![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
airiefairieA very fast transformation is happening in marine transportation around the world. It is quickly shifting towards natural gas.
https://www.cnbc.com/advertorial/2020/01/10/lng-a-groundbreaking-choice-for-the-shipping-industry.html
While natural gas won't decarbonise shipping, evidently it is a viable alternative to more carbon-heavy sources of energy. Investments in LNG-powered ships have been steadily growing despite ongoing debate over the impact gas will have on the environment.
Thus, about 10% of the orders for new tankers for 2020 (a total of 55) have been LNG-powered. These could also work with conventional fuels such as mazut, the low-quality fuel oil that has dominated the sector for decades.
Details here.
( Read more... )
https://www.cnbc.com/advertorial/2020/01/10/lng-a-groundbreaking-choice-for-the-shipping-industry.html
While natural gas won't decarbonise shipping, evidently it is a viable alternative to more carbon-heavy sources of energy. Investments in LNG-powered ships have been steadily growing despite ongoing debate over the impact gas will have on the environment.
Thus, about 10% of the orders for new tankers for 2020 (a total of 55) have been LNG-powered. These could also work with conventional fuels such as mazut, the low-quality fuel oil that has dominated the sector for decades.
Details here.
( Read more... )
luzribeiroBig Oil is making moves to pressure Congress to end the Tax Credit for EVS while behind the scene's buying up EV charging stations because they intend to make money regardless of which way the market turns. Plus, it's an implicit confession on big oil's part they know electric vehicle demand is going to cut into oil demand quite significantly within the next few years.
And then, there comes this news:
Electric Cars Hit Record In Norway, Making Up Nearly 60% Of Sales In March
I know, I know, some*'d ask. But why? Why are they doing this? The country is by the ocean so there's no pollution due to an ocean breeze!
* And by some, I mean those who laughed and applauded when the moron-in-chief talked of Puerto Rico, the island "surrounded by big water, ocean water".
And then, there comes this news:
Electric Cars Hit Record In Norway, Making Up Nearly 60% Of Sales In March
I know, I know, some*'d ask. But why? Why are they doing this? The country is by the ocean so there's no pollution due to an ocean breeze!
* And by some, I mean those who laughed and applauded when the moron-in-chief talked of Puerto Rico, the island "surrounded by big water, ocean water".
johnny9fingersFlying is going to have to change yet again.
After 9/11 flying became a lot less fun. It went from being convenient to being something to be avoided if possible.
Now we have a new variable, as shown here:
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/dec/20/tens-of-thousands-of-passengers-stranded-by-gatwick-airport-drones
Aircraft are really very vulnerable modes of transport. If they fall out of the air everyone dies almost all of the time. And now it is possible to disrupt the activities of a multi-billion pound airport with a drone costing a couple of thousand pounds.
If that is all there is to it, then we are looking at the end of commercial air travel; unless we institute draconian laws with nasty enforcers. The economics of such terrorism means that airports are simple targets. A concerted campaign could shut down airports for days at a time. And then as a nation's police and defence resources are directed at protecting one airport, another cheap drone at yet another airport could shut that down too. And of course, the drone could be remote-controlled from the net; after all, it is expendable, and does the right economic damage even if it is destroyed, and it doesn't have to be close controlled in real time to act as a disruptor.
Can anyone else see this as being a game-changer for air travel?
Our culture has reached a point where even grown-up toys can be weaponised for economic or political purposes. Ain't it great?
[Edit]
Of course, this leads me to wonder, in the US are weaponised drones protected by the Second Amendment?
After 9/11 flying became a lot less fun. It went from being convenient to being something to be avoided if possible.
Now we have a new variable, as shown here:
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/dec/20/tens-of-thousands-of-passengers-stranded-by-gatwick-airport-drones
Aircraft are really very vulnerable modes of transport. If they fall out of the air everyone dies almost all of the time. And now it is possible to disrupt the activities of a multi-billion pound airport with a drone costing a couple of thousand pounds.
If that is all there is to it, then we are looking at the end of commercial air travel; unless we institute draconian laws with nasty enforcers. The economics of such terrorism means that airports are simple targets. A concerted campaign could shut down airports for days at a time. And then as a nation's police and defence resources are directed at protecting one airport, another cheap drone at yet another airport could shut that down too. And of course, the drone could be remote-controlled from the net; after all, it is expendable, and does the right economic damage even if it is destroyed, and it doesn't have to be close controlled in real time to act as a disruptor.
Can anyone else see this as being a game-changer for air travel?
Our culture has reached a point where even grown-up toys can be weaponised for economic or political purposes. Ain't it great?
[Edit]
Of course, this leads me to wonder, in the US are weaponised drones protected by the Second Amendment?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
abomvubuso.livejournal.comLet's take a wee break from the usual depressing Trump-related stuff, and look into the latest developments in the world of technology. You know, the one that will largely shape up the future.
Starting with the Czechs. Nearly 3 decades after the fall of the Iron Curtain, the Czech Republic is at the cutting edge of technology like it once was at the time it was the industrial hub of Central Europe. Hyperloop Transportation Technologies, an innovative company has signed a memorandum with the Czech government, and is planning to build a super-futuristic high-speed train between Brno and Bratislava. It'll be only 13 km long, but a subsequent expansion will also include Prague (another 220 km away).
( Read more... )
Starting with the Czechs. Nearly 3 decades after the fall of the Iron Curtain, the Czech Republic is at the cutting edge of technology like it once was at the time it was the industrial hub of Central Europe. Hyperloop Transportation Technologies, an innovative company has signed a memorandum with the Czech government, and is planning to build a super-futuristic high-speed train between Brno and Bratislava. It'll be only 13 km long, but a subsequent expansion will also include Prague (another 220 km away).
( Read more... )
Wow, this is bold
27/3/16 18:52mahnmut.livejournal.comWhile some are just talking about doing it, others are actually doing it...
Oslo moves to ban cars from city centre within four years
Proposed ban on private vehicles is part of a plan to slash greenhouse gas emissions 50% by 2020 compared to 1990 levels
Norway to Get Rid of Petrol and Diesel Cars by 2030
Norwegian Labor Party (Arbeidepartiet) wants only emission-free cars on the market in 2030.
There is no intention to outright ban non-electric vehicles, however they will become very unfavorably taxed, making them a much less interesting alternative than electric cars. There are also pilot projects already in the running for making buses run on biofuel and eventually also batteries. Norway also has introduced its first fully electric car ferry, and studies are done on recharging ships wirelessly while docked. So no, not a ban, but buying a hydrocarbon based car will become a luxury few would spend money on.
Anyway... Norway is an oil-rich country -> number one prerequisite for being bombed by a US-led coalition-of-the-willing. And now Norway is straying further away from the overall dependence on fossil fuels, thus defying the big oil industry -> number two reason to blow the hell out of those pesky Vikings! Now... where are those U2 bombers, please?
Oslo moves to ban cars from city centre within four years
Proposed ban on private vehicles is part of a plan to slash greenhouse gas emissions 50% by 2020 compared to 1990 levels
Norway to Get Rid of Petrol and Diesel Cars by 2030
Norwegian Labor Party (Arbeidepartiet) wants only emission-free cars on the market in 2030.
There is no intention to outright ban non-electric vehicles, however they will become very unfavorably taxed, making them a much less interesting alternative than electric cars. There are also pilot projects already in the running for making buses run on biofuel and eventually also batteries. Norway also has introduced its first fully electric car ferry, and studies are done on recharging ships wirelessly while docked. So no, not a ban, but buying a hydrocarbon based car will become a luxury few would spend money on.
Anyway... Norway is an oil-rich country -> number one prerequisite for being bombed by a US-led coalition-of-the-willing. And now Norway is straying further away from the overall dependence on fossil fuels, thus defying the big oil industry -> number two reason to blow the hell out of those pesky Vikings! Now... where are those U2 bombers, please?
The end of a legend
9/4/15 10:11htpcl.livejournal.com
The engine is not purring, it's roaring with a vengeance. You could hear from a kilometer how it's shredding the air to pieces, how it's shaking, choking, clanking, and intimidating the pesky seasons with windows nailed to the ironwork, and a ceiling porous like Swiss cheese. The doors shut with the sound of thunder, the rubber compartment joining the front and back section of the vehicle (called the "accordion") stretches to impossible extremes, cracks appearing between its folds, and patches of sky coming in. But so what? Who hasn't opened their umbrella while riding the famous, the legendary Ikarus bus? Who hasn't puffed and poured rivers of sweat alongside the driver in a desperate attempt to help him change a flat tire on a scorching day? Oh, those enormous, gargantuan, heavy tires!
"Ugh, how much I miss the Red Dragon! Every kilometer you rode on that beast was a story worth a whole thriller novel...", someone muses at a Facebook group dedicated to the mythological old bus with the enigmatic name, "Ikarus". It was part of our world in commie times, it was one of its symbols. And it remained with us for a long time after the "explosion" of democracy over here on the Balkans.
But times are a'changing. The last remaining specimens of this lovely monster are going into history now. The new EU regulations say we should abandon these outdated transit vehicles, and stubstitute them with new ones. The German MAN buses are invading, and taking the sceptre away from the Hungarian dinosaur. But in the meantime, the old nostalgic pictures and stories are piling over in pages, online fanclubs and albums, with captions like, "Ah, those were the days... These beasts have grown old along with us, but somewhere, probably, they'll keep serving faithfully as they always have... The new ones are too slow, too sterile, too ordinary - once the Red Dragon gained speed, there was no stopping. It could miss 2 or 3 bus stops before it finally halted. Oldies but goldies!"
( The Ikarus was far from being just a bus. )
ddstory.livejournal.comSo what's the matter with this new Uber app that everyone keeps blabbering about? I'm seeing taxi drivers around the world having their knickers in a twist about this new "threat" to their business, and a hysterical campaign hyping up the several cases of passenger abuse (rape, mugging, to name but a few transgressions by illicit quasi-taxi drivers operating via the new app) being hyped up around the media. Even some governments have already banned using Uber.
I get the argument of the taxi drivers, I really do (some of my best friends are taxi drivers! heh). These new brand of self-appointed transporters are not paying any taxes anywhere, nobody knows who they are and what security they provide, they can't be tracked in case they do something bad to their passenger, etc. And there's also the home security rationale: essentially, you order a ride from your home to a restaurant, some unchecked driver turns up who now knows your home is empty for the next couple of hours. Bonanza!
And when you leave a bad review because you find your house ransacked after you get home, next day you've got three big blokes dressed in fancy suits knocking at your door wanting to have a chat with you. Because apparently they've found a way to exploit a vulnerability on the website of the ride-sharing Uber service, the cross-site scripting bug essentially being compromised via theft of cookies, personal details and authentification credentials.
Of course, the more important issue here is if they could work out some way of vetting their drivers (for obvious reasons), that wouldn't be too bad indeed. And it would be nice if they could find a way to address some of the "minor flaws" of presumably the few "bad apples" among their drivers, who've been beating passengers up, kidnapping passengers, running over pedestrians, raping passengers, and performing other "fun activities".
But hey, just think how much money you could save by using Uber. Probably enough to afford a lawyer... later. Or maybe a surgeon. Or a gravedigger.
I get the argument of the taxi drivers, I really do (some of my best friends are taxi drivers! heh). These new brand of self-appointed transporters are not paying any taxes anywhere, nobody knows who they are and what security they provide, they can't be tracked in case they do something bad to their passenger, etc. And there's also the home security rationale: essentially, you order a ride from your home to a restaurant, some unchecked driver turns up who now knows your home is empty for the next couple of hours. Bonanza!
And when you leave a bad review because you find your house ransacked after you get home, next day you've got three big blokes dressed in fancy suits knocking at your door wanting to have a chat with you. Because apparently they've found a way to exploit a vulnerability on the website of the ride-sharing Uber service, the cross-site scripting bug essentially being compromised via theft of cookies, personal details and authentification credentials.
Of course, the more important issue here is if they could work out some way of vetting their drivers (for obvious reasons), that wouldn't be too bad indeed. And it would be nice if they could find a way to address some of the "minor flaws" of presumably the few "bad apples" among their drivers, who've been beating passengers up, kidnapping passengers, running over pedestrians, raping passengers, and performing other "fun activities".
But hey, just think how much money you could save by using Uber. Probably enough to afford a lawyer... later. Or maybe a surgeon. Or a gravedigger.
peristaltor.livejournal.comI just skipped over to one of Doug Short's constantly updating sites and checked out the graph of recent numbers concerning how much per capita we in the US are driving. Given the paramount importance over road travel is in these paved states, it's a good indicator of economic health generally, at least as a snapshot. ( I thought I'd share, and offer a prediction! )
The Sky Is Falling
19/1/14 19:28mahnmut.livejournal.comHi again, you benevolent dictators of this fictional utopian society of yours that you've probably already shaped beyond repair by taking a series of decisions in a number of ridiculously dichotomous situations, previously presented by Yours-truly. The following situation has been inspired by the NationStates game, where you're the guy one calling the shots (admit it, who wouldn't want that?) The last time the debate was about the sex and violence epidemic on late night television, and Ms Mikaela Boogeyman, the free-speech advocate won the poll by an overwhelming margin, arguing that the government needs to get the hell out of people's TV receivers, and allow the market to adapt to the needs of the customers/viewers. Ultimately, you've decided that it's all up to the parents. But now the situation is quite different. So here goes...
The Issue
A particularly bad spate of bombings, hijackings and snake attacks aboard airline flights has crippled the air travel industry in Insert Country Name. The government has convened to discuss possible ways of improving airport security.
( The debate & a poll )
The Issue
A particularly bad spate of bombings, hijackings and snake attacks aboard airline flights has crippled the air travel industry in Insert Country Name. The government has convened to discuss possible ways of improving airport security.
( The debate & a poll )
peristaltor.livejournal.comA few years ago, a friend at work had a problem while driving. He heard a noise, probably from the front end of his vehicle. Since he was driving a 60-foot articulated passenger coach packed to the gills with commuters, this could have been a real problem. It was. Though he didn't notice anything at first, when he made a simple lane change he noticed the coach didn't respond to his steering wheel like it used to, instead becoming sluggish in turns. He dropped his speed and made for a turn-off from the freeway to inspect outside the seat. Probably a front blow-out. It wasn't.
He notified control about the weirdness and just took it slow to town, then drove the bus to the garage and notified the mechanics about the weird. ( The next day, all hell broke loose. )
He notified control about the weirdness and just took it slow to town, then drove the bus to the garage and notified the mechanics about the weird. ( The next day, all hell broke loose. )
peristaltor.livejournal.comLast Wednesday, I volunteered to take a road trip to our state capitol, Olympia, and lobby my State Senator and Representatives on the importance of maintaining public transit. Yes, that position serves me well since I drive transit; but that is something I would support even if I didn't. All one has to do is live in Seattle to see how important buses and trains are to our economy. If all the people in those conveyances had to switch to cars, there wouldn't be a way to drive in our fair city half the day. Our roads would become near-permanent parking lots.
Thanks to a persistent tooth ache, I haven't been following State Legislative politics lately. ( Frankly, it's taken a turn for the weird. )
Thanks to a persistent tooth ache, I haven't been following State Legislative politics lately. ( Frankly, it's taken a turn for the weird. )
peristaltor.livejournal.comJust caught a piece of rage-inducing news: a Washington State House bill proposing selling naming rights to elements of public transportation to raise money. As he almost always does, I think Goldy says it best:
Exactly. The presence of commons is a necessity to a functional civic life. We all need places we can gather where we are more than targeted consumers, where we participate in public life apart from the needs for individuals — be they naturally born or formed through legal fiction — to engage in the truck and barter of their commerce and the agenda attendant thereto.
I'm not adverse to people naming what they build; what seems to be happening more and more is the construction/remodeling of civic institutions by one group, who later sells the naming rights for as much as they can. Seattle's football stadium might be the third most expensive at $75 million for 15 years, but that proves a bead of sweat compared to the $430 million it cost to build, quite a bit of that chunk of change backed by taxpayer-funded bonds.
There are a few problems with this whole naming rights fiasco. First, glean from the CLF Wiki that the stadium is next to the WaMu Theater, named (using the same procedure) by the now-defunct Seattle-based bank Washington Mutual. The bank is gone, but we are stuck with the name. Hey, it could be worse for us. In Boston, their opera house is named for a computer company that hasn't produced a named product in decades.
I've got a possible solution to this ongoing train wreck. We as citizens need simply to define how much the public must receive from the namers in return for the sacrifice of our civic spaces. We as a state should simply define what percentage of a structure's construction/remodeling cost the namers must present before the naming rights goes to them. I'm thinking 2/3 of total construction and ongoing maintenance costs sounds fair. In fact, I think I'll be contacting a legal friend to see how we might draft this proposal into a State-wide initiative.
What do you think?
Personally, I'm opposed to selling the naming rights on state bridges and highways because I think it cheapens the commons and reinforces our irresponsible something-for-nothing political narrative. . . .
Exactly. The presence of commons is a necessity to a functional civic life. We all need places we can gather where we are more than targeted consumers, where we participate in public life apart from the needs for individuals — be they naturally born or formed through legal fiction — to engage in the truck and barter of their commerce and the agenda attendant thereto.
I'm not adverse to people naming what they build; what seems to be happening more and more is the construction/remodeling of civic institutions by one group, who later sells the naming rights for as much as they can. Seattle's football stadium might be the third most expensive at $75 million for 15 years, but that proves a bead of sweat compared to the $430 million it cost to build, quite a bit of that chunk of change backed by taxpayer-funded bonds.
There are a few problems with this whole naming rights fiasco. First, glean from the CLF Wiki that the stadium is next to the WaMu Theater, named (using the same procedure) by the now-defunct Seattle-based bank Washington Mutual. The bank is gone, but we are stuck with the name. Hey, it could be worse for us. In Boston, their opera house is named for a computer company that hasn't produced a named product in decades.
I've got a possible solution to this ongoing train wreck. We as citizens need simply to define how much the public must receive from the namers in return for the sacrifice of our civic spaces. We as a state should simply define what percentage of a structure's construction/remodeling cost the namers must present before the naming rights goes to them. I'm thinking 2/3 of total construction and ongoing maintenance costs sounds fair. In fact, I think I'll be contacting a legal friend to see how we might draft this proposal into a State-wide initiative.
What do you think?
peristaltor.livejournal.comI recently heard of a few data points I found interesting. The first, from Mother Jones Magazine, presents a strong case linking violent crime with earlier exposure to tetraethyl lead, "the gasoline additive invented by General Motors in the 1920s to prevent knocking and pinging in high-performance engines." As automotive use increased, so increased the lead flowing from the tailpipes; in cities, the concentration of cars increased each city dweller's exposure. As lead was phased out, the exposure likewise phased out. Researcher Rick Nevin made the first connection:
( Ah, but that was only one data point, and I did promise two! )
The biggest source of lead in the postwar era, it turns out, wasn't paint. It was leaded gasoline. And if you chart the rise and fall of atmospheric lead caused by the rise and fall of leaded gasoline consumption, you get a pretty simple upside-down U: Lead emissions from tailpipes rose steadily from the early '40s through the early '70s, nearly quadrupling over that period. Then, as unleaded gasoline began to replace leaded gasoline, emissions plummeted.
Intriguingly, violent crime rates followed the same upside-down U pattern. The only thing different was the time period: Crime rates rose dramatically in the '60s through the '80s, and then began dropping steadily starting in the early '90s. The two curves looked eerily identical, but were offset by about 20 years.
So Nevin dove in further, digging up detailed data on lead emissions and crime rates to see if the similarity of the curves was as good as it seemed. It turned out to be even better: In a 2000 paper (PDF) he concluded that if you add a lag time of 23 years, lead emissions from automobiles explain 90 percent of the variation in violent crime in America. Toddlers who ingested high levels of lead in the '40s and '50s really were more likely to become violent criminals in the '60s, '70s, and '80s.
(I emboldened.)
( Ah, but that was only one data point, and I did promise two! )
Going Underground
4/2/12 22:00green-man-2010.livejournal.comI know that at least one person here wondered where I was, but I thought that I had better come in with a good story. So, here it is.
A documentary was aired on Channel 4 recently. in the UK, C4 is not the Beeb, but it tries to be upmarket - all docs and serious hi brow stuff like art and drama while still remaining a commercial channel.
So, I was not surprised when they ran this. " Confessions from the Underground" it was called.
It said that the people who worked on the Tube ( the London Underground) were not allowed to talk to the press without permission - so actors were repeating verbatim what real Tube workers had said to the camera in interviews. ( Read more... )
A documentary was aired on Channel 4 recently. in the UK, C4 is not the Beeb, but it tries to be upmarket - all docs and serious hi brow stuff like art and drama while still remaining a commercial channel.
So, I was not surprised when they ran this. " Confessions from the Underground" it was called.
It said that the people who worked on the Tube ( the London Underground) were not allowed to talk to the press without permission - so actors were repeating verbatim what real Tube workers had said to the camera in interviews. ( Read more... )
ddstory.livejournal.com
Behold Costa Concordia, the new Titanic*. The prow planted deep underwater, right deck submerged... The sight is eerie, almost surreal. The details about the reasons for this disaster remain mostly a mystery still. And the questions are more than the answers. Are such floating castles really as safe as they appear to be? This is a real concern among people now.
This tragedy can't help but call back memories of the disastrous sinking of Titanic** from a century ago. Then the hull of the presumably unsinkable ship was struck by an iceberg in the North Atlantic. Now Concordia was sunken by the rocks near the Italian island of Giglio***. The steel coat of the ship was cracked open and she sank within minutes. In both cases the criticism primarily fell on the captains, whose careless attitude lead to the downfall of two juggernauts, both then and now****. But still the modern level of technology is supposed to be much higher than it was a century ago, no? And still, the catastrophe couldn't be prevented.
( Read more... )
Vroom Vroom!
5/1/12 12:58badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.comSo, last March, I posted about electric vehicles, specifically about by position on the Nissan Leaf and Chevy Volt. Many of you were correct, however, in that I may have been premature in my evaluations. Among the most relevant data shared was the Volt "selling every one [they could] make" and 20k preorders for the Leaf, and that it was a deliberately slow rollout. The consensus, at least at the time, appeared to be that we needed to have a year under our belt to really get a good grasp on the situation.
So what do we know now in 2012 that we didn't in 2011?
* GM predicted at least 10k Volts sold in 2010, and didn't even come close to that number, missing it by nearly 2400 cars, spurred in part by an allowance to sell the existing demo models. Inexplicably, GM intends to produce 60k of them this year even though demand has not been high. Granted: the Volt only reached nationwide status in the fourth quarter, but that did not seem to show significantly more demand.
* If the Chevy Volt isn't winning over hearts and minds, the Nissan Leaf isn't faring much better. It had higher sales year-long than the Volt, coming in at 9600 sold in the US. The Leaf, however, saw its sales peak over the summer and has mostly seen a precipitous decline from its height.
The issue with electric cars remains the same: they're expensive, they don't go far, and they cost too much to the taxpayer. A Volt costs the taxpayer $250k per vehicle sold on top of the ticket cost to the consumer - no wonder you have to be fairly affluent to drive one. The Volt runs for a whopping 40 miles on electricity (and then another 340 per tank on premium gas), the Leaf a significantly-better-yet-still-sad 110 miles at best, probably closer to 75 - I drove more than that to visit my friend last weekend. With the price tag in the high $20s-low $30s even with tax credits, it's not likely to find many more adopters, etiher - catching only 2% of the market overall isn't much of a splash for an industry with high expectations it set for itself, never mind what the rest of the people who supposedly know what they're doing thought. But, to be fair, even the execs are only thinking 6% market share 13 years from now.
The Jalopnik post above says it best, to me:
The reality is that we will see viable alternative energy vehicles sooner rather than later. I think, given what we know about the electric options available and the options coming down the turnpike, that electric vehicles are not ready for prime time, and perhaps aren't actually the answer at all. I could still be proven wrong on this, but when we sink literally billions of taxpayer dollars into a technology that so few people want or need, it may be time to say "enough is enough" on the electric car experiment. We now know who killed the electric car - the consumer.
So what do we know now in 2012 that we didn't in 2011?
* GM predicted at least 10k Volts sold in 2010, and didn't even come close to that number, missing it by nearly 2400 cars, spurred in part by an allowance to sell the existing demo models. Inexplicably, GM intends to produce 60k of them this year even though demand has not been high. Granted: the Volt only reached nationwide status in the fourth quarter, but that did not seem to show significantly more demand.
* If the Chevy Volt isn't winning over hearts and minds, the Nissan Leaf isn't faring much better. It had higher sales year-long than the Volt, coming in at 9600 sold in the US. The Leaf, however, saw its sales peak over the summer and has mostly seen a precipitous decline from its height.
The issue with electric cars remains the same: they're expensive, they don't go far, and they cost too much to the taxpayer. A Volt costs the taxpayer $250k per vehicle sold on top of the ticket cost to the consumer - no wonder you have to be fairly affluent to drive one. The Volt runs for a whopping 40 miles on electricity (and then another 340 per tank on premium gas), the Leaf a significantly-better-yet-still-sad 110 miles at best, probably closer to 75 - I drove more than that to visit my friend last weekend. With the price tag in the high $20s-low $30s even with tax credits, it's not likely to find many more adopters, etiher - catching only 2% of the market overall isn't much of a splash for an industry with high expectations it set for itself, never mind what the rest of the people who supposedly know what they're doing thought. But, to be fair, even the execs are only thinking 6% market share 13 years from now.
The Jalopnik post above says it best, to me:
I can't look someone in the eye who's about to buy their first car and say, "Look, buy this electric vehicle. It's not very fun. It's not what you want. You can't really haul anything. It's very likely not any better for the environment. But it is very, very quiet. Especially for the hours and hours it takes to charge."
The reality is that we will see viable alternative energy vehicles sooner rather than later. I think, given what we know about the electric options available and the options coming down the turnpike, that electric vehicles are not ready for prime time, and perhaps aren't actually the answer at all. I could still be proven wrong on this, but when we sink literally billions of taxpayer dollars into a technology that so few people want or need, it may be time to say "enough is enough" on the electric car experiment. We now know who killed the electric car - the consumer.
The Politics of Mass
24/11/11 10:34rick-day.livejournal.comIf you have ever flown, and you are a person of size (height or girth) these issues are never adequately addressed without some unnecessary prior planning and luck for a PoS.
However, one airline goofed and a PoAS was victimized.
A passenger on a US Airways flight said he was forced to stand for seven hours after he was squeezed out of his seat by an obese man sitting next to him.
“I didn’t fly from Alaska to Philadelphia on Flight 901,” Arthur Berkowitz told Christopher Elliott, a consumer advocate who operates elliott.org. “I stood.”
“His size required both armrests to be raised up and allowed for his body to cover half of my seat,” Berkowitz said. “It did not allow me to use my seatbelt during takeoff and landing as well as required me to stand in the aisle and galley area for most of the seven-hour-plus flight.”
Alaska to Philly is about a 9 hour flight. Reading the story, US Air admitted their peeps made an error and allowed to PoS to board without buying 2 seats (which is BS in and of itself)
The Money shot: From the airline corporate grassy knoll.
“The way to ensure you have space available next to you — whether you are a person of size, or you would simply like to ensure you have more personal space to relax on a long flight — is to purchase that additional seat, or First Class, in advance.”
Have airlines lost their collective minds? Is the mentality of the airline industry now "Cram them in like packing sardines in a can. If they want comfort, they must pay!"? Do they not realize we are CUSTOMERS? Isn't it time for special "PoS" planes and scheduled flights? I'd pay 20% more to have first class leg room in coach.
( My horror PoS story, and yours is...? )
source
However, one airline goofed and a PoAS was victimized.
A passenger on a US Airways flight said he was forced to stand for seven hours after he was squeezed out of his seat by an obese man sitting next to him.
“I didn’t fly from Alaska to Philadelphia on Flight 901,” Arthur Berkowitz told Christopher Elliott, a consumer advocate who operates elliott.org. “I stood.”
“His size required both armrests to be raised up and allowed for his body to cover half of my seat,” Berkowitz said. “It did not allow me to use my seatbelt during takeoff and landing as well as required me to stand in the aisle and galley area for most of the seven-hour-plus flight.”
Alaska to Philly is about a 9 hour flight. Reading the story, US Air admitted their peeps made an error and allowed to PoS to board without buying 2 seats (which is BS in and of itself)
The Money shot: From the airline corporate grassy knoll.
“The way to ensure you have space available next to you — whether you are a person of size, or you would simply like to ensure you have more personal space to relax on a long flight — is to purchase that additional seat, or First Class, in advance.”
Have airlines lost their collective minds? Is the mentality of the airline industry now "Cram them in like packing sardines in a can. If they want comfort, they must pay!"? Do they not realize we are CUSTOMERS? Isn't it time for special "PoS" planes and scheduled flights? I'd pay 20% more to have first class leg room in coach.
( My horror PoS story, and yours is...? )
source