Comments on: New Electric Car Concepts: From the Meek Twizy to the Mighty e-Tron

By: Koz

Koz — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 23:21:17 +0000

I’m splitting hairs here I know but there may be some value to it. I believe your desire is really to be able to travel where you want, when you want and with the comfort and convenience you are used to. Am I correct in this assumption and that is really not a desire to use any particular resource or infrastructure. In this case, utilizing gas stations is the only realistic option available today, but this should not unreasonably confine future possiblities as long as they adequately service your requirements.

BTW, ethanol is very available just not E85 or E100. Most gas stations are already supplying E10-15, I believe.

By: Koz

Koz — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 23:16:58 +0000

ahhh, makes sense

By: koz

koz — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 11:23:19 +0000

Keith,

That is a testament to a lack of understanding rather than a sharing of it. Do you think PBP doesn’t know what battery costs are? Do you think they don’t understand what capital investment is?

They are planning to offer their service for @$100/mo. This is a direct replacement for gas consumption or personal battery ownership plus energy consumables. How it works financially for them is part of their secret sauce and there is a lot more to it than just monthly service proceeds.

I’m not saying the business model is a recipe for success or failure. I don’t know enough of the details to form a meaningful opinion and you demonstrate even less knowledge of their plan.

By: koz

koz — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:49:02 +0000

The problems lie in the cost of health care. I agree health insurance should be reduced back to what insurance is meant for, low risk expenses that a consumer cannot afford to pay. We will be argueing health care reform forever. If we don’t have tort reform and remove private “insurance” from the affordable heath care equation, there will never be any headway made.

Just transfering the same cost burden from the employer to the employee does nothing to solve the problem. Actually, in our current system it would be transfering at a higher cost because of taxes and higher individual insurance rates. Heathcare is not a discretionary consumable. This is one of the core facts that everyone, especially every congressperson, must first wrap their brain around before even engaging in a meaningful heathcare fixing debate.

If costs are lowered via tourt reform and cost reform, then we can relieve the burden from the employer. By cost reform, I mean no insurance provider should get a lower cost than a paying customer, immediately paid health transactions have a much lower cost than an insurer administered one so they should be 10-15% less than the lowest insurer’s price. I still don’t see a botom line benefit to removing employers from the equation, unless there is universal health care, but at least if costs are brought under control the additional burden is minimized.

By: LauraM

LauraM — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 05:53:49 +0000

I forgot to add–when you take into account demographics, there’s a strong possibility that those high savings rates are going to reverse in ten to twenty years. Japan’s savings rate is already declining . And, if current trends continue, South Korea and, eventually, China, will follow suit in ten to twenty years. (Thailand and Vietnam don’t look that great either demographically.)

Of course, those imbalances are still causing immense damage in the meantime…