This is JMartin's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following JMartin's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
On this one, I agree with at least half of what gorr says. Standardize the charging system, build it out (or get McDonalds to build it out) to reduce range anxiety, and lots of people will buy lower-cost, limited range cars that can do for everyday driving. I am one of them.
School buses do a lot of stop and start travel. I would think they would benefit from a combination of Hydraulic Hybrid, and Electric drive to capture full regenerative braking.
Tesla has supposedly already doubled the lifespan of their cells, and are putting them in their backup systems, but not yet in cars.
HarveyD: If the bus is self-driving, they don't need to be big and articulated. Smaller, more frequent buses would attract more riders.
I heard on a political talk show this week that a company in West Virginia has announced that it will reopen a coal mine. Gillette Wyoming is giddy over a better economy, whatever that means. Obama and the Fed (with other central banks) have engineered a recovery that makes Trump look good. We will see how long that lasts. My dollars to donuts say there will be many fewer coal miners in 2020 than in 2016.
I do not oppose nuclear, but while the engineers on this site love it, I want to see the economics work. Right now they do not. Just ask Toshiba, or the Toshiba investors. It is political because nuke plants can only get financed if the Government takes 100% of the risk. Technology may change all that, but I will wait to see.
If nukes can be dispatchable energy, perhaps using supercritical CO2, then I like it. But if it becomes baseload that the grid has to be built around to justify the investment, then I am opposed. The future is clean, renewable, and variable.
Arnold, We will deal with those "pesky problems overpopulation, unemployment and climate change" the old fashioned way, with war and pestilence. Plenty of weapons, and no science to fight diseases in the aftermath of war. With no people, no one worries about climate change. Problem solved.
sd, For 600 miles, high-speed PRT, such as AirTran or something similar, should probably replace airplanes anyway. We could probably build medium speeed PRT with current technology using electronics from self-driving cars. I look for Amazon to enter this market at some point.
All posts seem to assume personal auto ownership rates will continue at present levels, and rise in developing countries as incomes go up. That may not be the case. Congestion in the increasingly urbanized world may shift demand to public (mass) transportation modes. Self-driving cars, electric bikes, skateboards, and scooters may serve as last mile transport for many. Online buying with electric truck delivery may suffice for many elderly. Time will tell.
Trees. You seem to be saying "all of the above." With that I agree. But those few "elite" are forcing auto makers to make their products cleaner, and more efficient. I say, more power to them as one piece in "all of the above."
This oil will do nothing but pollute Canada, the United States and then assure refiners in Texas a continued income. The corrosive oil from Canada is piped to Texas, refined, then the gasoline will be exported to South America. the US will get none of it, and really does not need it. The argument is that it will create jobs. Yeh, for people to build the pipeline, then for people to clean up the spills. Oh, and medical types to treat those impacted by the pollution. The good news is that no matter what Trump pronounces, this pipeline may never get built. Oil sands are being abandoned by big oil companies because the oil is too expensive (Shell just sold its interest), and fracking in depressing prices for oil in the lower 48.
Self-driving cars may may change the market for cars in many ways. Those gassers on the road may stay on the road for many more years, but driving fewer miles -- like only the ones between cities. Otherwise people may actually learn to use car sharing, which should be much cheaper per mile than owning a car. So fewer cars will be sold.
Harvey: I wonder how much the robots weigh! :-) Just kidding.
I have no problem with overheads, if they are only at the parking spots, or bus stops, not run continuously as a trolley would. Either can be effective, in my opinion.
Harvey, My guess is that as charging facilities become more widely available, we will have a real mix of range/battery size options and users will balance managing usage against purchase cost. It will be interesting to see how things progress. In any event, this is the kind of news I would love to see every day.
Yes, and the same day the CEO of Shell says the company will be investing $1 billion per year in clean energy by 2020. Shell also sold their oil sands stake in Canada.
Put this on a track, instead of existing highway and along with self or semi-self driving cars, you have a dual mode PRT system. It would be cheaper and faster than building new highways, allocate space above current right of way, provide high density non-stop travel and last mile driver controlled capability. Ford was looking at a similar concept a few years back. I don't know what every happened to that concept.
In line with the rest of the American Last policies. China has more wind and solar, and will have many more, and better BEV's. Europe and Africa will have a higher percentage of renewable energy. Hopefully, this will allow Tesla to establish itself as a true competitor in the auto industry.
@Havey: It is pretty clear to me that the future market for automobiles is going to be differentiated in ways not seen before. There will be city cars, such as this, that serve most people's day-to-day needs, supplemented by rental/shared cars or public transit. There will be longer-range for those who drive more distances regularly (or who don't have plugs, or live in cold climates), probably HEV's. And there will be heavy duty all purpose vehicles which may include pickups and SUV's of some type. As public charging facilities become available, the mix may change. For now, I could use a city BEV, and keep my gasser for longer distances. Buyers will sort themselves out depending on the situation. The consumers will adjust their mindset according to circumstance.
@Otto: I believe it rained before industrial pollution. Rain is not a good excuse to kill people.
Most of this discussion is irrelevant. At the rate of growth in clean energy, proportion of coal will decline significantly over the next 5-10 years, with or without Trump. Waiting until then to put EVs on the road makes no sense. As for developing countries, do you think they are more likely to build refineries and infrastructure to distribute gasoline, or install local wind and solar? I can take my guess, you make yours.
SJC: I agree, but it looks like US consumers are still buying 20 mpg vehicles. The market is not as efficient as economists and engineers might like us to believe. If it were, we would all be driving HEVs or PHEVs by now if not BEVs.
One more: Oil prices will be more volatile than in the past.
There's a rosy scenario if ever I heard one. Without making assumptions about Iran, I would guess that oil prices have been low long enough that everyone has committed to autos and other uses that will push demand up. Meanwhile Oilcos have cut exploration spending (not that they were finding enough, anyway) so oil prices will rise. That will encourage US production from shale, for which the US under Trump will build pipelines. However, that will also make alternative energy, wind and solar, more attractive and encourage people to move in to BEVs and PHEVs.