4 ms·
Cost of converting entire U.S. to electric cars? Zero.
- pierrefar 18y agoYes you can convert everything from oil-based to renewables, but what about cost per kWh? At the moment, renewable energy sources just can't compete with oil even with the current high prices. That's not to say that entrepreneurs aren't making headway and closing the gap... Soon. Can't wait!
- rms 18y agohe's not talking about renewables, this plan would involve building many more coal plants. Browntech. We're going to burn through the coal, even once we convert the southwest to a solar farm we are still going to need mor energy. And we have a lot of coal.
- pierrefar 18y agoAnd the cost of the ensuing clean up? It's more than zero.
- rms 18y agoIt's better to burn coal in an industrial energy production facility that has cleaning technologies than for there to be millions of internal combustion engines. The economies of scale reduce externalities. I would hope a government good enough to give its people free electric cars would invest another trillion dollars in clean coal.
- cousin_it 18y agoWhy not nuclear? Wikipedia: Contrary to popular belief, coal power actually results in more radioactive waste being released into the environment than nuclear power. The population effective dose equivalent from radiation from coal plants is 100 times as much as nuclear plants.
- Tichy 18y agoHe mentioned nuclear, too. But are there not even less resources than oil?
- Retric 18y agoWe could use nuclear for 100% of our energy needs for the next 5 to 10 thousand years (assuming everyone in the world uses as much energy as people in the US and a world population under 20 billion.) If we switch to fusion we would have energy well into the billions of years range.
- Tichy 18y agoThe problem with fusion energy is that nobody got it to work yet. Unless you count solar power. I've heard other numbers about the nuclear energy, but anyway - time will tell.
- Retric 18y agoUranium is vary common. On average you could extract more energy from coal by using the trace amount of fissionable material in coal than you get by setting the stuff on fire. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power) As of 2004, nuclear power provided 6.5% of the world's energy... At this point, the enriched uranium, containing more than the natural 0.7% U-235, is used to make rods of the proper composition and geometry for the particular reactor that the fuel is destined for. The fuel rods will spend about 3 operational cycles (typically 6 years total now) inside the reactor, generally until about 3% of their uranium has been fissioned, then they will be moved to a spent fuel pool where the short lived isotopes generated by fission can decay away. After about 5 years in a cooling pond, the spent fuel is radioactively and thermally cool enough to handle, and it can be moved to dry storage casks or reprocessed. As opposed to current light water reactors which use uranium-235 (0.7% of all natural uranium), fast breeder reactors use uranium-238 (99.3% of all natural uranium). It has been estimated that there is up to five billion years’ worth of uranium-238 for use in these power plants.[33] PS: The five billion year figure makes some assumptions about the rate of use but once you start looking into the numbers it's far enough into the future that our predictions are just about meaningless. Edit: There are a lot of odd regulations and political history around whey we do it this way but long term supply is not the real issue with fission.
- ssharp 18y agoThe electric grid gets cleaner even without renewables. Clean coal is a rapidly growing area in electricity production and nuclear production continues to increase. Having to create electricity to meet our energy demand is a fantastic problem to have. Energy independence should be an economic goal of any developed country. You don't want ANY foreign control of 7% of your GDP, let alone a cartel like OPEC.
- anamax 18y agoPresident Clinton turned the biggest source of clean coal in the world into a national monument. Curiously, the folks who owned the second biggest source (in Indonesia) were big campaign contributors.
- Prrometheus 18y ago>Energy independence should be an economic goal of any developed country. Why? The whole idea of comparative advantage is that you can increase your overall standard of living by making the things that you are best at and importing everything else. The only reason why you would want to be independent is if you planned on fighting a war with all the other countries in the world at the same time (granted, this could be the policy of our current US administration). Interdependence creates peace. If China attacks Taiwan, they will have the huge percentage of their GDP that consists of trade with the US on the line. So I consider outright military conflict unlikely. However, if we were as "independent" as you suggest I think war would be much more likely. Why again is independence a good thing?
- jimbokun 18y ago<sarcasm>Because we know that foreign energy dependence has kept us from waging war on other countries.</sarcasm>
- aggieben 18y agoUh, sorry. I think you've got it completely backwards. Why do you think the framers were so concerned about being "entangled in foreign alliances"? The kind of entanglements you propose will prevent war are exactly the kind we should be avoiding because they could very well draw us into wars we don't want to be in. "Energy Independence" is probably a misnomer - but the point is to change our economics so that we aren't forced to provide advantage to our geostrategic adversaries. Because our economy is so dependent on oil, we currently have little choice but to fund those who currently fund our (the U.S. and the rest of the West) enemies. The desire is simply to make oil a commodity like any other, and not one that can make or break the U.S. In other words, we need something to give us the ability to tell the Saudis to kiss off.
- mattjung 18y agoCost to produce the energy? Cost to upgrade the existing stations?
- ph0rque 18y agoThe cars can be charged at night, when the base power stations are producing electricity far below their capacity. (In many places, electricity is cheaper at night for that very reason). I remember reading somewhere that 70% of the US fleet can be converted without needing more power plants.
- michael_dorfman 18y agoCute idea, but a a lot of the details don't even stand up to a basic reality test. For example: "value of a used car, if exported to Latin America or China: $5,000" Does he seriously think the US can sell the entire set of automobiles currently on the road to Latin America or China at that price?
- Xichekolas 18y agoI didn't see him use that number in his analysis (other than list it), so it doesn't seem important either way.
- michael_dorfman 18y agoSure he does-- he subtracts it from the (assumed) $20,000 price of a mass-produced electric car, to give a net price of $15,000 per vehicle.
- nazgulnarsil 18y agoyeah, because the markets often do things where no profit is involved right? there's no evil conspiracy. people want gasoline, companies supply it and make money.
- rms 18y agoExactly, this is a clear example of the imperfections of capitalism. Do you think it would be good for a powerful globalized government to fund free electrical cars for the people?
- Prrometheus 18y ago> Do you think it would be good for a powerful globalized government to fund free electrical cars for the people? Any organization large enough to do so would be fearsome, bureaucratic, unpredictable, and with an agenda of its own. I feel voiceless as one of 300 million US citizens. I have no desire to dilute my voting power by another factor of 20.
- nazgulnarsil 18y agosee this is the problem I have with progressives. Your entire paradigm relies on collectivism. No, the government shouldn't take my money and decide how to spend it "for the good of the people". People should decide for themselves and the market will be forced to reflect people's real desires rather than some artificial notion of "good". Who are you to decide what's good for me? Gasoline isn't a problem. Eventually supply will be constricted and demand will slow down. It's not going to be The Grapes of Wrath overnight, we'll be forced to gradually move to more efficient transportation. Economics trumps feel good social programs.
- nazgulnarsil 18y agoprometheus beat me to all the anarcho-libertarian points. good on ya. I have a dream, a dream that someday people will actually pay attention to what economists tell us.
- rms 18y ago
- newt0311 18y agoOne by one: Problem #1: (Price/Barrel: $130) Does he seriously think that there is no chance that the price of oil will ever reduce from this plateau? Problem #2: (5% interest) The interest payment for a long term loan of $8 trillion are going to be a lot more than just 5%. Problem #3: (cost of a new electric car, if mass-produced: $20,000) So... an electric lexus can be mass produced and sold for $20,000. How about a Ferrari? Problem #4: Administrative costs: Who does the book keeping. Problem #5: Who pays for the massive amounts of electricity used by these electric cars? Problem #6: Who pays for the infrastructure required to keep these cars charged? Problem #7: Who pays for the massive infrastructure to maintain these awesome cars after they are manufactured and bought? Problem #8: If it really was so cheap and efficient to convert straight to electric cars? why isn't anybody doing this in scale? In total: A very haphazard analysis of the cost of converting to electric cars.
- rms 18y ago1: certainly I would bet on the price of oil increasing over time 2: The US government bonds aren't very high interest rate. 3: $100,000 for something Ferrari class in speed, see the Tesla Roadster 4: The government 5: The consumers and electricity companies. The coal lobby would be in favor of a plan like this, they are itching to start burning all the extra coal we have in the USA. 6:The consumers 7: The consumers and the mechanics repairing the cars in the free market. 8: Because this type of thing requires strong government authoritarianism.
- Prrometheus 18y ago>2: The US government bonds aren't very high interest rate. Currently US government bonds have a low interest rate. However, we also would be doubling our debt on this plan, and inflation expectations have been ticking up. Furthermore, such desperation for energy independence might be looked down on by international investors who already view the actions of the US government as reckless. What might the US be planning in the Middle East that they need to take such rash actions to get off of oil for? All these factors could swing interest rates higher. > 4: The government Administrative costs by the government will be non-zero. >8: Because this type of thing requires strong government authoritarianism. Actually, I just don't think the technology is there yet. If scale production was the only obstacle in the way of the electric car right now, then it would require an investment in the $1 billion magnitude to start up efficient production, something within the reach of modern car companies. Economical, comfortable, useful, and safe electric cars are not available with modern battery technology. As soon as the technology is ready to make an attractive electric car, I expect to see consumers converting to them voluntarily and at-scale in the free market. Now if we want to force everybody to convert to an inferior and immature product right away, then we do need strong government authoritarianism, yes.
- rms 18y agoYou'd want to do this transition over time and give the cars away in a lottery, in a way calculated to upset the financial markets as little as possible. Saudi Arabia would NOT be happy with this arrangement. They would be very, very angry in fact; we have been such close allies. I would not like to see them angry.
- berryg 18y agoIf all the people in the US would drive electric cars, you obviously need electricity to do so. Let's assume the power stations use oil the generate electricity. How much oil would you need to keep all these electric cars in the US going? Would that be more or less oil the US consumes now for keeping its cars running? Let's assume we would all drive a Tesla: http://www.teslamotors.com http://www.teslamotors.com. Who will do the math?
- Xichekolas 18y agoExcept we are in the US, which is blessed with 27% of the world's coal reserves (by far the largest; Russia is second with 17%).[1] So there is no reason we would burn oil to generate power. Even better would be generating all that electricity with Nuclear power, since the "middle east" of Uranium is Canada and Australia, with 28% and 22% of global production, respectively. [1] http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/infosheets/coalreserves.html http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/infosheets/coalreserves.html [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium#Supply http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium#Supply
- berryg 18y agoOf course there are better options than to use oil to generate electricity. But what I am interested in is: what is more energy efficient? x million combustion engines or a few centralized power station plus x million electric cars?
- josefresco 18y agoWired published a quick oil reserves map the other day: http://www.wired.com/special_multimedia/2008/oilreserves http://www.wired.com/special_multimedia/2008/oilreserves Most interesting find: Canada is #2 in the world with 179 billion barrels. Why are we getting our oil from the middle east? And what % comes from up north?
- anamax 18y ago"We", as in North Americans, don't get much of our oil from the middle east. We get the majority of our oil from Canada, Mexico, and various South American countries. However, we pay world price because the oil that we get from those sources can be sent elsewhere. If the middle east shut down, the Euros would buy from "our" suppliers.
- gruseom 18y agoMuch of Canada's oil (I'm thinking of the Alberta tar sands) hasn't historically been economical to produce, because it's harder to get out of the ground and refine. In the Middle East, by contrast, they dig a hole and it comes bubbling out like in the Beverly Hillbillies. (One interesting consequence of that is that petroleum economics haven't been widely practiced in the Middle East.) Anyway, with the price of oil having gone up so much there is now huge investment going on in northern Alberta to develop this stuff.
- aggieben 18y agoSee the Dilbert toon on fungibility:http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2006-02-19/ http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2006-02-19/
- run4yourlives 18y agoThat is the most retarded use of flash ever.
- aggieben 18y agoAgree, but the old site is inaccessible.
- andresvi 18y agoLittle over simplifying the situation but its fun to read and think the way he does.
- jcromartie 18y agoThe biggest problem that I see with this idea is a social one, and not an economic one. It can be summed up in one word: Pride. Just look at how tenaciously consumers cling to SUVs and large luxury cars, even though they surely know better. People who can't even afford decent food or housing spend ridiculous amounts of money on excessive vehicles. I'd imagine you'll have to pry the wheels of their gas-guzzlers from their cold dead hands before they get in some cheap, mass-produced, plain-vanilla electric transportation, virtually devoid of status and "bling."
- Prrometheus 18y ago>I'd imagine you'll have to pry the wheels of their gas-guzzlers from their cold dead hands before they get in some cheap, mass-produced, plain-vanilla electric transportation, virtually devoid of status and "bling." Why can't you have electric transportation AND status and "bling"?
- jimbokun 18y agoI'd say it's starting to happen already. When I see a Hummer these days, my first thought is "chump", and wonder what the price of a fill up is at current rates. I think among some high earning demographics, the car with the most cachet is already the Prius. Of course, then you have the ginormous Hybrid SUVs being pushed now by Detroit. Do people really not understand that whatever gas you save through the "hybridness" is more than offset by the few tons of metal they're driving around, compared to a smaller non-hybrid? (Yes, this question is rhetorical.)
- edw519 18y agoDuring WWII, we were cut off from natural rubber, so we invented synthetic rubber. In the ecology movement of the late 1960's, the federal government mandated removal of all lead from gasoline by 1975. We made it. (Anyone remember "Leaded or unleaded"?) In the first oil scare in 1973, Detroit responded by pulling 2 old inventions off the shelf, front wheel drive and fuel injection. Effectively doubling the world oil supply within 5 years. Why should now be any different? If the federal government mandated all new vehicles being electric only by 2014 (grandfathering in all existing vehicles), we'd make it. And the problem would gradually resolve, like every other problem. The only thing stopping it is special interests. Anyone in congress supporting this would probably cut off his own fundraising lifeline.
- Prrometheus 18y ago>Why should now be any different? If the federal government mandated all new vehicles being electric only by 2014 (grandfathering in all existing vehicles), we'd make it. And the problem would gradually resolve, like every other problem. How about if we wait for the technology to be ready instead of setting an arbitrary deadline? And what's so important about switching to electric cars that it can't wait 10 years?
- edw519 18y agoSometimes, the arbitrary deadline is the thing that forces the technology to be ready. Do you think JFK had any idea if the technology would be ready when he declared the goal of a man on the moon before the end of the 1960s? We need more vision and less debate.
- Prrometheus 18y ago> We need more vision and less debate. If "vision" means rash feel-good actions and "debate" means thoughtful consideration of all view points, then I respectfully disagree with you. I think we need more debate and less "vision".
- astine 18y ago
- Prrometheus 18y agoAnother exercise in utopian ego-centric social planning using back-of-the-napkin stats that ignores all side effects. There are an infinite number of these pseudo-analyses that can be done, and they're easy because you don't need to collect any hard evidence. For example, I propose that we start a forced diet and exercise program for the United States. The cost of this program will be negative $25 trillion. It will pay for itself in reduced medical costs. The present value of our Medicare obligations are around $50 trillion, so let's say we save half of that. I could churn out another 50 of these in 50 minutes. It's easy - just imagine yourself as an all-knowing dictator (and since you already think you know what's best for everybody, you're half-way there!) and then pull numbers out of your ear. Let's ban alcohol! Net savings = the amount we spend on alcohol each year + reduced health costs. And it worked so well the first time! Heck, let's ban fast food! Of course, all of these ignore the intrinsic value that comes from not living in a society where some politician has control over all your consumption choices, but Americans long ago stopped caring about their own freedom.
- jimbokun 18y agoSounds like a fun parlor game.
- Prrometheus 18y agoUnfortunately many people like to play it in legislative buildings.
- jmilton 18y agoHere's my attempt (and boy would it be fun if it actually gets implemented): Think Green! Want to save time, money, and the environment? Its easier than you think– just THINK GREEN. Gasoline consumption in the US is the largest contributor to global warming and one of the largest expenses. Top Economists at Harvard University have determined that the best way to save on gas and cut down on pollution... is ignoring red lights! Only when the path is completely safe, of course, but the gas savings from avoiding unnecessary braking and reacceleration adds up to over $20 BILLION dollars a year! Being smarter at stop lights and stop signs may only boost mpg gallon by a few mpg (think about it: cars get better mileage on the highway then in the city because of less stopping and starting), but the amount saved can really add up! Here's the math: America buys 150 billion gallons of gasoline each year, and with gas at $4 a gallon an estimated 22 BILLION DOLLARS can be saved by smarter driving, saving every driving American $100 EVERY YEAR. Not to mention the time saved! Even better, if less gasoline is used the laws of supply and demand force the big oil companies to LOWER THEIR PRICES. So you will need to buy less gas, and will help make it cheaper! Worried about getting a ticket? If you are not endangering anyone, police will give you a free pass if you remember to mention the Think Green program. So what should you do? Avoid unecessary stopping and acceleration. If at an intersection where it is safe to go but you see red, THINK GREEN and go! By each of us doing our part and acting efficiently, we can reduce pollution, save time, and save some serious money at the pump. So next time you are coming up to an intersection: Think Green!
- iamelgringo 18y agoWhy make the government pay for the entire thing? As oil and gas prices increase, the costs of purchasing an electric vehicle are going to be on parity with the costs of purchasing an electric vehicle. I imagine that the Big 3 in Detroit are wringing their hands over Toyota's success with the Prius. And, with the bevy of new electric vehicles that are getting released in the next couple of years, you're going to be seeing more and more of them on the roads. even without massive governement intervention. I for one am actually glad that gasoline prices are increasing. I think that we should tax gasoline heavily like most of Europe does. Do you think they drive around in those tiny little cars because they are comfortable? Increased gasoline prices decrease consumption, and increase innovation in fuel efficiency and alternative energy vehicles.
- TrevorJ 18y agoso we charge those cars with what? Pedal power? No, more than likely we charge them by burning fuel in some power plant miles and miles down the grid, losing energy in the process due to storage and conversion.
- JeffL 18y agoCost of bureaucracy, inefficiency and fraud in such a huge government program: $2 trillion
- weegee 18y agothe technology exists, it's been done, the oil lobby will not allow this to happen, too many rich people (Hi George W. Bush and family) would lose their fortunes... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_RAV4_EV http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_RAV4_EV