Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bullitt
I wonder how much the "study" takes into account the fact that the technology and manufacturing of hybrid cars is just more expensive overall than your normal vehicle.
|
That is why transistors cost so much more than vacuum tubes. The same 'monetary' study was once written to prove transistors would be useless. Clearly a study based in monetary analysis is accurate.
Worse is that the study's author is considered an expert. I see Rush Limbaugh logic. Where does he put up a single number for energy? He does not. Instead he does a classic bean counter analysis. You are expected to assume that costs measure energy.
Clayton Christensen's book "Innovators Dilemma" makes this woefully obvious. Major breakthrough innovations are usually inferior when first provided. One need only look at disk drives. Why would tiny disk drives that hold so much less data end up undermining the big disk drive industry? Welcome to innovation. Major innovation does not demonstrate major advantages on the spread sheets - at first.
The original 8080 I had considered buying was $400 - or about $2200 in today's money. That proves the microprocessor takes too much energy to produce? That logic is in that hybrid vs hummer example. Not only is the study based in spread sheet analysis. It also demands you will assume a relationship between energy consumption and dollars.
Meanwhile that 8080 dropped to less than $10 in 10 years. This because technology advanced due to the new and revolutionary technology found in semiconductors and not found in vacuum tubes.
Hybrids are technologically superior to now obsoleting big block (1968) solutions. But it will take time and continued technology innovations for prices to eventually reflect that advantage. Ever hear of an Atkin's engine? Just another possibility that, due to hybrid technology, could reduce energy consumption further. Hybrids provide to automobiles what diesel electrics did to the steam engine. As is so routine, superior technology initially costs more than existing and obsoleting technology. It is why those who do spread sheet analysis cannot see innovation even if stuffed up their nose. By the time superior technology become obvious on a spread sheet, the technology has long been proven superior.
Those who do spread sheet analysis include GM management whose 1975engine technologies are in most all competition vehicles and still not standard in GM products - 30 years later. GM is still waiting for the 70 Hp per liter engine to be 'cost effective' - which is why GM dabbles in bankruptcy in 1991 and in 2006 while using spread sheet games to mask their continuing losses.
GM’s core business has not been a profitable for decades. This due to monetary analysis that cannot realize value until that innovation is no longer innovative. One can play money games to prove anything - including that the hummer uses less energy than hybrids. Classic MBA school reasoning.