Now that this has come to their attention the Greenie Govs. will raise the taxes on gasoline even higher.

I am in the 'Green' industry, not because I believe the world is coming to an end, but for several other reasons. Some of the things that people get excited about make no sense at all. 12 - 20 year paybacks after incentives. In many cases, the equipment is only expected to last 5 - 10 years.

There are real solutions out there. Marrying them to the right construction technology is the key. If the 'solution' does not make sense in dollar terms, it's not really a solution.

I'm sure the rare metals in the batteries all came from recycling too...

The advent of hybrid, is probably the worst thing to happen to the environment since the Dodge Charger 440 six pack running on leaded fuel. Not that I'm against a sexy big block muscle car or anything. Just saying.

Soooo, the only reason they buy hybrids is to starve the earth's food producing plants even more. Meanies !!

Give a plant or a tree a huge today. Their food is carbon dioxide.

They are trying to survive on a diet of only 0.038% CO2.

If the meanies could, they would reduce it to, .. what? I hope not below 0.02% !! Because the poor plants would die. And so would we!

On the other hand, food producing greenhouses artificially raise CO2 concentrations many fold.

And in the past, our atmosphere has been many, many times higher in CO2 with absolutely no detrimental effects.

And .... oh, forget it. I know, I know. The $Billions and $Billions wasted on climate alarmism is not about the environment or economics. It is about the Ruling Elite;

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/16/americas-ruling-class-and-the/print

Cost difference between gas and hybrid versions=price of obtaining a green status symbol=stupidity tax

Only a completely accounting challenged person can buy new vehicles.

Hybrids are nothing but an identification badge for left wing pinkos who have drunk Al Gore's KoolAid. It's their version of a status symbol.

But there is hypocrisy behind this as always - I've seen many a hybrid parked in the garage of 5000 sq. foot homes.

Or take the Google boys who brag about driving hybrids - on their way to the airport to fly in their private jet.

Well there are days when I question my utility of a motorcycle-----limited cargo----inclement weather....
Insurance is pricier than a car unless you are an old foggy like myself....initial capital cost is the major advantage----fuel savings are overwhelmed by short life expensive tires...no kidding.....
Then there is the perception that a motorcycle in Canada is a warm weather recreation vehicle....or the vehicle of choice of a criminal element.
Diesel make economic sense with agricultural, but then most of this stuff is either high hours/year or has a service life of 30 years.
Diesel in a pickup is marginally economic and totally stupid in a car.
Diesel lawn and garden stuff----limited to high hours such as golf course or municipalities.
This hybrid stuff is an impractical technology. Otherwise there would be hybred big-rigs.....
It just occured to me----I shall google hybred motorcycles----then diesel motorcycles---I do stuff like that.........

There is I think about 23 kgs of rare earth elements in a battery car. China pretty much controls the market and they are showing signs they don't want to play. Costs aren't going down.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/01/business/global/01minerals.html

Sasquatch says, "Diesel in a pickup is marginally economic and totally stupid in a car."

I disagree! I bought a 17-year-old Mercedes diesel car seven years ago and it's still my daily driver. I get 36 mpg on the highway and diesel is 10 cents per litre cheaper than regular gas where I live. I get close to 600 miles on a tankfull and generally fill up once per month. I've put 82,000 miles on a car with virtually no depreciation - take that Prius!

Why did they compare the Prius to the Matrix? The Prius is slightly larger and heavier. They could have compared the Camry and the Camry Hybrid, which are basically the same cars except for the drivetrain. The gas Camry uses 7.7L/100 km; the Hybrid uses 5.7. The Hybrid costs $6,000 more than the gas model if you compare list prices. But since there's a $3,000 incentive on the Hybrid, and only $1,000 on the gas model, the difference is only $4,000 (+tax, of course). If you're driving 20,000 miles a year (32,000 km) - which is only 55 miles a day, so any one with a 27 mile commute and a few vacation trips will easily rack that up - you get a payback in 6 years IF gas stays at $1/L. If gas goes up to say $1.50/L, you get a payback in just over 4 years.

Also note that the 7.7L figure for the gas model is a combined figure; if you drive mostly in the city, the figure is much higher, whereas the Hybrid's consumption is the same, city or highway. And in Toronto, driving on the highway in rush hour is pretty much stop and go. So, using the gas model's 9.0L (and that's the base model; the more expensive versions are even worse), even if gas stays at $1/L you still get a payback in just under four years; if the price goes up, it's even faster.

It doesn't make sense for someone in Saskatchewan with a ten minute commute to get a hybrid. But for people in the GTA who have to sit idling in our interminable traffic, they can make economic sense, especially if gas prices rise. Also, the comment that cars only last five years is ridiculous; the average age of cars has been going up for the last ten years, and is now almost 8 years. Cars are much better made now than they were 20 years ago, and there's not really a need to trade up every three years.

So, if you believe gas prices will go up, you drive a fair amount, and you're in a big city with terrible traffic, hybrids can make economic sense. If none of those conditions apply, don't buy one.

Awake Deniers!

No one gets rich if science and common sense are applied to "green".

C'mon. Give it up, Gore and Suzuki could use more homes and cars and chartered air travel.

Or you could drop ten grand on a Hyundai Accent and get 50 mpg on regular pump gas.

Oh Gore!
Won't you buy me
A Mercedes-Benz?
My friends all drive guzzlers,
I must make amends!
A Prius costs big dollars
But since I follow the trends,
Oh Gore, won't you buy a me
A cheap hybrid Benz?

Heater, an essential thing in Canada - does it require the gas engine to start even if the battery is charged?

Black Mamba Now that brought a smile.

But at the end of five years, your hybrid may well need a new 8000 dollar battery bank, while your regular gas car will need just another oil change. Factor that in okay?

When I see a prius or some other hybrid, I think that the driver is a frightened do-gooder sheep who thinks he is saving the planet for us ingrates.

Childish? To say the least.

Where do the dead batteries go?

Fools and their money are soon parted ...but not soon enough.

Re: Fools and their money -

Next time you chat with your urban liberal friends, remind them of the fact that the Afghan war will rage on because we need Lithium for carbon foot print reduction (Green cars).

Yes that's right, the "capitalist imperialism" that invaded 3rd world nations for oil wealth now is on raiding parties for Lithium to make batteries for green cars, iPads, ipods, Iphones and other DC cell driven counter AGW products.

Capitalist imperialism rages on so urban yuppies can have their climate friendly green, text messaging and social E-group toys.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=lithium-air-electric-car-battery

Hey, it's all about feeling good about environmentalism, right? Let the fools part with their money.

With five in my clan, I'll drive my 3.5L V6 Honda Odyssey, thank you very much.

sasquatch

I remember when Propane was the savior. Trudeau even gave money to have the systems almost paid for by other Canadians of course. To install the conversion in the late 70s during that man made oil crisis like this one. Who says history does not repeat itself? Electric died to fast to be useful with batteries a small disaster waiting to happen. Than natural gas ended up with whiskey dick. Now its Diesel. Another fantasy bites the dust. Nothing wrong with going as green as you can profitably. Its when you force others to be as well. Not only that, but ignoring the realities of the fact we will be on an oil eating society for a while. That a transition period is inevitable as it was from horse to engine.
Oh yeah every 10 years since the 70's we've been just a few years away from Fusion power. Yet another dream.
JMO

Thanks Speedy :-)

When the concept of 'TCO' called, KevinB was not at home.

"Or you could drop ten grand on a Hyundai Accent and get 50 mpg on regular pump gas."

Hell ya...my wife has one, picked up a barely driven 2007 in the US for around 3000, gets amazing gas mileage and is fun to drive.

"Sasquatch says, "Diesel in a pickup is marginally economic and totally stupid in a car."

I disagree! "

I second your disagreement...it was a brainless comment.

It's high time for electric vehicles period. Electic vehicles eliminates virtually all maintenance costs associated with the combustion engine. Tesla makes some pretty impressive models..the roadster goes 0-60 in 3.7 seconds with 245 miles per charge...the model S goes 0-60 in 5.6 seconds with 300 miles per charge.

Aviator

I was amortizing by new price.

Those Ford Diesel imports were a similar bargoon...I know at least one associate who acquired such a beast and when the vehicle body collapsed over top then found a newer gaser----drove it until it died then did the switchero. He had some grief from the emmisions tribe but....he was handy...

Where does the heater get it's heat?

"Sasquatch says, "Diesel in a pickup is marginally economic and totally stupid in a car."

Partly true. Diesel in a pickup is good if you use it in an industrial application where you put on lots of mileage per year, such as logging. For the average person there's no savings advantage to diesel in something big like an F300.

However the Volkswagon Jetta diesel gets great mileage (I've heard 50+ mpg from friends who have them) and is likely to produce a savings over the lifetime of the car.

BTJ - "It's high time for electric vehicles period. Electic vehicles eliminates virtually all maintenance costs associated with the combustion engine. Tesla makes some pretty impressive models..the roadster goes 0-60 in 3.7 seconds with 245 miles per charge...the model S goes 0-60 in 5.6 seconds with 300 miles per charge."

Tesla is a nice little testosterone booster sports car for mid-life crisis men, but it costs around $125,000 and the company still can't make money at that price. It's totally useless as a practical form of transportation for the average person. Electric cars are all well and fine for limited urban driving but if you want to do more than that you need a second vehicle. Not a cost savings that way. I wouldn't mind having one but that's an expense I can't justify. Someday the electric car might come into its own, but not yet. Besides, where you going to get all the extra electricity? Wind farms (bird cuisinarts) everywhere? Solar farms covering vast acreages? Damn all the remaining rivers and creeks? Nuclear plants in every city and town? That must be taken into consideration.

At the present time, gasoline/diesel is still the most practical fuel.

"Electric cars are all well and fine for limited urban driving but if you want to do more than that you need a second vehicle"

The tesla model S gets 300 miles to the charge...how many people do you know need to drive more than 300 miles at a time?

" Someday the electric car might come into its own, but not yet."

Sure, with oil and gas in bed with government, receiving huge subsidies, etc. It should have been here by now if not for outside barriers.

" Besides, where you going to get all the extra electricity? Wind farms (bird cuisinarts) everywhere? Solar farms covering vast acreages? Damn all the remaining rivers and creeks? Nuclear plants in every city and town?"

How about all of the above? Wind farms where they make sense, solar where it makes sense, nuclear needs to be expanded and there are lots of rivers with potential for energy production without much impact to the natural system.

"Quem Deus vult perdire prius dementat"--Euripides

[The Prius makes crazy he whom God would destroy.]

Wedding cars

http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&rlz=1R2ADSA_enCA361&q=wedding+luxury+car+rental+canada&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=333998ada31231ec

http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&source=hp&q=beautiful+wedding+ceremonies&rlz=1R2ADSA_enCA361&aq=1&aqi=g5g-m1&aql=&oq=beautiful+wedding+cer&gs_rfai=&fp=333998ada31231ec

http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&rlz=1R2ADSA_enCA361&q=beautiful+iraninan+wedding+ceremonies&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=333998ada31231ec

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAXuD3TYy0k

http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&rlz=1R2ADSA_enCA361&q=beautiful+muslim+wedding+ceremonies&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=333998ada31231ec

I don't think you can even begin to compare a Prius to a Matrix.

"But at the end of five years, your hybrid may well need a new 8000 dollar battery bank, while your regular gas car will need just another oil change. Factor that in okay?"

There are many factors, not just those. My grandpa owns one of the first prius' sold in Manitoba. I think it is a 2001 model. He hasn't had a single problem with it other than the small battery died on him one time.

The battery bank is still fine, and it sure doesn't cost anywhere near $8000. If you really want to factor in everything, factor in brakes where a regular car gets about 50,000 kms on brakes, a Prius can go 5X as far easily, due to the regenerative braking.

Starters and alternators? A Prius doesn't have them. It uses one of the two electric motors (that generally don't wear out) for those functions.

Depreciation should also be factored in, as well as any tax breaks from the government.

bjt said: "...Wind farms where they make sense, solar where it makes sense..."

Solar doesn't make sense in Sun Valley Arizona. The only place it does make sense is in orbit. Wind power makes sense if you want to pump water, its completely worthless as a method for generating electricity -except- for remote locations as a battery charger. There will be no more nuclear capacity built until a massive revolution kills off or disempowers all the tree huggers and NIMBYs keeping everything in court forever.

The Tesla is a Lotus with all the good stuff ripped out and heavy batteries shoved in, created for wealthy Hollyweird types with more money than brains. The regular dinosaur fuel Lotus can eat the Tesla version for lunch.

The Tesla gets 300 miles per charge... when the batteries are new. Not so much as they age and have to be replaced.

Electric cars move pollution from the car exhaust pipe to the smoke stack of the coal generating station, plus they add massive inefficiency.

Buy a Smart Car. It'll cost 'way more than its worth, but you'll feel all moral and superior while you risk your life on the highway. Doubt you'll be able to save the price difference between that and a used Camry in gas, but feeling superior is its own reward.

Until you pull out in front of a UPS van, anyway. But our wonderful OHIP program will stitch you back together so its all good.

Electric cars do nothing more than move the location of the fuel burn from the car to the power plant.

The only viable "renewable" power generation system is hydro and we have about tapped out all the reasonable sources in the western world. You want electric cars to be viable and pollution free then Canada alone needs about 30 to 35 nuclear plants and a rebuilt and much more robust power grid. And that does not even begin to cover the battery issues.

It does not matter what it costs .... it makes you a better person than every one who does not drive one.

The Tesla recharger is 2K, if you plug in to 110 instead of 220 it takes 4 times as long to charge. Some places have the chargers and do a pretty good business because you ain't going anywhere soon.

Prius is the new Volvo for the academic class, to the detriment of the Swedish economy. Though maybe they have room in their huge garages for both.

BTJ - a 'river with energy production' and no effect on the natural environment? Don't you know that rivers, all by themselves, don't create energy. It requires a massive reconstruction of the natural environment, a flooding, a clear-cutting - to divert the river and create a dam.

How many people drive 300 miles at one time? A lot of people drive 480 km. That's the distance between Toronto and Ottawa. Some people do that once a week.

And - all that these electric cars do, is switch the energy domain from the individual car to the Energy-Plant.

I want a Hummer with a miniature nuclear power plant under the hood, to save the environment of course.

That would be a status symbol even the Gore monster could appreciate.

"Diesel in a pickup is marginally economic and totally stupid in a car."

Total Bullfudge.

My diesel powered Toyota Utility Vehicle gets 25MPG US, and with biodiesel added to the diesel fuel the emissions are as clean as any new gasoline powered car.

The new VW Jetta automobile with a 140-horsepower TDI Clean Diesel engine and fuel economy of 4.6 l/100 km [52 MPG US]on the highway, makes the it one of the most fuel-efficient vehicles on the market. The energy savings payback is better than a hybrid, and the grams of pollution per kilometer is as good or less than most gasoline automobiles.

I remember when the taxis switched to propane. You always kept a few gallons of gas in the tank because if you ran out you'd have to go miles for a refill on propane. Most gutless fuel until you got it up into at least 2nd gear. What a waste of money.

ahhh, yah, if only

wish some in here would grow some technical savy

http://www.mdi.lu/english/

Bah

A fatal 'accident' occurred recently not very far away, the loser being a sardine can on wheels. But on the bright side, the mileage it got was probably fantastic!
What's with these people who'd even venture out on a freeway or busy highway, with all the protection of a go-cart, all for the saving of a few bucks, or maybe more sadly, some perverted view that they're really, really making a difference? It sure was worth it, huh?
Me, I'll take my F-150, and should we have the misfortune somewhere to meet unexpectedly and decisively....I WIN!! (You lose).

'Bah'- That dorkmobile, would never, ever be mistaken for a chickmobile!

Snagglepuss that fartin wonder is a chick magnet.

2 years ago I was seriously researching hybrids as where I live has lots of hills and it bothers me when all I do with the gravitational potential energy my vehicle has is to heat my brakes when going downhill.

What I found out is that current battery technology is just way too primitive for me to spend my money on now. If I had a couple of hundred thousand to spare I could buy a hybrid Escape for running around town in and a conventionally fueled Expedition for long trips.

The problem is energy density and until batteries have greater energy density than gasoline, they are impractical. Also, regenerative braking as it currently exists can only tap a fraction of the energy one gets coasting downhill due to the low maximum charge rates of the batteries. Maybe once ultracapacitors have energy storage capacity equivalent to a tank of gasoline they can soak up all that power one now wastes going downhill.

I was disappointed because my hobby is electronics and I tend to buy anything electronic that's new. I've been thinking of electric cars for decades and I had to reluctantly decide that now just isn't the time. Instead I bought a used Grand Cherokee for $3500 and it's served me very well.

Black Mamba, now you've got Janice Joplin's original song running through my head (too bad she's no longer around to do your version). Just recalled that I saw her do Lord won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz in Calgary in 1970. That was 40 years ago and suddenly I feel old.

Dana: A chick magnet maybe, for the likes of Lizzie May, but more likely a crow magnet. That I can see.

"How about all of the above? Wind farms where they make sense, solar where it makes sense, nuclear needs to be expanded and there are lots of rivers with potential for energy production without much impact to the natural system."
Smart people have been saying that for the past 50 years or so. Unfortunately the 'do it cheapest in the short term' metric doesn't always yield the best long term solutions for energy independence.

The amount of money that's been wasted in Iraq and Afghanistan could have blanketed roofs all across America's sun belt with enough PV solar to equal the energy of the mid east oil they need the military for to secure. The amount of Mid East oil imports also equals the amount of oil used by the US military.

There's no lack of appropriate technology, what's missing is the public will to make it happen. It's always easier to whip-up wars to motivate people.

The range of the vehicle is only one part of the equation. How long does it take to recharge the battery is also important. If the battery is good for six hours and it takes six hours to recharge the battery an eight hour drive would take 14 hours.

In the busy food warehouses they use electric fork trucks and because it takes hours to recharge the batteries they have quick change batteries. The truck comes up to a small conveyor upon which the battery is rolled out of the truck, the truck is jumpered ahead a few feet and a fully charged battery is rolled into the truck. In a matter of minutes the fork truck has a refilled fuel tank.

It will be interesting to see if the sales of hybrids decline along the US east coast. In Virginia, hybrids were allowed to use the high-occupancy express lanes on the Interstates with only one driver, but that exemption was set to expire.

If I had to live in a city where I could see the air, for example Calgary, I would consider an electric vehicle (my preference would be a Tesla, but that's another story). Lucky I live in Saskatoon.

Oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes-Benz,
But one that's gasoline powered, not electric please!

http://autos.winnipegfreepress.com/index.php?action=news&step=article&id=2770

Note the top speed of the car is 250km/h, but the range is only 150km, so you could run down the batteries in a little over half an hour at top speed. At highway cruise of 100 km you'd only get an hour and half of fun. And that's the current (pun intended) weakness of all electric vehicles, limited range.

"Solar doesn't make sense in Sun Valley Arizona."

Ok, are you going to give a reason?

"The only place it does make sense is in orbit"

Right, so we can rely even more heavily on objects wizzing around the earth. Do you understand just how much space crap is in earth's orbit?

" Wind power makes sense if you want to pump water, its completely worthless as a method for generating electricity -except- for remote locations as a battery charger."

You contradict yourself...it's only good to pump water....but it's still good as a 'battery charger' (which is creating energy and storing it).

"The Tesla is a Lotus with all the good stuff ripped out and heavy batteries shoved in...The regular dinosaur fuel Lotus can eat the Tesla version for lunch."

Uh, no it can't..you forgot that it's faster than a Lotus too. 0-60 in 3.7s while the Lotus 2-11 (which is essentially a race car with roll cage and big rear fender) is 0-60 in 3.8

"Electric cars move pollution from the car exhaust pipe to the smoke stack of the coal generating station, plus they add massive inefficiency."

Only if you use coal to generate electricity! You have quite the knack for distorting arguments. There are many ways to generate electricity, there is only one way of using gas/oil...burn it.

"The only viable "renewable" power generation system is hydro and we have about tapped out all the reasonable sources in the western world."

Huh? Not even close.

"Don't you know that rivers, all by themselves, don't create energy. It requires a massive reconstruction of the natural environment, a flooding, a clear-cutting - to divert the river and create a dam."

First off there is not such thing as 'creating' energy...the first law of thermodynamics: Energy is neither created nor destroyed. Rivers are full of both potential and kinetic energy all by themselves. All of that stuff you listed are no longer needed, that's old school damn building, nowadays they have inflatable damns that only draw a portion of the flow.

" A lot of people drive 480 km. That's the distance between Toronto and Ottawa. Some people do that once a week. "

Ok, how many is 'a lot'? My guess is it really isn't that many in terms of proportion of drivers.

"And - all that these electric cars do, is switch the energy domain from the individual car to the Energy-Plant. "

Huh? So gas cars make their own gas? It switches the energy domain from oil and gas producers to electricity producers...which can include a much broader range of sources.

BTJ - "The tesla model S gets 300 miles to the charge...how many people do you know need to drive more than 300 miles at a time?"

You ignored this part of my comment - "It's totally useless as a practical form of transportation for the average person." It's a two seater, it's prohibitively expensive, it has no luggage capacity/cargo space. And most everyone I know does occasionally drive more than 300 km at a time. It's an impractical car.

Dirtman - " Someday the electric car might come into its own, but not yet."

kBTJ - "Sure, with oil and gas in bed with government, receiving huge subsidies, etc. It should have been here by now if not for outside barriers."

Absolute balderdash! Oil and gas don't get huge subsidies from government (except in places like Iran). So called "green" energy is getting proportionally immense subsidies because of all the pressure from eco-activists. If not for them those industries would collapse. And where are the energy savings? Solar panels don't produce as much energy within their expected lifetime as is used to manufacture them.

BTJ - "How about all of the above? Wind farms where they make sense, solar where it makes sense, nuclear needs to be expanded and there are lots of rivers with potential for energy production without much impact to the natural system."

I like nuclear but the eco-activists don't and most people are afraid of and opposed to it. Good luck getting that up and running. Eco-acitivsts are also opposed to more hydro power and very few water courses can be developed for energy production without massive impact to the local environment. Solar makes no sense economically and is impractical over most of the country, all of the country in the winter. (In Europe solar companies have been caught running diesel generators and feeding it into the solar grid because the subsidy is so high.) Wind is intermitant and needs back-up generation of some kind (that would be hydro or fossil). Only hydro or fossil fuels make sense and are cost effective.

"My diesel powered Toyota Utility Vehicle gets 25MPG US, and with biodiesel added to the diesel fuel the emissions are as clean as any new gasoline powered car."

Posted by: John Galt

Biofuels take more energy to manufacture than they deliver, they result in massive deforestation in places like Borneo so palm oil plantations can be planted to asuage the guilt of "green" Europeans, and they result in raised commodity prices, bringing hunger to multi-millions of the worlds poorest. Drop the bio and just burn pure diesel.

"It's a two seater, it's prohibitively expensive, it has no luggage capacity/cargo space. And most everyone I know does occasionally drive more than 300 km at a time. It's an impractical car."

Why do I have to spell everything out for you? Can you not take the time to figure things out before you start writing a bunch of crap?

The MODEL S has seating for 7 and goes 300 MILES to the charge, which is 482 kms, or Toronto to Ottawa :) How many people do you know need to drive more than 482 kms in one go?

" Oil and gas don't get huge subsidies from government "

You are so clueless my friend, they recieve BILLIONS of dollars round the globe. I don't expect to have to present you with evidence of this as it is quite easy to find and fairly obvious and well known

"So called "green" energy is getting proportionally immense subsidies "

Again, ignorant of the facts, alternative energy gets a small fraction of the financial support that goes to oil and gas.

"very few water courses can be developed for energy production without massive impact to the local environment."

Not true as I've already pointed out. GOne is the days of the requirement for massive flooding damns.

" Solar makes no sense economically and is impractical over most of the country"

Economic practicality is dependant on financial support, that is why the EROI (energy return on energy invested) is the measurement used to examine energy sources, rather than ROI.

"Biofuels take more energy to manufacture than they deliver, they result in massive deforestation in places like Borneo so palm oil plantations can be planted to asuage the guilt of "green" Europeans, and they result in raised commodity prices, bringing hunger to multi-millions of the worlds poorest. Drop the bio and just burn pure diesel."

More BS from an ignorant mind.

Great following the discussion here but one thing you're all missing about electric cars. How far will they go at -20 to -40 below. Heat is a by-product of the infernal combustion engine whereas putting an electric heater in a battery powered car is going to reduce its mileage somewhat. Maybe we could just bundle up like they did 100 years ago when they went sleigh riding, or how about a charcoal brazier or stove in the back seat. Nah the greenies wouldn't let you burn anything unless you paid more carbon offsets.

Antenor- You're absolutely right about the idiocy of running heaters in electric powered vehicles in severe winter temperatures.
But an option to consider- perhaps one could have BTJ as a ride-along, the abundance of hot air, and all. But, oh wait! hauling around a 240 pound gasbag would certainly negate any advantage. Also, it probably doesn't come with a Mute button.

BTJ - "Why do I have to spell everything out for you?"

Because not everyone has heard of the Model S. I, for one, haven't looked at the Tesla website for over a year and had no idea it was in development.

BTJ - "The MODEL S has seating for 7 and goes 300 MILES to the charge, which is 482 kms, or Toronto to Ottawa :) How many people do you know need to drive more than 482 kms in one go?"

I looked at the Tesla website. The Model S is very stylish, both inside and out, better than most other cars on the road IMO. You say it has seating for 7 and so does the website, but all of the photos only had seating for 5, which would be enough for most people. Very nice car.

BUT... most everyone I know goes more than 300 miles in one go once in a while. For me to visit my relatives or my wife relatives, either direction exceeds that. And considering the cost of the two-seater, I doubt the sedan will be anywhere near within the price range of most people. It's still impractical. But if I was rich I wouldn't mind having one. As it is, the used Dodge Caravan will have to do.

BTJ - "You are so clueless my friend, they recieve BILLIONS of dollars round the globe."

Emphasis on "round the globe". I've seen the stats. Eliminate coutries like Iran (by far the biggest subsidies)and your claim falls apart.

BTJ - "Again, ignorant of the facts, alternative energy gets a small fraction of the financial support that goes to oil and gas."

Again, eliminate Iran et al and the picture changes. Moreover, you ignored the fact that I used the word proportionally. "Green" energy gets far more subsidy per energy unit than fossil fuels.

BTJ - "Not true as I've already pointed out. GOne is the days of the requirement for massive flooding damns."

Wrong again. There's a big fight happening here in BC over the intent to construct the site C dam on the Peace. There's also a lot of anger in the enviro community about the small dams being constructed all over the province because, as I said above, it has massive impact to the LOCAL environment. They also fight against run-of-the-river projects because they say it damages the environment. I have seen a couple small hydro-electric projects (and even participated in construction of one 20 years ago)that have minimal impact. Built at the base of a waterfall that fish cannot climb, but such sites are rare.

BTJ - "Economic practicality is dependant on financial support, that is why the EROI (energy return on energy invested) is the measurement used to examine energy sources, rather than ROI."

Ignore economic practicallity and you'll soon discover your project is not viable. Just ask Spain, who are having to cut subsidies to "green" industry/energy because they've spent themselves into the poorhouse. Moreover, I already pointed out that energy invested exceeds energy produced, making the return on solar a loss.

"Biofuels take more energy to manufacture than they deliver, they result in massive deforestation in places like Borneo so palm oil plantations can be planted to asuage the guilt of "green" Europeans, and they result in raised commodity prices, bringing hunger to multi-millions of the worlds poorest. Drop the bio and just burn pure diesel."

More BS from an ignorant mind.

Posted by: BTJ
__________________________________________

Obviously you have not kept up with the news. I would suggest your ignorance is voluntary but perhaps you only listen to mainstream media who are reluctant to inform us of news they don't like.

Dirtman When someone needs to drive a long way now and again you can RENT a vehicle. Meanwhile for those 25 mile a day types a pure electric vehicle vehicle, charged overnight when electricity demands are low, is absolutely the correct choice. Buy copper mining shares, all those 220 volt charging systems that are coming and the extra 100 lbs of copper in an electric car will add to the demand for copper.

"Because not everyone has heard of the Model S. I, for one, haven't looked at the Tesla website for over a year and had no idea it was in development."

If you had taken your time in reading my first post you responded to you would have read the following:
"the model S goes 0-60 in 5.6 seconds with 300 miles per charge."

"Emphasis on "round the globe". I've seen the stats. Eliminate coutries like Iran (by far the biggest subsidies)and your claim falls apart."

What are you talking about? The Canadian government alone gives billions of dollars to oil and gas. Now take the US, who not only gives billions of dollars in subsidies to oil and gas, but also spends billions on the military actions needed to 'secure' oil and gas resources around the world.

""Green" energy gets far more subsidy per energy unit than fossil fuels."

No it doesn't...you don't even have the total dollar amounts let alone worked out the 'dollars per energy unit'...next time you spew utter nonsense atleast throw down some numbers.

"There's also a lot of anger in the enviro community about the small dams being constructed all over the province because, as I said above, it has massive impact to the LOCAL environment. "

That depends on your definition of 'massive impact'

From the BC hydro website:
"To put this in perspective, the Site C facility would generate roughly 30% of the electricity of the W.A.C. Bennett Dam, with just 5% of the reservoir area."

"They also fight against run-of-the-river projects because they say it damages the environment."

That doesn't mean it actually does much damage to the environment.

"Ignore economic practicallity and you'll soon discover your project is not viable."

Huh? But you're the one who told me to look at economic practicality!

"Just ask Spain, who are having to cut subsidies to "green" industry/energy because they've spent themselves into the poorhouse."

Spain's (and the rest of the P.I.G.S. countries) economic troubles are not the result of 'green energy subsidies'.

"I already pointed out that energy invested exceeds energy produced, making the return on solar a loss."

Well you didn't already point that out, and now that you have I'll point out that it's a complete falicy. The tarsands have the worst EROI of any energy source, 1:1 to 3:1...solar is 5:1-10:1 and is in it's infant stage of technological development.

"Obviously you have not kept up with the news. I would suggest your ignorance is voluntary but perhaps you only listen to mainstream media who are reluctant to inform us of news they don't like."

Instead of just making unbacked statements and then defending them with more unbacked statements how about you do us both a favour and provide some supporting evidence?

btj, there are no f-ing solar panels in Phoenix AZ outside of heavily subsidized "demonstrator" instalations. If you've never been there, check out Google Earth and scan down the rows of houses, looking for them.

They aren't there. Phoenix AZ, the biggest, richest, newest city in the sun belt, where it rains three weeks out of the year, has no solar panels.

Why aren't they there btj? Because they are a waste of money, that's why.

When you get back to high school in September, get the teacher to explain compound interest, depreciation, and relative efficiency. It'll make you say "d'oh".

By the way, you called me a liar on the Tesla vs. Lotus thing for a tenth of a second in 0-60 time. Most sports cars in that displacement class will spank the Tesla on any road course, no problem. It wins at the 0-60 drags because of the massive torque from the electric motor. It loses in the quarter mile because the battery is -heavy-. Aluminum block high compression engines pollute -less- than electric (line loss, inefficient storage, gotta BURN something to turn the generator) and produce -way- more power per pound of weight than electric.

I said coal fired because a large percentage of power in Canada and the USA comes from coal. Bummer dude, but that's reality and it ain't going to change. There's not enough lead in the world to make enough batteries to replace Nanticoke coal fired generating station, about 3,500 megawatts capacity. Still turnin' and burnin' despite Dalton the Sly and his big windmill plans.

You know how many megawatts a windmill puts out? Three. If the wind is blowing juuuuust right. You can do the math. How many power lines will melt when the wind picks up bjt? How many brownouts will your Mom's refrigerator survive before the motor dies and all the baloney goes bad?

You will soon know the answers to both those questions, Dalton's going to make sure of it.

"Dirtman When someone needs to drive a long way now and again you can RENT a vehicle. Meanwhile for those 25 mile a day types a pure electric vehicle vehicle, charged overnight when electricity demands are low, is absolutely the correct choice."
Posted by: tranio
_____________________________

Yes, you could rent a car rather than have two. Perhaps you can afford to buy an electric car for urban driving and rent for long trips, but either of those options is a bit expensive for me. That which a person can afford is absolutely the correct choice. As I said, I'd very much like to have a Tesla S. I'd also very much like to have my own private jet but unless I win a very big lottery I can assure you I'll own neither.

BTJ - "If you had taken your time in reading my first post you responded to you would have read the following:
"the model S goes 0-60 in 5.6 seconds with 300 miles per charge.""

Yuh. I knew about the Tesla sports car and was quite impressed by it. I didn't know its full designation. Thus, knowing only of the existance one Tesla, when you called it the Model S, the impression I got was you were referring to the sports car.

BTJ - "What are you talking about? The Canadian government alone gives billions of dollars to oil and gas."

Got some stats on that? Are we talking real subsidies or (as is so often the case) counting tax breaks or low(er than you think they should be) royalties as subsidies? When calculating subsidies have you taken into account all the money collected as fuel taxes of one kind or another?

BTJ - "Now take the US, who not only gives billions of dollars in subsidies to oil and gas, but also spends billions on the military actions needed to 'secure' oil and gas resources around the world."

Got some stats on that too? And are you suggesting military actions like Iraq were for oil? Nonsense, they have more than enough at home if they would just utilize it.

BTJ -"""Green" energy gets far more subsidy per energy unit than fossil fuels."

No it doesn't...you don't even have the total dollar amounts let alone worked out the 'dollars per energy unit'...next time you spew utter nonsense atleast throw down some numbers."

And where are your numbers? (Pot - kettle)

BTJ - "That depends on your definition of 'massive impact'"

Taking refuge in semantics? I'll take that as a concession.

BTJ -"From the BC hydro website:
"To put this in perspective, the Site C facility would generate roughly 30% of the electricity of the W.A.C. Bennett Dam, with just 5% of the reservoir area.""

Have you seen the Williston reservoir? I have. It's HUGE! 5% of that is still pretty massive. If you don't think so, ask the locals who will be displaced.

BTJ - "That doesn't mean it actually does much damage to the environment."

No, it doesn't but the environ-nuts think it does.

"Ignore economic practicallity and you'll soon discover your project is not viable."

BTJ - "Huh? But you're the one who told me to look at economic practicality!"

??? So why were you ignoring it?

BTJ - "Spain's (and the rest of the P.I.G.S. countries) economic troubles are not the result of 'green energy subsidies'."

Quite true, I didn't say otherwise. What I was pointing out for your edification, is that because Spain ignored economic practicality they are in trouble and are having to cut subsidies to green industry/energy. The point being that such "green" industry/energy cannot survive without the subsidies.

BTJ - "Well you didn't already point that out, and now that you have I'll point out that it's a complete falicy. The tarsands have the worst EROI of any energy source, 1:1 to 3:1...solar is 5:1-10:1 and is in it's infant stage of technological development."

I did, but why argue the point.

Venezuelan oil is worse than the tar sands. Ethanol from corn uses more energy to produce than it contains so is a net loss. And yes, solar is a net loss too.

BTJ - "Instead of just making unbacked statements and then defending them with more unbacked statements how about you do us both a favour and provide some supporting evidence?"

You aren't trying to tell me that you're unaware of those results, are you? I know the MSM didn't want to give them much coverage but you'd have to be totally disconnected from the news media not to have heard of the sharp rise in commodity prices due to bio-fuel production, the riots in Mexico over the increased price of corn etc. You can't be that ignorant.

"there are no f-ing solar panels in Phoenix AZ outside of heavily subsidized "demonstrator" instalations."

I'm sorry, I don't recall ever mentioning the state of AZ solar panel infrastructure.

" Because they are a waste of money, that's why."

Any reasoning? Evidence?

The EROI of the tarsands is a number of times less than that of solar panels...are the tar sands a waste too?

"When you get back to high school in September"

I'll give you this, you're good at making assumptions, prejudices, ignorant judements, and labeling/grouping.

"By the way, you called me a liar on the Tesla vs. Lotus thing for a tenth of a second in 0-60 time. "

Ya, because you did lie...you said a car that is about equally as fast as another would get 'roasted'.

"Aluminum block high compression engines pollute -less- than electric"

What the heck are you talking about?

"I said coal fired because a large percentage of power in Canada and the USA comes from coal."

Sure, Hydro accounts for twice as much in Canada though...and there are numerous ways to generate electricity, only one way to get power from gas..burn it.

" it ain't going to change"

Of course it will, all things change...THAT'S reality.

"Thus, knowing only of the existance one Tesla, when you called it the Model S, the impression I got was you were referring to the sports car."

Hence, from the first post:

"the roadster goes 0-60 in 3.7 seconds with 245 miles per charge...the model S goes 0-60 in 5.6 seconds with 300 miles per charge."

I assumed that by showing their 0-60 times it would be clear that one is a sports car and the other a sedan (model S for SEDAN).

"Got some stats on that? "

Oh christ, I said it's OBVIOUS AND EASILY AVAILABLE INFORMATION...but since you need everything spoon fed..here ya go.

Nuclear Engineering International

December 29, 2008

COMMENT; NUCLEAR: IS IT A HEAVILY SUBSIDISED TECHNOLOGY?

"Total energy subsidies identified amounted to some $726 billion in 2006 dollars. By far the largest incentive category was found to be tax concessions, especially for oil and gas, but also more recently for wind power. In fact, no tax concessions benefited nuclear power in the whole of this period. Total support for nuclear power over the 56 years was $65 billion, 9% of the total, with R&D support by far the biggest area. This compared with $50 billion (7%) for non-hydro renewables (wind and solar) plus geothermal. The main support was for oil and gas, at some $436 billion (60% of the total), with coal at $93 billion (13%). "

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/business/Phase+subsidies+Flaherty+urged/3071210/story.html

Environmental groups have estimated that the oil and gas industry benefits from up to $2 billion in annual government subsidies or tax incentives. The government announced it was phasing out at least one program that offered tax incentives in the oilsands sector in its 2007 budget, but the memorandum noted that companies in the oil, gas and coal sectors still benefit from incentives for exploration and development investments as well as having access to a "sanctioned tax shelter."

"have you taken into account all the money collected as fuel taxes of one kind or another?"

That is called an externality...the fuel producers don't pay that tax, they externalize it upon customers.

"And are you suggesting military actions like Iraq were for oil?"

Most of the US's foreign policy is based on energy...so oil. All the actions in the middle east (until 911) were done with the basic premise of securing the US's 'needs'...which roughly translates to energy needs...which roughly translates to oil. Same with South America...until nationalization and Middle East oil changed that. North Africa as well.

"And where are your numbers?"
Does that mean you don't have any?

"Taking refuge in semantics? I'll take that as a concession."

Uh, no...I'm seeking to define general usages of language...massive impact means one thing to green peace and quite another to an ecologist and another to a land planner.

"It's HUGE! 5% of that is still pretty massive."

Again...'pretty massive' is a very subjective measure. The real point is that it creates 6 times the amount of energy/area flooded than the WAC B.

" So why were you ignoring it?"

I didn't, I said that EROI is how you measure the economics of energy on an even playing ground..rather than ROI.

"The point being that such "green" industry/energy cannot survive without the subsidies."

And other energy sources could? See above source.

"Venezuelan oil is worse than the tar sands. "

No it's not...Venezuala is about 4-5:1.

" And yes, solar is a net loss too."

As I pointed out, no it is not...5:1-10:1...please do some research, or do I have to do this one for you too?

"You aren't trying to tell me that you're unaware of those results, are you?"

What results! The least you could do is tell me the scope of the results, or what they entail, or even what the study was! Anything other than an empty claim to 'mystery' results for some unknown source.

"sharp rise in commodity prices due to bio-fuel production, the riots in Mexico over the increased price of corn etc. You can't be that ignorant."

Well, it would be ignorant to blindly assume that rises in food prices are a result of biofuel production.