Electric cars

James Arthur wrote in news:nALfl.125$ snipped-for-privacy@nwrddc01.gnilink.net:

can't be repaired easily,not practical for mass manufacturing. Old cars would not be recyclable,either.

James Arthur wrote in news:WXMfl.157$ snipped-for-privacy@nwrddc01.gnilink.net:

nuke waste remains at the power plants because enviroNIMBYs put so many roadblocks in place;Yucca Mtn. is a safe place to put the waste. Other countries like Japan and France effectively deal with their nuclear waste,and generate far more of their nations powwer from nukes. If THEY can do it,so can we.

defeatist thinking.

Jim Thompson wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

and the knowledge gained from making those REAL products was converted to making consumer products (in the US!) after the war.

Jim Thompson wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

and the knowledge gained from making those REAL products was converted to making consumer products (in the US!) after the war.

Charlie E. wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

you neglect that the remaining original modular packs will have a reduced capacity and short lifetime,despite your replacing individual failed packs. Worse,they could fail and leave you stranded,potentially in the worse possible place.

Although that falls down if you have regenerative braking. Or if you're cruising on a level road. Or if the mass of the car is small compared to that of the occupants.

I don't think there is or ever will be at least not without a massive breakthrough in battery technology and a recharging infrastructure based on nuclear power. The battery weight is something of a menace in cars and cycling them hard is tough. Liquid fuels pack a lot more energy density since you get to use oxygen from the air without having to carry it. Fuel cell technology might eventually be cost effective.

A really good aerodynamic design with an internal combustion engine can get 40+mpg with relative ease. My own car has an lifetime average of

It isn't but we will let that pass.

Unfortunately the Bush oilmen and the pig ugly neocons of the rileegious right think they must use up all the oil before the time of the rapture comes. And some of them think it is now 8 years overdue. 2012 seems to be their latest favourite date for TEOTW (Mayan calendar rollover).

Even less sense when part of it is going to fund your enemies like Al Qaeda. Unfortunately, profligate waste is the American way.

Slowly increasing the tax on fuel is a simple way to encourage increased energy efficiency. But you do have to look after vulnerable groups. The UK Labour (left wing) government didn't have the balls to persue this policy originally introduced in 1993 by the Conservatives (right wing) although they did try for a while with the fuel escalator tax.

It is quite interesting reading 8 year old news with the benefit of hindsight.

It is also bad for OPEC. Look at the passports of the 9/11 terrorists to see which country you should be really keeping an eye on.

Regards, Martin Brown

"Jim Yanik" schreef in bericht news:Xns9BA0A503D4DA0jyanikkuanet@74.209.136.87...

Jim Yanik is making a play to replace Jim Thompson as the most out-of-touch-with-reality right-wing nitwit regular on sci.electronics.design.

His doubts about anthropogenic global warming are not unexpected - he has never processed data that doesn't agree with his point of view - and in fact it is a little surprising that he has bothered to identify himself as a denialist.

"Jim Yanik" schreef in bericht news:Xns9BA19F11A4CBjyanikkuanet@74.209.136.84...

But it could replace a lot of coal,oil and gas-fired power stations, which could help. Natural gas is an entirely practical fuel for cars.

He's probably not going to open up any new US oil sources - Dubbya has already opened up everything he thought he could get away with, and the people who elected Obama would get very upset if Obama tried to go further.

But he has already okayed the state-based regulations demanding more economical cars and trucks - which Dubbya had been blocking - and he could well follow up with federal regulations.

Better mass transit contributes to a better standard of living - driving a car into the centre of big city involves spending quite a while sitting in traffic jams, and paying through the nose to park the car when you get there, neither of which are freedoms that I much enjoy.

Los Angles made a sincere - if stupid - attempt to become a car based city, and gave up when 68% of the city centre was taken up with roads and parking, and there still wasn't anything like enough of either.

The car companies that bought up the original mass transit network and replaced it with buses made the city a lot less attractive as a place to live and work, even before you take the smog into account.

"Jim Yanik" schreef in bericht news:Xns9BA18B0C834Bjyanikkuanet@74.209.136.84...

Only in the short term. In the long term global warming is going to raise both the sea level and the intensity of hurricanes, and allow the hurricanes to grow further away from the equator, so Florida real estate is going to get progressively less valuable. Anything that slows down this progression is saving money for Florida consumers and their kids.

Jim doesn't beleive in global warming, but that's all right. All global warming warming needs is supporters who are willing to make burnt offering of fossil carbon - it likes coal better than oil, and prefers oil to natural gas, but every ton of carbon dioxide injected into the atmosphere is welcome.

At the moment about half of the carbon dioxide inected into the atmosphere dissolves in the ocean and doesn't contribute to global warming, but as the oceans get warmer this proportion is going to fall.

"krw" schreef in bericht news: snipped-for-privacy@news.individual.net...

Obama's home free there - as any Democrat will tell you, it was Dubbya who bankrupted all the businesses (apart from those few that Obama was able to save).

And don't forget all the New Deal investment in infra-structure - like repairing all the bridges that were under-maintained under Republican administrations. Those that were under-maintained under Democratic administrations will need the services of a creative accountant. Happily, Margaret Thatcher trained up an enormous squad of these useful people in the U.K. and the UK would be delighted to to send them over (though they may be less enthusiastic about taking them back after the job is done).

I could not agree more. We do have significant common ground.

Actually you have to give the UK Conservative government of John Major credit he did introduce such a measure called the Fuel Price Escalator Tax in 1993 to encourage better fleet fuel economy. At the time UK fuel was among the cheapest in Europe. Labour, the nominal "tax and spend" party lost their bottle and abandonned FPE in 1999 two years after taking office after a series of fuel protests which made international news.

The Japanese also through having no fossil fuel resources also price oil and coal high tax to encourage energy efficiency. Higher proportion of nuclear electricity generation in Japan than most countries too.

Regards, Martin Brown

"Bob Eld" schreef in bericht news:UmGfl.18950$ snipped-for-privacy@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...

Since you aren't going to electrify all your cars overnight, nor instantly build a mass of wind and solar power plants, it might be worth thinking about tackling both projects in parallel.

Thomas L. Friedman's "Hot, Flat and Crowded" (ISBN 978-1-846-14129-4) does talk about this at length, and even on to talk about economies of scale, and the way battery development may be encouraged by the prospect of the establishment of a huge new market.

He does hammer away at the prospect of using car batteries linked to grid to soak the extra power being generated when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing. Pumped storage may make more sense.

Ideally we could use less energy for current tasks, yet generate and consume vastly *more* energy in total to increase the standard of living of everyone on the earth to far better than current Western levels-- and do it in a long-term-sustainable manner (sustainable for thousands of years, not just decades).

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

In article , snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com says...>

Built businesses, not welfare. Not all spending is equal. Perhaps you borrow as much money for a vacation as you do for a home?

Absolutely! Virtually all our high tech appliances AND toys are the result of military research.

...Jim Thompson

".

I do not see how.... I send this reply earlier. I have gone to 4-5 days ski trips (quite a bit of gear and clothing) with two high school (adult size) kids in Toyota Corolla. I did not even have to use roof rack. I used Accord coupe to go for 5 days kayaking trip (two adults, 17' kayak, all gear...). How is that one may need Excursion (Escalade, H2, ets) except to compensate for something?

Whoopeedoo!

My wife has been in two major accidents in her Q45.

In both cases the transgressor was totaled, my wife was upset that her car was "scratched" ;-)

...Jim Thompson

That's one of my gripes--I don't want a nanny car. I stop faster manually than with antilock brakes, I fasten my own seatbelt, and I don't mind rolling up my own windows. Oh, and I check my tire pressure too. I'd rather save the weight, complexity, and expense, but Congress won't let me.

Their goal is safety, but the best safety comes from learning to drive well, practicing maneuvers occasionally, then being careful on the road. Making a crashproof car is great, but not crashing is even safer.

You mean those famed innovators at the Big 3? If they already meet standards, where's the incentive? And even Japanese car makers are slow to change: ultra-conservative.

Technically it's pretty easy--hanging sheet metal on light, stamped frame supports just doesn't absorb much energy, or provide much protection.

Steel is soft; a side impact will sag it like a suspension bridge between supports, no matter how strong. And it has to be very, strong to resist much at all.

Lovins' deal is to deploy internal crush cones pointing outward inside the structures. Like the highway crash barriers. They're stiff, light, and absorb a huge amount of energy as they collapse, protecting you.

Could be. Lovins is selling, but he's a physicist, knows his numbers, and makes a decent pitch.

Even if he's a little fast and loose, he rightly points out that streamlining and saving weight is _the_ way, and makes a number of good suggestions in that direction.

Oh, and hybrids? Lovins was pushing that ages ago.

Cheers, James Arthur