I read that prices of wind turbines have gone up with the increased demand. Dumb question, maybe, but if this is a growing market, why haven't U.S. automakers converted some of their unused capacity to get in on it? Do you think they should?
Why aren't automakers making wind turbines?
- Thread starter Bill Morris
- Start date
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
and here was me thinking increased demand lowered the price of goods. What a strange world we're living in.
Plecostomus
Commodore
It has to do with the internal politics of the car companies, they are CAR COMPANIES after all, they don't make "other stuff." They could totally shift production to wind-turbines, solar-units and all kinds of other nifty shit... but they won't because they make CARS damn it. 
Valeo had a huge plant here in Rochester, one of the biggest most advanced metal-stamping plants on the East Coast. Valeo purchased this plant from Delco, who used to be part of GM. Valeo wanted to use a portion of the plant here to dabble in other manufactuing operations but the managment left behind by GM/Delco balked at making anything other than "car parts."
Never underestimate the momentum (or lack of) of entrenched management. You can lead managers to new ideas but you can't make them think. People get mighty protective of their high salary and benefits and get mighty scared when things start to change, even if that change means bigger and better things down the road.
Valeo had a huge plant here in Rochester, one of the biggest most advanced metal-stamping plants on the East Coast. Valeo purchased this plant from Delco, who used to be part of GM. Valeo wanted to use a portion of the plant here to dabble in other manufactuing operations but the managment left behind by GM/Delco balked at making anything other than "car parts."
Never underestimate the momentum (or lack of) of entrenched management. You can lead managers to new ideas but you can't make them think. People get mighty protective of their high salary and benefits and get mighty scared when things start to change, even if that change means bigger and better things down the road.
Here's a recent reference about prices. The cost of the turbines is pushed up by demand outpacing supply, but the cost of producing electricity with them is going down, thanks to aggressive R&D.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/05/wind-turbine-costs-increased-offshore-power.php
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/05/wind-turbine-costs-increased-offshore-power.php
No - what a silly idea.
They have massive factories set up for making cars, with staff trained for making cars and they have no skills or ability in this area. Heck the jury is out on how good they are at making cars, at least profitably.
Investing in companies making wind turbines, or starting one with some of your profits to make them, might be shrewd. However if they had huge profits with which to invest, there would be no problems in the first place.
Whisper it, but what the US car market needs is a bit of realism. The v8 muscle car and the SUV are becoming a bit unfashionable and expensive to run these days. The US big three need to make smaller, desirable and high-tech cars that are the standard in Europe, where Volkswagen make a 1.4 that produces 170bhp.
Can't they start making cars with wind turbines?
Frigidaire used to be part of GM.
Here's the story of a 100+ mpg prototype SUV and some good ideas for the auto industry in general:
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/09/04/video-rmis-hypercar-a-100-mpg-suv-featuring-amory-lovins/
We will be seeing more all-electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids soon, but for big rigs, buses, taxis, etc., think LPG.
Here's the story of a 100+ mpg prototype SUV and some good ideas for the auto industry in general:
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/09/04/video-rmis-hypercar-a-100-mpg-suv-featuring-amory-lovins/
We will be seeing more all-electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids soon, but for big rigs, buses, taxis, etc., think LPG.
Well in theory if they get fuel cell technology into sensibly priced vehicles then you can have a big truck that uses no oil.
You will of course use far more fuel than someone in a sensibly sized car (just as there is more weight to move) but when the only waste produced is water and your fuel is produced from water (albeit with a lot of electricity, but heck that can come from nuclear, wind, solar) then it hardly matters.
The future is not the death of the car - it lies with fuel cells!
Not for the poor schmuck in a Mini Cooper that you kill with your big goddamn road hog.
I would be surprised if Dayton cares about that to be honest or he would have qualified his comment in the first place.
Think of it as an auction. If there's one object that everyone wants at an auction (high demand, low supply), the winning bid will be very high. But the more copies of the same object are up for auction, the less bidders will be willing to offer.
This is true with any type of production, from oil to widgets. As long as demand exceeds supply, there will be a scarcity of the product and the market will increase the price of that product. Once supply exceeds demand, there is going to be more product than will likely be sold, so the price falls.
Would you want an airliner to be built by a bus company???
The 1890's buggy companies that could adapt to make horseless carriages did and survied; the rest folded.
...same will happen with the 2000's car companies still stuck in the 1970s.....
The 1890's buggy companies that could adapt to make horseless carriages did and survied; the rest folded.
...same will happen with the 2000's car companies still stuck in the 1970s.....
Considering the Euro NCAP rating of the Mini Cooper, I seriously doubt any major harm would come to anyone inside it.
My first thought too. I mean, a small wind turbine mounted on a car somewhere would generate a fair bit of power on the highway.....
The only question is whether there's a more efficient way to use the space it would take up for another power-generation or conservation method.
They aren't completely unfamiliar with the technology though. There's that belt driven device bolted to the side of the engine called a generator.It has to do with the internal politics of the car companies, they are CAR COMPANIES after all, they don't make "other stuff." They could totally shift production to wind-turbines, solar-units and all kinds of other nifty shit... but they won't because they make CARS damn it.
Though of course not enough power to run the car - as this would essentially make the car a perpetual motion machine!
Hydrogen fuel cells seem the way to go for the future of the car. You Americans can even drive your big silly Tonka-toy trucks run by these and at worst make the environment wet.
Then you can use wind turbines, solar, tidal, farts etc to power the facilities making this Hydrogen until someone gets fusion working right.
Surely if they aren't profitable they shouldn't be supported. Its not environmentally friendly to make cars that aren't wanted.
Similar threads
