posted on August 25, 2001 07:19:29 PM new
A couple of you told me you would like to see us get away from oil dependence.
I was in West Virginia back in the late 70's, and across the river in Kentucky, they built a test plant to convert coal to gasoline. I had heard at the time, that gas had to get up to about $1.60 to make it "worth while". They where making gasoline, and selling it, but the government was "pitching in" 2/3 of the price.
Technology has to be better now than it was then, does anyone know if there are any full scale (as opposed to test) refineries doing coal liquefaction in the States? Only place I could find doing it was South Africa...
posted on August 25, 2001 08:52:06 PM new
I've heard of this technology before. It compares with crushing shale into oil. Both ideas are only to keep the Energy Brokers in Riches.
Consider that automobiles could have always run on alcohol. Alcohol can be made from mulching and other rotting vegetation. It's what farmers use to run their tractors and many other vehicles and it doesn't hurt them a bit. Consider too that when alcohol is burned it produces H2O - water as its by-product. Endlessly renewable and CHEAP fuel!
That goes for Methane as well. Sewage and other decomposing things give off lots of Methane - as well as cows.
Consider that homes can convert to Solar for about $50,000 currently. That would include power generation, water heating, and batteries to store excess energy. Only at night or hard weather extremes would most American homes need to pull juice from the power grid and during the day, they would usually put power INTO the grid! Bush wants to solve the energy problem by giving BILLIONS upon BILLIONS piled high on BILLIONS of dollars of TAXPAYER MONEY to oil companies to go and find oil and non-renewable gas. Instead, take that money and give homeowners a $50,000 tax credit spread over five years. Businesses and industry would qualify for bigger tax credits to upgrade to Solar.
We DO NOT need COAL!
We DO NOT need OIL!
We DO NOT need NUCLEAR ENERGY!
We DO NOT need NATURAL GAS!
We need renewable resources that are plentiful, available, and cheap! And they exist IN ABUNDANCE! The Energy Consortium wants to keep their stranglehold on the world and keeps coming up with ways to handle dangerous and nasty materials to make other dangerous and nasty materials. It's all a sham!
posted on August 25, 2001 10:11:59 PM newonly to keep the Energy Brokers in Riches.
Doesn't matter who supplies your energy, someone is going to get rich doing it. Might as well face facts here. Some people are getting rich supplying food too.
automobiles could have always run on alcohol
automobiles can be made to run on lots of things. I like the idea of fuel cells. They opperate like a storage battery, you can "plug them in" and recharge them. Same "ash", H2O. The distribution network is already in place, the power grid. We have to add capacity to it if fuel cells are become a big thing, so it can't be done over night.
homes can convert to Solar for about $50,000....... take that money and give homeowners a $50,000 tax credit spread over five years
Holy christ!!! Do you know what this would cost???? We couldn't afford to give $300 to each taxpayer, what would this do to the budget???? Someone help me with the math here, the total seems like a lot of money to me.
Get the price down, it might work.... I like the idea, but not at $50,000 a pop. Takes to long to pay for it's self (unless your in California.... )
We DO NOT need COAL!
We do at least for a while. To much "in place infrastructure". Why not build a few (doz?) coal to gasoline plants (2 to 4 years as a #1 Priority Job) and get out from under "foreign oil"? Plan on using Coal for, say, the next 30 years. Is someone going to get rich doing this? Yup... Don't ya' love capitalism
We DO NOT need OIL!
We will always need oil (coal can substitute). To many things you can do with it. But as a fuel, we need to get "weaned" off of it. The quicker the better. But realisticly, 30 years even with a good plan
We DO NOT need NUCLEAR ENERGY!
70 years. The answer to the whole problem is electricty. We need lots of it, and the demand is going to keep going up, particularly if we do get away from oil and coal. I don't see meeting the demand with out at least partial use of nuclear power in the "near future".
We DO NOT need NATURAL GAS!
Why not use it? Seriously.... It's there, and the other technologies arn't in place yet, and won't be for a while, even under the best of plans. You have good ideas, but they can't happen overnight.
Insist on REALITY!
Is my timeline real??? I'm not sure, I'm using intuition with a dose of human nature, and pinch of murphy's law. I think my timeline is "best case", it could tale longer...
posted on August 25, 2001 10:33:20 PM new"That goes for Methane as well. Sewage and other decomposing things give off lots of Methane - as well as cows."
posted on August 26, 2001 01:02:42 AM new"Doesn't matter who supplies your energy, someone is going to get rich doing it."
If I mow my lawn and compost it and make alchohol -- am I getting rich by supplying myself? Obviously, not everyone would be ablke to do it. But the point was that gasoline-driven automobiles are a joke!
"Holy christ!!! Do you know what this would cost????"
Concider the alternative(s) that we are currently being given. Should this money go to Big Oil and Enron instead? What will that solve? In a few years, we'd be right back at the same situation as now -- anytime that they want to yank our chains.
And Bush has been going on and on and on and on endlessly about MORE Nuke Reactors and MORE Coal Burning plants and MORE Oil buring plants. What is the cost in pollution? We end up paying to clean the environment and medical for countless people sickened and killed by the pollution. How can we NOT afford to convert?
Of course, with each and ever administration talking about advanced solar cell research but never giving it much funding (Bush never talked at all about it and deleted funding for it in the budget). It would take science to find better, more powerful solar cells to make the isdea more reasonable and feasable costwise.
But even at the current standards, to give this incentive to homeowners and businesses would be to create a boom in solar cells and solar cell technology! Right now, homeowners can qualify for $11,500 tax credit to upgrade their homes for more energy efficiency. Why not give them $10,000 a year tax write off instead and SOLVE the problem!
"We will always need oil (coal can substitute)."
What for? Name one thing that we use oil or coal for that can easily be replaced with other non-toxic materials? Lubricants? Silicone. Plastics? Advanced materials. Anything else? There's a cheap, non-toxic solution for it.
"Why not use it? Seriously.... It's there, and the other technologies arn't in place yet, and won't be for a while, even under the best of plans. You have good ideas, but they can't happen overnight."
Thank you for your support of my ideas, but I know that while the soiurces and technologyu is widely available, the Energy Consortium has made sure that no effective system can be put in place! But we have to start somewhere, sometime. Why not right now? Automobile manufacturers have been chomping at the bit to make electric cars, but they are being held back. Pas the legislation tomorow morning to change what kind of new cars can be sold here in America and within seven years we'll have cut down our reliance on foreign countries who do not have OUR best interst at haert and reduce pollution DRASTICALLY.
Why not start converting large industry and businesses to Solar first, since they are the largest consumer of electricity from the grid and by lowering their cost may make them not want to lay off more employees and help to save our economy? n the meantime, pour the dollars that would go to searching for new oil and gas soureces into research to develope high-energy and efficiency solar cells? Then, as the economy rebounds with the Democrats back at the helm, we can start giving larger tax incetives and breaks to homeowners while doing what is needed to reduce market prices for converting to solar? You see, it is ALL POSSIBLE -- but only if we can get the yoke of the existing energy consortium off our necks!
"What we need is a plan."
There are plenty of good plans -- much better and more well thought out than mine that I mentioned here, from people who have really done their homework. What we need is get rid of the MONSTER in the presidential suite at the White House who is in there only to make himself and his buddies richer while them decimate our environment, our economy, and our pocketbooks. Before that can happen, we need REAL CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM, because so long as politicans can lawfully solicit and accept bribes from these companies, the energy consortium will have all of the power and we will have none. Now do you begin to see why I rant and rave on here?
posted on August 26, 2001 05:47:09 AM newIf I mow my lawn and compost it and make alchohol -- am I getting rich by supplying myself?
No, but you might only get enough alchohol to cut your grass the next time.
In a few years, we'd be right back at the same situation as now -- anytime that they want to yank our chains.
I don't particularly like our present "energy policy", but spending $50,000 per home in the US isn't going to be the answer. I'm trying to be realistic.
How can we NOT afford to convert?
In the long run, we can't. But realisticly (IMHO) it will take many many years, even if we can get a good plan, and stick to it. That's one of the problems with Democracy, there isn't enough continuity to make a 30 year plan, and stick to it for 30 years. To solve this problem in 10 years we would have to make someone King. And people would hate the King. To much work to do, to get it done in ten years without getting very heavy handed with people.
. Why not give them $10,000 a year tax write off instead and SOLVE the problem!
1. How many people have $50,000 laying around? Even the ones that do, how many will be willing to spend it like this, even with the tax write offs. Going to play "King /Queen" and force people to do this?
2. Solar doesn't work everywhere.
There are plenty of good plans -- much better and more well thought out than mine
Or mine. It's a gut feeling, but I don't see us being more than half way to where we eventually need to be in less than 30 years. And that's assuming the decisions are made by sceintist's, and not polititions. Oil/Coal/Nuke power are the fundation of our infrastruture. I don't think that can be changed as quickly you think.
How long would it take to build enough factories to build enough home solar power units to solve just the this part of the problem (and that's only a samll part of the total problem). To many logistical problems for it to be done in a few years.
posted on August 26, 2001 05:56:12 AM new
How do you get the average person to take advantage of alternate energy sources? Too many tales of solar energy panels and trombe walls that didn't heat the house and fears of being flattened by a tractor trailors as electric cars sputter onto the interstate keep many people from trying new technologies - because the technologies are often expensive and iffy. How do you get us away from complaining about the price of gasoline and force us to look at our purchases of vans and SUVs as part of the problem?
My husband's brother gave up his solar panels and started using propane last year because his house never warmed beyond 55 degrees. This guy takes energy conservation seriously and is involved with the development of an electric car -he even came to DC a couple years ago to talk about this technology. I know that it takes time to iron the kinks out of new technologies, but how do you tell Joe Blow to accept the initial flaws for the greater good of the country when the new product is so expensive?
On my own little planet, I've tried a variety of things to be energy independent before returning to propane seven years ago. I had a forced air wood furnace for about ten years. We cut the dead trees off our property and used them as fuel. But despite a barometric damper that was supposed to allow the stove to heat through the night, it wouldn't. In fact I would return home often to find the damper stuck open. (You know where the fumes went - into our living space.) A variety of factors conspired to make this heating system a royal pain in the butt. We were downhill and never got a good draft on the stove. Through radiant heat, one half of the house was always pleasant but the other was always cold because the duct work was too far from the stove. And eventually we got tired of getting up at two o'clock in the morning to stoke the stove. Now I have another dilemma. I need to take three trees down for some construction on my house. They've always provided afternoon shade and kept the house cooler. Now it'll be hotter and I'll have to decide how I want to remedy that.
This is long-winded, but each of us make decisions that affect others daily in our choices of energy use. I feel guilty about my choice of car - its gas mileage is about the same as my VW's was in the 70s at the height of the gas crisis. And my husband's SUV is much worse. How do we impress on the government that we want other energy saving techologies when we buy these pig cars.
[ edited by saabsister on Aug 26, 2001 10:08 AM ]
posted on August 26, 2001 07:37:43 AM new
Saab sister - Thought you would be interested in this - I have friends in Northern Michigan who built a house around alternate energy. They have a three story house built on a hillside. There is a steel commercial staircase very wide goes up through the center of the house. The first floor is a garage and cabinet making shop. The second floor is a huge open kitchen on the view side with a dinning room and two bedrooms on the hill side, but a window in each near the hill surface. The third floor is a big living room on the view side and a big master bedroom on the other but by then above ground.
At the bottom under the stairs is a large airtight swedish wood stove. Now here is the engineering - around three sides of the stove about 3 and a half feet away is a head high wall of solid concrete blocks laid loose with no mortor and small end to the stove so it is
a foot thick. This huge mass of concrete absorbes heat from the stove all day. When we went to bed he had me look at the thermometer in the living room. It was 74°F. He put some wood in the stove and just left a hole open for air about the size of a dime. It was about 10°F outside. When we got up in the morning the living room was at 70°F. Very simple system with no electronics. He has a small oil fired back up furnace that is meant to just keep the pipes from freezing if they take a trip away in the winter. He had some injuries so they would usually find someone that would trade for wood during the year but most of the heat comes from scrap from the cabinet shop. Sorry to say he is dead now killed in a plane crash but his house still works fine for the family.
posted on August 26, 2001 10:14:32 AM new
Gravid, my husband and I read the literature on a Finnish stove that is probably similar to the one you described. This one weighed a substantial amount and probably had to be installed on a concrete slab. To do that in our house wouldn't have been practical because of the air flow through the house. However, that stove does appeal to me (but it's quite expensive) as an option when we expand the house. Then I'd have a chance to locate it in a way to take maximum advantage of the air currents within the house.
On the cost of $50,000. for solar....I don't believe the average consumer would be willing, or able, to go into debt to this tune. When solar first became popular there were only two families in our area that installed it and mostly for heating their pools. (Quite a while back.)
Someone help me with the math here.... oh...allow me. LOL
Both of my younger sisters live in Oregon. Both have and use wood burning stoves for alternative heat. The problem they have faced is that Oregon (or at least their towns) has air pollution standards. They can't even burn their trash without calling a number to see if it's a low pollution day, so they can burn. How in the world would people who only have wood burning stoves keep warm during the cold winter months with snow if the air pollution was to high?
I think one way to help solve part of our energy problems is to have some serious conservation measures enacted.
posted on August 26, 2001 10:46:59 AM new
Linda_K, Californians and those of us who've experienced drainfield problems certainly know how to conserve water. After using water conservatively for awhile, it becomes easy. I still shut the water off when I brush my teeth and will replace my clothes washer and dishwasher with European models that are very water stingy.
posted on August 26, 2001 11:15:54 AM new
Hi saabsister - Oh I know....people can conserve, it's just that many don't want to. We (consumers) want what we want. Bigger homes, SUVs that guzzle gasoling, etc. Like on homes, the average family has two children, and yet they're buying homes with 5 & 6 bedrooms, family room, etc. Those use more energy all around. Use to be (in the 50s) - it was more likely an average amily with 3 - 5 children were in a two bedroom, one bath home.
On the water conservation issue....yep we were in the middle of the droughts in CA. Had bricks and containers with water inside our toilet tanks, used bathwater to flush our toilets....etc. Didn't leave water running....heck...there were neighbors turning neighbors in for leaving their lawn sprinklers running too long.
(We have a Maytag Neptune which also conserves water.)
posted on August 26, 2001 11:18:42 AM new
Linda, the air pollution problem in Oregonis not out of line with anywhere else in the nation. The difference is that Oregon wants to do something NOW before waiting for a crisis to happen. So outdoor burning is not OK, but then, there is free mulching services, composting, recycling of all sorts that would make any LIberal proud to call this home.
One famliy I know simply converted a 50-gallon oil drum into a furnace in the middle of their livingroom. The drum is on a knee-high stand and sits on its side and a vent/opening is on one end with a fluew on the other leading to the chimmny. As the wood and other paper products are burnt inside the metal drum, it produces a >>HUGE<< amount of heat and when you give it a dime-sized hole for air, it last many many hours burning just a few pieces of wood.
One does not have to call anyone to burn wood or paper products INDOORS in an approved fire device in Oregon.
posted on August 26, 2001 11:23:43 AM newwho built a house around alternate energy
There is a key here. The house was built around alternate energy, not the alternate energy around the house. Retro-fitting existing homes isn't so easy, or as efficent. That's part of the reason that any serious nation wide plan will be 30 years or longer.
posted on August 26, 2001 11:55:12 AM newSaabsister: "How do you get the average person to take advantage of alternate energy sources?"
How do you get someone to vote for Bush? You use fear of the alternative, inspire their greediness for self-interests, and reply upon their laziness and ignorance to push through the agenda. It worked for Bush; it would work the same for encouraging alternative energy.
Seriously, though. Fifty-percent of solving any problem lies in correctly identifying what the problem is -- and it's the hardest part as well. The question should be turned around to ask, "What is keeping or preventing the average person from taking advantage of alternate energy sources?" If we ask that, then let's look at the answers:
Cost. Obviously, very few people have the incentive to put a single dime into alternate energy conversions if the current situation is tolerable.
If you live in an older home, you are likely to feel that it is not worth the hassles and cost to become energy independent. But if your energy bills went from $100 a month this month to $1,000 a month next month, I'd say that there would be a lot of incentive to find the means to change.
Why the Californians are having problems is not so much as the current prices, but because it happened so fast that income could not catch up to it. Because income did not have time to catch up to it, there is now a Solar Energy Conversion Boom going on. If energy prices were to drop to half of their old prices and stabilize there, many conversion projects would get canceled and never followed through.
Therefore, the cost benefits must be made clear. Yes, if you live in a place where Solar is the best option, then you will not be at the mercy of greedy Enron-type corporations yanking your life savings out of your pocketbook every time there is a "friendly" president and Congress around.
Also, a Boom would reduce costs the way that personal computers and other home electronics come down in price -- through competition. This would also encourage manufacturers to create new and better products as well, and hopefully, cheaper in the long run.
Older homes. Certainly, the best time to install alternate energy is when a new home is being built. With state and federal laws and guidelines, all new homes would be built to be energy independent and totally self-reliant. It would just be factored into the price of a new home.
I know that there will be a hue and cry about an additional $50,000 to a new home, but I've seen home prices skyrocket here in Portland-Metro and homes still just can't be built fast enough with so many people willing to pay Top Dollar for them. People WILL buy a new home if costs more if it is already energy independent.
But converting older homes may be trickier. The older the home, the harder it may be to convert to energy independence.
The solution is likely to be this way:
Make it affordable
Make it efficient
Make it understood what can be done by the average homeowner
Lastly, would you rather see Billions upon BILLIONS upon endless BILLIONS of YOUR Tax-Payer dollars being funneled into the energy consortium that has their jackboots on our throats to become even bigger and nastier? Or would you rather see those same dollars go to help homeowners convert to energy independence?
I know that some folks on here will say, "I don't want either one!" Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha! So would we ALL, my friend - so would we all! But let's face REALITY PLEASE! The reality is that Democratic governments want to give away your tax dollars to people while Republican governments want to give away your tax dollars to the Rich and Powerful. Where in the WORLD Republican Voters ever thought that Democrats tax and Give Away Your Money to Worthless Humanity while Republicans Lower Taxes and SAVE money and NOT give it AWAY to anyone is the SHEERIST FANTASY! All one has to do is go look at the history of the two parties to see how it works - every time. And not only that, but this energy problem is just not going to vanish on its own! It will keep on being here forever until we FIX THE PROBLEM!
There is just those two choices, then.
Either the Trillion Dollars over Five Years goes to Enron Corp and Oil Companies and the Nuke Power Industry >>OR<< it goes to businesses and homeowners to become energy independent.
posted on August 26, 2001 12:21:27 PM new
Borillar, let me take water usage as an example since I've made an effort to do a little research on clothes washers. The technology is there to wash an average size load of clothes by using as little as 10 or 12 gallons of water. Those water conserving front loading washers are commonly used in Europe, but to buy one of the European models here would cost around $1000 and that's being conservative. My hat's off to Linda_K for buying the Neptune because that's one of the best the US has to offer right now. Why hasn't the federal government mandated more stringent water usage in washers - the technology is there? If the water guzzlers couldn't be bought, people would have to conserve. There wouldn't be many alternatives on the market. Yes, it would be more costly for the product but a person's water bill might be less and there might be a chance to avoid some water restrictions. Are these washers popular in California or other states that have droughts?
posted on August 26, 2001 12:24:54 PM new
Borillar - Linda, the air pollution problem in Oregonis not out of line with anywhere else in the nation. I don't believe I saw it was.
The difference is that Oregon wants to do something NOW before waiting for a crisis to happen. Yes, I understand that. My point was that if more people chose to no longer heat with say electricity, and went to wood burning stoves, there would be more pollution.
In our neighborhood in SJ, CA., during the cold rainy months, when we walked outside the smoke in the air burnt our eyes from the fireplaces that were heating the homes.
So outdoor burning is not OK, It is in my sisters areas, but they have to call first.
but then, there is free mulching services, composting, recycling of all sorts that would make any LIberal proud to call this home. Free yes, if it's not 'mixed trash'. Otherwise my sisters pay. But how many people would, today, be willing to have five trash containers in their kitchen or storage room (as my sisters do) because there are so many trash articles and each one has to be done separately AND it must all be clean trash (washed out first).
One does not have to call anyone to burn wood or paper products INDOORS in an approved fire device in Oregon. I know. Not yet. Just as years ago one didn't have to call to burn their trash either. But as pollution standards rise, I'm sure that will change too. It's just that we were talking about alternative energy...and I'm just trying to share that wood burn doesn't look like a good alternative because of the pollution it causes.
Another way to conserve energy is to hang the family clothes out on the line, especially when drying electrically. Doubt many working women would be willing to go back to that method of drying clothes.
Your state is a beautiful one, Borillar. But there are Republicans and Libertarians and Greens there too.
posted on August 26, 2001 12:47:36 PM new
Remember the song In A Godda Da Vita (sp?) by Iron Butterfly? One of the members of that band came up with a way to run automobiles on WATER. He set up an important meeting to let the world know what was going on. He never made it to the meeting - he was missing for a long time. I think they found his body in a ravine somewhere. I don't know all the exact details, I saw the story on Unsolved Mysteries or something. Maybe someone can find a link ....
Wouldn't that be incredible, though? WOW! Prices for everything would plummet.
posted on August 26, 2001 01:15:38 PM new
Yes, I've heard that too about water running vehicles and the details are quite simple. Water is stored in the tank that is usually used for gasoline. The water is drawn out to where electricity can be applied to the water. In the process of electrtolysis, hydrogen and oxygen get seperated -- both of which are combustable.
One merely has to start the process going, say, with stored amounts of fuel that will turn a generator that produces sufficent electricity to further turn water into combustable fuel. All very practical, workable, and much safer than gasoline and non-polluting as well. And of course, cheap, endless supply.
The idea ranks up there with this one:
One takes a car batery or series of car batteries to power an electrical generator that produces more electricity than it consumes. For instance, a generator that produces 100 amps of electricity may only take 60 amps to operate. The extra 40 amps can be siphoned off for use elsewhere or storage in large batteries while the remainder goes back to power the generator to produce more and so on and so forth.
Unfortunately, as many times as this scheme has had a patent applie for, its application always turned down. The reason being is that it defies the established laws of physics. Yet, anyone can buy the parts, put them together, and see the outcome for themselves. All very simple.
sp.
[ edited by Borillar on Aug 26, 2001 01:17 PM ]
posted on August 26, 2001 01:16:00 PM new
saabsister - You mentioned electric cars. May I ask what seems to be holding them back from being used more? I haven't read anything on this and I've only seen a couple of pictures of electric cars. They were small space ship looking (aerodynamic) and only ran a small distance before running out of 'juice', and were very expensive. Also, if one lived in a place where electricity were expensive are you aware of the costs involved to 'fuel'.
Yes, the Neptune is wonderful. Not only because it saves water (uses approx. 40% less water) but also because of a special feature called MaxExtract. A spin cycle choice that takes approx. 30% more water out of the clothes, thereby reducing the drying time and saving more energy there. Also, because it uses less water, that saves even more of the costs to heat the hot water. We decided on buying that model for those reasons. We had natural gas in CA., but here we're all electric except for heating our house.
Also, is anyone knowledgeable about Monitor heat? When we were looking to purchase houses in Oregon and WA (state) we saw many homes that used that for heating. I believe they were kerosene heat. Vented to the outside. Kept the houses very warm and yet you could walk up and put your hand on the unit and it did not feel hot....and the unit was just on the carpeting with no protection needed around it.
posted on August 26, 2001 01:19:29 PM new
Linda, electric cars are here! Electric cars that work great, run for hundreds of miles between charges, and recharge fairly quicly are already being produced. It's been in the news forever and Ford and General Motors are waiting for the Federal Go-Ahead to put them out for sale. Talk to Bush and Cheney about why there is a delay.
sp.
[ edited by Borillar on Aug 26, 2001 01:20 PM ]
posted on August 26, 2001 01:30:22 PM newELECTRIC CARS -- THE COST OF BUYING ONE
Choice: your favorite new car comes in two flavors - Gasoline powered or Electric powered.
Cost:
Gasoline powered = $20,000
Electric powered = $40,000
Which do you choose?
Think! If you choose the electric powered version, you no longer are at the mercy of oil companies, oil refineries, and gasoline stations. Then, there is no complicated motor with many parts that need constant mantainance and replacement. That means much fewer repairs and expe$ive trips to the mechanic.
Of course, you can always choose the cheaper model, be at the mercy of gasoline stations, mechanics, and pollute the environment.
Why AREN'T we being given this choice?
Because the technology isn't there?
WRONG!
It's been around for years now. Not only are American automobile manufacturers waiting to flood the market with electric cars, but Toyota, Honda, and Huyndai are waiting to import their versions into the USA as well! And the Eurpoeans haven't been sleeping either! The cars are all ready to go!
Why don't we see them, then?
Actually, a couple of American automobile companies were advertising their new electric cars here in Oregon about eighteen months ago. The advertisments ran on TV for about two to three weeks and then they dissappeared, although it causzed a mad rush of people to the car lots to go purchase the first one. It isn't as if we aren't ready and willing to buy them, and the automobile maufacturers around the world are all ready to go on it. What's holding them up?
posted on August 26, 2001 01:31:29 PM new
Linda_K, I'll have to ask my husband for more details about his brother's project. I believe he was looking for a use for the cars on college campuses - kind of a pick up and drop off at another destination on campus type of thing.
posted on August 26, 2001 01:40:08 PM new
Sorry, I'm not ignring you, Saabsister -- I'm just on my High Horse again about a subject that makes me angry, as I'm all for progressing into a world not dominated by control freaks!
"Are these washers popular in California or other states that have droughts?"
Saabsister, are the people even being given a choice? I mean, are people turning their noses up at the efficient ones? If people are not even being given a chance to purchase the most efficient one, then that is likely the problem.
I think that is the case. The reason being is that MOST people know that Quality is not cheap! And highly efficient machines or any sort are never cheap -- up front. But that never stopped everyone from buying them.
posted on August 26, 2001 02:05:03 PM new
Linda_K. I'll have to admit to being red-faced. My husband just came home and said his brother's idea didn't necessarily involve only electric cars although those would be most practical. It was an idea presented to the Department of Energy I believe about using a pool of cars that any student or staff could access so that there would be fewer personal cars on campus - perhaps 200 cars as opposed to 1000.
Borillar, I think the price scares people more than anything else. When a lot of people look in a department or appliance store and find that these machines are twice the cost of the average washer, too many people don't read beyond the price tag to find out how these machines differ. That's unfortunate.
posted on August 26, 2001 02:16:09 PM new"Borillar, I think the price scares people more than anything else."
It scares a lot of people off from buying; that is, if they are even given a choice about it. If they are not even being given a choice, then how can anyone state that it would be unsellable?
Many peolpe would not buy an electric car at $40,000 and those estimates on prices are not valid any longer. The last estimate that I saw was that it would cost $8,000 to $12,000 more than an average $20,000 new vehicle. But even that is likely to be unrealistic in the face of stiff competition.
But would I buy one for double the price? You bet! In a minute! Just think -- no more pulling up to gasoline stations! Road noise would be at a minimum! That $600 in mechanical repairs that I just paid for yeasterday would NEVER have had to take place! And when I go to register my car, I will not need to have it inspected. Ah, the JOYS of owning a Prestige Car like an Electric!
Now, when I was younger and much more stupid than I am right now, I used to go wild over those household imports from China. Boy, were they ever cheap to own! But, one by one, the cheap stuff broke apart and needed constant replacement. I eventually learned that it is better to buy the Good Quality product. So, the washing machine that costs $1,000 may be twice what I would pay for a regular one, even though I'd get some money back from the water savings. However, in the long-run, I'll be still saving water while you're out there buying your second $500 washing machine that wastes too much water.
posted on August 26, 2001 02:27:15 PM new
saabsister - Thanks....but don't go to the trouble. I appreciate the offer though. I can run a search. I just thought you might know off the top of your head. Don't want to cause additional work for you.
Those campus cars sound like the golf carts used here, even by people who don't play golf. They're big sellers here. Offered in both gas and electric, the electric costing much more. Two of our friends here use one to get all of us back and forth to the lake with our supplies of drinks, etc., and to run from one neighbors house to the other.
Borillar - You getting upset with me? Once again, I just can't put the blame on President Bush alone. What did clinton do about promoting these electric cars during his 8 year administration? Do you know? Was he all for it?
I personally would have no problem with purchasing my 'favorite car' with batteries rather than one that used gas, if it would be close in luxury to a regular car. And I do understand what you're saying about what costs (maint. etc) it would eliminate, BUT I can afford that choice....I doubt many would if it's double the cost. That was my point on the $50,000. house renovation.
Just like our washer. I could have purchased one for around $250.00 - $300.00, but because of the energy saving features, we chose to pay $1089.00 (plus tax). And if these washers are offered in a hick town of less than 10,000 people, I'm sure they're in other places too. It's probably that most people can't afford them. Or that many would make a choice to spend their money on something more fun/beneficial to the family or themselves.
posted on August 26, 2001 02:32:47 PM new
Borillar, I live in an area where these machines are available. The European ones are here also, but not as easily found. I'll probably buy a Miele and it'll probably be the last washer I'll ever have to buy. And at the price of about $1300, it darn well better be the last one I buy. I'm thinking of someone whose washer breaks, they have car repair bills, and two kids. They'll probably opt for the cheaper machine in order to make their money go further for other necessities. I think the feds are going to have to have more stringent water usage standards before much changes - like low flow toilets. Mandate it! Of course, the cost is high in the long run if we continue to use so much water - not only on our own water bills but on treatment plants that have to be built and on litigation over who controls the water supplies.
)
It's a gut feeling, but I don't see us being more than half way to where we eventually need to be in less than 30 years. And that's assuming the decisions are made by sceintist's, and not polititions. Oil/Coal/Nuke power are the fundation of our infrastruture. I don't think that can be changed as quickly you think.
