A Simple Solution to a Worldwide Crisis

[jpdm]

I find this ironic coming from someone who likes to use YOUTUBE videos as proof of a working concept.

What you tube videos thing?

I categorically deny that I posted tube videos as proof of a working concept. and I never posted one. (unless you edit my post again to suit your need just like that poster with uncle sam depicting me as stupid.)

IMHO, I really dont know what you are talking about. In my opinion, I think you are just making up thing or just plain lying for saying this.

Honestly, in my opinion, I really find it odd and it doesnt make sense, after I just commented on a post of a forumer re:article on prius, you again accuse me of doing something that I did not actually do unless you just want to put me down.

As if you have an axe to grind against me.

More over, the comparison analysis of the e-jeepney vs regular jeepney is pretty much similar if only not as detailed as the prius vs hummer.

I never made any comparison. You did.

Pretty much similar between prius vs hummer? you are definitely wrong here, in my humble opinion.

People like that guy who wrote that article can USE and Manipulate numbers to state his opinion or view of reality.

These are my opinions only.

[jpdm]

*doc JP

AFAIK, Spinella has not refuted rumors alleging CNW Marketing to be funded by GM. In addition, he has steadfastly refused to publish his research methodology in garnering facts for the Dust to Dust report - despite numerous requests from publications such as Slate, which picked up on said report.

His refusal is incredulous, given his credibility is at stake and that CNW's supposed profitability is anchored on subscriptions. Without credibility, the company will logically lose its subscribers.

Correct.

And in other words, he is not objective becuase he has vested interest and might be working for GM. Thats not objectivity and makes his "findings" invalid as proof.

Unless they revealed their methodology and certified by "authorities (in research,"source of vaid data") or accepted by peers (again certified experts of the field (PhDs), I think the article is nothing more but a mumbo jumbo of numbers and findings.

Again, Math and Numbers (including low and behold, quantitative research) can be manipulated to state an opinion.

[ghosthunter]

Again, Math and Numbers (including low and behold, quantitative research) can be manipulated to state an opinion.

You can do your own math calculations since the facts were based on the fugures that came from you.

Fact: math is NOT an opinion.

[jpdm]

You can do your own math calculations since the facts were based on the fugures that came from you.

Fact: math is NOT an opinion.

Came from me or it came from the manufacturer and the proponents. I never made any calculations on my own because I trust the proponents (definitely authorities in their field)of the project. And I never made a comparison unlike what you have done.

In fact, Im not questioning your calculations or numbers per se but how you arrived at those numbers.

Who said that math is an opinion? You and definitely you, IMHO.

This is my original post.

Per se, math is not an opinion. But math can be used or even manipulated to state an opinion. Thus, it is a tool in making an opinion.

Again, And I categorically said that math can be used and manipulated to suit your needs. Like stating your view of reality or your opinion.

With all due respect, do you understand that? Basic research will tell you that.

[ghosthunter]

Came from me or it came from the manufacturer and the proponents. I never made any calculations on my own because I trust the proponents (definitely authorities in their field)of the project.

Who said that math is an opinion? You and definitely you, IMHO.

This is my original post.
Again, And I categorically said that math can be used and manipulated to suit your needs. Like stating your view of reality or your opinion.

With all due respect, do you understand that? Basic research will tell you that.

So do you own math to include purchase costing and operational costing. It is not that difficult. You can even post your own calculations if you doubt our math calculations. Or maybe you are just too afraid? We presented the math used. We even used your information that you or other proponents have previously posted in the discussion threads.

[jpdm]

So do you own math to include purchase costing and operational costing. It is not that difficult. You can even post your own calculations if you doubt our math calculations. Or maybe you are just too afraid? We presented the math used. We even used your information that you or other proponents have previously posted in the discussion threads.

IMHO, do you really understand what Im saying?

And this is plain empty challenge. You know why? Because you are forcing me to make calculations, yet I categorically said, I never challenged your numbers except that Im not convinced with your math and I rather believe the proponents. I also said, I will wait for the results of the test done by buyers/users of e-jeepney if they really live up to expectations.

I'd also contacted Romski123 becaue I was tasked by our coop to buy 2 e-jeepneys. But Im still waiting for the feedbacks of e-jeepney user.

Do you think its not a good idea and I should just accept your numbers hook, line and sinker?

Now, if you are really sure about your calculations why not present it in a academic journal or scientific journal and rebut the claims of PHUV, Inc., GRIpp and Greenpeace, the proponents of the e-jeepneys?

So that, doubting thomases like me will get an accurate evaluation of the e-jeepney.

By the way, you NEVER answered by questions because all I get from you are jeers, ad hominem attacks and those tin can, uncle sam and dog posters.

Here are my questions. Have you actually tested the e-jeepneys? You said you based your calculations on the numbers given by Romski123's PHUV, INc., so what variables did you used? Is your computations based on similar mileu? say controlled environment?

Answer this directly. perhaps, you may convince me to believe that you are an authority in this area called environmental economics.

[ghosthunter]

IMHO, do you really understand what Im saying?

And this is plain empty challenge. You know why? Because you are forcing me to make calculations, yet I categorically said, I never challenged your numbers except that Im not convinced with your math and I rather believe the proponents. I also said, I will wait for the results of the test done by buyers/users of e-jeepney if they really live up to expectations.

I'd also contacted Romski123 becaue I was tasked by our coop to buy 2 e-jeepneys. But Im still waiting for the feedbacks of e-jeepney user.

Do you think its not a good idea and I should just accept your numbers hook, line and sinker?

Now, if you are really sure about your calculations why not present it in a academic journal or scientific journal and rebut the claims of PHUV, Inc., GRIpp and Greenpeace, the proponents of the e-jeepneys?

So that, doubting thomases like me will get an accurate evaluation of the e-jeepney.

You should recheck the numbers given by GREENPEACE and other proponents. They avoided including the cost of a new battery pack into the calculations because they know it will defeat the "cost savings" part of their sales pitch.

It is stated that the battery pack is rated to last 500 cycles which is about 1.5 years. Given that it is an item that should be replaced on a regular basis, the cost should be included in the operational overhead of the e-jeepney, yet it is plain to see it is absent.

Go ahead, do your own math.

[uls]

It may interest you to know that the above article was written by a staff writer of a school paper of a small town school - Central Connecticut State University.

The article has since been debated in several blogs and forums, such as the ones below, with several of Demorro's "facts" being disputed -

http://forums.storagereview.net/inde...howtopic=24978

http://www.greenhybrid.com/discuss/f...part-ii-18789/

http://wallofcheese.blogspot.com/200...mental_03.html

In addition, Demorro has been accused of plagiarizing from the article below -
http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automoti...Commentary.pdf

ok

sorry

i didnt check the background of the article

but even if that article is only 50% factual, it still raises the question if the Prius is really as environment friendly as people think it is

all people see is the finished product -- a car that burns very little fuel

but people do not see what goes into making a Prius

i'm sure the production process (raw material extraction & delivery, the logistics involved in putting together the car, the energy it takes to run manufacturing facilities, etc) has a huge carbon footprint

let's even forget i posted that article

just use a little imagination

the Prius isn't as green as people think it is

[jpdm]

You should recheck the numbers given by GREENPEACE and other proponents. They avoided including the cost of a new battery pack into the calculations because they know it will defeat the "cost savings" part of their sales pitch.

It is stated that the battery pack is rated to last 500 cycles which is about 1.5 years. Given that it is an item that should be replaced on a regular basis, the cost should be included in the operational overhead of the e-jeepney, yet it is plain to see it is absent.

Go ahead, do your own math.

We will.

In fairness to you, perhaps before I will place our orders, I will asked some engineers from our faculty coop to conduct a thorough study (more than 1 million pesos of coop money will be used for 2 e-jeepneys if it will push through depending on the study) and compare your numbers with the numbers stipulated in the brochures of PHUV, Inc., perhaps clarifications from the manufacturer itself, through ROmski123 and MDJuan Enterprises and the actual numbers or feedbacks to be given by an actual user of the e-jeepney. (this is called in scholastic or scientific study as testing the validity of data through cross referencing)

This will determine our decision if indeed this e-jeepney works.

[architect]

ok

sorry

i didnt check the background of the article

but even if that article is only 50% factual, it still raises the question if the Prius is really as environment friendly as people think it is

all people see is the finished product -- a car that burns very little fuel

but people do not see what goes into making a Prius

i'm sure the production process (raw material extraction & delivery, the logistics involved in putting together the car, the energy it takes to run manufacturing facilities, etc) has a huge carbon footprint

let's even forget i posted that article

just use a little imagination

the Prius isn't as green as people think it is

Actually I am glad you posted the controversial article as I would like to find out the truth re the allegations raised. Hopefully it would lead to a healthy discussion of not only the Prius but other hybrid cars as well.

Having driven the Prius (current and previous gens), I am very impressed with its performance to the point I am considering purchasing one for my son in California next year.

My two siblings there, like so many other professionals, have swapped their cars for this hybrid. My brother went from a Hummer to the previous gen. My sis replaced her BMW X3 for the current gen.

While the Prius is quite compact, it has in fact more legroom than the Porsche Cayenne. With my 6'2" brother-in-law driving the Prius, there was more than 6" of leg space for the passenger seat directly behind him. Whereas with his Cayenne, the legroom was very cramped. My sis is able to achieve almost 50 mpg while my brother, with his pinoy-style of driving still managed 40 mpg.

In addition it has enough power to go uphill with four adults, as well as accelerate fast enough, merging into the freeway.

The economics of fuel-saving vis-a-vis the price aside, the Prius does indeed emit much less pollution. Enough for the State of California to grant the first batch carpool lane exemption (even with just the driver). Given the gridlock traffic, especially in Silicon Valley, it was a very compelling incentive.

In addition, Toyota offers a 8 years/100,000 miles full parts and labor warranty for the entire hybrid system (which includes the hybrid battery pack). For California, it is even longer (10 years/150,000 miles) for the hybrid battery and certain emissions components. The new model will even have a longer warranty.

Moreover it has several amenities - GPS, proximity key, parking sensors, etc. All which add up to a nice attractive package.

Of course, the considerations in the U.S. for purchasing the Prius are very different than those here in the Philippines. But the compelling reasons for going green exist all over the planet.

Thus the question is whether the Prius' alleged huge carbon footprint during production (as compared to other hatchbacks, I guess) is really true and if so, does it totally negate the reduction in emission during use?

Hopefully we will find out. Thanks.

[Rev!t]

Of course, the considerations in the U.S. for purchasing the Prius are very different than those here in the Philippines. But the compelling reasons for going green exist all over the planet.

^
and afaik, buying a Prius or any hybrid here in the Philippines is odd..pathetic, or in street talk - b.s. In U.S., you get tax incentives or rebates while in RP, you get punished by paying high taxes (or even tongpats).

correct me if Im wrong fellows..

[niky]

Nope. You pay the exact same tax everyone else pays for purchasing an expensive vehicle.

That's the problem with hybrids. Nakaka-save ng gas ang owner... but who pays for their tax breaks and incentives?

Owners of other vehicles... that's who. Going green should be its own reward... but if others have to shoulder your savings, then there's something fundamentally flawed with the "green" model being espoused. Why should taxpayers shoulder up to $7000 for other people's hybrids? That 3.5 - 7k incentive could instead be used to research alternative fuels, or could go to building solar, hydroelectric or whatever power stations, which would have a bigger long-term impact than a single hybrid.

Hybrids make more financial and environmental sense as applied to public utility fleets... where the number of kilometers covered and number of passengers served means that a hybrid will pay for itself within less than a year... even without a tax break.

Why am I focused so much on money? Well... money doesn't grow on trees. To generate the money it costs to build a hybrid... crops are grown and topsoil is lost. Animals are farmed and animal populations are depleted, or even more crops are grown to feed those animals. Oil is pumped and refined. People build houses, make goods, sell goods. To make money requires economic activity... which, at its very core, is fueled by natural resources.

Instead of generating more economic activity and thus, natural resource usage, which is required to cover the shortfall in government revenue created by "green" tax breaks and which is accelerated by the "carbon offset" economy... why not use all that energy to directly build sustainable power in the first place? Put a punitive tax on all fossil fuel used and use that tax to fund construction of renewable energy resources. Don't give tax breaks for hybrids or electrics... as it takes non-renewable energy to make them, in the first place!

Encouraging people to buy more expensive items because it's the "green" thing to do misses the point. Why not just encourage them to spend less. Spend less on automobiles... spend less on gasoline, by commuting, walking or cycling. Spend less on travel altogether by moving closer to your place of work, or finding work closer to home... or by working via the internet.

By promoting hybrids, we just perpetuate the same wasteful lifestyle... we're just putting a better face on it, is all.

[architect]

Hi Niky,

That is a interesting counterpoint re hybrids insofar as the U.S. situation is concerned and which makes sense. Unfortunately, given the economic situation these days, a lot of people can't afford to choose a job that is near their home, much less one that lets them telecommute. They would be happy to get a job anywhere, even one that requires a 1-2 hour commute, which in the automobile-oriented state of California, wouldn't be uncommon.

In addition, suburban spread necessitates the use of a vehicle even just to make your weekly runs to the grocery, hardware, or to the mall. The integration of the automobile into daily life in the suburbs has been around for decades that it will take a disruptive paradigm shift to successfully wean people from it.

Until someone is able to develop such model, hybrids appear to be a good compromise start. And tax incentives help kick start hybrids, since as products in their initial phase of their life cycles, their pricing tend to include R&D costs. The hope, obviously, is that as volume ramps up, acquisition cost will decrease. In the interim, hybrid owners not only save on fuel, they also generate less pollution while using their cars.

There is also something intangible about owning a hybrid. From my observation, my siblings and other Prius owners appear to be more health-conscious, more concerned about their respective carbon footprints. Going green seems to extend beyond just driving a hybrid car. There is a remarked change in lifestyle.

Obviously not all hybrid owners experience such epiphany. But for every one that does, it means a reduction in carbon footprint for yet another person.

[niky]

There's always cycling and/or motorcycling. I used to walk and cycle a lot, when time permitted. Unfortunately, our government just doesn't prioritize pedestrians in the city, when it should. Ever try to walk from one end of EDSA to the other? The sidewalks are terrible... there are electric poles sticking right through the sidewalk everywhere... ramps are blocked... those stupid pink fences make the sidewalks too tight, and you're expected to climb up or down a zillion steps just to cross the street. It's oddly liberating, though... being carless. Expenses just evaporate.

This isn't to say that hybrids don't make sense at all... there are situations where they do make sense, as long as you meet the minimum number of kilometers a year, or as long as hybrid stays on the road long enough to become carbon-neutral... and... having driven the Prius, it's a much better car for commuting than 90% of what people buy nowadays... but the true cost should always be reflected... to let people know what they are. Much of it isn't development cost, anymore. It's true materials cost. Looking at other hybrids and pure electrics, the size of this material cost is staggering. Unless and until the breakthrough in battery technology we're hoping for comes about (I was hoping for something from NanoSafe or RedLion... but nothing, yet...), this may yet prove to be the ultimate downfall of electric and hybrid electric vehicles.

Unless, of course, we see that paradigm shift you were talking about.

The big problem with suburbia is that it was built up around the modern concept of the automobile. The automobile gave workers a huge increase in commuting range. With cheap gas, good roads and cheap automobiles, Americans were able to adapt a lifestyle that allowed them to live far away from the nearest convenience store, grocery and job. Now that it's more expensive to motor, both in a financial and environmental sense, there's no easy way to reverse the trend... I think there's been talk about reviving city centers that had become slum areas and encouraging people to move back in... but I don't know the situation there now.



We have an advantage here in the Philippines in that it's still possible to live without an automobile as long as you don't live in the new subdivision developments (the older ones and less exclusive ones have fairly well-established public utility lines). We have small-scale businesses that thrive within communities... so you don't actually have to drive a few miles to buy your groceries and needs... though you may have to drive further to work. Here, cheap electric vehicles might work. You don't need the extended range American electrics would need if you are to use your vehicle only for short trips within the community or to the nearest public utility terminal (taking a bus for the long trip to the city).

Even better... linkable electrics (I wonder where this concept has gone?)... by linking small electric vehicles together into road-trains, you increase energy efficiency by minimizing wind drag, spreading the power load over numerous cars, and by minimizing acceleration-deceleration events. And you'll still give each commuter trip flexibility at the ends of the road-train line (when they get off the highway at the city or when they get back to their community)... this also avoids the typical inefficiency of an empty city bus (3-4 mpg with one passenger versus 3-4 mpg with sixty passengers is a big difference!).

One can only dream... ;)

[ehnriko]

Your mouth is moving without your brain knowing about it. You obviously don't know what you are talking about.

ARE YOU SURE?

YouTube - 1970's VW Beetle and 1970's Gen. 1 Golf
70's VW Beetle and 70's Gen. 1 GOLF Crash Test

YouTube - 2009 CHEVY MALIBU vs. Vintage MALIBU
New CHEVY MALIBU vs. Old CHEVY MALIBU, the guy in the new car was expected to walk away from the accident while the one in the old car would have died.

Now who's using youtube videos?

The above videos are meant to serve some companies well.

Firstly, Old Chevy's have bolt on front end chassis. Have you ever seen an old car under full ground up restoration?

I was referring to old cars with full chassis like a MOPAR 69 Dodge Dart... or a 76 Crown. There were old cars with detachable front ends... - they are definitely not the ones I am refering to.

I walked away alive and in tact (thank God, I was wearing seat belts) after hitting a concrete post with a 76 Toyota Crown 2.5 Li. 6 cyl. A/T version at 80 kph. The whole front end was smashed up to the water pump section. But the rest of the body was in tact.

I couldn't have survived If I was driving my 97 Sentra Series 3 AT..

I would like to see a 69 DODGE DART head on with a 2009 Toyota Vios.

Reality... If you drive a 69 Dart nowadays in Philippines - the chances of having a head on with a new model Chevy Malibu is nill. But head on with smaller toyota or Mitsu or Honda JJ is higher.

I havent tried searching yet... but I'm sure you'll try looking for a video to counter this.

[architect]

Hi Niky,

I have noticed, too, the trend towards inner city redevelopment, especially in unsuccessful high-rise tenement neighborhoods. While the compact areas generally lend themselves to car-less activities, such efforts also tend to displace the previous low-income residents. In addition, being in the inner city, previous residents already tend to commute because of the convenient established mass transportation infrastructure. Thus, the net gain in carbon footprint would not be as significant.

As for our situation here in the Philippines, the creeping suburban development is as much, like most anything, a bastardized imitation of the American approach, as it is out of necessity. But you are right in that a lot of subdivisions can and are somewhat self-contained in that you can procure most daily needs right within the confines of the developments. And once the population of a new development is sustainable, tertiary transportation (i.e. tricycles) will also become available. Interestingly, this set-up can be found both in upscale communities and middle to lower-middle classes subdivisions. Fact is, it is also applicable in squatter colonies.

Currently, in the upscale communities, you can see residents drive around in electric golf-carts to go to the nearby golf/country club or to the neighborhood commercial center. If we are to look at recent historical trends, electric golf carts/utility vehicles are likely to come down in price as China continues to find ways to make them cheap and affordable, as it does with just about any popular consumer product. (Earlier this year, the Chinese government adopted a plan aimed at making the country one of the leading producers of hybrid and all-electric vehicles within three years, and a world leader in electric cars and buses after that.) So it is likely we will see such electric vehicles in less luxurious neighborhoods in the near future.

So whether the effort is Chinese or American, the objective is obviously making electric vehicles affordable both in terms of acquisition costs and usage. Obviously there is a difference in the approaches with the Chinese aiming to leapfrog existing technology while the Americans/Japanese are doing it incrementally.

There are also other more radical suggestions – such as the linkable electrics you mentioned. However these require substantial infrastructure and hence are more difficult to implement since they will require government involvement. After all, any green solution cannot be pure dogma and is invariably tied to the existing environment (such as the aforementioned suburban sprawl) and economic structure (such as the oil industry which can potentially be severely affected).

For a poor third world (fourth?) country like ours, obviously for any proposed solution to be viable, especially in the short-term, the change has to be incremental in terms of the status quo. One possible opportunity is the one you mentioned – the so-called tertiary routes, some of which are currently served by tricycles. It is in fact an approach that I have been researching on for the past couple years. So I guess our mindsets are not too far off from each other.

Hmm. Perhaps we should really get on with that long-overdue EB with you so that we can pick your brains?

[ghosthunter]

Not because China have produced it affordably that the Filipino consumers will buy it.

Example is the electric scooter. China has been making this for over a decade and it is pretty affordable, looks like any other scooter and only requires the battery pack to be plugged into a household outlet to recharge. Yet when importers try selling these locally, very few people bought them. Gas powered scooters were still the choice for the Filipino rider.

This is the same mentality why the Filipino car buyer would prefer Japanese over Korean cars.

[niky]

Not because China have produced it affordably that the Filipino consumers will buy it.

Example is the electric scooter. China has been making this for over a decade and it is pretty affordable, looks like any other scooter and only requires the battery pack to be plugged into a household outlet to recharge. Yet when importers try selling these locally, very few people bought them. Gas powered scooters were still the choice for the Filipino rider.

This is the same mentality why the Filipino car buyer would prefer Japanese over Korean cars.

The lack of convenience of an electric scooter versus a gasoline scooter is a very poor trade-off for the emissions and fuel savings benefits... but yeah... the biggest hurdle is the perceived (and actual) lack of quality control versus vehicles from other countries. Heck... most Chinese-made gasoline scooters are dreck compared even to locally-made ones.

Hi Niky,

I have noticed, too, the trend towards inner city redevelopment, especially in unsuccessful high-rise tenement neighborhoods. While the compact areas generally lend themselves to car-less activities, such efforts also tend to displace the previous low-income residents. In addition, being in the inner city, previous residents already tend to commute because of the convenient established mass transportation infrastructure. Thus, the net gain in carbon footprint would not be as significant.

Actually, since you're moving commuters out closer to the factories where blue-collar jobs are, and drivers in closer to the commercial areas where white-collar jobs are, it should have some gain, however small.

As for our situation here in the Philippines, the creeping suburban development is as much, like most anything, a bastardized imitation of the American approach, as it is out of necessity. But you are right in that a lot of subdivisions can and are somewhat self-contained in that you can procure most daily needs right within the confines of the developments. And once the population of a new development is sustainable, tertiary transportation (i.e. tricycles) will also become available. Interestingly, this set-up can be found both in upscale communities and middle to lower-middle classes subdivisions. Fact is, it is also applicable in squatter colonies.

The Sari-Sari store. It makes us greener than the West!

Currently, in the upscale communities, you can see residents drive around in electric golf-carts to go to the nearby golf/country club or to the neighborhood commercial center. If we are to look at recent historical trends, electric golf carts/utility vehicles are likely to come down in price as China continues to find ways to make them cheap and affordable, as it does with just about any popular consumer product. (Earlier this year, the Chinese government adopted a plan aimed at making the country one of the leading producers of hybrid and all-electric vehicles within three years, and a world leader in electric cars and buses after that.) So it is likely we will see such electric vehicles in less luxurious neighborhoods in the near future.

So whether the effort is Chinese or American, the objective is obviously making electric vehicles affordable both in terms of acquisition costs and usage. Obviously there is a difference in the approaches with the Chinese aiming to leapfrog existing technology while the Americans/Japanese are doing it incrementally.

The big problem is the stigma of "China Made", as GH points out. Despite being number five in the world and being an acknowledged forerunner in the diesel race, Hyundai still carries the "Korean Made" stigma. And this despite the fact that some of the best electronics also come out of Korea (I'm typing this on a Samsung monitor... absolutely lovely unit).

Until the last Chery Tiggo or QQ3 leaves the road, to be replaced by more modern and (hopefully) more durable future Chinese models, public acceptance of Chinese cars will not happen. It may take another five to ten years to get the grudging acceptance the Koreans get, now.

There are also other more radical suggestions – such as the linkable electrics you mentioned. However these require substantial infrastructure and hence are more difficult to implement since they will require government involvement. After all, any green solution cannot be pure dogma and is invariably tied to the existing environment (such as the aforementioned suburban sprawl) and economic structure (such as the oil industry which can potentially be severely affected).

Maybe, maybe not... gasoline distribution is already problematic in the provinces... a lot of provincial stations (and even metro stations) go under after a while. The volume isn't there. This means that there is either room for an alternative (LPG or electric) to grow... or that the market is too poor to support any type of motorized transport.

I guess my anti-hybrid stance is simply because it's treated like dogma in the US... where other countries are going for a more general conservational stance... not using a single magic bullet, but by diversifying fuel use and buying more efficient vehicles overall.

Add to our further Americanization is the fact that larger vehicles with larger engines are becoming more popular as our middle class grows richer and US and European crash regulations and market needs demand heavier cars... a trend that needs to be reversed, and soon.

For a poor third world (fourth?) country like ours, obviously for any proposed solution to be viable, especially in the short-term, the change has to be incremental in terms of the status quo. One possible opportunity is the one you mentioned – the so-called tertiary routes, some of which are currently served by tricycles. It is in fact an approach that I have been researching on for the past couple years. So I guess our mindsets are not too far off from each other.

Hmm. Perhaps we should really get on with that long-overdue EB with you so that we can pick your brains?

I'm willing. It's just that after the typhoon, time and money are tight. PM me your CP again (I lost my previous phone) and we can talk some time. I miss being involved. ;)

[architect]

I fully agree China-made cars are currently perceived as inferior in quality and performance to Japanese and even Korean cars and rightfully so. But if we take as case studies other products manufactured by China, there is a very strong argument it is just matter of time before they become acceptable, even to Filipino consumers.

Historically, the Chinese will first try to learn the manufacturing process, either legally as a licensed subcontractor, or illegally via producing exact imitations. Once they perfect the process, they will try localize the product for the domestic market, exhibiting some sort of original but minimal design efforts. But once they perfect that phase, they will develop completely new designs and try to establish their own brand image in the global market.

Several factors come into consideration insofar as global (or specific) market acceptance is concerned. Where there is a well-entrenched quality standard, especially for high-ticket items such as automobiles, a China-made version with a perceived lower quality will have a more difficult time unless it successfully minimizes entry barrier to render the initial investment relative insignificant. Of course, if it proves its quality over time, then it will definitely be able to compete - but the emphasis here is over time.

Others simply purchase an established brand (Lenovo's purchase of the IBM Thinkpad line) to expedite market acceptance. While others invest in substantial multi-media marketing, such as Acer, to make its brand well-known.

Others persist in illegal ways - like the plug and play Honda-compatible motorcycles, simply because they can get away with it. Despite various negative feedback, the sheer disparity in prices, as well as the availability of affordable financing have enabled China-made motorcycles to penetrate the local market. Of course, the compatibility with a well-known model does not hurt.

This is the same marketing model Chery used in making its Chevy Spark-plug compatible QQ a best seller in China. Other China car companies have followed since, with some achieving the same kind of success.

However, with the EVs, it is entirely a different matter. Firstly, there is no one dominant model that is well-known globally. The Chinese don't know who to imitate. Secondly, the limitations of EVS insofar as speed and distance is concerned have, by and large, deterred the Chinese consumers from buying in.

Parallel to this is that fact that the local market has matured and is now showing a preference for traditional mid-sized sedans. This is also the reason why China companies are now dumping their low-end models in third world countries like ours.

But as you have noted, the local acceptance has not been that lukewarm. This can be attributed to the fact that a baseline has been well-defined (and for years) by Japanese (and American) models and by which the Chinese cars fail miserably in comparison, negating whatever price advantages they offer.

However with EVs, there is no such established baseline to date. China-made EVs will fail to attract the mainstream market, not so much because of comparison (with what?) but because of their current limitations. And given the current situation, I doubt very much if any hybrid or EV, for that matter, will in the near future become a dominant brand that can serve as a baseline.

Thus, if within the planned three year time frame, entry barriers are minimized for both acquisition and usage and performance is improved, then China-made EVs might just become viable options.

[donbuggy]

Even better... linkable electrics (I wonder where this concept has gone?)... by linking small electric vehicles together into road-trains, you increase energy efficiency by minimizing wind drag, spreading the power load over numerous cars, and by minimizing acceleration-deceleration events. And you'll still give each commuter trip flexibility at the ends of the road-train line (when they get off the highway at the city or when they get back to their community)... this also avoids the typical inefficiency of an empty city bus (3-4 mpg with one passenger versus 3-4 mpg with sixty passengers is a big difference!).

One can only dream... ;)

It's called dual mode. Combining private transportation with public transportation.

Alternative B:
Here's a variation using a prime mover to power all the electric cars in the road-train:

1) You plug in and recharge the batteries of your electric car overnight.

2) In the morning you drive to the nearest pick up point.

3) A special truck (prime mover) will arrive and your electric car is connected to the road-train. The prime mover does not actually pull all the cars. It just provides electrical power to the cars. The cars move / stop using its own motor / brakes while connected to the road-train. The prime mover's driver controls the direction, speed and stopping of the road-train.

4) While the road-train is moving, your electric car's batteries are being recharged by the truck's generator. Even when your car's AC is on, the batteries will not be depleted.

5) At the drop-off point, the road-train will stop and your car disconnects.

6) You drive to your destination.

The tricky part is the design of the connectors which allow the prime mover's driver to control the steering, brakes and electric motor of each car.

Alternative C:
The electric car goes on an automated guideway. The car gets its power from the electric lines on the guideway. This is more high-tech.
see http://www.tritrack.net/ and http://www.ruf.dk/

Alternative D:
Low-tech option - load the electric cars on a flatbed truck using hydraulic lifts. Truck generators recharge the electric car's batteries.

Advantages of dual mode transportation:

1) The electric car can have a smaller(= cheaper) battery pack because of the shorter distance travelling under its own power. This makes electric cars more affordable.

2) Convenient door-to-door transport. You won't get wet in the rain walking to a bus or jeepney stop.

3) Safer. Less chances of getting robbed / pickpocketed if you're in a car.