1
   

Energy

 
 
Reply Sat 14 May, 2005 12:10 pm
As a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and the growing uncertainty with the situation in the Middle East, South America and Europe, the United States is now forced to re-think its energy policy so that it can lower energy consumption of and dependence on foreign oil. Just as the automobile replaced the horse-drawn carriage so it is time for the electric battery to replace the gasoline engine. We are at the dawn of a new age when one can plug their car into an electric outlet and re-charge it for travel up to sixty miles or more. But with any wholesale change comes the requirement of a transitional mechanism. Hence the need for a vehicle that can run alternatively on both gasoline and electricity. The goal of course would be to make a total conversion within a reasonable amount of time. Most of the electricity produced in the United States comes from coal-fired power plants so the concern by some is that a reduction in tailpipe emissions would be offset by an increase in air pollution from the power plants. Others argue that the sheer volume of reduced vehicle emissions would fall far greater than plant-produced air pollution. We may even see a coalition of military hawks and environmentalists as fuel efficiency brings about both security and a better climate.

Few would argue that two factors influence consumer's choice of transportation more than anything else: gas mileage and appearance. Ever since the automobile became available to the average consumer, it has always been considered a status symbol much like the clothing we wear and the houses we live in. The price of electricity is pale compared to the price of gasoline so this factor is virtually a no-brainer. The choice of appearance however, will always linger as long as we believe that "appearance makes the person". But this factor can also be addressed during the transition phase since it appears that most vehicles today can be modified to use both fuel sources. As for the future, the old tried and true marketing techniques will convince most people that buying the style of car available will guarantee that the "future won't pass them by". Just as Japanese cars promoting fuel efficiency in response to the oil embargo of the 1970's sparked the Big Three to respond accordingly so will the shift to electric vehicles change the market once again. Perhaps this time General Motors, Ford and Daimler Chrysler will get the "jump on the competition" and in so doing, save themselves from bankruptcy.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 691 • Replies: 5
No top replies

 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 02:53 pm
I certainly endorse your thinking JoeB but unfortunately it appears that Japan has gotten the jump on the big three with their hybrids.

I was in favor of using a biodiesel engine to power a generator that would recharge the batteries in transit......until I found out that it would require a 15 kw generator to provide that much juice especially when climbing a hill. To power that size generator would require an engine large enough to negate any savings. This type of design has been produced many times and as yet does not seem to be the solution.

If a large percentage of commuters would use a straight battery powered electric car (which even today will travel one hundred miles without recharging) there would be a vast reduction in demand for gasoline.
0 Replies
 
JOEBIALEK
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 04:25 pm
reply
agreed
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 05:06 pm
Electric battery cars won't be a viable alternative for decades to come. 60 miles on a charge? For a lot of people that isn't even a round trip to work and back. Traveling 60 miles and then spending 12 hours recharging isn't a feasible solution for 90% of the current car owners out there. It might work as a 2nd "around town" car but it'd never do for much more than that.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 07:18 pm
Well, you reduce the demand for gasoline, and increase it for electricity, especially with loses in transmission and conversion to D.C. Also, states and feds discover they're not getting their highway taxes and we all end up with little snoopers in our cars so they can tax our miles.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 04:46 pm
Good point Roger....any appreciable loss in revenue as a result of less gas consumption would have some unintended consequences. One thing you can count on though is quick action on the part of the politicians to "fix" that problem......but when it comes to other business that effects tax payers lives...Obstructionism is the order of the day.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Energy
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/17/2024 at 05:05:23