« Sharp Decline Forecast for World Cereal Stocks; Ethanol Demand a Contributor | Main | New CNG, LPG Cars for India »
OBVIO! to Introduce Electric Cars to North America (updated)
20 July 2006
 |
| The 828. |
Brazilian automotive company OBVIO! will develop and introduce lithium-ion-powered electric cars based on its 828 and 012 microsport car designs (earlier post) for export to North America.
OBVIO! has a strategic partnership with California automobile distributor ZAP, which has agreed to be the exclusive North American distributor and has pre-purchased 50,000 OBVIO! units.
The initial versions of the 828 and 012 car designs will be flex-fueled, and will go into production in 2007. The 828E and 012E equipped with electric drive systems will not be far behind, according to OBVIO! President Ricardo Machado.
It is clear to me that electricity has a big future in the auto industry. OBVIO !’s business model of 100 percent outsourced supplier relationships allows for the speed and flexibility to incorporate a new drive system powered by electricity by our second model year.
—Ricardo Machado
The preliminary specifications for the OBVIO! electric cars include a range of 200 to 240 miles, with acceleration from 0 to 60 mph of less than 4.5 seconds and a top speed of 120 mph. A 39 kWh lithium-ion battery system will power the 120 kW (160 hp), 220 Nm (162 lb-ft) electric motor.
A full normal recharge will take five hours, with a fast charge taking two hours. A 30-minute quick charge will provide a 20 to 50 mile range.
OBVIO! is also providing a bi-directional vehicle-to-grid (V2G) interface.
Target prices for the 828E and 012E are $49,000 and $59,000 respectively.
July 20, 2006 in Brazil, Electric (Battery), V2G | Permalink | Comments (61) | TrackBack (4)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/5477200
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference OBVIO! to Introduce Electric Cars to North America (updated):
» Brazillian OBVIO! to Introduce Electric Cars to North America from ENGINEERING.com
[Read More]
Tracked on Jul 20, 2006 5:39:01 PM
» Brazillian EV coming to the U.S. from Seven Generational Ruminations
OBVIO! to Introduce Electric Cars to North America: Discusses a Brazillian car which is due to be introduced in the U.S. by Zap and Obvio page @ Zap.
There are two models of this car, one is a flex-fuel car which is hybrid-electric and can run on gasoline [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 20, 2006 8:18:45 PM
» OBVIO! to Introduce Electric Cars to North America (updated) from
Brazilian automotive company OBVIO! will develop and introduce lithium-ion-powered electric cars based on its 828 and 01... [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 21, 2006 4:12:38 AM
» Obvio.US: Brazilian Flexfuel, Electric Cars Coming to the States from Jalopnik
Flexfuel and electric-car aficinados (and Kermit the Frog impersonators) in the US will soon have their pick of Brazilian-built Obvio! cars. Word came down yesterday that California's Zap will distribute the green (literally) pod vehicles in North Ame... [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 21, 2006 3:47:29 PM
Comments
Well, that's less than a Tesla and with a similar range.
Posted by: Cervus | Jul 20, 2006 12:40:07 AM
I don't get it, is it an electric car, or a combustion engine? It says electric, but then it says things like "car designs will be flex-fueled" which means it can run on ethanol/biodiesel, right?
Posted by: Brad | Jul 20, 2006 1:39:52 AM
Ok sorry, ignore that, I understand.
Posted by: Brad | Jul 20, 2006 1:41:07 AM
Mike, can you tell us if they are doing the 18650 lithium-ion trick to get that range?
Posted by: clett | Jul 20, 2006 2:39:41 AM
Yea, and next their offering will be flying submarine.
Posted by: Andrey | Jul 20, 2006 3:29:06 AM
Now they just need to make in not ugly. Other than that it seems pretty good.
Posted by: James | Jul 20, 2006 3:31:34 AM
at $15-17K for a cool, quick, E100-compatible runabout, it is a good idea.
at $50k and with a psychologically limited range, i think it will be a much harder sell.
i look forward to seeing the petrol 828 around, though. it is pretty hot.
Posted by: shaun mann | Jul 20, 2006 3:59:37 AM
It'll be tough to convince government and local businesses that the extra price up front will be worth it. It really would be a great car for business that requires jetting around town all day, but it seems price prohibitive at this point.
Posted by: stomv | Jul 20, 2006 4:16:58 AM
Too pricey for a commuter type vehicle. For $59000, I will drive my $700 gas hog 1977 13mpg Chevy truck, and spend the rest of the money on $3.50 gallon gas going 216,543 miles. Thats 8662 days for me, or, almost 24 years!
Otherwise, its a cute car. I would drive it in a heartbeat, but not in that color! How much is the gas version selling for? If its anything more than $8000-9000, then its too high.
Also, I dont understand how ".....100 percent outsourced supplier relationships....." allows for the speed and flexibility ".....to incorporate a new drive system powered by electricity....."?? Seems to me as a outsourcing bottleneck for sure!
Posted by: Mark A | Jul 20, 2006 4:45:01 AM
ZAP ordered 50,000 of these and expects to sell them at $50K-$60K - I don't think so. At that price the market would be really small, maybe 1,000 a year.
Posted by: Micah | Jul 20, 2006 5:45:22 AM
$50K ?????
Not a chance they sell more than 200 at that price.
Posted by: ChavezIsADictator | Jul 20, 2006 6:25:55 AM
0-60 in 4.5seconds? That is very impressive. Probably does the quarter mile in the mid to low 14 second range. Coupled with a 200mile range...it would be great in a sports car facia but how well does it handle?
Mark, comparing your old used truck to a new car is worthless. You would have to compare a new car to this and you would still find yourself saving money going with a gas car. In fact, if you compared your truck to any new car you can see that you will never save any money regardless of what vehicle you buy; so I guess you should never buy a new vehicle ever again if that is your sole impetus. Saving money is not the point of a vehicle such as this though.
Posted by: Patrick | Jul 20, 2006 8:19:19 AM
ZAP pre-ordered 50,000 of the petrol version, which is obviously considerably cheaper.
Posted by: shaun mann | Jul 20, 2006 8:34:33 AM
the real impact of the obvio! car brand, though, is it's potential impact on the american vernacular. since i first read about the company, i haven't said "obviously." "obvio" is just so much cooler and everyone immediately knows what it means.
Posted by: shaun mann | Jul 20, 2006 8:39:59 AM
That's a much greater range compared to a Tango, much cheaper and my guess is that it takes two compared to one person (although they don't exactly say). There will be quite a few well off people that will go for this which is just what we need to get this ball rolling. Finally EVs are starting to reach the market and their performance is getting much, much better. Great!
Posted by: marcus | Jul 20, 2006 8:46:59 AM
What's different from October 2005? Have the 60 Minutes researchers gotten around to ZAP yet?
Posted by: jcwinnie | Jul 20, 2006 9:28:43 AM
Very impressive performance figures! The range is good. It needs a tiny genset somewhere that you can take out for daily use, but put back in for longer drives.
You guys that say how much you can drive still on your gas trucks/cars for the same price difference keep forgetting to factor in the considerable upkeep/maintenance costs to keep them running (plus environmental costs, etc, etc). Factor maintenance/upkeep in with your old 1977 domestic truck and I guarantee you won't get anywhere near 216 543 extra miles on the same price. (besides, you're assuming gas won't rise above 3.50, which likely won't happen in the next 24 years!!--even if it rises to 5.00 you are fubar with a vehicle like that!) :)
This car (except for the battery, which is very expensive likely) will not need the majority of upkeep a standard car will: motor is the largest and possibly only moving part (with possible exception of electric A/C & steering pump, etc): the rest is mostly solid state electronic control equipment that, that if made right, could and should last for many many years. But it depends on quality of build: now-adays, everything seems to be cheaply made of plastic, so this could break more than expected too. And if the batteries don't give long life, well, you're fubar then too...
Posted by: John W. | Jul 20, 2006 9:30:14 AM
When they do come out with the EV version, I hope they come out with more than one model. I could do with half the range, half the acceleration, half the top speed and half the price.
Posted by: Neil | Jul 20, 2006 9:30:56 AM
At their website they quote $49K.
http://www.zapworld.com/cars/obvio828E.asp
Posted by: marcus | Jul 20, 2006 9:46:47 AM
whoops, that is the correct quoted price from above.
Posted by: marcus | Jul 20, 2006 9:48:29 AM
On the topic of electric cars, Tesla unveiled today its electric roadster. Very exciting. No pricing yet.
http://www.teslamotors.com
Posted by: EM | Jul 20, 2006 10:26:03 AM
I don't get why the Tesla won't be sold outside the USA. It's made in the UK and London has loads of millionairs.
Posted by: James | Jul 20, 2006 10:31:27 AM
According to a Wired Magazine article, Telsa is looking at pricing around $80k. There are also plans for a sedan in the future (2008), with the owners operating on the assumption the technology curve will bring down costs and price.
I could see Jay Leno and many other Hollywood and tech types buying this at $80k. I think more people who could afford it would be candidates for the Telsa than the Obvio at $49k. I also believe they are right about the technology curve. I don't know whether Telsa can build a viable competitive auto company on this technology, as the majors will storm the field when the concept has been proven and market developed.
Posted by: JM | Jul 20, 2006 10:39:57 AM
Maybe ... Tesla doesn't have size on its side ... on the other hand it doesn't have any baggage either. The U.S. is due for a new car company with some new ideas (and fewer bean counters).
Posted by: Neil | Jul 20, 2006 10:47:19 AM
WOW 59K.. Thats way more than a Hybridtechnologies
EV.
Maybe if they can finish this
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2006/virus-battery.html
the cost will come down?
Bob
Posted by: Bob | Jul 20, 2006 11:21:33 AM
heh nice, more range and similar specs to tesla for a much cheaper price. let's hope this isn't too good to be true.
and as for pricing in general, yeah, unless you drive shitloads of miles per day, there's no way to even come close to recooping the cost of this car. so?
Posted by: lensovet | Jul 20, 2006 3:24:30 PM
lensovet - "there's no way to even come close to recooping the cost of this car. so?"
That is of course while petrol is available - then what is the value of the car?
BTW - did you notice the important bit - it has a V2G interface.
Posted by: Ender | Jul 20, 2006 5:34:07 PM
O.K the cost is high! I'm not totally green but if we can save a little pollution and stop buying bullets for the other side I think I can stand the payments. This site has some fantastic stuff and all of it can help us get off oil but everyone seems to think we can do it without any sacrifice. 13 miles to the gallon is totally self indulging and is going along way to finance terror. The true cost of driving that 1977 pickup is much higher to us (all tax paying citizens) than it is to you. How much in tax dollars has been spent because the Middle East is an area of national security interest. As soon as I can become independent of oil I will. I hate the idea that fore every 35 cents or so at the pump I buy another 5cent bullet to be fired at our troops. Ev technology will not make it unless we support it monetarily. And our troops will have a hard time as long as we support the other side..
Posted by: Burtt | Jul 20, 2006 6:38:20 PM
ender, what i meant is that the purchase of this car has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with symbolism.
for me, that doesn't really take away from the value of the car at all. but i think it is a point worth noting.
Posted by: lensovet | Jul 20, 2006 10:52:37 PM
Wow, the EV market really appears to be warming up. Looks like Lithium battery technology is going to be the key difference between this century and the last.
Posted by: Shaun Williams | Jul 21, 2006 1:14:07 AM
I'm in the military. Why is it unthinkable for our government to consider heavily subsidizing EVs to bring them down into consumer range, but acceptable to spend billions of dollars a month to secure our oil supplies? Paint it desert camo, stick a machine gun on it, send it to Iraq, and call it an investment in National Security. Always a market for that.
Posted by: Rick | Jul 21, 2006 5:34:31 AM
Hear Hear Rick!!!!!!
You have to wonder why sometimes. I suspect that if you actually ran the number. Once you had the change over done the GDP would actually drop with all electric
any comments?
Mike
PS love the Tesla. Go boy Go!!!!!
PPS i watched a program on the BBC one night about a london real estate agent. What a nightmare getting around the city. I can se that it was an absolute no brainer for an estate agent with parking at the office to do the smart EV thing. Absolutley logical. I bet the do alright out of it money wise notwithstanding the lease pricing.
Posted by: Mikey | Jul 21, 2006 8:14:56 AM
Burtt: If you do the calucaltions based on the War in Iraq alone, we are paying a whole lot more than 5 cents for bullets for every 35 Cents in gasoline taxes.
Mikey: You bring up a great point, and one reason the Government doesn't want to wean us off oil, or off wars. Both contribute the the GDP, and that is how we measure economic health. We would all be better off with less GDP and more functional, productive (not necessarily mearured in $s) assets. It is the same with safety. If we could move to PRT for half our transport, that would cut accidents and injuries, which cost $millions. But that would reduce GDP, which would make things look bad. Interesting challenge.
Posted by: JM | Jul 21, 2006 9:22:26 AM
JM: I know we pay alot more in our tax dollars for the war for our side. That five cents is what we pay to the middle east oil producers that filters down to the enemy. they in turn buy ammo so the can shoot at our men and women in uniform. The piont is we are supporting the other side when we buy gas.
Posted by: Burtt | Jul 21, 2006 6:31:06 PM
Andrey: sorry, you have confused their next product with the swimming dirigible.
Actually batteries are coming on strongly now. They certainly should after 150 years of little progress. We are going to see a lot of EVs at competitive prices. The question is the battery cost curve. My guess - real sales start in 2009.
Posted by: K | Jul 21, 2006 9:50:41 PM
University of Toronto is working on solar cells that convert electricity from ultra-violet light. ultra-violet light is everywhers even in the shade. when this happens solar cells will be painted on an auto using nano technology and the actual body of the car will become a huge solar cell to power electric motors for cars. go to google and type in ultra violet solar cell for more information.
Posted by: Ron C. Row | Jul 24, 2006 8:35:51 PM
I remember when Honda came out with the 6 cylinder Accord hybrid. Many people on this site predicted that they missed the sweet spot of hybrid buyers . And that turned out to be right.
I also remember when Toyota came out with the 4 cylinder Camry hybrid and many people on this site predicted that they hit the sweet spot. And, so far, that appears to be correct.
To me, “0 to 60 in 4.5 seconds and top speed of 120 mph” is missing the sweet spot for a car that doesn’t look like a sports car.
I hope they succeed, but….
Posted by: George | Jul 25, 2006 12:52:31 PM
I think our military friend hit on the important question of why the government doesn't get behind EV's. It's the tremendous ammount of taxes that would be lost at the gas pumps. And this is the same reason they are pushing hydrogyn, it can be taxed. Sure, electricity is taxed, but not nearly at the rate gas is taxed. Over 50 cents on every gallon I buy is taxes. Now, multiply that by the millions of us that are driving these dinasours. If we all started plugging in, the tax loss would be incredible. Politicians would have to actually try and curb spending!
Whatever happened to the U.S. battery consortium? A supposed joint effort between the federal government and the big 3? Seems as if there is all this battery technology breaking all around us, they would be at the fore front of the action. Strangely silent.
I don't think they can squash this EV movement though. There are too many players, Tesla, Zap, Obvio, and I hear that Mitsubishi is moving up their Japan release of a 100% EV that gets about 175 miles per charge. And more jumping on board all the time. I predict we will see a burst in the damn here pretty quick!
I am sick and tired of all this miceast crisis stuff that we are paying for, and I am sick and tired of funding it at the gas pump. And I am sick and tired of paying gas taxes after my income and property has already been taxed. Enough already. This is the most patriotic thing we as Americans can do at this moment in history. We can make a difference. Small at first, but when it starts catching on, Watch Out! The future is electric!
Posted by: Uncle Sam | Jul 28, 2006 4:18:49 PM
I think they may make a marketing mistake when they forget the Prius effect. The success of the Prius is in large part due to the fact that every Prius is a hybrid, so everyone can see you are different, an in what way you are different.
The Obvio will be available as an ordinary petrol car first, and then as an EV. The people prepared to shell out big bucks for an EV do so because they want to be different (green). But they also want TO BE SEEN different. The existence of a similar $ 40.000 cheaper petrol version of the same car will take away most of the green/different aura of the EV model.
This is worsened by the fact that the EV version is available later than the petrol version. The buyers will not get the feeling of buying the very very latest technology, which is just as important as the feeling of buying a green car.
I sure hope they won't make that mistake and use a completely new design for the EV version.
Posted by: anne | Aug 1, 2006 4:57:27 AM
Though the Obvio! may.. or may not be the leak that finally broke the dam for domestic availablity of EVs in this country, I would think that now would be a good time to invest in American co.s that are involved in production of the latest bulk battery technologies- namely NiMH & Li-based cells. I know of 2 such co.s, one of which already produces NiMH 'blocks' for NASA, the Army & soon the Air Force (currently being developed). Best of all, they both have production capabilities here in the continental U.S. with room to expand.
Shipping EV subcompacts in for now & loading 'em w/ U.S. made hi-tech batteries would seem... Obvious! :)~
Posted by: musictekkie12 | Aug 2, 2006 5:27:42 PM
If EV hybrids are the future and there is GDP/tax loss concerns from energy security, just grow biodiesel & make Li batteries, solar panels, etc to substitute ! GDP & Tax will stabilise...
The current EV high prices, though of concern, will eventually come to consumer levels, when the above conditions are solved first.
For range concerns, perhaps in future in place of parking meters there'll be charging outlets instead... LOL
Posted by: Fishlipps | Aug 8, 2006 9:46:33 AM
I think the key is the availability of a practical EV at the $14K price point. I picture a Geo Sprint type body volume, 200mi range, light construction, but simple, robust practicality. Sounds like an Obvio with half the performance. Forward-thinking styling would help sell. But in sum, the price is currently exclusive to the masses for which such a car makes perfect sense.
It seems that EVs could be simpler vehicles, engineering-wise, than our current internal combustion cars. Production at similar costs should be achievable.
Posted by: BillM | Aug 9, 2006 9:57:50 AM
Obvio makes two types of cars. 828, and the 828E version, and the 012, and o12E version. The E stands for electric, (OBVIOusly).
828# is NOT $59,000. it is $49,000. the 828 is $14,000.
012E is $59,000. you can find these on ZAPs website, at www.zapworld.com. The 012 and 012E look a lot
better than the 828, which to me looks like a life size version of a toy.
012 has a maxium speed of 160mph. 0-60 in 4.5 seconds.
012E has a maxium speed of 120mph, with a range of 200-240miles. acceleration is said to be the same. more information can be found at www.obviousa.com
Posted by: Z | Aug 9, 2006 2:45:40 PM
We already had a successful, plug in, all electric vehicle in the USA....(EV1) in 1996, yet we are still debating over what type of fuel to use. With the new Lithium ion batteries and nano techs we should already have an *AFFORDABLE* plug in, all electric, vehicle with a range of 200+ miles. Its all a scam... the government and big business do not want efficient cars...there's no $$$ in it for them, why would they? What we need is a private company to start making ***affordable*** long range electric cars and when the time comes they need to hold the line and not sell out to the government or big business.
Posted by: This is all B.S. | Aug 10, 2006 1:21:57 AM
The 828 is $14,000
828e(electric vehicle) is $49,000
012 $28,000
012e-(EV) is $59,000
In other words electric vehicles will not be affordable/available to the general public.....again. The United States should be ashamed....we boast freedom yet we are not free from oppressive big business/government. With gas prices at $3-4 a gallon for the past year, America is ready for plug-in electric vehicles. I only wish i had the mechanical ability and the money to start my own company.
Posted by: This is all B.S. | Aug 10, 2006 3:34:33 AM
You want my take on this? The US government will HAVE to take notice when it comes to it's ethanol senses. How much
MORE than speculated are we as taxpayers going to have to spend for the conversion? God only knows it's never
what they say it's going to be.
I believe the answer lies somewhere in thermocouples and
superconductivity. Create a voltage from two dissimilar
metals, keep it cold enough . .and viola' the next new
deal that's been starting jet engines for decades.
Posted by: R. Cohn | Aug 10, 2006 10:12:06 PM
Dear "This is all B.S.",
The ev1 was not successful. In fact, it lost a ton of money per vehicle. Oh, unless you measure success by how much celebrities cry when you take their toys away. If this little POS is any indicator, then obviously the TECHONOLOGY IS STILL NOT QUITE THERE YET or else this thing, that can maybe fit half a midget, wouldn't cost $49k. Get a grip on reality.
That said, the Tesla roadster looks very sweet, but I am skeptical they can get it down to the $80k they are predicting.
Sincerely,
Mom
Posted by: tesla roadster rules | Aug 11, 2006 1:14:38 PM
"with the new Lithium ion batteries and nano techs we should already have an *AFFORDABLE* plug in, all electric, vehicle with a range of 200+ miles. Its all a scam."
No, YOU are the scammer by acting like it is all so easy and some dark forces are stopping it. Nonsense. EVs are expensive because the batteries are expensive. The batteries are epxensive because high-density energy storage is NOT easy. These cars are $50k to $80k instead of $15,000 because to get 200 miles of range you need 50KWH of storage, either thousands of pounds of lead-acid battery - which makes the car act like a boat anchor (see EV1) or nearly 1000lbs of Li-ion battery, which costs around $40,000 (eg Tesla car).
Go ahead. Make our day. Build a better battery, cut the cots by 10X and you can be the world's next Bill Gates. Millions will buy it if you make a better energy storage device. Nobody is stopping you, and if you say otherwise you are full of it.
It's no great conspiracy, it's reality.
"the government and big business do not want efficient cars" -- More nonsense. Since when is it 'big business' job to 'want' something, other than to want to make a profit by serving customers. Their responsibility is to customers and shareholders. If *YOU* are willing to pay for it, it will get built.
If *YOU* demand it be cheaper, either it will get built at that price or not at all. There's plenty of EV tinkerers to build a cheaper EV *IF IT IS POSSIBLE*.
As for Govt: We spend billions on alternative fuels, billions on EV research, fuel cell cars, etc etc. Freedom Car initiative is $1 billion and add to that NASA, Los Alamos and other places doing research. Most of Govt R&D money is inevitably wasted since the best magnet for innovation is the free market.
VC funded startups like EEStor and Tesla Motors and companies like Honda and Toyota are leading the way, creating customer-focussed innovations, and the winners are those that apply innovations to serve markets and needs that people demand.
Nobody can or will stop those innovators, and nobody will stop you if you have something useful in the marketplace - of products or ideas.
It's the way the world works. Get used to it.
"...there's no $$$ in it for them, why would they?"
Think outside the box. There is *always* $$$ for a better mousetrap. If your presumption that something 'wonderful' didnt catch on in marketplace, dont construct a phony conspiracy theory, rethink a little - maybe the product just wasnt that ready for real use to start with.
Someday EVs will replace the ICE gasoline-based cars. Someday. But not before the technology is there to make it a cost-effective reality. It's seems that day is within sight.
Posted by: Patrick | Aug 13, 2006 11:39:34 AM
Someome asked why military isnt using this. Well, DoD has been funding EVs and alternative vehicle systems. eg look here, the DARPA-funded motor used to make the Hummvee hybrid:
http://www.cte.tv/darpa/100kW.pdf
Posted by: Patrick | Aug 13, 2006 12:50:41 PM
its a nice idea but at $60,000 for this car it will not catch on in the mainstream market place.
if they can get the price down to $10,000 or less i can see there being one in every drive way.
Posted by: Thomas Frost | Aug 14, 2006 5:52:45 AM
Interesting. I love the concepts. What I want is a car priced for the general public; the general public looks for new cards around $15,000, not more than $20,000. If only the elite can "save the planet" with the choice of car they buy, then that's what, 5% of the population of car drivers in the states? Obvio needs to rethink their marketing plan if they want to sell more cars. What would you choose? An Elite buying a "fun car" and thus not selling many or a car priced to the middle, where many more folks will buy them? I'd go for volume, not collectors. Especially if the point behind it is to save the planet.
Posted by: scoot | Aug 14, 2006 12:53:16 PM
I'd first like to second what Patrik said. I was about to post a similar response. If you want to know why we are still burning petrol and not skipping around in our happy EVs just look in the mirror. There was a fuel shortage in this country in the 70's. Those that should have learned from that experience did not. Through questionable politics the US managed to get the fuel prices down again and everyone just ignored what happened and went on trying to out SUV each other. The American consumer is to blame not the government. The government in the US serves only to get re-elected and if keeping the consumers Hummer topped off with cheap gas does that, then they'll go all in. This can be seen by the use of the energy crisis as a political football.
We all know we need to make a change but it will happen gradually and with some sacrifice. I think the people on this site know that. But to spout ignorance is no way to facilitate the change.
For instance, the comments about the money for refined petroleum products paying for our enemy's bullets; according to this report: http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/rankings/crudebycountry.htm the top supplier of US crude is Canada followed by Mexico. Let's hope they're not buying too many bullets. Besides, even if there was no oil to fight over the current leadership would find something.
And in typical USA fashion you think the world revolves around us. There are billions of people living in industrialized nations that all need oil. Even if we stopped petroleum usage in the US 100% tomorrow the demand would still be high.
We can change the world but a victim mentality won't make it happen.
Posted by: Mk | Aug 14, 2006 2:40:37 PM
Out of all the othere nations we are the top user at 25% of every drop that is being pumped. We do have a huge impact on the price of crude. and every time we fill up we suport that price that makes the people in the middle east rich and in turn they buy bullets that are used to shoot at our soldiers. We also get oil from the middle east. The fact is I would like them to be fighting with sticks insted of big bombs and missiles.
If we cut our use in half along with china who is ahead of us in this, the price of oil would go through the floor. Just an ignorant thought?
Posted by: Burtt | Aug 14, 2006 4:00:41 PM
Yes, still quite ignorant. You have completely ignored the fact that our top providers of oil are not in the Middle East. You like to oversimplify the issue. We are in agreement that we need to curb our appetite for oil but your arguments are short sighted. Take a look at the whole picture. You cite the "people in the middle east" but you name no specific country. It's a large region and, while we may not be that popular, the last time I looked not all of "the people in the middle east" were shooting at us. I do understand where you are coming from, just don't oversimplify.
If the US and China stopped tomorrow and the price went through the floor then all of the other industrial nations would enjoy extremely cheap prices on crude and refined products. This would drive up the demand in those countries and certainly wouldn't put OPEC out of business. We are talking about nations with far less regulations on emissions than we have. For instance, just try to walk down the street in present day Saigon with out a mask over your face. Imagine if the price of fuel was cut in half.
Remember, it's not the price or consumption you are talking about it's the providers. Even though you've named no specifics, most of the Middle Eastern nations you are alluding to are totalitarian regimes. They will use money from wherever they can find it to build their armies and arsenals. Just look at North Korea, no oil there but still plenty of bullets. We need a global solution and worrying about who has the bullets will get us nowhere.
If you want to make an argument about nations that are a potential problem for the US and a large exporter of oil to the US take a look at Venezuela where the oil fields are state run and the leaders aren't too fond of the US.
Posted by: Mk | Aug 15, 2006 10:56:10 AM
Everyone's out to make a buck these days. If everyone had electric the price of electricity would skyrocket and gas would be so abundant and cheap they'd want to buy back their petrol powered cars! I believe if you're one of the first few to own a pure electric car now! you're ahead of the game. Soon, again, we'll be searching for some other source of power (nuclear powered cars anyone?) aside from the obvious and deadly risks it is feasable. Then again what ever happened to that 1.21 gigawatt mr.fusion car in back to the future? It's just that ... in the future.
Posted by: Chris | Aug 15, 2006 11:24:58 AM
All cars will be more-or-less nuclear powered in the near future. That is, they'll be EV's powered from nuclear power plants. It will also be about the only way to arrest climate change. Oil will be used to fly planes and other essentials.
Posted by: Dude | Sep 14, 2006 6:16:01 AM
Nuclea power stations can never address global polution issues.
Plutonium is the most poisonus threat to man.
Nuclea waste poisons the earth for years
Radiation from nuclea fallout causes CANCER
the nuclea power buisness and lobby are more ruthless than the oil trade
Plutonium = DEATH
Posted by: lisa | Oct 15, 2006 4:27:37 AM
Here in the UK you can buy an electric car for £7,000 (about $12,500) that seats 2 adults and 2 small children (so it's probably similar in size to the vehicle pictured), and charge it from renewable energy (wind, waves, tides, hydro-electric etc). Virtually carbon-free motoring.
Posted by: Tim | Nov 6, 2006 5:22:51 AM
"It's a large region and, while we may not be that popular, the last time I looked not all of "the people in the middle east" were shooting at us."
Is anybody? has any body? actually really shot at the US?
Is it not the US who is doing the shooting at others?
When has anyone invaded or occupied the US like the US has done to many many countries?
Posted by: Jax | Jan 4, 2007 10:33:23 PM
Partrick,
The congressman from Michigan on a key committtee (dem. by the way) has been stonewalling meaningful emmissions caps because he is in the pocket of the industry. They've been doing that with efficiency standards for decades. Pelosi just took action to get around him. .....plain old NYT article. If the people (as opposed to the corporate sector) had insisted in the '70s & '80s thru prudent governance on higher mileage standards and better research we would be in MUCH better shape now!
Spare us the freemarket fundamentalist dogma. The "market" is no mere passive arbiter of taste and demand. It has an active seek and destroy mode. There has been plenty of conspiracy -perhaps not to the level of alien abduction or Rothchild illuminatus, but good old garden variety fox guarding the henhouse?....You bet! (conspire -to breathe together). Go hang out at "Truthout" or subscribe to Mother Jones. Read Palast's "Armed Madhouse" to see how much peddling and meddling the corporate culture has done with Iraq. Greed, which launched the war also caused our current massive failure. The mass media, bought and paid for, no longer does investigative reporting. The corporate mass media disorted the case for that disaster. The public, independent, and non-market driven media got it right. We need better mass transit not just a greener global parking lot and you can also bet that mass transit is not something the glorious private sector is competent or equipped to do on any significant scale.
Posted by: jeffrey Holsen | Jan 19, 2007 9:17:06 AM
You do not understand the issues and problems involved.
A pure electric car is less not more expensive to produce. this car should be $12000!!!!!
All you are doing is killing the electric car again!
You are asking people to do less with many times more.
Try using the limited mental power you seem to evoke.
Good luck in the next life.
Posted by: | Dec 7, 2007 7:34:23 PM
