Let GM go Bankrupt

I have a close relative with a Prius. Although he has gotten as high as 70mpg on a trip, he only gets maybe 40 to 50 normally, I say "only," but when you consider the upcoming cost of the battery pack that will be required, a non hybrid vehicle of similar size to the Prius, as your Focus, seems to be just as efficient or economical, probably moreso, in the long run.

What I'm wondering about is the used car market when these babies get to be 5 or 10 years old. I feel that a 10 year old car still has a good 5 more years to go, but will there be a market when the new owner is also facing the likelyhood of a very expensive battery replacement?

I also wonder how state and federal governments are going to go about collecting the highway usage taxes they normally collect at the pump. There will probably be a gps transmitter reporting location and mileage. If not, maybe some sort of highway tax added to either the point of purchase, or to the annual registration - both of which would be a blessing and encouragement to high mileage drivers. Not much help for the occasional driver, though.

Proponents claim that by the time they need new Batteries the price will come down enough to make battery replacement feasible. This study disputes the claim of rapid improvement in battery economics as overly optimist.

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/006855.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_double-layer_capacitor

Ultracapacitors will replace batteries soon enough.

Cycloptichorn

I had read about another high energy electric storage technology also coming on line in the near future and I can not think of what it is a the moment.

Hitting my head again the wall trying to bring that memory back.

Well, I barely made it through this pay period. Seriously. A new mouse would have meant something missing from the larder.

Supposedly, some of the batteries on electric cars can not be replaced.

As exemplified by the posts here in regard to the questions surrounding the newer vehicle technologies, I think it is typically wiser to wait for newer technologies to go through the initial stages of working out the bugs that are always involved. After the kinks are worked out, then one can make a better decision on which version of the newer technology is working out the best, or proving to be reliable and actually as economical as hoped in the first place. So that is the way I will play this issue, I am waiting to see which electric or hybrid technology proves to be reliable and economical before I buy a vehicle of that type.

From this morning's yahoo news:

According to Jack Gillis, author of The Car Book and a CFA spokesman, 87 percent of respondents said it is "important that the country reduce its consumption of oil," and 54 percent said it is "very important."

An amazing 65 percent of Americans surveyed support a mandated transition to a 50-mpg fuel economy standard by 2025. That's a tough standard, some 15 mpg better than the ambitious goal set by the Obama Administration (35 mpg by 2016).

----------------------

To read the rest of the piece, which is about fuel saving myths, go here:

http://green.yahoo.com/blog/daily_green_driving/62/six-gas-mileage-myths.html

Why stop at 50 mpg? Why not 75 or 100 mpg? After all, if all it takes is a government mandate to solve a problem, why not just make it illegal to burn gasoline at all?

An English / political / history expert, and you are living from paycheck to paycheck and can't afford a new mouse for your computer? Come on pom, I thought you were at least better than that? After all, you have been claiming to be miles smarter than people like me. At least okies can afford a new mouse if we need one. Besides, you can usually find a decent one at a second hand store for next to nothing.

pom, you have yourself a wonderful Memorial Day weekend. I have better things to do than trade insults during the next 2 or 3 days. Try not to stress out over the great and honorable Sarah Palin of the great state of Alaska too much over the weekend. See ya next week.

Even if thats true, and I hope it is, how are we going to dispose of all those old batteries?
You cant just throw them in the local landfill.

the BIG question is : will the respondents put their money were their mouths are ?
will people be willing to pay for a new and fuel-efficient car - likely at a higher price .
many people are already strapped financially ( some poster just posted that he would like to pay off his mortgae by age 70 - in 2040 !!! ) and i doubt that they would have any money even for a bicycle .

You're right. My younger son is a mechanic and he thinks the Prius creates more problems than it solves.

During the real estate boom, I met an engaged couple (who, breaking with custom, did not live together . . .each had a studio apartment) who needed larger housing after they married. As I remember, both worked in Boston and one did not own a car. They were trying to decide whether to live in a cramped place closer to the city or to move an hour's drive away and buy a second car. In other words, which outlay of expenses was the right one? They were morally opposed to unnecessary fuel consumption but were uncertain about paying for domicile over the long haul if they opted for living on a subway or commuter rail line. They also knew they wanted a family and tried to put a child in the mix within a few years time.

The old batteries are still actually pretty good as long as they aren't leaking. They eventually will reach the point where they cannot hold a strong enough charge to run an electric engine - but they still hold plenty of charge to run, say, LED lights. I have several friends who scavenge these batteries (and big old diesel truck batteries), hook 'em to solar panels, and pay very very little for the lighting in their house at night.

It takes time for technologies to mature, everyone realizes that. I mean hell, we burned lead in gasoline for what, the first 50 years of cars?

Cycloptichorn

Cyclops, remember our past debates wherein I have reminded you and argued the fact that there is a law of unintended consequences with any artificial intrusion into the free markets? There is more to efficiencies of vehicles than miles per gallon. First of all, there are issues of manufacturing the vehicles, and batteries are a part of that. It takes energy to mine, process, and manufacture the materials and batteries, all of which feed into the cost of a vehicle. Then as has been pointed out, there are issues in regard to disposal of batteries, which also takes energy, and costs money.

I have rightfully argued in the past that cost in a free market situation is a pretty good arbitor of the efficiency of products. If an electric vehicle is more costly to own over the life of the vehicle, it just may be an indicator that the vehicle is not yet totally competitive in terms of being the most efficient vehicle out there. You have of course ridiculed my argument about this, but I think this discussion again deserves me to point out the realities of the situation in regard to how electric vehicles compare to traditional vehicles, and that there are many issues besides miles per gallon of gasoline consumed. So, simply having the government mandate a standard for mpg is a very shallow minded and short sighted policy, as again there will be as there always is, unintended consequences of these types of government regulations.

re okie:
While all-electric cars are still a work in progress, you are right, may I also point out to you the law of intended consequences. There has been significant government regulation of cars since the mid-60s for a number of reasons, environmental, safety, and political (in the last I'm including mileage standards, since they were originally introduced to foster independence from foreign oil, tho there are also environmental concerns) among others. The car companies have bitched and whined and pissed and moaned about all of them: "can't be done, technologically unfeasible, will cost too much, will drive us out of business, nobody will buy them." They have been consistently wrong. The standards have proved to be feasible, and cars are much better because of the government's demand that they be better,and the price of an entry-level car has been remarkably stable for more than eighty years now, since the mid-1920s, on the order of three months income for an average family, despite regulation. And what you get for your three months work today is a hell of a lot better car than a 1925 Chevrolet.