Do electric cars, hybrids and solar panels kill third world babies?
There is a lot of debate about the real world economics of electric cars, hybrids and other alternative power-trains relative to a conventional gas or diesel fueled car. Over at Electronic Design News, Paul Rako has taken a different approach to evaluating the value proposition. He hearkens back to the old TV commercials with Sally Struthers urging viewers to donate money to help feed starving children. Using that as the basis for a virtual currency unit he calls the Struther which is defined as the cost of keeping a child alive for five years he calculates the cost of various options. Some of his calculations are a bit dubious however such as the assumption that the battery in a hybrid only last five years. The idea that spending nearly $100K on a Tesla roadster will sacrifice the lives of fifty children is also questionable. After all, any new technology usually comes in at a high initial price that is necessary to seed a market. Where Rako's calculations make perhaps a little more sense is the solar cell example. Here he does some present value calculations to determine the net cost of installing PV panels, the savings and how much that money could make if invested elsewhere. It's a thought provoking piece that makes some interesting, if flawed, points.
[Source: Electronic Design News, thanks to Domenick for the tip]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
GreyFlcn 11:58AM (9/30/2007)
I look at it this way.
Do cellphones hurt developing countries?
No they are one of their biggest assets.
However cellphones used to be these gigantically expensive monstrosities.
_
That said the only thing which would hurt developing countries most is if we hold them up to the same standard as developed countries.
Even though developed countries are the ones who almost exclusively created this mess in the first place.
Reply
iDevin 12:42PM (9/30/2007)
Wow. Just wow, I really don't know where to begin with this. This is just complete and total nonsense, and it has nothing to do with electric cars and solar panels. You could apply the same argument to anything that costs money.
Like, for example, the war for oil that has cost over $455,000,000,000 thus far. If we were all driving electric cars powered by solar panels, we most likely wouldn't be in that war. And think how many third world children you could save then.
Reply
Mike 2:05PM (9/30/2007)
On the solar calculation, it isn't a present value comparison. He's comparing future value of the investment with the current value of the savings, and anyone who thinks electricity rates are going to stay the same is crazy.
Plus the lifetime of a PV system is at least 20 years.
[My PV system just got installed so I may be a bit sensitive.]
Reply
Jack 2:20PM (9/30/2007)
Pretty far off the deep end.
Reply
BlackbirdHighway 3:18AM (10/01/2007)
Just canceled my EDN subscription.
Reply
howard 12:55PM (10/04/2007)
HAVE ANYONE EVEN WONDERED WHY BUSH AND CHENEY DON'T REALLY GO AFTER NORTH KOREA? THERE'S NO OIL THERE! OIL AND THE VENDETTA BUSH IS USING TO CONTINUE THE IRAQ WAR. THE VENDETTA IS BECAUSE SADDAM HUESSINE THREATENED TO ASSINATE GEORGE H.W. BUSH AND WE ALL KNOW ABOUT THE OIL THING, BUSH AND CHENEY ARE BOTH STILL IN THE OIL BUSINESS, BLIND TRUST, THAT'S A LAUGH. EVERY HOUR MILLIONS OF $s GO INTO THEIR "BLIND TRUST"! THE "BLIND" PART REFERS TO THE FACT NEITHER ONE KNOWS HOW MUCH IS ACTUALLY PUT IN THOSE TRUST!
Reply