I am, and gas costs made me decide to pay $30K for my Nissan LEAF.

I analyzed TCO (excluding maintenance costs, which are much lower for electrics, but I couldn't quantify that so I just ignored it) for about 20 different vehicles, including EVs, hybrids and pure ICE vehicles,. My model assumed that the new vehicle was going to be an additional vehicle, and that the other (gas-burning) vehicle would be available for trips beyond the range of the EV. I assumed very conservative ranges for the EVs, for example I estimated the LEAF's range at 60 miles (it's really more like 80-120, depending on conditions). Finally, I created a statistical model of my driving habits and calculated the total cost over 8 years.

The result was that the three EVs I looked at had the top three spots... they were the cheapest to drive overall, in spite of being by far the most expensive up front. Even better, thanks to tax credits the break-even point was at 2-3 years. Without the tax credits it was about 6 years. The vehicle immediately behind the EVs was the 18K Honda Insight hybrid, then a mix of other hybrids and more-efficient gas vehicles and finally a long tail of gas vehicles trailing the pack.

Of course, your driving patterns may be different, your electricity costs may be higher or gas prices lower (oh, I assumed that gas prices would continue increasing at the same rate they've increased over the last 8 years), etc., etc, etc., but I've walked several other people through applying my model to their situations and in every single case the EVs have been extremely competitive -- and usually the very cheapest.

In practice, what I've found -- for me -- is that my model was very conservative. In fact, the LEAF is even cheaper than I expected. Partly that's because I was able to get a better deal on the car than I had assumed, and partly it's because I do most of my charging at work, so my actual energy costs are dramatically lower than my model had anticipated.

Oh, and it's a very nice car, not a "tin can" that can't keep me as warm or cool as I like. It's a 3000-pound vehicle that accelerates 0-60 in 7.8 seconds, will do 90+ mph and can easily keep the cab at 60 degrees or 90 degrees or anywhere in between, regardless of outside temperature. It also has power everything, a nice stereo, GPS navigation, XM radio, bluetooth, backup camera, and computer or smartphone-based remote control... it's loaded. Of course, stomping on the gas pedal, driving 90 mph and blasting the heat (the AC doesn't use so much, plus it doesn't have to work against the heat generated by an ICE) will drop my range from 120 miles down to about 70 -- but my model only assumed a 60 mile range. It's a compact, but the alternatives I compared it against were also compacts.

EVs are very real, and very practical, today. And it's only going to get better. If Tesla can produce a $30K car with a 200-mile range, it'll be a huge hit with cost-conscious people, because that's enough range that for most people it can be a primary car -- no need for another ICE vehicle except on the rare long-distance trips, and it's cost-effective to rent for those.

I'm pretty sure we already know the answer. The cat is dead. Curiosity killed it.

Warning: Other examples of "unstructured data" include 4chan and Conservapedia.

-

In fact, of the 23 companies that received funding under the same program as Solyndra did, at least 19 of them are still in business - that's an 83% success rate. When you factor in the fact that these were all loans that the free-market was too risk averse to take on itself, that number is pretty fantastic. Most venture capital funds are lucky to have a 10% success rate.

What does the American electricity-guzzling appliance do?

Spins up. It's not the running wattage that's the problem. It's the locked rotor current that will get you.

...you will lose those "rights" the moment a pressing global need calls for their exclusive use, and having any legal claim to said rights requires full disclosure of the processes. Intellectual property, like any other kind, can very easily be confiscated by government under the same eminent domain rules that govern private property, hotshot.

But, you know, that all depends on your dire prediction coming to pass. Good luck with that (or, well, given the severity of your end-of-world scenario? Maybe bad luck with that.)

Lol, I scanned it for "Denmark" and figured that was good enough. Guess I don't have that autistic attention to detail.

So the part of Kyoto which exempted gigantic polluters such as China and India... exactly what science do you consider to be justification for that?

That's what GP was talking about - one can certainly be against a proposed political action, and not really care what scientific measurements or papers were touted to back it up.

Now try and say that, and suddenly you don't get the whole sentence out before everyone of a certain ideological persuasion points and screams "He's anti-science!"

SAP aren't the first to do this.

Thorkil Sonne at Specialisterne in Denmark has built a consultancy of autistics.

This is the guy who thought it was clever to condemn free software as the "open sores movement." He also said, "When Windows 2000 gets here, goodbye linux." When he got called out on his doucebaggery he pulled out that old classic of the playground bully, "Just Kidding!" and then whined about all the "slashdot" persecution.

He also promised to eat his words if the internet didn't collapse during the 1990s. Wussed out by having them written in frosting on a cake.

I wouldn't be surprised if ethernet's openness had nothing to do with him, probably even fought against it at PARC.

Wait - Bush and the GOP are is still in power?

How did that happen?

...so, umm, what if the robot breaks?

That's true. However, given that an earlier part of the post indicated that he/she spent 85% of his/her waking time in the office, it is clear that flexible time is not what was meant. That's approximately a 95-hour workweek. Even if you interpret it as 85% of your waking life during the five days that most people work, that's still a 68-hour workweek. Neither one is healthy, even for short periods of time, much less on an ongoing basis. A 40-hour workweek is about 36 percent of your waking life, and for jobs that involve serious thinking, studies have shown that even that is well above the point of diminishing returns.

Actually, it appears that it will "streamline" it right into Microsoft-owned territory, never to leave. Also, it would be less of a market and more like a company store, with all the attendant evils.