Long Aptera diary at DailyKos.com

[bobtaco]

Some interesting charts showing the cost savings of owning an Aptera people may be interested in:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/13/113325/664/212/539817

[Apt3448]

That's really nice, I hope many people read it. It starts out by saying: "Four months from now, in September, Aptera will sell the first car in the US that gets 320 mpg." That doesn't sound very well informed: we'd be thrilled if we get the first type-1e this fall, and the 1h is by all estimates a year behind that. And the 320MPG is a tad misleading. But the blog does a good job in giving the rest of the info, only to start drooling over the idea of possible savings when 100 million cars get replaced by Aptera's.
Aside from all insurmountable practicalities, I'm a real fan and all that, but all cars looking the same is not my idea of a good time. I remember east-Europe before 1989 and them producing just one type of anything, it was depressing... Which is what the people also thought.
Still, the savings arguments are interesting.

[speculawyer]

Sigh. I appreciate the enthusiasm, but I hate seeing the "320 mpg" claim. Its too misleading.

[Vasil]

Move the decimal point one digit to the left and you have what most cars get today. So what if you're off by +/- 50mpg? Even 100 mpg? Lets say the Typ-1h gets only 200mpg. That's still 10X better than most cars on the road today, and this is while gas prices edge the $5/gal line.

I'd take a 100mpg that I can still plug in (aka, almost FREE driving locally) over any ICE car any day.

And for everyone that's bummed that Aptera has one car right now, remember that Henry Ford started with one model. I guess it's safe to say that someone sharpened the design pencil somewhere down the line and cranked out a couple more designs. Aptera will most likely follow up with a larger model later on, especially as battery technology evolves and more and more manufacturers clamber to join the frenzy.

[KarenRei]

Lets say the Typ-1h gets only 200mpg

It doesn't. It only gets 130mpg + X (~50?) miles electric. It only gets more mpg by playing the very deceptive "PHEV game", in which you can basically make up whatever kind of numbers you want. It's like the ~20mpg PHEV SUV that went cross-country billed as a 150mpg vehicle.

[speculawyer]

Another thing I hate about that article are the draconian authoritarian things at the end such as outlawing other vehicles or forced licensing. It is things like that which give the environmental left a bad name. Small nudges & incentives to the market to direct it in the right direction are a good thing . . . but severe mandates squelch innovation and competition.

[Vasil]

Another thing I hate about that article are the draconian authoritarian things at the end such as outlawing other vehicles or forced licensing. It is things like that which give the environmental left a bad name. Small nudges & incentives to the market to direct it in the right direction are a good thing . . . but severe mandates squelch innovation and competition.
That's nonsequitor. Speculation doesn't yield fruition. Just because someone says that these numbers would work out great for the economy and the environment if these actions were done doesn't mean it will take form. Besides, look at all the mandates against public smoking. You telling us that banning smoking from confined public areas and public transportation is bad for us? Good luck selling that one. Tobacco products were once a cash cow... until the health data was gathered. Petroleum is the new tobacco industry.

[sk8ndad]

I have to agree, I like using the carrot to give incentives for change, but a healthy dose of responsibility through legislation is also needed. I'm not sure we have the luxury to sit back and wait for market forces to drive people out of their tanks. I would also add that that waits pain is multiplied by making the vehicles that don't have alternatives (think semi trucks) also pay the rising gas costs.

[Danny]

I would also add that that waits pain is multiplied by making the vehicles that don't have alternatives (think semi trucks) also pay the rising gas costs.

I hate to sound callous when I write this, but the only thing getting people to consider any kind of change in their driving habits is the fact that gas and oil are getting so expensive. If gas were not completely beyond what we consider reasonable, we would not be looking for any solutions at all. Thirty years ago we knew intellectually that we shouldn’t be importing more foreign oil. Every president from the 70’s forward has mentioned that we needed to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, but we didn’t. It is only now that we are forced to deal with the problems of using oil because of its price that we are seeing progress. While there may have been many reasons why the EV1 was discontinued, possibly the greatest reason was the fact that gasoline was still cheap. Yes, I know, its range was very limited. That was another important reason, but that could have been improved if there had been more incentive to invest in battery technology 30 years ago. With cheap gas, battery research had to support itself. With no electric vehicles, there was little money available for this research. Without the batteries, there were no electric vehicles. Catch-22. But with gasoline prices sky high, money is now available for both batteries and EV’s.

When we discuss the poor truckers who also have to pay for the high price of diesel, I do feel sorry for them. But that is because we have become so accustom to having things available from the far reaches of the globe. I enjoy that myself, but maybe the high price of fuel will give us incentive to look for alternatives to that as well. Maybe we shouldn’t eat lots of foods that travel an average of 1500 miles to reach our dinner tables. Maybe we should be spending a lot more time eating locally grown foods. I know I am going to miss eating bananas all year round, but maybe this is the price we have to pay for building an unsustainable infrastructure. The demand was there, and the supplies were available at great distances. With cheap oil, a great marriage occurred. Well, the free (or at least cheap) ride’s over.

Some of the solution is working closer to home and eating locally grown foods, and some of the solution is using more efficient vehicles like the Aptera, but that’s not the whole solution. Changing our habits and our infrastructure are just as important, and that’s not going to happen until it hits us in the pocket book like it is now with high oil prices. So, if I sound callous, I’m sorry. I don’t mean to be. I just think we need oil to be very high right now so that we continue to change. I just hope the price goes up slowly enough for us to adjust without chaos.

[Vasil]

By simply switching to a renewable energy source, we reduce demand on nonrenewable fuels. Yes, the bottom lines of petroleum companies will hurt, but our air will get cleaner, the fuel reserves will shrink at a lower rate, making fuel more abundant and cheaper for those who really need it (long range drivers, aircraft, etc). For all the people commuting less than 30 miles per day, you really have no excuse for not getting an AEV.

[mmalc]

That's nonsequitor.

Indeed.
Imagine if 5 years ago the government had mandated a 35mpg minimum to take effect in 5 years' time. How far would we be along that path now? Would we be in quite the precarious position we are in now?

How far along would we be if the US had (over time) introduced fuel taxes like those in Europe and people had started to appreciate the importance of economy...?

[mmalc]

Maybe we shouldn’t eat lots of foods that travel an average of 1500 miles to reach our dinner tables.

Much agreed. To go on a tangent on this point in particular -- maybe we shouldn't serve lots of food. I'd be interested to know what savings could be made if restaurants simply cut portion sizes to something less than a quantity per person that would feed an entire family in most other countries.