|
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
jim beam <retard-finger@bad.example.net> wrote in
news:0uadnUXATeI_P0HUnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t: > Jim Yanik wrote: >> Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in >> news:C0UCl.107094$4m1.28282@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net: >> >>> >>> Jim Yanik wrote: >>>> If Japan and France can do nuclear power cleanly and safely,so can >>>> the US. >>>> >>> >>> You bet! >>> >>> And, the French model is probably the best volume/record wise and a >>> Westinghouse design at that. >>> >>> If we could muster the courage to build 100 plants evenly >>> distributed in the US, a major dent in foreign oil imports could be >>> affected. It won't be long before plug in electric cars for urban >>> areas will become viable. >>> >>> But I'm sure all we'll hear is more song 'n dance smoke 'n mirrors >>> from Washington. When you get to be my age, the same ol' tune just >>> starts to git a little more boring... >>> >>> JT >>> >> >> IMO,Obama doesn't want the US to have plentiful,cheap energy; >> he blocks nuclear by hindering safe storage of waste at Yucca Mtn > > dude, "storage" is the dumbest ing idiot disaster yet proposed for > this planet. it is dangerous, ill-conceived, and incredibly ignorant > of reality. > > very briefly,, "storage" means we have fuel rods, [among other things] > in a highly reactive and physically unstable condition, in a ing > water tank. i'm not an expert on this stuff, but i do know that > irradiated metals get extremely brittle and because of atomic > displacements, suffer a physical decomposition condition similar to > extreme hydrogen cracking. so, left long enough, your rod falls > apart, and all your fissile material pellets drop to the bottom of the > tank. now, do you know what happens when you get this happen on a > large scale and you let enough kilos of pellets accumulate close > together? ask the russians, they know. they lost a mountain in > siberia "experimenting" with this. it's called "critical mass" and > something does "BOOM". > > what we should do, and what the japanese, russians and french do, is > reprocess. that means you take all that apart, you melt and > separate all the individual elements, you re-use the stuff you want, > and the you don't want, you oxidize and melt into glass [like > hockey pucks] with dilution sufficient that no matter what you do, you > cannot "accidentally" or neglectfully achieve critical. so even if > society melts down and 10,000 years from now, some idiot starts > pulling those things out of a repository somewhere, all they'll manage > to achieve is a lump on someone elses helmet, not vaporization of > yucca mountain and half of las vegas. or anywhere else for that > matter. > > usa + "storage" = utter ing retardation > > >> repository,he wants carbon taxes,killing coal-fired electricity(50% >> of US electric),and solar and wind will not make up the difference. >> The Dems block production of domestic oil fields,block refinery >> expansion and new refineries;raising the cost of vehicle fuels. >> Thus driving out the automobile. >> >> >> Looking at the BIG picture,I see that Obama is trying to weaken and >> destroy America.He's crippling us in energy,seriously weakening our >> military,ruining our economy,going soft on terrorism,looking weak to >> our enemies.All his policies work towards MORE unemployment. >> >> It all fits in with what he said and wrote before he was elected to >> President,and with his background as a foreign-raised child. >> Obama is really an America-hater,just like Rev.Wright. >> > > dude, read what i just wrote and focus on the facts - this bullshit is > way beyond ignorance and xenophobia. focus your, er, "energy" on > getting your idiot representatives to do the right thing - reprocess. > write them today. > I'm all for reprocessing,but RIGHT NOW,we need secure storage. and it's NOT "ignorance and xenophobia".Oblama has written and spoken on what he would do and why. But go ahead and keep your blinders on. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 23:26:49 -0500, Joe
<joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com> wrote: >On 2009-04-06, Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote: >> On 4 Apr 2009 21:20:00 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote: >> >>>We're not going to replace fossil fuels for autos;the alternatives simply >>>don't have the same energy density of petro fuels.We need to open up our >>>DOMESTIC oil production and refining,screw the environuts. >> >> Maxing out domestic oil wouldn't even keep up with demand if it >> increased at the pace of the last few decades. And it is a finite >> resource - the faster we use it, the sooner it runs out. >> >> The economics of a pure electric vehicle pretty much limits it to the >> golf-cart city cars for the foreseeable future. No one I know is >> going to pay the cost for a highway capable electric car with a range >> of 100 miles between charges. (Although I did see a Tesla on the >> expressway the other day.) Hybrids are practical now and will only >> become more so as the price of oil increases. >> > >I'll disagree with this. While I am no huge fan of Chevy these days, >the Volt has a very good chance of being successful. > >40 Miles per charge on pure electric, and a small motor to charge the >battery and extend the range to ~ 300 miles. The 40 miles is more >than enough for most people. Of course, we'll have to see how it >actually performs once released, but it's a nice looking car, and the >pricetag will be affordable. I am judiciously skeptical of the Volt, but I suspect there will be a number of vehicles with similar performance in 2 - 4 years. But these vehicles are hybrids. Not that there is anything wrong with hybrids - I would certainly consider one if I was in the market. However, a pure electric vehicle is a lot shakier proposition from a marketplace standpoint. I would not be in a hurry to buy either a volt-like hybrid or a pure electric because I am concerned that the batteries will be stressed much more severely than current hybrids. >Tesla is working on releasing the model S, a 4-door that does a 45 >minute charge for a 300 mile trip. The price is 50 Grand after the >Federal tax credit, and the car is good looking, fast and efficient. The price is $50K for the 160 mile model and it isn't clear whether 45 minute charging will be on that model. The range would be OK if it didn't cost $50. That price insures that this will fill only a tiny niche. The market isn't that big for $50K cars and most buyers will not want to make the compromises. And if you think the long term plans at GM are suspect, you have to think that long term Tesla anything is like a lottery ticket. >>>For fixed electric power generation,nuclear is the way to go;Best energy >>>density of all,reliable,clean. I note solar proponents are not mentioning >>>that solar panels only have a 30 yr life before they degrade,and also need >>>WATER to keep them clean. >> >> Nuclear reactors only have a 30-50 year life and they are a lot bigger >> problem to dispose of. They also require water to cool them. > >So what? Water is fine. And nuclear waste is much smaller than it >used to be (ie: efficiency is growing). The disposal of said waste >CAN be done in a clean, efficient manner. It is cleaner than the >exhaust that is thrown up by coal plants... The previous poster cited the need to wash solar panels with "WATER" as a serious flaw. I am actually pretty ambivalent regarding nuclear energy. I don't think it is as bad as the vocal opponents but I also don't think that it is as benign as its vocal supporters claim. Hopefully, they will never kill as many people as coal fired plants have. |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
On 7 Apr 2009 12:17:05 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
> >If Japan and France can do nuclear power cleanly and safely,so can the US. Remember this? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/461446.stm > >And one hailstorm or heavy storm destroys your solar panels. One Chernobyl destroys your city. That is the problem with the hazards of nuclear energy; they are very granular. The plant at Chernobyl ran for nineteen years without harming anyone. Then one day it destroyed a city. |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 22:40:34 -0500, Joe
<joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com> wrote: >At some point, we have to make tough decisions and do things that >aren't as palatable as we'd like. This is the truest statement in the tread. Nuclear power may be the best choice in the long run. In the mean time, higher energy taxes are needed to encourage conservation. > Nuclear power is safer and cleaner >than most other forms right now, but there's always that fear of a >meltdown in the general population. The possibility of a major nuclear accident is real. It is extremely unlikely on any given day, but if you build enough of them and run them long enough, it will happen and it will be truly awful. |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 23:35:15 -0500, Joe
<joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com> wrote: >On 2009-04-04, jim beam <retard-finger@bad.example.net> wrote: >>> If you are still in doubt ask your insurance agent why a small FWD vehicle >>> costs as much, or more, to insure than a large more expensive RWD vehicle. >> >> what a crock! have you even insured a freakin' car? > >In my experience, the collision insurance for small cars is higher, >but the liability is higher for the beasts. This varies state-to-state. I live in Illinois. I once got a cold call from a car insurance agent. I told him I might consider a policy from him if his company charged significantly less for liability on my Integra than what they would charge me for a Suburban. He assured me that the Integra would be much cheaper. I told him to run the numbers and call me back. To his credit, he called me back and said he couldn't believe it, but I was right. The charge for liability coverage was exactly the same no matter which vehicle I had. > >I went from a used Chrysler minivan to a Civic Si. The liability is >about 30% lower on the brand new car than it was on the minivan. With >full coverage, my Si only costs a couple hundred a year more to insure >than the minivan did with liability alone. What state do you live in? |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 22:42:20 -0500, Joe
<joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com> wrote: >On 2009-04-07, Clive <Clive@yewbank.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> In message <slrngtlm6p.3cu.joe@barada.griffincs.local>, Joe >><joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com> writes >>>I always found the Land Rover to be ugly as hell and overpriced. If I >>>wanted something for off-road, I'd probably pick up a used Jeep... I >>>only say used because who knows if the new company will maintain >>>quality (which has already deteriorated some)... >> I'll say it has, it's the most unreliable car on British roads according >> to Motoring Which? > >Not surprising. The old Jeeps, from before Chrysler took over, were >great vehicles. According to Consumer Reports reliability survey, Land Rovers are the most unreliable vehicle on American roads. Chrysler is second. > >Chrysler amazes me. They are all about style over substance. IMO, >Chrysler makes some of the best looking cars on the road. It's a >shame that they are unreliable pieces of ... |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
Jim Yanik wrote: > Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in > news:C0UCl.107094$4m1.28282@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net: > > >> >>Jim Yanik wrote: >> >>>If Japan and France can do nuclear power cleanly and safely,so can >>>the US. >>> >> >> >>You bet! >> >>And, the French model is probably the best volume/record wise and a >>Westinghouse design at that. >> >>If we could muster the courage to build 100 plants evenly distributed >>in the US, a major dent in foreign oil imports could be affected. It >>won't be long before plug in electric cars for urban areas will become >>viable. >> >>But I'm sure all we'll hear is more song 'n dance smoke 'n mirrors >>from Washington. When you get to be my age, the same ol' tune just >>starts to git a little more boring... >> >>JT >> > > > IMO,Obama doesn't want the US to have plentiful,cheap energy; > he blocks nuclear by hindering safe storage of waste at Yucca Mtn > repository,he wants carbon taxes,killing coal-fired electricity(50% of US > electric),and solar and wind will not make up the difference. > The Dems block production of domestic oil fields,block refinery expansion > and new refineries;raising the cost of vehicle fuels. > Thus driving out the automobile. > > > Looking at the BIG picture,I see that Obama is trying to weaken and destroy > America.He's crippling us in energy,seriously weakening our > military,ruining our economy,going soft on terrorism,looking weak to our > enemies.All his policies work towards MORE unemployment. > > It all fits in with what he said and wrote before he was elected to > President,and with his background as a foreign-raised child. > Obama is really an America-hater,just like Rev.Wright. > Heh! You think that's bad, look at another loon that is an "advisor." http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1 Yep, the biggest scam goin' that makes Madoff look like a child's toy... JT |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
Jim Yanik wrote:
> jim beam <retard-finger@bad.example.net> wrote in > news:0uadnUXATeI_P0HUnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t: > >> Jim Yanik wrote: >>> Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in >>> news:C0UCl.107094$4m1.28282@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net: >>> >>>> Jim Yanik wrote: >>>>> If Japan and France can do nuclear power cleanly and safely,so can >>>>> the US. >>>>> >>>> You bet! >>>> >>>> And, the French model is probably the best volume/record wise and a >>>> Westinghouse design at that. >>>> >>>> If we could muster the courage to build 100 plants evenly >>>> distributed in the US, a major dent in foreign oil imports could be >>>> affected. It won't be long before plug in electric cars for urban >>>> areas will become viable. >>>> >>>> But I'm sure all we'll hear is more song 'n dance smoke 'n mirrors >>>> from Washington. When you get to be my age, the same ol' tune just >>>> starts to git a little more boring... >>>> >>>> JT >>>> >>> IMO,Obama doesn't want the US to have plentiful,cheap energy; >>> he blocks nuclear by hindering safe storage of waste at Yucca Mtn >> dude, "storage" is the dumbest ing idiot disaster yet proposed for >> this planet. it is dangerous, ill-conceived, and incredibly ignorant >> of reality. >> >> very briefly,, "storage" means we have fuel rods, [among other things] >> in a highly reactive and physically unstable condition, in a ing >> water tank. i'm not an expert on this stuff, but i do know that >> irradiated metals get extremely brittle and because of atomic >> displacements, suffer a physical decomposition condition similar to >> extreme hydrogen cracking. so, left long enough, your rod falls >> apart, and all your fissile material pellets drop to the bottom of the >> tank. now, do you know what happens when you get this happen on a >> large scale and you let enough kilos of pellets accumulate close >> together? ask the russians, they know. they lost a mountain in >> siberia "experimenting" with this. it's called "critical mass" and >> something does "BOOM". >> >> what we should do, and what the japanese, russians and french do, is >> reprocess. that means you take all that apart, you melt and >> separate all the individual elements, you re-use the stuff you want, >> and the you don't want, you oxidize and melt into glass [like >> hockey pucks] with dilution sufficient that no matter what you do, you >> cannot "accidentally" or neglectfully achieve critical. so even if >> society melts down and 10,000 years from now, some idiot starts >> pulling those things out of a repository somewhere, all they'll manage >> to achieve is a lump on someone elses helmet, not vaporization of >> yucca mountain and half of las vegas. or anywhere else for that >> matter. >> >> usa + "storage" = utter ing retardation >> >> >>> repository,he wants carbon taxes,killing coal-fired electricity(50% >>> of US electric),and solar and wind will not make up the difference. >>> The Dems block production of domestic oil fields,block refinery >>> expansion and new refineries;raising the cost of vehicle fuels. >>> Thus driving out the automobile. >>> >>> >>> Looking at the BIG picture,I see that Obama is trying to weaken and >>> destroy America.He's crippling us in energy,seriously weakening our >>> military,ruining our economy,going soft on terrorism,looking weak to >>> our enemies.All his policies work towards MORE unemployment. >>> >>> It all fits in with what he said and wrote before he was elected to >>> President,and with his background as a foreign-raised child. >>> Obama is really an America-hater,just like Rev.Wright. >>> >> dude, read what i just wrote and focus on the facts - this bullshit is >> way beyond ignorance and xenophobia. focus your, er, "energy" on >> getting your idiot representatives to do the right thing - reprocess. >> write them today. >> > > I'm all for reprocessing,but RIGHT NOW,we need secure storage. we already have storage. the only way to make it "secure" is to reprocess. > > and it's NOT "ignorance and xenophobia".Oblama has written and spoken on > what he would do and why. > > But go ahead and keep your blinders on. > re-read what i wrote - direct your energies productively. write your representatives. believe it or not, unless you rant like a wing-nut, they /do/ listen because, much as they dislike having to deal with this fact, they depend on votes. assuming you're /allowed/ to vote. |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
jim beam <retard-finger@bad.example.net> wrote in
news:Gq6dnUFezILpwkDUnZ2dnUVZ_tti4p2d@speakeasy.ne t: > Jim Yanik wrote: >> >> I'm all for reprocessing,but RIGHT NOW,we need secure storage. > > we already have storage. the only way to make it "secure" is to > reprocess. No,that's incorrect. Putting nuclear waste under Yucca Mtn secures it. the current practice of storage in pools on-site is not very secure. and even what's left over from reprocessing would require storage somewhere.Like they do in France,who reprocesses their waste. > > >> >> and it's NOT "ignorance and xenophobia".Oblama has written and spoken >> on what he would do and why. >> >> But go ahead and keep your blinders on. >> > > re-read what i wrote - direct your energies productively. write your > representatives. believe it or not, unless you rant like a wing-nut, > they /do/ listen because, much as they dislike having to deal with > this fact, they depend on votes. assuming you're /allowed/ to vote. > My representatives are now Democrats and they don't listen.they stick to the party line. I wrote Mel Martinez about Eric Holder's nomination,and he blew me off. (he's lame-duck,decided to not run again) Beam,you keep on proving you're a twit. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
On 2009-04-08, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
> Joe <joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com> wrote in > news:slrngto6ue.b4h.joe@barada.griffincs.local: > >> On 2009-04-07, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote: >>> Joe <joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com> wrote in >>> news:slrngtllg9.3cu.joe@barada.griffincs.local: >>> >>>> On 2009-04-06, Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote: >>>>> On 4 Apr 2009 21:20:00 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>We're not going to replace fossil fuels for autos;the alternatives >>>>>>simply don't have the same energy density of petro fuels.We need to >>>>>>open up our DOMESTIC oil production and refining,screw the >>>>>>environuts. >>>>> >>>>> Maxing out domestic oil wouldn't even keep up with demand if it >>>>> increased at the pace of the last few decades. And it is a finite >>>>> resource - the faster we use it, the sooner it runs out. >>> >>> Oil is NOT a "finite resource";we continue to discover new fields. >>> And I agree that we need to reduce oil consumption,and we achieve >>> that by going to smaller,lighter vehicles with better mileage. >>> Reserve lt.trucks and SUVs for where they are truly necessary. >> >> That wasn't me, but I'll disagree. New discoveries or not, Oil is not >> being produced. Or, if it is, not nearly at the rate we are using it. > > Only because the Dems block domestic production and refinery expansion. > Look how the price of oil shot up so high and then drastically dropped. > (IMO,-somebody- was manipulating the market,for political reasons.) That's got nothing to do with what you originally said. You said oil is not a "finite" resource. It is. Even if you opened up drilling in the US, ANWAR and off shore, you'd still only buy yourself 10 years or so. That's good. 10 Years is lots of time to develop a new source, but if we are going well, you know the new source will NOT happen. We never seem to innovate until necessity rears it's ugly head... As far as WHY the oil prices went up, it's a complex issue. First, there were several fields shut down, restricting supply. Second, futures traders were betting heavily on more supply problems, causing demand to shoot up (they basically bought the oil and held it back). Third, the Oil companies were willing accomplices. They want to know just how high the price has to go before we start griping. They have their answer, and now prices will slowly rise back into the $3 range. >> >> >>> >>>>> >>>>> The economics of a pure electric vehicle pretty much limits it to >>>>> the golf-cart city cars for the foreseeable future. No one I know >>>>> is going to pay the cost for a highway capable electric car with a >>>>> range of 100 miles between charges. (Although I did see a Tesla on >>>>> the expressway the other day.) Hybrids are practical now and will >>>>> only become more so as the price of oil increases. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I'll disagree with this. While I am no huge fan of Chevy these >>>> days, the Volt has a very good chance of being successful. >>>> >>>> 40 Miles per charge on pure electric, and a small motor to charge >>>> the battery and extend the range to ~ 300 miles. The 40 miles is >>>> more than enough for most people. Of course, we'll have to see how >>>> it actually performs once released, but it's a nice looking car, and >>>> the pricetag will be affordable. >>> >>> EXCEPT that most people are not going to be replacing their current >>> gas vehicles for an electric car. Nor will there be electric light >>> trucks or SUVs. Hybrid SUV's do not take the place of the workhorse >>> SUVs. You won't be towing anything with one of them. >> >> Most people CAN. Most people do not use SUV's for towing anyhow. And >> you don't need to have one thing that works for everyone. You can >> still have trucks run on gas, or whatever, while you also have daily >> commuters running full electric, hybrid, or whatever. > > Most people don't buy one vehicle for city use and another for interstate > driving. Their one car has to do both. > and many people cannot afford to buy a new car,hybrid or whatever. Most families have more than one car in the US. Most people never travel more than 40 miles form home. There's an interesting statistic that's always used by "safety" nuts: Most accidents happen within 25 miles of home. Well, duh. Most people in the US do 99% of their driving within that range. If they are going to have an accident, it's going to be in that range. >> >>>> >>>> Tesla is working on releasing the model S, a 4-door that does a 45 >>>> minute charge for a 300 mile trip. The price is 50 Grand after the >>>> Federal tax credit, and the car is good looking, fast and efficient. >>> >>> except that recharging infrastructure is not in place yet. >> >> 110V Outlets are everywhere. Believe it or not, I even have a few in >> my house. Heck, I even have a couple 220V's. > > yeah,like some OTHER property owner is going to foot the bills for charging > lots of other peoples vehicles.We don't even have the extra electric > capacity to power millions of new electric vehicles. Metering electrical outlets is a trivial process. It would cost truck stops and rest stops about $100/outlet to add a metering system. It could probably be a fully automated system (with credit card swipe, etc) for under $250. It takes about 45 minutes to fully charge a Tesla. You pull in to a service center, plug in the car, swipe your card, then go sit and eat. When it's done charging, the meter stop, you get your receipt and unplug the car. Off you go. And the draw for the charge is trivial. About 8 Amps. Using a standard business service (around 200 Amps) a restaurant could easily charge up 20 cars at a time. Would this require more power generation? Of course. But isn't that the other thing we are discussing? -- Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733 joe at hits - buffalo dot com "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the time..." - Danny, American History X |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
On 2009-04-08, Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 23:26:49 -0500, Joe ><joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com> wrote: > >>On 2009-04-06, Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote: >>> On 4 Apr 2009 21:20:00 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote: >>> >>>>We're not going to replace fossil fuels for autos;the alternatives simply >>>>don't have the same energy density of petro fuels.We need to open up our >>>>DOMESTIC oil production and refining,screw the environuts. >>> >>> Maxing out domestic oil wouldn't even keep up with demand if it >>> increased at the pace of the last few decades. And it is a finite >>> resource - the faster we use it, the sooner it runs out. >>> >>> The economics of a pure electric vehicle pretty much limits it to the >>> golf-cart city cars for the foreseeable future. No one I know is >>> going to pay the cost for a highway capable electric car with a range >>> of 100 miles between charges. (Although I did see a Tesla on the >>> expressway the other day.) Hybrids are practical now and will only >>> become more so as the price of oil increases. >>> >> >>I'll disagree with this. While I am no huge fan of Chevy these days, >>the Volt has a very good chance of being successful. >> >>40 Miles per charge on pure electric, and a small motor to charge the >>battery and extend the range to ~ 300 miles. The 40 miles is more >>than enough for most people. Of course, we'll have to see how it >>actually performs once released, but it's a nice looking car, and the >>pricetag will be affordable. > > I am judiciously skeptical of the Volt, but I suspect there will be a > number of vehicles with similar performance in 2 - 4 years. But these > vehicles are hybrids. Not that there is anything wrong with hybrids - > I would certainly consider one if I was in the market. However, a > pure electric vehicle is a lot shakier proposition from a marketplace > standpoint. A Volt is a 100% plug-in electric car. It is not a hybrid. Chevy included the small engine as an afterthought, and it does not drive the car, it only charges the battery. For standard commuting of under 40 miles per day, the engine never even gets turned on. > > I would not be in a hurry to buy either a volt-like hybrid or a pure > electric because I am concerned that the batteries will be stressed > much more severely than current hybrids. > The batteries operate better under such stress. Lithium Ion batteries are ideal for electric vehicles. >>Tesla is working on releasing the model S, a 4-door that does a 45 >>minute charge for a 300 mile trip. The price is 50 Grand after the >>Federal tax credit, and the car is good looking, fast and efficient. > > The price is $50K for the 160 mile model and it isn't clear whether 45 > minute charging will be on that model. The range would be OK if it > didn't cost $50. That price insures that this will fill only a tiny > niche. The market isn't that big for $50K cars and most buyers will > not want to make the compromises. And if you think the long term > plans at GM are suspect, you have to think that long term Tesla > anything is like a lottery ticket. > Tesla isn't going to be some big success. I don't even think they expect to be. They are a vehicle for change. They are developing high-end technology. After a few years, that technology then filters down to the rest of the market. That's how innovation works. >>>>For fixed electric power generation,nuclear is the way to go;Best energy >>>>density of all,reliable,clean. I note solar proponents are not mentioning >>>>that solar panels only have a 30 yr life before they degrade,and also need >>>>WATER to keep them clean. >>> >>> Nuclear reactors only have a 30-50 year life and they are a lot bigger >>> problem to dispose of. They also require water to cool them. >> >>So what? Water is fine. And nuclear waste is much smaller than it >>used to be (ie: efficiency is growing). The disposal of said waste >>CAN be done in a clean, efficient manner. It is cleaner than the >>exhaust that is thrown up by coal plants... > > The previous poster cited the need to wash solar panels with "WATER" > as a serious flaw. I am actually pretty ambivalent regarding nuclear > energy. I don't think it is as bad as the vocal opponents but I also > don't think that it is as benign as its vocal supporters claim. > Hopefully, they will never kill as many people as coal fired plants > have. Nuclear energy is completely benign, so long as it is treated with respect. Using France's model (never thought I'd say such a thing), Nuclear reactors are safer and cleaner than coal or oil plants. And Solar panels will not replace the grid, nor will they eliminate a person's need for external supply of electricity. But, if each household had a 1500 Watt Panel or two, the stress on the grid would be reduced by orders of magnatude. There is likely not one single answer to our energy problems. The answer will come from a variety of technologies that will work together to clean up the mess. -- Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733 joe at hits - buffalo dot com "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the time..." - Danny, American History X |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
On 2009-04-09, Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 23:35:15 -0500, Joe ><joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com> wrote: > >>On 2009-04-04, jim beam <retard-finger@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>> If you are still in doubt ask your insurance agent why a small FWD vehicle >>>> costs as much, or more, to insure than a large more expensive RWD vehicle. >>> >>> what a crock! have you even insured a freakin' car? >> >>In my experience, the collision insurance for small cars is higher, >>but the liability is higher for the beasts. > > This varies state-to-state. I live in Illinois. I once got a cold > call from a car insurance agent. I told him I might consider a policy > from him if his company charged significantly less for liability on my > Integra than what they would charge me for a Suburban. He assured me > that the Integra would be much cheaper. I told him to run the numbers > and call me back. To his credit, he called me back and said he > couldn't believe it, but I was right. The charge for liability > coverage was exactly the same no matter which vehicle I had. > >> >>I went from a used Chrysler minivan to a Civic Si. The liability is >>about 30% lower on the brand new car than it was on the minivan. With >>full coverage, my Si only costs a couple hundred a year more to insure >>than the minivan did with liability alone. > > What state do you live in? > NY. -- Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733 joe at hits - buffalo dot com "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the time..." - Danny, American History X |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
Jim Yanik wrote:
> jim beam <retard-finger@bad.example.net> wrote in > news:Gq6dnUFezILpwkDUnZ2dnUVZ_tti4p2d@speakeasy.ne t: > >> Jim Yanik wrote: >>> I'm all for reprocessing,but RIGHT NOW,we need secure storage. >> we already have storage. the only way to make it "secure" is to >> reprocess. > > No,that's incorrect. Putting nuclear waste under Yucca Mtn secures it. > the current practice of storage in pools on-site is not very secure. er, no. and you evidently didn't bother to read what i said. > > and even what's left over from reprocessing would require storage > somewhere.Like they do in France,who reprocesses their waste. >> >>> and it's NOT "ignorance and xenophobia".Oblama has written and spoken >>> on what he would do and why. >>> >>> But go ahead and keep your blinders on. >>> >> re-read what i wrote - direct your energies productively. write your >> representatives. believe it or not, unless you rant like a wing-nut, >> they /do/ listen because, much as they dislike having to deal with >> this fact, they depend on votes. assuming you're /allowed/ to vote. >> > > My representatives are now Democrats and they don't listen.they stick to > the party line. > I wrote Mel Martinez about Eric Holder's nomination,and he blew me off. > (he's lame-duck,decided to not run again) > > Beam,you keep on proving you're a twit. > > guess i must be wasting time with you! |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
Joe <joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com> wrote in
news:slrngtqsoo.7lc.joe@barada.griffincs.local: > On 2009-04-08, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote: >> Joe <joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com> wrote in >> news:slrngto6ue.b4h.joe@barada.griffincs.local: >> >>> On 2009-04-07, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote: >>>> Joe <joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com> wrote in >>>> news:slrngtllg9.3cu.joe@barada.griffincs.local: >>>> >>>>> On 2009-04-06, Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 4 Apr 2009 21:20:00 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>We're not going to replace fossil fuels for autos;the >>>>>>>alternatives simply don't have the same energy density of petro >>>>>>>fuels.We need to open up our DOMESTIC oil production and >>>>>>>refining,screw the environuts. >>>>>> >>>>>> Maxing out domestic oil wouldn't even keep up with demand if it >>>>>> increased at the pace of the last few decades. And it is a >>>>>> finite resource - the faster we use it, the sooner it runs out. >>>> >>>> Oil is NOT a "finite resource";we continue to discover new fields. >>>> And I agree that we need to reduce oil consumption,and we achieve >>>> that by going to smaller,lighter vehicles with better mileage. >>>> Reserve lt.trucks and SUVs for where they are truly necessary. >>> >>> That wasn't me, but I'll disagree. New discoveries or not, Oil is >>> not being produced. Or, if it is, not nearly at the rate we are >>> using it. >> >> Only because the Dems block domestic production and refinery >> expansion. Look how the price of oil shot up so high and then >> drastically dropped. (IMO,-somebody- was manipulating the market,for >> political reasons.) > > That's got nothing to do with what you originally said. You said oil > is not a "finite" resource. It is. Even if you opened up drilling in > the US, ANWAR and off shore, you'd still only buy yourself 10 years or > so. That's good. 10 Years is lots of time to develop a new source, > but if we are going well, you know the new source will NOT happen. We > never seem to innovate until necessity rears it's ugly head... > > As far as WHY the oil prices went up, it's a complex issue. First, > there were several fields shut down, restricting supply. Second, > futures traders were betting heavily on more supply problems, causing > demand to shoot up (they basically bought the oil and held it back). > Third, the Oil companies were willing accomplices. They want to know > just how high the price has to go before we start griping. They have > their answer, and now prices will slowly rise back into the $3 range. > >>> >>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The economics of a pure electric vehicle pretty much limits it to >>>>>> the golf-cart city cars for the foreseeable future. No one I >>>>>> know is going to pay the cost for a highway capable electric car >>>>>> with a range of 100 miles between charges. (Although I did see a >>>>>> Tesla on the expressway the other day.) Hybrids are practical >>>>>> now and will only become more so as the price of oil increases. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'll disagree with this. While I am no huge fan of Chevy these >>>>> days, the Volt has a very good chance of being successful. >>>>> >>>>> 40 Miles per charge on pure electric, and a small motor to charge >>>>> the battery and extend the range to ~ 300 miles. The 40 miles is >>>>> more than enough for most people. Of course, we'll have to see >>>>> how it actually performs once released, but it's a nice looking >>>>> car, and the pricetag will be affordable. >>>> >>>> EXCEPT that most people are not going to be replacing their current >>>> gas vehicles for an electric car. Nor will there be electric light >>>> trucks or SUVs. Hybrid SUV's do not take the place of the workhorse >>>> SUVs. You won't be towing anything with one of them. >>> >>> Most people CAN. Most people do not use SUV's for towing anyhow. >>> And you don't need to have one thing that works for everyone. You >>> can still have trucks run on gas, or whatever, while you also have >>> daily commuters running full electric, hybrid, or whatever. >> >> Most people don't buy one vehicle for city use and another for >> interstate driving. Their one car has to do both. >> and many people cannot afford to buy a new car,hybrid or whatever. > > Most families have more than one car in the US. and can't afford to replace any of them. Often the 2nd car is a beater. > Most people never "NEVER"?? hyperbole. > travel more than 40 miles form home. There's an interesting statistic > that's always used by "safety" nuts: Most accidents happen within 25 > miles of home. Well, duh. Most people in the US do 99% of their > driving within that range. If they are going to have an accident, > it's going to be in that range. > >>> >>>>> >>>>> Tesla is working on releasing the model S, a 4-door that does a 45 >>>>> minute charge for a 300 mile trip. The price is 50 Grand after >>>>> the Federal tax credit, and the car is good looking, fast and >>>>> efficient. >>>> >>>> except that recharging infrastructure is not in place yet. >>> >>> 110V Outlets are everywhere. Believe it or not, I even have a few >>> in my house. Heck, I even have a couple 220V's. >> >> yeah,like some OTHER property owner is going to foot the bills for >> charging lots of other peoples vehicles.We don't even have the extra >> electric capacity to power millions of new electric vehicles. > > Metering electrical outlets is a trivial process. It would cost truck > stops and rest stops about $100/outlet to add a metering system. It > could probably be a fully automated system (with credit card swipe, > etc) for under $250. and where does this data come from? How long does it take for the owner to recoup their investment? I note that it's all "it would" and "probably".....kinda like the "if only there were no guns" nonsense the anti-gunners spout constantly. > It takes about 45 minutes to fully charge a > Tesla. Using a 220V high power outlet. > You pull in to a service center, plug in the car, swipe your > card, then go sit and eat. When it's done charging, the meter stop, > you get your receipt and unplug the car. Off you go. Heh,there aren't any around,just like hydrogen refueling stations. > > And the draw for the charge is trivial. About 8 Amps. 8 amps at 220V for 45 minutes is not a lot of charge. I suspect it's not anywhere near a full charge for your Tesla. > Using a > standard business service (around 200 Amps) a restaurant could easily > charge up 20 cars at a time. > > Would this require more power generation? Of course. But isn't that > the other thing we are discussing? > except that Oblama and the DemocRATs are moving us AWAY from that surplus of power generation.While making the cost of petrol higher,and needing to be imported from questionable foreign sources. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
Joe <joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com> wrote in
news:slrngtqt5l.7lc.joe@barada.griffincs.local: > Nuclear energy is completely benign, so long as it is treated with > respect. Using France's model (never thought I'd say such a thing), > Nuclear reactors are safer and cleaner than coal or oil plants. Coal from start to finish has killed FAR more people than Western nuclear power generation for the same time frame. and done FAR more harm to the environment. > > And Solar panels will not replace the grid, nor will they eliminate a > person's need for external supply of electricity. But, if each > household had a 1500 Watt Panel or two, the stress on the grid would > be reduced by orders of magnatude. There is likely not one single > answer to our energy problems. The answer will come from a variety of > technologies that will work together to clean up the mess. A "1500 watt panel or two" ? "by orders of magnitude"?? hyperbole. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:23 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands