[geeks] electric cars

[Mike Meredith]

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 14:12:34 -0400, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
> You are using Imperial Gallon instead of US Gallon (3.6 liters) in
> your  conversion, so it is a little less than that.

Ooops. Now $5.86 per gallon. 

> Also, outside of just a few urban areas, you really do need a car in 
> the USA, and you need to drive it many miles per year.  Even I, who 

I don't doubt it. 

> > Petrol is amazingly cheap (after removing taxes) but it competes
> > 'unfairly' with other fuels because there is no cost of production
> > ... just the cost of retrieval (oil is after all not produced by oil
> > companies but by natural processes that turn rotting vegetation to
> > oil over geological time periods).
> 
> As opposed to coal, or natural gas?  Those fuels also need only be 
> retrieved.

Perhaps I should have said 'other fuels used in cars' although given the
subject I could perhaps be forgiven for not mentioning it. I'm not sure
about natural gas, but coal-fired cars are few and far between although
there are a few museum pieces on the road. But yes, both coal and
natural gas fall into the category of fuels that only need retrieving.

> > It might be worth distorting the market by slowly raising petrol
> > prices to encourage the use of bio-fuels.
> 
> If you try to distort the market, the markets distorts *you* .

Indeed. However the market is already distorted ... I've seen a rough
estimate of 20% of US petrol prices are taxation. And as I was pointing
out, the market doesn't take into account hidden costs of using a
particular fuel ... the market itself distorts the true situation, and
fixing this will take some very bright economists (I think I may have
found another oxymoron).

> My opinion is that a focus on more efficient heating and cooling for 
> houses, which accounts for some 40% of US oil and gas usage, would be 
> the easiest first step, rather than focusing on cars (trucks and
> trains  aren't going to be changing anytime soon).

More efficient heating and cooling is certainly worth trying for, but
there's no harm in looking at doing both. 

> Right now, you cannot build a house that is designed to be energy 
> efficient without basically violating the building code.

That does sound rather dumb! Not that the UK planning people are that
bright, but at least the codes do now insist on some form of insulation.

> at  a cost of maybe $40K plus his time.  Granted he took the long way
> round  and built two walls and put insulation between them

Two walls with insulation in ? Sounds pretty much like a standard UK
brick-built house although the insulation in between is relatively new,
but I don't know much about building.

-- 
Mike Meredith (http://zonky.org/)
  No security outfit ever went broke relying on the stupidity of users.