Comments ssn139 has made

Over-emphasizing Battery Change Stations

I liked the points you brought up, but I think that you are over-emphasizing the importance of battery change stations in Better Place's (or any other EV company's) model, at least in small, isolated places like Israel or Hawaii. The Better Place website estimates that its car will be able to go 100 miles on a charge.  Lets say that its really 90 miles on average, given that some batteries will be weaker.  As the Post article pointed out, that would be more than enough range for most driving. Thus, the user wouldn't go near a charge station during normal use.

In Israel, the furthest straight-shot drive you'd probably take would be about 170 miles (from the northern most part of the country to the beginning of the nearly uninhabited Negev desert. That's one change. Round trip on the biggest of Hawaii's Island (though it only has about 1/10th the population) is 220 miles (two changes). You can get around the most populous island in just about one charge (90 miles). Not to mention that Better Place is planning to put up charge stations up in public places so you can charge the car while you visit your grandmother (or whoever) before returning home.

When you move to a much larger place, I think the complaints about the battery stations become much more important. Unlike Israel and Hawaii, I don't think the U.S. government or other 49 states should give Better Place much help until they show they can do large areas effectively, like in Australia. Our infrastructure money will be better spent on trains and mass transit. As for the space required for battery change stations, most long trips are going to take you away from cities and towns, and there's still plenty of unused room around all of these sorts of gas stations I've visited.

Some other larger problems facing Better Place (and EVs in general) is the low cost of gas (at least in the United States) and lithium supplies, which I've written about here

The Finite World. A resources and energy blog.

I think Lutz is Kinda Right

While there is a growing market for fuel-efficient vehicles, I think Lutz is right.  At $1.50 a gallon, many, many people (if not all of the American public) want SUVs and pickups.  This is why I think it isn't the best idea to mandate that Detroit build hybrids, etc. It might be easier politically, but its also slow and its inefficient. If the language of the bill is too weak, Detroit can just drag its feet in car development. If Congress mandates too much, cars that aren't really done might get pushed forward too quickly. Instead, we need to increase the gas tax.

I've written more on this here:http://www.thefiniteworld.com/108

The Finite World. A resources and energy blog.

No Conspiricy

I agree with Jon. OPEC can't even keep their own members from ignoring quotas, let alone control global prices, which are determined by the global market in the same way that the price of other commodities is determined. Prices went up because demand spiked in developing nations such as China and India. Now that many nations are in recession, and others are not growing as fast, the price has come down.

The Finite World. A resources and energy blog.

Glad to hear it

It is good to see that the Democrats aren't just treating global warming as a domestic issue. The United States has plenty of work to do in this area for sure, but unless we get countries like China, India, Indonesia, Russia, Brazil, etc. on board, its all for nothing. Pollution in the world's atmosphere is by definition a world-wide problem. Hopefully they can negotiate something better than Kyoto.

The Finite World. A resources and energy blog.

Different Time Scales

Not much time geologically speaking, yes. But an eternity for modern humans. Basically this means that delayed action will have long-lasting consequences. But preventing or at least spreading out the release of the other 75% of locked up CO2 will help keep CO2 concentrations from reaching epic proportions.

www.thefiniteworld.com A resources and energy blog.

re: cap & cap

vakibs,

I don't understand why a well designed and enforced cap and trade system is not just a better way to just capping emissions.

Cap and trade, as I understand it, works like this: A government caps carbon emissions at 500 million tons a year or whatever you want to set your cap at. The government then auction off the permits to companies. Proceeds can be spent on public infrastructure, paying down debt, tax cuts, whatever you like.

Under this system, not polluting means you don't have to buy permits, which gives companies that don't use carbon-based energy the advantage.  If a coal plant figures out how to sequester carbon cheaply, then they can sell their permits. The government makes sure that no one pollutes without a permit. 500 million tons are released in year 1.

The next year, the government sells new permits, but only 480 million tons worth. Since there are fewer permits, there will be more demand and thus the price goes up for polluters, creating more incentives to not pollute. Again, because the permits it benefits less carbon-reliant companies. At the end of the year, 480 million tons are released.

Rinse, wash, repeat, until you reach your deadline of no carbon emissions.

Mark

Learn. Discuss. Act. www.thefiniteworld.com

Forgotten Reason for the Gas Tax

David,

I think that you are conflating the gas tax most people talk about with the carbon tax. For me, these are very different tools. The carbon tax has the greatest effect on coal-fired power plants, while not having much of an impact on the price of gasoline, as you point out. What people like Jeff Frankel are advocating is just a tax on gasoline alone. So you wouldn't need a $400/ton carbon tax to raise the price of gasoline a dollar if you just taxed gasoline by an extra $1 a gallon.

The political capital for this move would be great, but I don't think that's a reason not to advocate for any given policy. Advocate for the right thing, and then let the politicians sort out what they can actually accomplish.

I also think that you are correct in asserting that we need more infrastructure. This is the growing consensus. The problem is that, unless driving costs more or is more inconvenient, there is no guarantee that anyone is actually going to use any of the new transit infrastructure. It's not just personal preference that drives Europeans to bike and take the bus more. It's that in Western Europe gasoline costs the equivalent of $10-$12 a gallon, drivers licenses and the lessons to get them cost $1000+ (at least in the Netherlands), and cars are taxed heavily as well.

Learn. Discuss. Act. If you like what I have to say here, check out my website.