3 ms·

You are precisely wrong. Targeting people that already buy into energy efficiency has low payoff. Say you have your enlightened urban dweller, getting 50mpg.

by 3am 15y ago

You are precisely wrong. Targeting people that already buy into energy efficiency has low payoff. Say you have your enlightened urban dweller, getting 50mpg. With the fancy new hybrids, let's say they double that and get 100mpg. Given 100K miles of driving, that saves 1000 gallons of fuel. Now, take your suburbanite SUV driver getting 20mpg. You only have to get their mileage to 25mpg to save the same amount of fuel over 100K miles. Get them to 40mpg, and the improvement is 150% greater than the urbanite's. Further, only electric vehicles are can realistically be 100% powered from renewables with current technology. Biofuels are in their infancy vs solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear. Thank goodness for Tesla trying to push boundaries and for the early adopters that are buying them. Also, thank goodness for the Nissan Leaf, the Honda Civic GX, the Prius, and all the people making a difference and buying fuel efficient cars. It's a big problem and there's no "Wrong Way" to be helping.

pclark 15y ago
The point OP is making is that these SUV people fundamentally do not care about efficiency - if they do not care, they have no interest in optimising their milage. The messaging is mostly wasted.
- richardw 15y ago
  I strongly suspect it's not a binary market with people that care about efficiency on the left and those that don't on the right. There'll be those that care, but prioritize higher performance. Those that want a bigger car due to safety reasons. Combinations thereof. The market likely maps onto the technology adoption life cycle, and the hardcore SUV petrolheads are likely the 'late majority' or 'laggards'. That leaves a lot of room for market development before even considering those people. They'll take years or decades to change, so ignore them and focus on the customers in the early majority. That includes SUV or sportscar drivers who would like to save money, who do care about the environment, who have moved to a city, etc.
- potatolicious 15y ago
  > " if they do not care, they have no interest in optimising their milage. The messaging is mostly wasted." Right, and Tesla's messaging is not about efficiency. Their messaging has overwhelmingly been "holy shit this thing is fast! And green! And exclusive and the crowning achievement of our conquering of science and technology!" Which isn't that different from traditional sports car marketing, except the green part. Getting people to be more efficient does not necessarily mean selling efficiency to them and rallying them around it. CFLs and energy-efficient lighting has essentially become commonly as a fashion, as opposed to any significant increase in people's desire to be green. But I couldn't care less - if people are installing CFLs in their homes I don't really care how much they care about their electrical footprint.
  - lotharbot 15y ago
    > "CFLs and energy-efficient lighting has essentially become commonly as a fashion" I don't think fashion was a big contributor to early adoption. It was mainly the perception of saved money and frustration. Early CFL packaging often had a comparison chart showing the $30 you'd save on electricity versus using incandescent bulbs, and the 6-10 fewer times you'd have to change a burned out bulb over the next 3-5 years. It's not specifically that people care about "being green", but they do care about saving money and effort.
- TechNewb 15y ago
  >The point OP is making is that these SUV people fundamentally do not care about efficiency - if they do not care, they have no interest in optimising their milage. The messaging is mostly wasted. I disagree. SUVs are a very common commodity in America, and there are many people whom acquired them for various practical reasons. I've had the same compact SUV since high school, over 10 years, and would love to 'upgrade' to an energy efficient electric car, I just can't afford it now, or any other car at this point in my career. Although I dream of the Model X, and think it's a great idea. I would rather take a train everywhere, but given America's infrastructure, currently a Model X is the next best thing.
- HeyLaughingBoy 15y ago
  This is a fallacy that is perpetuated all over the place, not just on HN. It's not that many SUV drivers don't care about efficiency; rather it's not a primary concern. The primary concern is having a vehicle large and powerful enough to do what they need to get done. Sure, for a percentage, that's just hauling their single fat ass to the mall. But for many more they need to haul a boat, or a pack of kids and all the associated stuff without tying it to the roof of the car, etc. Have you even noticed how many hybrid SUVs are on the market? Who do you think is buying them?
rbanffy 15y ago
Biofuels are definitely not in their infancy. My first car ran on ethanol and it was in the mid 80's. The technology in very mature.
- onemoreact 15y ago
  It's the fuels that are in their infancy not the car's. Design a cheap energy efficient way to to turn cellulose into something close to gasoline and you will be able to make more money than Bill Gates. Theoretically it's possible, but nobody has gotten there yet.
  - rbanffy 15y ago
    After driving ethanol-running cars for more than 25 years, I must disagree. If you can't drive ethanol-running cars in your country, be assured it's not really a technical issue.
    - onemoreact 15y ago
      I often fill up with 10% ethanol gas which most cars can burn just fine, but the entire world's supply of ethanol is not enough to replace 10% of total demand with ethanol. We throw away enough feed-stock in the US to double world wide ethanol production, but it's simply not cost effective process it yet. PS: It's not that far off though the US accounts for ~44% of the world’s gasoline consumption, but it's would take ~57% of the world's ethanol to switch every gas pump in the US to 10% ethanol.
  - finnw 15y ago
    > Design a cheap energy efficient way to to turn cellulose into something close to gasoline The closest match is probably thermal depolymerization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization)
- 3am 15y ago
  But most ethanol is net energy negative. Brazilian sugarcane is an exception, but it loses some of its advantage when it's shipped to the US in tankers. Even then, sugarcane requires non-renewable inputs (just not as much as corn). Cellulosic ethanol (from plants that can grow well on marginal farmland, like switchgrass) _is_ still in its infancy. Also, most current engines would need to all be retrofitted to run on anything much greater than E85 because of the greater corrosion. You're right, though, I should've said something like 'practical biofuels' are in their infancy. I was really more referring to algae oil based petroleum or butanol, as they seem like the most promising candidates for a net-energy positive and high energy density renewable fuel. (also, it's very cool that you ran on that in the 80s, mind if I ask what kind of car it was, or if you'd had it customized?)

by 3am 15y ago

pclark 15y ago

The point OP is making is that these SUV people fundamentally do not care about efficiency - if they do not care, they have no interest in optimising their milage. The messaging is mostly wasted.

richardw 15y ago
I strongly suspect it's not a binary market with people that care about efficiency on the left and those that don't on the right. There'll be those that care, but prioritize higher performance. Those that want a bigger car due to safety reasons. Combinations thereof. The market likely maps onto the technology adoption life cycle, and the hardcore SUV petrolheads are likely the 'late majority' or 'laggards'. That leaves a lot of room for market development before even considering those people. They'll take years or decades to change, so ignore them and focus on the customers in the early majority. That includes SUV or sportscar drivers who would like to save money, who do care about the environment, who have moved to a city, etc.
potatolicious 15y ago
> " if they do not care, they have no interest in optimising their milage. The messaging is mostly wasted." Right, and Tesla's messaging is not about efficiency. Their messaging has overwhelmingly been "holy shit this thing is fast! And green! And exclusive and the crowning achievement of our conquering of science and technology!" Which isn't that different from traditional sports car marketing, except the green part. Getting people to be more efficient does not necessarily mean selling efficiency to them and rallying them around it. CFLs and energy-efficient lighting has essentially become commonly as a fashion, as opposed to any significant increase in people's desire to be green. But I couldn't care less - if people are installing CFLs in their homes I don't really care how much they care about their electrical footprint.
- lotharbot 15y ago
  > "CFLs and energy-efficient lighting has essentially become commonly as a fashion" I don't think fashion was a big contributor to early adoption. It was mainly the perception of saved money and frustration. Early CFL packaging often had a comparison chart showing the $30 you'd save on electricity versus using incandescent bulbs, and the 6-10 fewer times you'd have to change a burned out bulb over the next 3-5 years. It's not specifically that people care about "being green", but they do care about saving money and effort.
TechNewb 15y ago
>The point OP is making is that these SUV people fundamentally do not care about efficiency - if they do not care, they have no interest in optimising their milage. The messaging is mostly wasted. I disagree. SUVs are a very common commodity in America, and there are many people whom acquired them for various practical reasons. I've had the same compact SUV since high school, over 10 years, and would love to 'upgrade' to an energy efficient electric car, I just can't afford it now, or any other car at this point in my career. Although I dream of the Model X, and think it's a great idea. I would rather take a train everywhere, but given America's infrastructure, currently a Model X is the next best thing.
HeyLaughingBoy 15y ago
This is a fallacy that is perpetuated all over the place, not just on HN. It's not that many SUV drivers don't care about efficiency; rather it's not a primary concern. The primary concern is having a vehicle large and powerful enough to do what they need to get done. Sure, for a percentage, that's just hauling their single fat ass to the mall. But for many more they need to haul a boat, or a pack of kids and all the associated stuff without tying it to the roof of the car, etc. Have you even noticed how many hybrid SUVs are on the market? Who do you think is buying them?

rbanffy 15y ago

Biofuels are definitely not in their infancy. My first car ran on ethanol and it was in the mid 80's. The technology in very mature.

onemoreact 15y ago
It's the fuels that are in their infancy not the car's. Design a cheap energy efficient way to to turn cellulose into something close to gasoline and you will be able to make more money than Bill Gates. Theoretically it's possible, but nobody has gotten there yet.
- rbanffy 15y ago
  After driving ethanol-running cars for more than 25 years, I must disagree. If you can't drive ethanol-running cars in your country, be assured it's not really a technical issue.
  - onemoreact 15y ago
    I often fill up with 10% ethanol gas which most cars can burn just fine, but the entire world's supply of ethanol is not enough to replace 10% of total demand with ethanol. We throw away enough feed-stock in the US to double world wide ethanol production, but it's simply not cost effective process it yet. PS: It's not that far off though the US accounts for ~44% of the world’s gasoline consumption, but it's would take ~57% of the world's ethanol to switch every gas pump in the US to 10% ethanol.
- finnw 15y ago
  > Design a cheap energy efficient way to to turn cellulose into something close to gasoline The closest match is probably thermal depolymerization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization)
3am 15y ago
But most ethanol is net energy negative. Brazilian sugarcane is an exception, but it loses some of its advantage when it's shipped to the US in tankers. Even then, sugarcane requires non-renewable inputs (just not as much as corn). Cellulosic ethanol (from plants that can grow well on marginal farmland, like switchgrass) _is_ still in its infancy. Also, most current engines would need to all be retrofitted to run on anything much greater than E85 because of the greater corrosion. You're right, though, I should've said something like 'practical biofuels' are in their infancy. I was really more referring to algae oil based petroleum or butanol, as they seem like the most promising candidates for a net-energy positive and high energy density renewable fuel. (also, it's very cool that you ran on that in the 80s, mind if I ask what kind of car it was, or if you'd had it customized?)