recharge at 220V. So will see limited use as long as the cost is so high.

That is why for long haul trucks you still have a large interest in fuel cells (direct conversion of hydrogen gas into electricity to run the motor). Long haul trucks to be competitive need to be able to run long distances between replenishment cycles, and not spend a long time being replenished.