|
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
On 2009-04-09, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
> Joe <joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com> wrote in > news:slrngtqsoo.7lc.joe@barada.griffincs.local: >> >> 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. No one is looking to have this done by tomorrow, or next year. It is a process that will take years. Notice how many cars are left on the road that require leaded gasoline? > >> Most people never > > "NEVER"?? hyperbole. Not hyperbole, simple fact. The statistics are readily available. The average mileage in the US is somewhere around 14,000 miles per year. That equates to an average of about 38 miles per day. Most people use their car to commute to and from work, perhaps pick up the kids from soccer practice, and run to the local grocer. These people that you assume cannot buy a new car, or a second car, are not driving hundreds of miles per day or going on constant vacations... > >> 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? What data? The cost to buy an electrical meter? The cost for a credit card machine? Or do you mean the cost for this combination machine that doesn't exist yet, but will quickly materialize once there is a need for it? The technology is already there, and rather affordable, some smart company will just have to package it. > How long does it take for the owner to recoup their investment? Not long at all. Weeks or months. AAMOF, even if the device cost $1000 each, it would only need to have a couple dozen cars use it for a charge before it has paid for itself. > > 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. > Ahhh. So what you are saying is that you have no imagination, and America is incapable of developing simple technologies? >> It takes about 45 minutes to fully charge a >> Tesla. > > Using a 220V high power outlet. > 220V is not "high power". 220V is available everywhere in the country, and the power from it does not cost any more than from a 110 Line.. >> 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. You have one right at your house, much unlike Hydrogen. > >> >> 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. > You'd be suspecting wrong... >> 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. When talking about things that don't exist yet, the people that effect real change are not those that try to come up with reasons why it won't work... -- 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, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
> 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. Are you smoking crack or are you simply obtuse? A 1500 Watt panel isn't all that expensive. And yes, if even half of the homes in the US had one panel, it would be a significant reduction in the draw on the grid. You do seem to love the word hyperbole, though... -- 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)
In message <50fqt4hhj30je3ku37hepn1en9qm2rfdu3@4ax.com>, Gordon McGrew
<RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> writes >According to Consumer Reports reliability survey, Land Rovers are the >most unreliable vehicle on American roads. Chrysler is second. Most probably, Land Rovers are crap over here too, and they've more service stations than do the Jeep network. -- Clive |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
Joe <joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com> wrote in
news:slrngtr0eb.80f.joe@barada.griffincs.local: > On 2009-04-09, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote: >> Joe <joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com> wrote in >> news:slrngtqsoo.7lc.joe@barada.griffincs.local: >>> >>> 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. > > No one is looking to have this done by tomorrow, or next year. It is > a process that will take years. Notice how many cars are left on the > road that require leaded gasoline? > >> >>> Most people never >> >> "NEVER"?? hyperbole. > > Not hyperbole, simple fact. "never" is an absolute,and inaccurate,to say the least. > The statistics are readily available. > The average mileage in the US is somewhere around 14,000 miles per > year. That equates to an average of about 38 miles per day. Most > people use their car to commute to and from work, perhaps pick up the > kids from soccer practice, and run to the local grocer. These people > that you assume cannot buy a new car, or a second car, are not driving > hundreds of miles per day or going on constant vacations... you crack me up with your baseless assumptions. > >> >>> 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? > > What data? The cost to buy an electrical meter? The cost for a > credit card machine? Or do you mean the cost for this combination > machine that doesn't exist yet, but will quickly materialize once > there is a need for it? The technology is already there, and rather > affordable, some smart company will just have to package it. you're extremely naive. > >> How long does it take for the owner to recoup their investment? > > Not long at all. Weeks or months. AAMOF, even if the device cost > $1000 each, it would only need to have a couple dozen cars use it for > a charge before it has paid for itself. Now I KNOW you're full of crap; "couple of dozen cars use it before it's paid for itself" > >> >> 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. >> > > Ahhh. So what you are saying is that you have no imagination, and > America is incapable of developing simple technologies? That's all you have is "imagination",nothing else. > >>> It takes about 45 minutes to fully charge a >>> Tesla. >> >> Using a 220V high power outlet. >> > > 220V is not "high power". 220V is available everywhere in the > country, and the power from it does not cost any more than from a 110 > Line.. By "high power",I mean capable of sourcing high current. > >>> 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. > > You have one right at your house, much unlike Hydrogen. But NOWHERE else. There's no "electric stations" or "recharging stations" existing for people to recharge electrics other than at home. and people DO use their cars more than 40 miles from home,despite your incorrect assumptions. > >> >>> >>> 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. >> > > You'd be suspecting wrong... 8A x 220V= 1760 watts,for only 3/4 of an hour,= 1320 watt-hours. That's a mighty weak battery pack,or one HELL of an efficient electric motor. > >>> 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. > > When talking about things that don't exist yet, the people that effect > real change are not those that try to come up with reasons why it > won't work... > I never said it "won't work",just that it's not practical,that the necessary infrastructure is -not in place-,and it would take a long time for that to occur. Without the infrastructure,few people are going to commit to an electric auto. Until there's a sufficient market for "recharging stations",there will be few businesses willing to pay to install them. and fewer will be willing to supply free electric in the meantime. -- 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:slrngtr0ia.80f.joe@barada.griffincs.local: > On 2009-04-09, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote: >> 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. > > Are you smoking crack or are you simply obtuse? > > A 1500 Watt panel isn't all that expensive. And yes, if even half of > the homes in the US had one panel, it would be a significant reduction > in the draw on the grid. > > You do seem to love the word hyperbole, though... > > because you're FULL of it. Do you think a 1500 watt panel puts out 1500 watts all the time the sun hits it? Or that it's output doesn't decrease the dirtier it gets? How often do you think a homeowner is willing to clean it? dust,pollen,tree sap,etc. THINK about it. It seems YOU are the one smoking crack...and dreaming. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote in
news:Xns9BE8659335B26jyanikkuanet@74.209.136.85: > Joe <joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com> wrote in > news:slrngtr0eb.80f.joe@barada.griffincs.local: > >> On 2009-04-09, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote: >>> Joe <joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com> wrote in >>> news:slrngtqsoo.7lc.joe@barada.griffincs.local: >>>> >>>> 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. >> >> No one is looking to have this done by tomorrow, or next year. It is >> a process that will take years. Notice how many cars are left on the >> road that require leaded gasoline? >> >>> >>>> Most people never >>> >>> "NEVER"?? hyperbole. >> >> Not hyperbole, simple fact. > > "never" is an absolute,and inaccurate,to say the least. > >> The statistics are readily available. >> The average mileage in the US is somewhere around 14,000 miles per >> year. That equates to an average of about 38 miles per day. Most >> people use their car to commute to and from work, perhaps pick up the >> kids from soccer practice, and run to the local grocer. These people >> that you assume cannot buy a new car, or a second car, are not >> driving hundreds of miles per day or going on constant vacations... > > you crack me up with your baseless assumptions. >> >>> >>>> 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? >> >> What data? The cost to buy an electrical meter? The cost for a >> credit card machine? Or do you mean the cost for this combination >> machine that doesn't exist yet, but will quickly materialize once >> there is a need for it? The technology is already there, and rather >> affordable, some smart company will just have to package it. > > you're extremely naive. >> >>> How long does it take for the owner to recoup their investment? >> >> Not long at all. Weeks or months. AAMOF, even if the device cost >> $1000 each, it would only need to have a couple dozen cars use it for >> a charge before it has paid for itself. > > Now I KNOW you're full of crap; "couple of dozen cars use it before > it's paid for itself" >> >>> >>> 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. >>> >> >> Ahhh. So what you are saying is that you have no imagination, and >> America is incapable of developing simple technologies? > > That's all you have is "imagination",nothing else. >> >>>> It takes about 45 minutes to fully charge a >>>> Tesla. >>> >>> Using a 220V high power outlet. >>> >> >> 220V is not "high power". 220V is available everywhere in the >> country, and the power from it does not cost any more than from a 110 >> Line.. > > By "high power",I mean capable of sourcing high current. BTW,many power utilities charge MORE (a higher KWH rate)for KWH over some baseline amount. (Mine is 1000 KWH/month.) > >> >>>> 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. >> >> You have one right at your house, much unlike Hydrogen. > > But NOWHERE else. > There's no "electric stations" or "recharging stations" existing for > people to recharge electrics other than at home. > and people DO use their cars more than 40 miles from home,despite your > incorrect assumptions. >> >>> >>>> >>>> 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. >>> >> >> You'd be suspecting wrong... > > 8A x 220V= 1760 watts,for only 3/4 of an hour,= 1320 watt-hours. > That's a mighty weak battery pack,or one HELL of an efficient electric > motor. I checked Tesla's website,and THEY say it takes 3.5 hrs for a full charge...using their special Tesla High Power Connector,supplying 70A at 240VAC. The battery pack is a 53 KWH pack. so,your claim of 45 minutes charge time and 8A source is BULL. It's clear you don't know what you're talking about. >> >>>> Using a >>>> standard business service (around 200 Amps) a restaurant could >>>> easily charge up 20 cars at a time. 20 cars x 70A= 1400A! that's a substantial investment for equipment,and a lot of extra power required. AND,other brands of car may not use the same high power connector,so there would have to be more equipment expense or some standard adapted,and that's gonna take time. This is what's called "considering the realities".... -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
In message <Xns9BE8659335B26jyanikkuanet@74.209.136.85>, Jim Yanik
<jyanik@abuse.gov> writes >By "high power", You mean by 20v to 30v lower than E.U. Which is between 220v and 250v depending on country? -- Clive |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
In article <989e2f9d-4bbd-4e9c-a75b-353c8303035e@p6g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
fft1976@gmail.com <fft1976@gmail.com> wrote: >http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/...ty-newWin.html > >What I find odd is that Prizm is considerably less safe than Corolla, >according to them. Is there a likely mechanical explanation (dual >airbags are standard in both, but perhaps the quality is different), >or is this a statistical artifact due to the poorer and thus younger >people buying Prizms? Perhaps Prizms had a higher percentage of rental cars than Corollas? Rental cars are more likely to be driven by drivers unfamiliar with both the car and local driving laws and conditions. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Timothy J. Lee Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. No warranty of any kind is provided with this message. |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 23:01:28 -0500, Joe
<joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com> wrote: >Most families have more than one car in the US. Most people never >travel more than 40 miles form home. I don't think that is true. It is probably true that 80-90% of driving is done in that range. > 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. The only context I have ever heard the safety "nuts" make that claim is in regards to why you should always wear your seatbelt (i.e. not just on long trips.) Do you really think that is "nuts"? Sounds like pretty sound advice to me. Is the statistic somehow misleading? Possibly in some ways, but not really. Anyone with half a brain can figure out why the statistic is true, but it doesn't make the advice any less valid. > If they are going to have an accident, >it's going to be in that range. |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
On 9 Apr 2009 04:34:09 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
>> 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 would guess a 110V system like that would cost no more than a couple thousand. The problem is that it would take hours (essentially overnight) to fully recharge an electric car on 110v. >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. I'm not sure what you mean by high power, but it certainly wouldn't be a simple electric range outlet. I also wonder how many times you can do that 45 minute charge before the batteries are toast. |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
On 9 Apr 2009 13:58:52 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
>8A x 220V= 1760 watts,for only 3/4 of an hour,= 1320 watt-hours. >That's a mighty weak battery pack,or one HELL of an efficient electric >motor. >> Rather than guessing we could check information on the intenet: Model S will have a range of 160 miles (260 km), 230 miles (370 km) or 300 miles (480 km) when fully charged, depending on the chosen battery option, and feature a 45 minute QuickCharge when connected to a 480V outlet. In addition, a battery swap will be possible in less than five minutes. [4] • 42 kWh battery storage system standard • 70 kWh and greater battery storage systems optional They say a full charge costs "as little as $4" whatever that means. Would be nice if they told us how many kWh for a full charge. The battery swap is an interesting proposal, especially if you could trade up or down in storage capacity. However, you have to whether the infrastructure for on-the-road quick charging or battery swaps will ever be installed during the life of your 2012 model. If you assume that gas costs $4, and a Prius gets 40 mpg, it will cost you ten cents a mile to fuel it. As little as $4 sounds like at least $6 to go 160 miles in your S. That is four cents a mile or a savings of 6 cents over the Prius. Driven 12,000 miles per year, that is $720 in fuel savings. That won't even come close to paying the interest on the extra $25K cost of the S. Of course the S would be a lot more fun to own, but most people cant afford $25K for fun. If they could, BMW would be selling a lot more cars. |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 23:08:21 -0500, Joe
<joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com> wrote: >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 appreciate the difference from current hybrids, but the fact is that this is a plug-in series hybrid. Afterthought or not, the engine is critical to making it viable in the marketplace. And remember, this car is totally unproven at this point. Last I heard GM doesn't even have a battery supplier yet. At best this thing will go 40 miles under optimum conditions. Without the engine, no one would trust the car for more than 30 miles and even that much trust might not be justified. >> 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. Perhaps we don't mean the same thing by stress. What I mean is draining the batteries down low and then fully charging them back up. "A lithium-ion battery provides 300-500 discharge/charge cycles. The battery prefers a partial rather than a full discharge. Frequent full discharges should be avoided when possible. Instead, charge the battery more often or use a larger battery." http://batteryuniversity.com/parttwo-34.htm "Fully discharging your Lithium battery frequently can actually be quite harmful to your battery’s health, possibly rendering it completely unusable if energy levels go too low." http://spicygadget.com/2006/12/24/gu...thium-battery/ Li-ion batteries are not as durable as nickel metal hydride or nickel-cadmium designs, and can be extremely dangerous if mistreated. They may explode if overheated or if charged to an excessively high voltage. Furthermore, they may be irreversibly damaged if discharged below a certain voltage. To reduce these risks, li-ion batteries generally contain a small circuit that shuts down the battery when discharged below a certain threshold (typically 3 V) or charged above a certain limit (typically 4.2 V). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_ion_battery > >>>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. I understand the principle, I just don't think that pure electric cars will have any measurable impact on our energy needs for at lest 10 - 15 years. That will only come when they are economically viable and they aren't even close now. >>>>>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. The first step to treating it with respect is to never consider it benign. > Using France's model (never thought I'd say such a thing), >Nuclear reactors are safer and cleaner than coal or oil plants. They are until they aren't. And then they are very bad. Nuclear energy and military force should both be treated with great respect. That could explain why we have had a major nuclear accident and France hasn't (yet). >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. I agree. |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
In message <9lhtt4psmibqp58a3citpbg56qbski54p5@4ax.com>, Gordon McGrew
<RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> writes >I appreciate the difference from current hybrids, but the fact is that >this is a plug-in series hybrid. Afterthought or not, the engine is >critical to making it viable in the marketplace. And remember, this >car is totally unproven at this point. Last I heard GM doesn't even >have a battery supplier yet. At best this thing will go 40 miles >under optimum conditions. Without the engine, no one would trust the >car for more than 30 miles and even that much trust might not be >justified. I know you've only been independent for about 200 years, but a child learns to spell in primary school (4to11 to you), when will you learn to spell and then not talk rubbish about "Processing" against dry storage? You've a lovely country, it's a shame that your brains don't match up. -- Clive |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 16:20:42 +0100, Clive <Clive@yewbank.demon.co.uk>
wrote: >In message <9lhtt4psmibqp58a3citpbg56qbski54p5@4ax.com>, Gordon McGrew ><RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> writes >>I appreciate the difference from current hybrids, but the fact is that >>this is a plug-in series hybrid. Afterthought or not, the engine is >>critical to making it viable in the marketplace. And remember, this >>car is totally unproven at this point. Last I heard GM doesn't even >>have a battery supplier yet. At best this thing will go 40 miles >>under optimum conditions. Without the engine, no one would trust the >>car for more than 30 miles and even that much trust might not be >>justified. >I know you've only been independent for about 200 years, but a child >learns to spell in primary school (4to11 to you), when will you learn to >spell and then not talk rubbish about "Processing" against dry storage? >You've a lovely country, it's a shame that your brains don't match up. Um, is this supposed to be a reply to anything I wrote? |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
Thus spake Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> :
>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. Oh, oil is finite. Many geologists believe we will soon reach "peak oil", if we haven't already. Saudi Arabia has never disclosed their reserve numbers. The consensus is that we probably have 30 to 40 years left at current use. And, ask yourself what else we use petro for. You know those computer chips? They are in epoxy cases. A petro product. You know that keyboard I'm hammering on? Yup. How about that poyester suit? Okay, there are some things we won't miss. >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. With a few exceptions, SUVs really aren't needed. I hear protestations about needing the space for the "team", but how often does that really happen? Do the parents of all of the kids "need" one? The number of times I see a solo driver on my way to work (guilty of solo, not guilty of SUV) is outrageous. > -- - dillon I am not invalid Hi, I'm Michael Phelps and Olympic Gold isn't the only Gold I'm thinking of. Hi, I'm Michael Phelps and when I'm on Maui, Wowwie. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:21 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands