There was a point raised about whether or not there was an electric car, and Mr. Gilbert had mentioned that it was his opinion that it would conceivably be 10 to 20 years before we would have a car that would regenerate itself as it was travelling.
One of my points of concern is that when we're in the decision-making process, we always have to reach a point where we've made a decision and fixed a design, and there is always that point. Many of us have been involved in projects for which there has always been the question of how you maintain the schedule when you've already agreed to a fixed design. Design has a certain amount of bias, and in order to proceed to a decision, you have to benchmark some of your design.
As recently as last week--and I would suggest to Mr. Gilbert that he could touch base with the Calgary Herald--there was a new mode of regeneration for batteries--not for large batteries but for smaller batteries--being patented by a local designer. It brings the existing cars that are on the market today from electric propulsion and gives them an opportunity of going 300 or 400 or 500 kilometres simply because they're recharging. His new alternator-generator system allows for that opportunity, as far as that goes.
I have a question for Mr. Meggs in Vancouver. I was looking at the numbers, and if I understood them correctly, we were suggesting that for a cost of $1,500 a day--roughly $450,000 to $500,000 a year--we would be able to capture something in the neighbourhood of $17 million. Am I correct? Are those the numbers we're using?