"Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote in message
news:Xns974D6D67CA18Bjyanikkuanet@129.250.170.83.. .
> "Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in
> news:wuydndMIGrvLulbenZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@sedona.net:
>> We purchased it for both fuel savings and the driving experience; it
>> is the second most fun car to drive I've ever had (I still miss my
>> Lotus, though).
>
> What's the -fun- part of driving it?
> Knowing you're being frugal with gas?
> Or that it replaced a 20+ yr old car?
>
The 2001-2003 Prius is remarkably nimble and manueverable, the features I
prized in the Lotus and sorely missed in the Nissan 300ZX. Dunno about the
current version. I despise automatic transmissions, so I had reservations
about the "ECVT" of the Toyota Hybrid System. Boy, was I surprised! The
accelerator calls up power with supernatural smoothness and predictability.
I hate the way automatics always seem to be in the wrong gear or downshift
when I didn't want them to - never an issue with the THS. I drove it once
and fell in love.

People are always stereotyping me and ascribing motives according to their
preconceptions when they find I not only own a Prius, I love it. I am not a
liberal, I am a Reagan Republican. I am also a minor motorhead (I have a
brother who is a major motorhead, so I know the difference!) I know what I
like, and this is it. Now when I have to drive a conventional vehicle,
especially one with an automatic tranny, I wonder, "what is all the
'vroom-clunk, vroom-clunk' about?" The irony is that now my wife has it and
I have her Volvo wagon with an automatic... vroom-clunk. :-(

Mike

 

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-10BEF0.06484216012006@nntp2.usenetserver.com...
> In article <hPmdnZESXdztklbeRVn-pQ@sedona.net>,
> "Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote:
>
>> The difference is that diesels with conventional power trains still don't
>> do
>> well in town, most especially for the short trips that most people make.
>
> Ummmm.....yes they do.
>
What diesel do you have?

 

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 01:03:04 GMT, <HLS@nospam.nix> wrote:

>
>"Ronnie Dobbs" <watNOSPAMuzi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>Regarding horsepower, the mathematics follows:
>
>1 horsepower is equivalent to 0.7457 kilojoules per second
>gasoline typically delivers 50 kilojoules per gram
>
>Now, if a car is REALLY delivering 300 hp, that would mean without
>loss corrections, that you would be burning about 224 kilojoules per
>second of fuel, or about 4.5 grams of gasoline every second.

Since automobile engines are only about 33% efficient, it would more
likely be burning three times this much.


>In an hour, you would be burning over 16000 grams of fuel to maintain
>that horsepower, or about 35 pounds of fuel. That is approaching 5
>gallons per hour. If you are doing 70 mph over that hour, then you cannot
>get more than 14 mpg theoretical maximum.

The vehicle would have to be absolutely huge to be going only 70mph at
300hp. Even a fully loaded semi would probably be doing over 100mph
at that power setting.


>We both know that high advertised horsepower cars might get that good
>or even a little better, so what that tells us is that the engine
>maintenance
>systems, transmission, etc, limits the horsepower during this period. We
>are
>actually NOT generating 300 hp, at least not all the time.

The only time an engine generates its maximum power is at wide open
throttle and at the specified rpm.

>So the bottom line is that horsepower -actual horsepower - costs.
>It is inevitable. To decrease the fuel consumption, actual horsepower
>generated
>has to be decreased...And that can be done with weight control, rolling
>friction
>(tires), aerodynamics, tranny and its electronic controls, engine controls,
>air condition
>usage, electricity usage, etc.

Assuming that we are moving at a constant speed, the power being
generated would be the same for a given vehicle regardless of what
engine is used (within reason.)

>Now, assuming your 100 mpg situation, and again assuming you run 70 mph
>over the test period, you could not be allowed to average more that 0.7
>gallons
>consumption over that hour. That is very roughly 4.9 pounds of fuel, or
>2225
>grams. This equates to about 40 well managed horsepower...
>
>See the discrepancy?

Actually, given the 33% efficiency factor, the engine would only be
delivering about 13 hp. Only a very small car could achieve that. To
give you an idea how small, consider that a go-cart with a 9.5 hp
engine tops out at about 50 mph. With 13 hp it might get up to 65.
Your 100mpg car will have to be to be smaller and/or more aerodynamic
than that.

Theoretically, it doesn't matter how much power the engine can
generate, it only matters how much you use. In reality, there is
added inefficiency running the engine at low power settings and more
powerful engines are likely to burn more fuel at idle when you are
getting 0 mpg. For those reasons, a more powerful engine will consume
more fuel even if it is not driven any faster that the same car with a
less powerful engine. In practice, drivers tend to use the power they
have available, so the difference is even greater.

 

"John A. Weeks III" <john@johnweeks.com> wrote in message
news:john-6A3198.11433316012006@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> Your entire argument would be correct if there was no way to store
> electricity. That is what makes Ethanol so attractive--you use this
> otherwise wasted intermittent and off-peak power to produce Ethanol,
> then use the Ethanol when needed. It isn't that Ethanol is cheaper
> or more efficient than gasoline, but rather, it allows us to make
> use of cheaper night time and seasonal hydro power that might
> otherwise go unused.
>
> There are other ways of storing electric power. For example, at the
> Coolie Dam in Washington, they use unsubscribed power to pump water
> from the dam up into a former river channel that is at a higher
> elevation. When they need extra power, they use the force of water
> falling from this lake to run generators. Plans for similar such
> electric storage operations have been planned along the Mississippi
> River.
>
> -john-

Definitely true. Water storage is a proven and attractive way to use
intermittent generation to provide power on demand, competitive with current
peaking sources. The problem is that the intermittent power producers
haven't seen fit to do that in the US AFAIK.

Mike

 

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 10:54:35 -0600, "Ronnie Dobbs"
<watNOSPAMuzi@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Don Stauffer wrote:
>> Ronnie Dobbs wrote:
>>
>>> It's not so much the horsepower, but the weight, gearing, and
>>> aerodynamics (or lack therof) that are inherent in truck-based SUV
>>> designs. The LS2 engine (400 HP) from GM gets over 25 MPG in a car. A
>>> buddy of mine has a Dodge Durango with a 318 V8, I think it puts out
>>> about 220 HP, and gets around 15 MPG.
>>>
>>
>> In a sense it is still a horsepower problem. The problem with a large
>> horsepower engine, especially in a smaller, lighter car is that
>> ordinarily a small fraction of the horsepower capability of the engine
>> is being used. Light throttle openings are not efficient- in fact, they
>> are very inefficient. If it were not for power enrichening, max
>> efficiency is at wide open throttle. Because of such enrichening, max
>> efficiency in a normal auto engine is at about two-thirds throttle. A
>> larger engine than a vehicle needs results in very much reduced throttle
>> opening with a reduction in efficiency.
>
>And an engine with low horsepower has to work much harder during hard
>acceleration or going up steep hills, greatly reducing its efficiency.

No, it is more efficient when working harder, at least up to ~70%
power. Unless it is very underpowered or the hill is very steep, it
won't be working that hard.


As I
>said, horsepower doesn't have nearly as much to do with it as gearing,
>aerodynamics (at speed) and the individual driver.

 

Michael Pardee wrote:
> "John S." <hjsjms@cs.com> wrote in message
> news:1137434337.949954.195030@g14g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> >
> > High Tech Misfit wrote:
> >> John S. wrote:
> >>
> >> > The Toyota hybrid is much more expensive than a
> >> > Corolla and the Corolla has far more room for people and luggage.
> >>
> >> Having ridden in my folks' '04 Corolla and my uncle's '05 Prius, I have
> >> to
> >> disagree. The Prius has a bit more interior room than the Corolla, and a
> >> quite a bit more cargo capacity since it is a hatchback. You must be
> >> thinking of the old Prius which was smaller than the current one.
> >
> > No, the current one.
> >
> Not according to the measurements; http://tinyurl.com/axydj
>
> The 2005 Corolla has 0.2 inch more headroom, 0.5 inch more rear shoulder
> room and 0.9 inch more front hip room.
>
> The 2005 Prius has 0.6 inch more front legroom, 3.2 inches more rear
> legroom, 2.2 inches more front shoulder room, and 5.4 inches more rear hip
> room. Altogether the Prius has nearly 6 cubic feet more passenger space.
>
> The pre-2004 Prius was nearly identical in measurements to the Corolla.
>
> Mike

Yes, the car did change - I stand corrected.

 

"clifto" <clifto@clifto.com> wrote in message
news:659t93-83u.ln1@remote.clifto.com...
>
> Think how smart the average person is.
>
> Now consider that 50.0% of the population isn't even that smart.
>
> Those are the people who will be running your nuclear reactors.
>
Yeah, I've watched the Simpsons too. But in the real world, why managers who
are responsible for billions of dollars worth of tightly regulated equipment
would hire stupid people escapes me.

Mike

 

"Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in
news:QY-dnVbzVqaBoVHeRVn-jQ@sedona.net:

> "Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote in message
> news:Xns974D6D67CA18Bjyanikkuanet@129.250.170.83.. .
>> "Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in
>> news:wuydndMIGrvLulbenZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@sedona.net:
>>> We purchased it for both fuel savings and the driving experience; it
>>> is the second most fun car to drive I've ever had (I still miss my
>>> Lotus, though).
>>
>> What's the -fun- part of driving it?
>> Knowing you're being frugal with gas?
>> Or that it replaced a 20+ yr old car?
>>
> The 2001-2003 Prius is remarkably nimble and manueverable, the
> features I prized in the Lotus and sorely missed in the Nissan 300ZX.
> Dunno about the current version. I despise automatic transmissions, so
> I had reservations about the "ECVT" of the Toyota Hybrid System. Boy,
> was I surprised! The accelerator calls up power with supernatural
> smoothness and predictability. I hate the way automatics always seem
> to be in the wrong gear or downshift when I didn't want them to -
> never an issue with the THS. I drove it once and fell in love.
>
> People are always stereotyping me and ascribing motives according to
> their preconceptions when they find I not only own a Prius, I love it.
> I am not a liberal, I am a Reagan Republican. I am also a minor
> motorhead (I have a brother who is a major motorhead, so I know the
> difference!) I know what I like, and this is it. Now when I have to
> drive a conventional vehicle, especially one with an automatic tranny,
> I wonder, "what is all the 'vroom-clunk, vroom-clunk' about?" The
> irony is that now my wife has it and I have her Volvo wagon with an
> automatic... vroom-clunk. :-(
>
> Mike
>
>
>

I guess all they need to work on is the styling! 8-)
It sure doesn't compare to a Lotus or Z.

(IMO,Prius is dog-ugly)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 09:52:04 -0700, "Michael Pardee"
<michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote:

>"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
>news:newscache$gfl6ti$h5w1$1@news.ipinc.net...
>> But you can put in enough wind farms to supply the US's electrical
>> needs.
>>
>Sadly, wind and solar fall into the category of the least desirable of all
>forms of generation, "intermittent generation." Utility electricity as we
>know it is entirely on-demand; we don't have to schedule when we turn lights
>on and off. In contrast, public grids are a remarkably delicate real-time
>balance of generation, loss and load. Some "peaking" generation must always
>be held in reserve to maintain the balance, while "base" generation like
>coal, nuclear and hydro provide the cheaper electricity to meet the expected
>minimum demand. As used today, solar and wind do not fit into this at all.
>If base generation is like public transportation and peaking generation is
>like private cars, intermittent generation is like hitchhiking. Maybe it
>will get you where you are going, but you can't count on it. Worse, factors
>that affect one wind or solar site will likely affect all the neighboring
>sites in the same way at about the same time.
>
>(The following is specific to US regulations, where present-day FERC rules
>demand energy producers and energy suppliers - the people who send you the
>bill - must be entirely separate.) Wind farm operators in the US usually
>sell only a small fraction of their expected capacity because a broken
>promise in electricity delivery means huge penalties. The energy must be
>replaced by energy suppliers and the shortfall must be replaced from the
>expensive "spot market." By careful estimation of just how much they can
>produce some wind farm operators are able to make a profit. Others are not.

Of course, that expensive spot market can be supplied by unsold wind
power.

Admittedly, the somewhat unpredictable nature of wind power is a
limitation, but the system already has to deal with uncertainty. How
can you buy power for next July if you don't know whether it will be
record breaking hot or record breaking cold? Yet the only time we
have ever seen it (the power brokering system) fail was when the
crooks at Enron were doing Grandma Millie. If the system survived
that, it shouldn't have any problem figuring out how to deal with a
20% mix of wind power (if that is even achievable.) If the
deregulated private market can't figure it out, there are
alternatives.

>In the end, intermittent generation has to be excluded from calculations of
>capacity margin. That means that the same amount of peaking capacity has to
>be present. Wind or solar may reduce the consumption of natural gas, the
>fuel of choice for peaking plants. What it can't do is reduce the ultimate
>cost of electricity, since the peaking plants have pretty much fixed
>overhead and the costs are simply shifted to whatever power is ultimately
>sold... and as long as we aren't scheduling our electricity usage, we need
>peaking power. The effect is to increase the overall cost of electricity,
>since the energy consumers - you and I - must pay for the construction and
>maintenance of the intermittent generation sites in addition to the base and
>peaking plants.
>
>All this makes no more sense in an intuitive way than it does you, and I've
>worked at an electric utility for two decades. When I started we had our own
>generation and could at least coordinate intermittent generation into the
>mix. Now leaking information between production and delivery that might
>accomplish that means federal prison even for schlubs like me. My #2 son has
>it right: "There are two types of 'sense.' There's 'common sense' and
>there's 'business sense.'"

The problem with business sense is that it only makes sense when you
consider that profit/personal greed is the only success criteria.
That is why the rules of the game have to be set and enforced so
carefully. The Enron California debacle pointed out what happens when
the rules (or lack thereof) fail. The California players all knew
that Enron was cheating, but they had no choice but to keep playing
the game with a man who had a hundred aces up his sleeve. If someone
had just pulled out a gun and shot Ken Lay after the first cheat,
California would be a few billion dollars richer now.

Sometimes, the only way to set up a game that is fair and efficient is
to let the government play a bigger role.

 

"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news6ios1lvpfsqo0g140fu4i03a1rhh739st@4ax.com...
> Of course, that expensive spot market can be supplied by unsold wind
> power.
>
Unfortunately, not to any great extent. The problem is that contracts for
peaking are usually made the previous day, on an hourly basis. The market is
competitive to the point of being cutthroat, and the closer the time gets to
the delivery time the higher the prices are; cheap power has already been
bought. That is the problem with intermittent generation - how much can you
produce between 1400 and 1500 hours tomorrow? How much can you produce in
the coming hour, with much higher penalties if you can't? Allow too much for
the vagaries of nature and there is no point being in business. Allow too
little and the penalties will cost far more than you could ever make. Don't
agree to the penalties and nobody will buy at any price.

The proposed FERC rules are intended to reduce the effect of impending
delivery, so intermittent generators can compete with the peakers as close
as an hour to delivery time. That will necessarily drive the spot market
through the roof as peaking producers try to make a living, but that's the
tradeoff. In exchange, intermittent producers would have to become good
citizens on the grid, doing their part to correct voltage sags and high VARs
(bad phase angles.)

Personally, I don't understand why the intermittent producers don't invest
in water storage. The high up-front cost can be recovered at a more
predictable rate than the cost of the generation equipment can.

Mike

 

"Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote in message
news:Xns974DD5BEAC04Fjyanikkuanet@129.250.170.86.. .
>
> I guess all they need to work on is the styling! 8-)
> It sure doesn't compare to a Lotus or Z.
>
> (IMO,Prius is dog-ugly)
>
I drive with my eyes closed to deal with that part. <8^P

Mike

 

"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
news:newscache$gfl6ti$h5w1$1@news.ipinc.net...
> But you can put in enough wind farms to supply the US's electrical
> needs.
>

Has anyone attempted to determine the results of windmill farms?
Science tells us that to create energy from the wind, we take that
power out of the wind. If we intercept this force enough, what changes
are we imposing on nature?

Not saying we *shouldn't*, but we've already gone way down the
destructive road with other sources, maybe we need to do some research
before figuring that wind-generated power is "free"....

 

Unfortunately the federally approved stem cell lines are all contaminated.


"clifto" <clifto@clifto.com> wrote in message
news:i18t93-l2u.ln1@remote.clifto.com...
> Ronnie Dobbs wrote:
>> The administration has demonstrated that they are anti-science by banning
>> federally-sanctioned stem-cell research,
>
> You're ing the liberals' lie. Stem cell research is encouraged and
> government grants are available to researchers. The only limitation is
> that
> research on embryonic stem cells outside 60 well-known genetically diverse
> stem cell lines cannot be Federally funded; however, the states can pass
> laws allowing the states to fund such research, and researchers are
> welcome
> to seek grants from other sources.
>
> 16 out of 31 states, none of them governed by Bush, with laws regarding
> funding of stem cell research, also prohibit FUNDING of research on cells
> taken from aborted fetuses and/or embryos.
>
> --
> If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
> my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

 

Art wrote:
> "clifto" <clifto@clifto.com> wrote in message
> news:i18t93-l2u.ln1@remote.clifto.com...
>> Ronnie Dobbs wrote:
>>> The administration has demonstrated that they are anti-science by
>>> banning federally-sanctioned stem-cell research,
>>
>> You're ing the liberals' lie. Stem cell research is encouraged and
>> government grants are available to researchers. The only limitation is
>> that
>> research on embryonic stem cells outside 60 well-known genetically
>> diverse stem cell lines cannot be Federally funded; however, the states
>> can pass laws allowing the states to fund such research, and
>> researchers are welcome
>> to seek grants from other sources.
>>
>> 16 out of 31 states, none of them governed by Bush, with laws regarding
>> funding of stem cell research, also prohibit FUNDING of research on
>> cells taken from aborted fetuses and/or embryos.
> Unfortunately the federally approved stem cell lines are all
> contaminated.

But you can't let a simple thing like facts get in between Bush's *** cheeks
and his worshippers' lips.

--

http://www.ronniedobbs.com/

 

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 21:26:51 -0600, Raymond J. Henry
<rayhenryREMOVE@THISautoclubs.ca> wrote:

>"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
>news:newscache$gfl6ti$h5w1$1@news.ipinc.net...
>> But you can put in enough wind farms to supply the US's electrical
>> needs.
>>
>
>Has anyone attempted to determine the results of windmill farms?
>Science tells us that to create energy from the wind, we take that
>power out of the wind. If we intercept this force enough, what changes
>are we imposing on nature?
>
>Not saying we *shouldn't*, but we've already gone way down the
>destructive road with other sources, maybe we need to do some research
>before figuring that wind-generated power is "free"....

This is ridiculous.
The useable part of the atmosphere goes up to about 36,000 feet. How
tall is a wind generator again?

Are you changing the earth's climate by putting a few *wind farms*
down on the ground here and there? I don't think so. Your fear is
groundless ( that is a pun ).

It is like saying you're going to change the ocean currents if you put
the Queen Elizabeth or some other Ocean Liner to Sea. Yah, a little
bit. But not enough to detect.

Lg