The -Electric- Motor City

[DETGES]

Your opinion of what is right or wrong doesn't matter to them.

I fully understood this from the beginning. The key is blind hope, sticktoitiveness, and knowing when to quit.

They would like you to think that what you think of them does not matter. They want you to think that they are a self sufficient entity that has fully control over themselves and you. This can be disproved very easily, just ask the question... who pays them? When the answer is, 'you do', then you see why we control them, not the other way around. Nothing will change the way they act if we all sit on the sidelines.

It is smart and safe to be a pessimist, I was once, but you have much more control when you are an optimist. Follow?

[Wesley Mouch]

The problem with the Volt is the cost. You end up paying way too much for that little bit of fuel economy improvement. With a Volt you have to pay for the costs for two drive systems. You greatly complicate the vehicle and don't receive the lower maintenance costs involved with electric only. It's the same problem with all of the hybrids. Too much money for too little improvement in fuel economy.

For most consumers it's strictly about total cost of ownership. They're looking to save money over the life of the vehicle. If a car can't save a consumer enough money in fuel to offset extra cost within a reasonable time, they aren't buying it. The best payback numbers I've seen for a volt is 9 Years with fuel prices at $5.00 a gallon. Most consumers are unwilling to pay extra for a car that only gets better fuel mileage, but takes 9+ years before it saves them any money. You're just trading who you send your hard earned money too. Either The car companies for a more expensive car or the oil companies because you use more fuel.

Electric only vehicles have better payback trends. still not good enough for most consumers.

So we're basically back to the same problem, the technology isn't fully baked. The solution to this is to continue putting money into battery and vehicle R&D.

You're right. Cost is the issue. There was a significant price drop [[about $4k?) recently, I believe.

If we have a social goal here to reduce emissions, then we should offer subsidies.

The Volt may not be perfect, but I'd never buy a Leaf with limited range. I don't drive much, but when I do, it is often for > 100 mi trips. If money were no object, I'd buy a Volt. I hear they're a pleasure to drive. And although you say they're complicated, it seems simple in comparison to the Prius and that hybrid drive system. [[Also, I've found the older Prius's to be an unpleasant drive).

Stepping back... cars of all kinds are making amazing strides in economy and emissions. SUV's getting 30 mpg? I've driven a new Jeep Grand Cherokee and got that in real life. If you want to save the planet... you'll do better trying to ban gas lawnmowers and propane grills.

[ndavies]

The only proven way to get manufacturers to build and consumers to buy higher mileage and electric vehicles is to raise the price of fuel. The only reason Europe drives smaller vehicles and uses public transit is they have huge taxes on fuel. Their fuel prices are almost double ours. 61% of the cost of fuel in Britain goes to the government. We're at about %12, [[$0.19 per gallon + %6 sales tax)

I can't see anyone in the state voting to put that much tax on fuel.

[DETGES]

So what what point would a subsidy become appealing to automakers? How sizable of a tax cut do you think would appeal to them? Purely looking for speculation, I'd assume you wouldn't have any means of knowing exact numbers.

[DETGES]

] I can't see anyone in the state voting to put that much tax on fuel.

Unless they aren't paying for fuel, i.e. electric cars

But that is aside the point, we are looking at possible tax cuts for higher R&D, and production, of electric cars.

[ndavies]

Well, Wouldn't not having to pay fuel taxes be an extra incentive for electric cars. They don't make financial sense even with that tax break

There's already huge tax incentives for Research and development. The company I work for already receives them. My salary is a direct right off since I do mostly R&D.

There are also large grants given to universities to do R&D on Vehicles, batteries and fuel consumption. Lots of incentives are going into reducing weight and improving powertrain efficiency.

[Willi]

Electric cars burn COAL
and that doesn't help us much

Ever look at what a coal plant spews into the great lakes each year, hundreds of pounds of mercury and other pollutants

Re-think it all, step back, take a breath

[gameguy56]

Electric cars burn COAL
and that doesn't help us much

Ever look at what a coal plant spews into the great lakes each year, hundreds of pounds of mercury and other pollutants

Re-think it all, step back, take a breath

Actually, electric cars burn whatever is used to create electricity. Which in michigan is about 1/2 coal, and a good chunk is carbon-free nuclear and hydro.

At any rate, a coal plant is still a lot more efficient at turning carbon into energy than 100,000 individual little internal combustion engines

http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=mi#tabs-4

[ndavies]

Electric cars burn COAL
and that doesn't help us much

Ever look at what a coal plant spews into the great lakes each year, hundreds of pounds of mercury and other pollutants

Re-think it all, step back, take a breath

The conversion from coal->Electric->miles driven is more efficient than the conversion of petroleum->miles driven. It would still be a minor improvement.

Most coal plants are on the cutting block anyway due to Obamas executive orders. They'll be converted to slightly cleaner Natural gas. They're already shutting down a coal plant in the UP and still don't know how to replace the supply loss.

There will still be tradeoffs even if we get a new fuel source. It's the nature of the game.

[DETGES]

Is that enough? Are there other directions to tackle this from then?

[Willi]

Really wish we put the same resources we used to build the atomic bomb or to get to the moon for Solar Energy - instead of wrecking the planet with fossil fuel recovery.

[ndavies]

Solar cells were one of the technologies that came from the space program. We wouldn't have had a space program without them. The space programs needed a way to generate electricity without having to carry oxygen and fuel into space.

There is still a huge ongoing cash dump into solar technology. Electricity output per Solar cell is going way up and prices have dropped significantly in the last 10 years. Cutting edge technology takes time. We're still not any where near the efficiency of a tree. They have a secret in Quantum physics that we have been yet to decode.

[Willi]

You mean the Bush empire of idiocy doesn't want Solar to succeed in the USA

[DETGES]

Well the short answer the that question is no. There are legitimate scientific gaps that are preventing us from figuring out how we can synthetically replicate the photosynthesis that plants do on a quantum level.

Our current solar technology is vastly more advanced than what it was 10 years ago, but not a lot of people know that. Also, not a lot of people know that you can call up solar city and they will install solar panels on your house for free. But, that aside, we are not even close to being able to replicate photosynthesis with equivalent efficiency to that of plants. That is another thing that needs more R&D.

To advance further with green energy, there needs to be more public support, people need to get fired up. Once the whole country is acting on a desire for green energy, there is no corporation or politician with any amount of money that can stand in the way. But something holding that back is the Citizens United vs FEC case; however, as the ruling on that will not be overturned [[unfortunately) for a long time.

For something to happen, there needs to be record amounts of support, something bigger than anything that has ever happened in this country's history.

[ndavies]

Interesting article on Low fuel prices leading to lower demand:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-1...amid-glut.html

I'm not sure I buy it, Maybe for the short term. However, If fuel stays low for an extended period, people will forget.

[DETGES]

Interesting outlook, it seems like a totally feasible outcome. Unless alternative fuel sources become prominent, I don't see how it could have a lower demand.

[jiminnm]

The only proven way to get manufacturers to build and consumers to buy higher mileage and electric vehicles is to raise the price of fuel. The only reason Europe drives smaller vehicles and uses public transit is they have huge taxes on fuel. Their fuel prices are almost double ours. 61% of the cost of fuel in Britain goes to the government. We're at about %12, [[$0.19 per gallon + %6 sales tax)

I can't see anyone in the state voting to put that much tax on fuel.

There is also an 18.4c/gal federal gasoline tax.

[ndavies]

There is also an 18.4c/gal federal gasoline tax.

That puts the fed tax at about %6 with $3.00 a gallon gas. That totals up to %18 between state and feds Still nowhere near the 61% in Britain.

[DETGES]

A gas tax would need to be done over a long period time in short increments [[unfortunately). Or maybe it could be done through a carbon tax?

[JRB]

Lots of great discussion under this thread.
The original premise I heard was that Detroit may have a unique opportunity.
It has [[reclaimed) space and a need for vision that will capture imagination and attention as the city moves out of bankruptcy and investors look for opportunities.
How does Detroit get the right investors who want to use some of their cash to spark the revolution that is needed?
What win-win infrastructure plans should be included so that the right land is set aside and the plans for Detroit's future are further developed, including finding investors from all sectors?
I think that is a legitimate question that should get onto the public debate.
If carbon emissions are going to go down [[and they have to) then the best horse in the race right now is energy efficiency on all uses, and certainly somewhere near the top is to electrify transportation, private and public, and use as much low carbon producing energy sources as possible, which can evolve as the market increases.

So who's going to be first in the [[northern) US, the first in NA and the first in the world?
Why not Detroit with its history in the private auto
mobile world?

[Gpwrangler]

We fully agree when it comes to R&D, more money needs to be put there so that consumers see more direct financial benefits. People really are not interested in what is good for them in the long term, only the short term [[hence electric cars not taking off), so we need to focus on making it so that they have clear financial benefits when buying a fully electric vehicle.
So yes, more money towards R&D.


But here lyes another problem, as individuals we don't have much control over where major automakers spend money. I don't know if the answer is a social movement, or a letter writing campaign, but companies work for us, not the other way around, so they will do what we want. So we need to establish a large number of car buyers, stock holders, and sociopolitical figures, to demand more money to go towards R&D. At that point, how can any company say no?

A company has a duty to perform for its shareholders. It works to build and sell products customers want. Unless your car is a classic [[a hobby car) you buy it for utility. Companies don't respond to letter writing campaigns or protests. They respond to market demands.

The only thing between me and a Volt is the price. Just like I wouldn't buy an Escalade because it's an overpriced Suburban, I'm not going to pay $40,000 for what is basically an electric Chevy Malibu. And lots of people feel the same way. When electric vehicle technology and range is in my price range I'll buy one. I've already looked at them and driven one.

Most at people realize that everything changes the environment in one way or another. The "dirty coal plant" stories don't stop anyone from buying electric appliances, big TVs and air conditioning so I'm not going to feel the least bit of guilt about using a 300 watt electric car charger at night when the time comes to own one.

[Wesley Mouch]

Well the short answer the that question is no. There are legitimate scientific gaps that are preventing us from figuring out how we can synthetically replicate the photosynthesis that plants do on a quantum level.

Our current solar technology is vastly more advanced than what it was 10 years ago, but not a lot of people know that. Also, not a lot of people know that you can call up solar city and they will install solar panels on your house for free. But, that aside, we are not even close to being able to replicate photosynthesis with equivalent efficiency to that of plants. That is another thing that needs more R&D.

To advance further with green energy, there needs to be more public support, people need to get fired up. Once the whole country is acting on a desire for green energy, there is no corporation or politician with any amount of money that can stand in the way. But something holding that back is the Citizens United vs FEC case; however, as the ruling on that will not be overturned [[unfortunately) for a long time.

For something to happen, there needs to be record amounts of support, something bigger than anything that has ever happened in this country's history.

Solar is quite amazing. And I'm going to jump on that bandwagon when I can. I know people with old solar technology, and in SE Michigan, it is making money for them now, paying all its costs and spinning the meter backwards for them. Right now. Right here.

They're wealthy retirees. And we pay them about 10 c/kwh for their power. Its a subsidy to the rich. Our actual cost for that power is more like 5c/kwh. The rest is the cost of our power grid. The grid serves all, and it will always be needed to serve/distribute power when the demand outstrips supply by solar and wind. And that happens a lot. Sunset is a bitch if you're an off-grid solar home.
This video fom the UofM tell us this story: Is the Utility of the Future Sustainable?

Another great video on nuclear power that helps see how renewables have challenges yet to be met: TED talks on nuclear power

[Gpwrangler]

Electric cars burn COAL
and that doesn't help us much

Ever look at what a coal plant spews into the great lakes each year, hundreds of pounds of mercury and other pollutants

Re-think it all, step back, take a breath

Either burn coal or nuclear, or you can pump acid into the ground to dissolve rock and get the oil out. It's all good!

[DETGES]

A part of this movement is to eventually transition from fossil fuels to sustainable energy.

I think that in reality, it would be much harder to move energy companies directly than it would be to force them to change via external and indirect sources like the car industry.

People will stop buying gas powered cars in protest, they won't shut off the electricity in their homes in protest. That is the difference.

[DETGES]

For sure! Personally I think that when we talk about sustainable energy, it really means solar energy, so I am slightly partial to it. But really sustainable energy can come from multiple places, solar, wind, hydroelectric, etc...

Currently the state of Michigan provides subsidies to those with solar panels, "Rebates are:$30 per square foot of collector area for solar-thermal systems, and $2-$3 per projected annual kWh for photovoltaic systems." [[solarinsure.com). So I think that if this is not enough of an incentive, we can either make larger tax breaks [[propose a new state level bill creating further tax breaks, or proposing a carbon tax that would not pass anyway) or find a new way to influence the market.

How can we create more demand for electric transportation?
How can we influence the transition from burning fossil fuels to reliance on sustainable energy?

These are the questions that we face.

We can always try more subsidies, but I don't know if that is an effective way to make people transition, they will want to take advantage of these subsidies but they may not because it would require an initial investment. The other, more obvious, option is a carbon tax. But we already know that will be fought to no end by the private sector and by the republicans in the Michigan senate and house. So I am not sure that is even an option, but you never know right? I would love to do a poll, I don't know how though.

Edit: I just read a few articles about polls on the topic of a carbon tax. In fact about 2/3 of Michigan residents oppose a carbon tax, but they say that if there are stipulations in the bill such as, all the revenue collected will go towards advancing sustainable energy and the tax can't be too big. So this may be a real option if we structure it in that manor.

This article is really great, it talks about America, but of the numbers I found, Michigan is parallel to the national opinion.