Do I really need 200 A main service?

[Vic Smith]

I saw that, but never believed those claims. The EPA at least gets close. Somebody here with good math skills can convert $4.00 gas to the electric rate you would pay to get 230 MPG. But even then they better lower the Volt range to 35 miles, which is what real world tests say it gets - without A/C or heat running. Like I said, given my driving needs it would work for me. But not at the current price. I only spent more than $3500 on a car once in my 63 years. I'll never own a Volt. Plenty of others will if it succeeds.

--Vic

[aemeijers]

Hell, cars usually have that many miles on them before I buy them. Somehow I don't think there will be many 3rd or 4th owner hybrids, not if a refresh of the battery pack costs as much as putting a used engine in a real car.

[HeyBub]

In less enlightened climes, you need no permit at all. I've done two: at my place and my son's. We replaced crappola builder-grade, Wesmokeless panels with 200-Amp Square-D ones.

'Course our town's so backward we don't even have zoning.

And, believe it or not, we don't have many fires started due to poor wiring. No, not many at all considering we're the 4th largest city in the nation. Hardly even make the news.

Now assuming the original poster doesn't need or can get the required permit (or is willing to work under a tent attached to the side of the house during the dark of the moon) and:

a) has some common sense, b) can use simple tools, and c) is relatively close to a big box store, then

he can do the job himself for about $350.

"Officer, I have no idea. I'm as bewildered as you. I came home from work and there was a large red ribbon attached to the box with an unsigned birthday card and a bottle of Champagne sitting on the ground. I drank the wine... Did I do something wrong?"

[Dan Lanciani]

| > "RBM" wrote | >> Wow, that's pretty funny. Of all the reasons one might find to upgrade an | >> electric service, "electric vehicles are on the way", is certainly not | >> one I would have thought of. I suppose with the new "Volt" coming out | >> with it's revolutionary 40 miles (best case scenario) on a charge, people | >> will be just tripping over each other to buy one. We electricians will be | >> backlogged for the next ten years trying to upgrade everyone's service to | >> accommodate these technological wonders. | >>

| >

| > Funny today, maybe no so ten years from now. I read that California is | > installing thousands of charging stations now. That is keeping some | > electricians busy. | >

| > I'd put one in if I was buying a Tesla. You won't catch me driving a | > Volt even though the payback is a mere 18 years or so. | | I think you hit the nail on the head. California is just putting more nails | in their financial coffin, but for those of us living in the real world, the | volt is a POS, and we can't afford the Tesla. I don't think I'll have to | worry about installing piles of electric car outlets for a while yet

Something I've wondered about the payback projections for electric vehicles: do they assume that there won't eventually be a road tax applied to the electricity and if so is this a reasonable assumption? Or is there already some sort of compensating mileage tax?

Dan Lanciani ddl@danlan.*com

[Ed Pawlowski]

"rlz" wrote

Check out the engines on trains. If they take the diesel electric design and adapt it to a pickup, it can be done. Cost is the issue. There are large electric vehicles operating in other industries too. My guess is we will not ever see it, but I'd never say it cannot be done.

[RBM]

At this point, this administration is still trying to pay people to buy them. Not to mention that this administration is buying something like 25% of them itself. At some point, if some manufacturer builds one good enough to be sold purely on it own merits, without subsidies, then they'll find a way to tax them, my guess is by a per mile tax.

[Nate Nagel]

GM is making hybrid pickups, which seem to be a much better idea than a hybrid car, as the excess weight isn't nearly as much of a liability in a truck, nor are truck buyers necessarily looking for nimble handling. I don't think it ever had a Diesel version though.

nate

[Colbyt]

The house already passed the cap and tax plan to equalize the utility rates. Maybe the Senate can kill and it won't be brought back up in the new house.

But rest assured they will find a way to tax it if electric autos become a lasting reality.

Colbyt

[krw]

Weight is important in trucks used as trucks (and being heavier they will require more batteries). Also space is generally more of a premium than it is in a "commuter".

[krw]

As they should. Someone has to pay for the roads. Who better than the users?

[Michael B]

Who better to pay for the roads? I see it this way. The municipal governments pay for maintaining the roads, then they put another chunk of money into trying to set up urban mass-transit. They've got it all wrong. They are subsidizing the oil companies by repairing the roads that are being used by their customers. Let the oil companies pay for the roads. And hey, the U.S. owns about 40% of GM, let GM be turning out cablecars.

[aemeijers]

Oh, grow up. You can't put a streetcar track down EVERY street, even in dense urban areas. Roads will ALWAYS be needed. Even where mass transit passes the common-sense test, the cheapest solution is almost always rubber-tired bus service. Steel wheels only make sense on high-volume, high-traffic corridors.

Standard disclaimer- if the buses ran out this far, and went where I needed to go, I would ride them. I did in college, and liked it a lot. But I'm not gonna freeze my ass off downtown waiting for a transfer, or take an hour each way getting to work, when I can drive it in 12 minutes on a bad day.

-- aem sends...

[Michael B]

Actually, I agree with you. And know that places like London have their act together, but it'll eventually show up here. They have a BIG tax on the gas, it goes to setting up and maintaining mass transit, and just to "encourage" its use, they have a "congestion tax" of 14 pounds or so for driving in the deep urban services district. Most bus companies are just doing the dance. In London they don't have bus schedules, they have maps. Even if you just missed it, there will be another within 15 minutes. At least, that was our experience. Wait till gas gets to $5 a gallon, I'll still drive to the Home Depot and back. Because it's simply not practical to do it otherwise. But when/if it's $10 a gallon, I'll consider the bus.

[krw]

...and who pays for the oil?

Spoken like a true socialist Obamanut.

[hallerb]

obama did a good thing keeping GM in america.

in a total collapse its assets would of been bought by china, and all parts and final assembly would of been moved to china. all those american jobs gone forever.

all that would remain here would of been some large parts warehouses.

GM is paying the money back.

without obama unemployment today would be about 25% just like the great depression.....

is that really what people wanted?

[Robert Green]

Agreed. We have so little manufacturing capability left in the US that it was important to hang on to GM. When a manufacturer goes bankrupt, it's far different than when a bunch of paper-pushing bandits like Lehman Brothers goes under. There are tools, factories, people with know-how that will be broken up and that constitutes a serious loss that would be very hard to rebuild. Was GM mismanaged? Of course. Top-heavy, over-managed and ineffecient? Yes, but those are correctable problems. Once you break down the factory lines and disperse the employees, you've lost more than the firesale worth of the components. All the king's horses and all the king's men wouldn't be able to put GM back together again. I hate the fact that shareholders got wiped out, but share the gain, share the pain.

Absolutely. GM was worth saving if only because in WWII they helped saved the free world.

If that.

I saw a great ad on TV for GM showing other "greats" that have stumbled and thanking the American people for helping them get back on their feet. You didn't see the money-grubbing banks thanking anyone. They're the ones that did this to us, and they got to feed at the public trough just as deeply as GM.

Adding GM to the list of dead US companies wouldn't have helped the unemployment rate, that's for sure.

-- Bobby G.

[dpb]

...

...

Unlikely. They (like many others before them) could and should have reorganized under bankruptcy protection w/o the involvement of the federal government.

As for the WW II, what about Studebaker and others who also built much war materiel and are no longer w/ us? Why weren't they worth saving on the same basis as GM?

--

[trader4]

day, and the car could be built,sold,

pany could make a profit,

currently isn't the case.

dn't have to come up with a

Yeah, right. If we just put our head in the sand or better yet just be nice and kiss their asses as much as we can, all those radical muslims will just go away. Obama's been doing that for about 2 years now and has zippo to show for it. If the world were NOT buying oil from "those countries", then you'd be blaming the US for terrorism, because the countries had no decent economies. Yet those Islamic extremists exist in countries like Saudi Arabia that have oil and Yemen that do not. They seem to thrive in the UK too. Is that because of their North Sea oil?

Face it. There is evil in the world, whether it's in the form of islamic extremists or just nut jobs like North Korea, which doesn't have a pot to piss in, yet they have built an atom bomb and long range missles.

[trader4]

That's a great idea. Then the price of gas will be the same and instead of the oil companies sending a check to the govt marked federal fuel tax, they will be sending a check for the same amount marked federal "insert new name" tax. That's economics 101.

[trader4]

Funny how Obama gets all the credit. It was actually Bush who instituted the $787 bil TARP program and made the first loans in Dec 08 to GM and Chrysler. Why do I get the feeling that had GM gone down the tubes, you'd be reminding us of that part.

Again, it was under Bush that the $787bil TARP program was initiated that provided mostly loans, but also equity investments to wall street, GM, Chrysler. Most of that money has now been paid back and it's estimated by the govt that at most $80bil is still at risk. Meaning that's the most it will cost taxpayers and it in fact could be a profit.

Obama and the Dems on the other hand, pushed through another $800bil+ stimulus that was money that was never to be repaid. Unless you subscribe to the newly created economic statistic of "jobs saved", which of course is any number you want to make it.