Don't just listen to the EVcast -- experience and be a part of it! Join us at 1:00pm Eastern, M-F, in our live video broadcast and chat along with us!
The 'transcript' is an attention getter, I can't wait to hear the difference in next Tuesday's podcast!
quote comment add new comment
JFK's speech to land a man on the moon before the end of the decade was given on May 25th, 1961 ( http://history.nasa.gov/moondec.html ). I have heard this speech brought up before in regards to setting ourselves the new goal of devloping new, renewable and/or zero emissions energy generation and transportation infrastructure. Perhaps it is good to listem to such speeches occassionally and remind ourselves of what we can do. Watch a later, more well-known speech (1962) from JFK on reaching the moon on Youtube at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTyYM-dUgCI
(Okay, let's not get all goose-bumpy now;-)
For the moon mission the government via private companies was given unlimited funds to hire the best engineers and equipment to develop the Apollo mission.
Charles Limberg had to find funding to build the Spirit of St. Louis (although he came from a wealthy family). The Space Prize Entries, had to find funding to build the spaceship. It took a lot of money from private hands to built these craft. In both instances, the prize was just a goal. It did not lead to commercialization of flight or space, as the goal to fly people around and charge them did.
The goal of this battery prize might lead to a commercial product if the winners choose to commercialize it. This prize must have a KWhr/volume, KWhr/weight, and KWhr/$ requirements. However, the goal to build this battery by private means already exists. Thus to give someone $300 million is basically just flushing money down the toilet.
Another idea might to be build a government lab on battery research. Where the government would have the funding to build the battery lines. Also anyone could enter the facility and review the research. If an assembly line could be developed at the lab. It could be dismantled and reinstalled at a private facility. Who would run the facility. Well the right likes to give it to the highest bidder. However, I think it would be better to give the plant to whom could sell the batteries at the lowest cost and pay the most taxes on them.
Selling goverment bases, airwaves, oil in ANWR should never be leased or sold to the highest bidder. It sold be those who pay the highest rent, $ per minute, and $ per barrel.
Regarding the Synovate study,
Point 1: The main message here is that "education" is important to getting people to consider alternative fueled vehicles. This education greatly improved the favorability of PHEV and decreased the favorability of standard ICE cars.
Point 2: The horizontal axis of a graph is typically the x-axis and the vertical axis is the y-axis. I think they were swapped in the discussion on the podcast.
Point 3: The graph is labeled "What type of vehicle would you prefer to buy" implying that the person could only choose one and thus the percentages should sum to 100%. I contacted Synovate (see below) and they said that this is really a "favorability" scale from 1 to 5 and the people would rate each technology rather than choose one. So there is no need for the data to sum to 100%.
John C. Briggs
Hi John,I received your question from one of my colleagues and just wanted to follow up with you. The question is not choose only one, but rather a 5-point scale on likelihood to consider each technology individually.If limiting to only a choice, then the data would be very limited in terms of findings since several of the technologies are not even on the market. I do understand your point since the title of that section uses the term "prefer" which typically is used in terms of ranking. While the chart is used to show consideration, we do measure preference among the technologies. I believe our PR group just used the wrong terminology in this case.I hope that helps to answer your question. Thank you for reading our article and being observant.Regards,Tim Englehart
Perhaps this is the word you were looking at in the podcast. See definition 2b below
http://img.tfd.com/hm/mp3/B0056400" />http://img.tfd.com/hm/mp3/B0056400" menu="false" wmode="transparent" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer">
b. To discuss in a casual or frivolous manner: bandy an idea about.