I can't tell you how long I've been waiting in anticipation to see a blog like this... and I think many people would agree.However let's consider the practical costs here. I notice you say "real-time pricing." To me, that says nothing about low pricing, which would naturally be the alternative to the high prices of gas.So really, I'm asking a question... would the electric car be cheaper than a fuel run car even in its early stages of development?
The fact that Google is promoting the discussion of solutions is great. However, Washington seems to only muck-up energy policy.First look at Ethanol. Come on, let’s take food and turn it into fuel! Yes that sounds amazing doesn't it? Why feed yourself, when you can feed your vehicle. The infrastructure did not exist for rapid Ethanol deployment for years and then when it did finally become available, the 'cheaper', 'environmentally friendly' Ethanol enriched gas was just as high as regular non-Ethanol gas. Oh and you got less mileage per gallon. So with Ethanol we are still polluting, taking away food, decreasing mileage/gallon of fuel, and paying more for both food and fuel. Brilliant!Now we come to electric autos. I seem to recall not long ago there were claims that the US power grid was doomed to failure. In fact, I believe parts of New York City went dark because of a fault in the grid. During the summer months we are usually bombarded with news reports to save energy to prevent brownouts and the dreaded complete blackouts. Why do we think that putting the pressure of charging automobiles on the electric grid is a good idea? Will the grid support such additions, when in the past it seems to not even keep up with current demand? Let's think this through a little eh?By the way what produces the majority of electricity in the US? Might it be fossil fuels? (Though we are making strides for cleaner/renewable energy generation) Why shift the pollution from cars to power plants instead of solving the issue of renewable and clean energy? My overly drawn point and satire is that policy decisions concerning energy in the past have been less than effective. It is great that the discussion is coming around again. But can we please think more than one election ahead? Think the whole process through. Electricity comes from somewhere as did Ethanol. Let us not confound the problem anymore than it has to be.
Totally agree with Wyatt. Any discussion of "plug-in" vehicles needs to ALWAYS be accompanied by an anlysis of the carbon impact of producing electricity. Much of the public has no idea the impact electricity generation has on the environment. I'd like to see some real number comparisons in order to understand how much (if any) reduction in CO2 would be had by using a plug-in.Further, how about discussion of some transitional options....like natural gas. The U.S. has enormous reserves and natural gas vehicles like Honda's CNG Civic are the MOST CO2 efficient vehicles in production (beating ANY hybrid on the market today). The infrastructure to fill largely exists and with a relatively cheap (when comparing it to gas prices) addition the the garage many homes could fill up from the NG pipes at their homes.Long-term I'm all about hydrogen fuel cells but in the meantime I'd like to see more CNG options....
Electricity can be made from different sources. Nuclear energy is clean, and France uses it. New methods to burn coal cleanly have been developed. Also, ethanol was subsidized and ordered into production by the government. The energy we end up using should be driven by the free market. Tax credits and tax breaks should be given to innovators and people who buy such innovative technology, but the government shouldn't mandate anything or give money to something. Take away oil subsidies, and take away ethanol subsidies.The free market will determine the best energy. The only reason why oil is in use is because we use all our economic and military resources to prop it up.
I agree with wyatt,you're right.
Electricity can give us bright,such as Flashlight
yeah,you'er right,I agree with you.Tactical Flashlightsr c helicoptervideo game
The free market will determine the best energy...This comment illustrates the real obstacle with switching to renewable energy or becoming a sustainable society based on social and environmental justice, for that matter: we are so very, very deeply brainwashed by the incessant capitalist propaganda here in the Land of the Free that even the "progressives" parrot scripture from the freemarket fundamentalist's bible. There is no "free market" and there never has been such a thing! Cartels & monopolies have always formed around any necessary or highly valued commodity. Our history is nothing more than the manipulation of scarcity, much of it artificial. Read Edwin Black's Internal Combustion to get an idea of how this has worked with energy, the biggest racket on the planet.Black also believes that "market pressure" can be brought to bear on automakers, seen here in a syndicated article he wrote on a prospective "Green Fleet": Carmakers such as Honda, BMW and Toyota are waiting for only one thing before they redirect their considerable resources away from gasoline cars and toward hydrogen, electric, natural gas (CNG) or other alternatively fueled vehicles. Those companies want tangible demand. Fleets -- governmental, commercial and private -- have a compelling volume purchasing power no automaker can ignore.But he avoids here the influence of the vested interests that are so firmly entrenched behind fossil fuels. He doesn't skirt the issue in Combustion, but we need to address it head on if we're to save anything: it's capitalism itself that is the problem. It is inherently unsustainable and undemocratic. Its myth is just that, a series of carefully constructed lies. The capitalist myth tells us that Nature is based on competition, and while it serves the purposes of the social Darwinists if we believe it--war, aggression, inequality and even pollution can all be called "natural" through this worldview--that doesn't mean it's true.In fact, as we're beginning to understand, Nature--including the process of evolution itself--is very much the story of symbiosis. Nothing stands by itself; the whole is always more than the sum of its parts. Competition is not more efficient than cooperation, it's extremely wasteful. There is no garbage in Nature because everything gets used, again and again.If we used a combination of passive and active solar, but especially passive, we wouldn't need any oil at all. The current level of technology is already sufficient for electric vehicles that could be charged by a house's solar collectors. And that's just the first step: most of the jobs we're so busy burning gas to get to don't have any redeeming value whatsoever. They don't really need to be done at all. Except that we're told we need money to live. And it's money, with its hollow cost/benefit analysis, that is driving every single problem we face. Is solar energy really "not cost effective" when the true costs of fossil fuel aren't factored in? There is so much real work to be done, the task of undoing the damage caused by greed, scarcity, recklessness and fear, but instead we still jump whenever we hear the whip crack. Like the "global famine" that was engineered, like all the other conflicts that rage, a monetary phenomenon.Phase money out. A bioregional framework with a real values based system where everyone's basic material needs are guaranteed and which rewards that which benefits others, not the self, could not only turn this doom around but even allow us to finally unlock our hidden potential, the divine spark of creativity within us all.Or, we could just believe what we're told by the Owners and get back to work. In the Market We Trust.
The comments on this blog belong only to the person who posted them. We do, however, reserve the right to remove off-topic or inappropriate comments.