Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I see where you're getting at. I too believe in the free market. Then I also see that sometimes it takes both government and free market to achieve some major change. Will electric cars be one of those things the government thinks it can jump start before handing over to the market? I really don't know. Hopefully the government will take it's hands off and let free market take over when electric car becomes more popular. It's going to be supply and demand that will eventually determine if the electric car is here to stay. No arguments there
Supply and demand are the only viable ways, Gov't mandate's inhibit the progress as they are too driven by politics and special interest groups.
I like cars a lot and I have owned several sports cars now (and I'm not even 30!). I like everything about them, the engineering, the sound, the ride, the looks, all of the above.
In the next few years I will be converting to an EV.
I will write it again for you: The wind, the sun's energy and tides are all free to collect. The energy source does not diminish or pollute.
It's not free to collect. There is a cost for building the tools necessary to collect energy. That cost is currently higher than the cost to extract energy from the ground. You can't seriously be this daft.
No, but the energy they create is free, and without toxic byproducts. Are you somewhat simple?
Apparently you are. Please tell me how to collect energy using photovoltaic solar panels for free. I guess you could steal the panels from someone else.
It's not free to collect. There is a cost for building the tools necessary to collect energy. That cost is currently higher than the cost to extract energy from the ground. You can't seriously be this daft.
There's no doubt about it, you are correct in saying that for the same investment in oil vs. solar, wind, biomass, coal you are able to produce more energy. The Cost per kilowatt hour is cheaper for natural gas, this has been known for awhile now. The problem is when you start to add in the environmental costs. Take the Deepwater Horizon for example, they had 22.6 billion in environmental clean up after the event, so in that instance they lost a lot. Oil has a greater potential for providing more energy and environmental issues. It will be interesting to see how things in the alternative world change over the next few decades.
I believe the point Willys was trying to make is that regardless of the alternative energy source one fact remains, the fuel cost is, zero. With the advent of cheaper wind technology in some areas of the country wind is cheaper than coal. Compounded by the fact that coal will be decreasing production and increasing fuel costs due to harder areas to mine. It wouldn't be fair to leave out the oil industry, however, as the oil industry also schemes of new technology to produce oil for cheaper.
Last edited by MJ7; 09-29-2014 at 09:09 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
