|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jul 23, 2008 21:08:40 GMT -5
That's exactly why we should put tax dollars toward establishing the infrastructure to support electric or CNG cars. If we did, more car companies would be inclined to mass produce them which would drive down their price. It would be a major step in the right direction. by far, the dumbest statement you 've ever made. let's just take tax dollars and put them towards everything. let's make this one nice, happy, hippy, commune, socialist country! whatever tax dollars were applied to such a cause, there would never be enough to satisfy certain groups. look at the education system in america. what do all the doofy liberals think we need to fix it? more tax dollars! the same craziness would occur in the pursuit of nationalized electric car research. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jul 23, 2008 21:19:04 GMT -5
Research shows the average driving distance of Americans in a day is 30 miles or less and that 90% of Americans could use electric cars in their daily commute. 200 miles between charges is plenty. i'm sorry, santurelle. i take back what i said about you in the previous post. this is the dumbest thing you've ever said! big dog was right on point when he questioned the 200 mile claim. i'm sure that was tested on in perfect conditions: flat road, no hills, no waiting in bumper to bumper or stop and go traffic, one driver and no passenger, no cargo, etc. i also find it hard to believe that the average american car owner drives less than 30 miles/day. this must be one of those studies that also includes apartment dwellers who don't own cars. and what happpens if you want to take the kids to grandma's house on the weekend? would you drive 200 miles then pull off at a gas/power station to recharge? you may as well book a room because somehow i believe it is going to take more than a few minutes to fully recharge the volt-mobile for the next 200 mile leg. i'm quite happy pulling into a real gas station, filling up with readily available fuel, grabbing a snack, and going potty all within 10 minutes and getting back on the road. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jul 23, 2008 21:25:38 GMT -5
Nuclear Power + Electric Cars = The Future you're exactly right. now travel with me as we go..........BACK TO THE FUTURE! www.damninteresting.com/?p=656 |
|
|
|
Post by crossride on Jul 23, 2008 22:28:26 GMT -5
I don't see the infrastructure being that hard to establish for electric since electricity is everywhere and you know PG&E has the means to establish necessary charging stations in enough places to turn a tidy profit. But they can not generate a single volt. So called deregulation in California saw to that. PG&E is a transmission company; their wires carry the juice to us, nothing more. Where is that electricity going to be generated? That is the question that electric car proponents can never answer, particularly here in California. PG&E, used as the likely example, has the capacity to distribute only, I agree. My assumption is that the excess power would be able to be generated or imported to serve the needs. This just adds to the obvious bottom line of making the power available... it will cost you $$$ to charge your car. Realistically, until future technological advances are made, most electric car owners would still need a second vehicle but if you can afford the power costs, you might not mind that. Somewhere along the way, some major advances need to be made. Even with my "pie in the sky" optimism about electric cars, we're not ready to make it happen, nor do I want my tax dollars trying to force the issue. |
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Jul 24, 2008 11:26:31 GMT -5
But there in lies the rub crossride. There is no "excess power" in California. If there were a relatively large influx overnight of electric cars needing to be charged there would not be enough volts on the grid to do so.
Build a few moderate sized nuclear power plants around the state and that would reverse the situation and be supportive of the pie in the sky. But as above, there is not enough testicular fortitude in this state to stand up to the Greens who have coopted the Legislature and the bureaucracy to their socialistic cause.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Jul 24, 2008 11:51:11 GMT -5
That's exactly why we should put tax dollars toward establishing the infrastructure to support electric or CNG cars. If we did, more car companies would be inclined to mass produce them which would drive down their price. It would be a major step in the right direction. by far, the dumbest statement you 've ever made. let's just take tax dollars and put them towards everything. let's make this one nice, happy, hippy, commune, socialist country! whatever tax dollars were applied to such a cause, there would never be enough to satisfy certain groups. look at the education system in america. what do all the doofy liberals think we need to fix it? more tax dollars! the same craziness would occur in the pursuit of nationalized electric car research. Developing new infrastructure is extremely important if we're serious about breaking our dependency on oil. Plus, it's a better use of our money that cutting taxes on oil companies and driving their profits through the roof, or throwing money at the disastrous moneypit of a war in Iraq. As for fast recharging, it looks like we're getting there. In November 1997, Ford purchased a fast-charge system produced by AeroVironment called "PosiCharge" for testing its fleets of Ranger EVs, which charged their lead-acid batteries in between six and fifteen minutes. In February 1998, General Motors announced a version of its "Magne Charge" system which could recharge NiMH batteries in about ten minutes, providing a range of sixty to one hundred miles. In 2005, handheld device battery designs by Toshiba were claimed to be able to accept an 80% charge in as little as 60 seconds. Scaling this specific power characteristic up to the same 7 kilowatt-hour EV pack would result in the need for a peak of 340 kilowatts of power from some source for those 60 seconds. It is not clear that such batteries will work directly in BEVs as heat build-up may make them unsafe. In 2007, Altairnano's NanoSafe batteries are rechargeable in several minutes, versus hours required for other rechargeable batteries. A NanoSafe cell can be charged to around 95% charge capacity in approximately 10 minutes. |
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Jul 24, 2008 14:01:58 GMT -5
And just how much power is 340 kilowatts? And what would be required, in green terms, to generate it? Here's a clue. |
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Jul 24, 2008 14:27:25 GMT -5
Stop quibbling about the technology. The political reality is bleak. This is from today's Wall Street Journal: "Still dependent on fossil fuels." Our dependency goes way beyond your next tank of gas. Here's a brief summary of all of the uses of petroleum. Even if we could adjust our economy to $5-a-gallon gas, the shock from cost increases in other sectors will make the next administration very grim-faced indeed. How many of you have noticed that food costs are going up? That's not because there's any shortage of food - it's because it's costing more to process and bring the food to market. All of those issues are tied to the cost of petroleum. The $25-a-bag surcharge that many airlines are now charging is tied to the cost of petroleum. There are many more examples of this. Simply changing over to wind power and hydrogen cars will not release the upward pressure on prices caused by high petroleum costs. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jul 24, 2008 18:24:06 GMT -5
santurelle,
that sounds great if i want to recharge my cell phone in 10 minutes or if i want a car that will get me around the block and back. i need a reliable vehicle that would get me to and from work (60 miles roundtrip), allow me to run errands, and carry the family to places like dr. appts., grandma's place, etc.
there is nothing out there that can do that currently. (pun intended)
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Jul 24, 2008 19:20:50 GMT -5
How many of you have noticed that food costs are going up? That's not because there's any shortage of food - it's because it's costing more to process and bring the food to market. All of those issues are tied to the cost of petroleum. There is too a shortage of a very crucial food... corn. Because our government has mandated flex fuels using ethanol and put in place outrageously high tariffs to prevent ethanol (and methanol) produced off shore from less food supply intensive sources from coming into this country, there is a large and growing world wide shortage of feed corn. Thats the corn that feeds us, feeds the livestock we raise for meat and is used in the manufacture of hundreds of other food items from corn chips to Karo syrup. Oh yeah... that is also used to make the corn starch that is made into environmentally friendly packing peanuts and the lovely biodegradable flatware that many companies are putting into their employee cafeterias and coffee rooms. Yet because a bunch of wool headed a-holes in Congress apparently failed both Econ and 4H in high school and don't understand either the concepts of supply and demand or the fact that animals used to feed us got to eat too, we're all going to have to learn to make do with less and pay more for it while the fat cats and elitists keep on doing what ever they feel like, because they can afford it. I hope Leader Reid gets a nice tough Filet Mignon tonight and cracks a tooth. And I hope that Madame Speaker has to listen to customers at the (still) non-union restaurancts she owns bitching about how high the menu prices have become. Feckless, do nothing poltroons. Every last one of them. |
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Jul 24, 2008 21:15:38 GMT -5
This thread is really pointing out the bankruptcy of the lefts 'we have to Do Something" menatality on evey issue. The Law of Unitended Consequences invariably bites them (and us) in the ass. Then they whine and moan about not being understood, or not being given a fair chance, or something else. Never their fault, always some outside force prevented them from being successful.
|
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Jul 26, 2008 16:07:02 GMT -5
Saunterelle sez...
Saunterelle, are you suggesting that we build the infrastructure to support the new post-carbon energy forms with taxpayer dollars? That, I think, would be a serious mistake. It would be much more efficient, and much cheaper, to allow private enterprise to do it and let the government regulate it.
Remember, the reason that the oil companies got their taxes cut was because we wanted to stimulate production. It worked. So, now, instead of crying that the oil companies got tax breaks, you should instead advocate for adjustments in their tax rates to reflect the current situation.
Please take your "disastrous moneypit of a war in Iraq" argument to another thread. It's nothing but a straw man here.
|
|
