|
General » rec.autos.driving » Impressive auto
| Impressive auto [message #792710] |
Thu, 31 January 2008 08:10 |
|
Hi Viatologists,
Wow... Here's an outfit out of Carlsbad, Calif. (outside San Diego)
who reportedly offers a car capable of 300 MPG:
http://www.aptera.com
If you've got $30,000 (USD), patience, California residency and a
sense of adventure, have at it! Oh yeah... No--it does not fly. :)
Cheers,
Carl Rogers
"Adding human experience to transportology"
********
Calrog.com, Worldwide Highway Library:
http://worldwide-hwys.calrog.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
An integrated media arm in International Transportation Research. Has
served your home country and ninety-nine of its worldwide neighbours
since 2000, through Internet downstream and published works.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
********
|
|
|
| Re: Impressive auto [message #792711 ] |
Thu, 31 January 2008 08:23 |
|
Carl Rogers:
> Hi Viatologists,
>
> Wow... Here's an outfit out of Carlsbad, Calif. (outside San Diego)
> who reportedly offers a car capable of 300 MPG:
That sounds a little optimistic, IMO.
> http://www.aptera.com
Interesting. I look for Bush/Cheney and the oil cartels to be looking
high and low for a way to keep these off the roads. Then again, being
a plug in, doesn't that just shift the energy sourcing (and pollution)
from the gas station and car to the home and the power plants?
Seriously, I can't wait for these to make their debut on the east
coast. It looks like a nice daily commuter car for single people like
me (will probably turn a few heads around here too)...
> If you've got $30,000 (USD), patience,
Will they take Euros?
> California residency and a
What's to stop me from flying out to CA, buying one (when production
starts) and driving it back to GA?
> sense of adventure, have at it! Oh yeah...
Can't wait...
> No--it does not fly. :)
Dang!
--
N eed
A
S ober
A stronaut
|
|
|
| Re: Impressive auto [message #792712 ] |
Thu, 31 January 2008 09:19 |
|
On Jan 31, 2:10 am, Carl Rogers <carl-... [at] calrog.com> wrote:
> Wow... Here's an outfit out of Carlsbad, Calif. (outside San Diego)
> who reportedly offers a car capable of 300 MPG:
>
> http://www.aptera.com
>
> If you've got $30,000 (USD), patience, California residency and a
> sense of adventure, have at it! Oh yeah... No--it does not fly. :)
Interesting stuff. I'll peruse this link at a later time.
A friend sent me another link on the topic a while back...
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4237853. html?series=19
|
|
|
| Re: Impressive auto [message #792715 ] |
Thu, 31 January 2008 14:34 |
|
On Jan 31, 2:10=A0am, Carl Rogers <carl-... [at] calrog.com> wrote:
> Hi Viatologists,
>
> Wow... =A0Here's an outfit out of Carlsbad, Calif. (outside San Diego)
> who reportedly offers a car capable of 300 MPG:
>
> http://www.aptera.com
>
> If you've got $30,000 (USD), patience, California residency and a
> sense of adventure, have at it! =A0Oh yeah... =A0No--it does not fly. :)
>
This was discussed in a recent thread, although you may have missed it
as it was infested by eco-trolls.
1) the 300 MPG number includes running off of a battery that was
charged by plugging in, and is computed over the vehicle's entire
range until the battery is depleted. Still gets impressive mileage,
but not really 300 MPG.
2) range is limited.
3) only carries two passengers and a modicum of luggage
4) probably does not meet federal crash standards; I'm ASSuming that
Aptera isn't planning on selling enough that they can't use a "low
volume manufacturer" exception. I may be wrong on this, and would be
happy to be proven so, but I'm guessing that that is one of the ways
they were able to realize real economy benefits. Of course, a
consequence of this is, if they ever get popular, they'll have to
either artificially limit sales or else radically redesign their
product to make it less appealing to conform to safety regs.
Personally, I think it's a kick-ass toy, but remains just that, a
toy. when the price of a used 944 is about 1/10 that of the Aptera,
and the 944 has a semi-usable back seat and 3-plus times the range,
it's a no-brainer for me to keep what I got, even if I do pay a little
more for fuel. That said, if someone gave me an Aptera, I think it'd
be a giggle.
nate
|
|
|
| Re: Impressive auto [message #792742 ] |
Fri, 01 February 2008 02:34 |
|
In article
<a0f6f19d-aa77-450b-8f19-98b0bdc34662 [at] i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
Carl Rogers <carl-mtr [at] calrog.com> wrote:
> Hi Viatologists,
>
> Wow... Here's an outfit out of Carlsbad, Calif. (outside San Diego)
> who reportedly offers a car capable of 300 MPG:
>
> http://www.aptera.com
>
> If you've got $30,000 (USD), patience, California residency and a
> sense of adventure, have at it! Oh yeah... No--it does not fly. :)
ZAP, a maker of electric vehicles, just announced a car that looks
almost identical to this one, with the same specs, estimated delivery
date and price. I wonder if Aptera made a deal to have ZAP market their
car.
Merritt
|
|
|
| Re: Impressive auto [message #792746 ] |
Fri, 01 February 2008 03:37 |
|
In article
<a0f6f19d-aa77-450b-8f19-98b0bdc34662 [at] i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
Carl Rogers <carl-mtr [at] calrog.com> wrote:
> Hi Viatologists,
>
> Wow... Here's an outfit out of Carlsbad, Calif. (outside San Diego)
> who reportedly offers a car capable of 300 MPG:
>
> http://www.aptera.com
>
> If you've got $30,000 (USD), patience, California residency and a
> sense of adventure, have at it! Oh yeah... No--it does not fly. :)
And...
....oh, yeah...
....the production model doesn't exist and as of now has no firm
introduction date.
They don't even have the funding to build the production facilities yet.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Rogers
> "Adding human experience to transportology"
> ********
> Calrog.com, Worldwide Highway Library:
> http://worldwide-hwys.calrog.com
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> An integrated media arm in International Transportation Research. Has
> served your home country and ninety-nine of its worldwide neighbours
> since 2000, through Internet downstream and published works.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ********
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
|
|
|
| Re: Impressive auto [message #792749 ] |
Fri, 01 February 2008 04:28 |
|
Alan Baker <alangbaker [at] telus.net> writes:
> In article
> <a0f6f19d-aa77-450b-8f19-98b0bdc34662 [at] i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
> Carl Rogers <carl-mtr [at] calrog.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Viatologists,
> >
> > Wow... Here's an outfit out of Carlsbad, Calif. (outside San Diego)
> > who reportedly offers a car capable of 300 MPG:
> >
> > http://www.aptera.com
> >
> > If you've got $30,000 (USD), patience, California residency and a
> > sense of adventure, have at it! Oh yeah... No--it does not fly. :)
>
> And...
>
> ...oh, yeah...
>
> ...the production model doesn't exist and as of now has no firm
> introduction date.
>
> They don't even have the funding to build the production facilities yet.
Better, check out <http://www.aptera.com/details.php>, which claims the
mileage drops with how far you drive, going to an asymptotic value of
130 miles per gallon. This sounds crazy, but what they seem to be
doing is measuring on-board fuel consumption and not counting the
energy stored in the battery as part of the fuel.
It's basically a three-wheel electric or hybrid motorcycle with a
faring to cut air drag, and seems to be able to seat two people.
You can plug it in to recharge the battery.
-
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
|
|
|
| Re: Impressive auto [message #792805 ] |
Sat, 02 February 2008 02:42 |
|
In article <dde32fd3-f398-4f7d-94ac-02e8e998e2df [at] c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
N8N <njnagel [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>4) probably does not meet federal crash standards; I'm ASSuming that
>Aptera isn't planning on selling enough that they can't use a "low
>volume manufacturer" exception.
It's only got three wheels, so they call it a motorcycle to get around
crash standards.
Not that I have a problem with that; too many requirements cause
stagnation. You can't build the "next best thing" because the
requirements were written for the previous best thing.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
|
|
| Re: Impressive auto [message #792808 ] |
Sat, 02 February 2008 02:58 |
|
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> In article <dde32fd3-f398-4f7d-94ac-02e8e998e2df [at] c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> N8N <njnagel [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>4) probably does not meet federal crash standards; I'm ASSuming that
>>Aptera isn't planning on selling enough that they can't use a "low
>>volume manufacturer" exception.
>
>
> It's only got three wheels, so they call it a motorcycle to get around
> crash standards.
>
> Not that I have a problem with that; too many requirements cause
> stagnation. You can't build the "next best thing" because the
> requirements were written for the previous best thing.
I agree 100% - we've got too much regulation already.
I think if I ever went back to work in an automotive type environment it
would have to be in motorsports - too many constraints on design for
roadgoing cars. Oh, and the US auto industry probably isn't hiring now
anyway, so it's a moot point.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Impressive auto [message #792843 ] |
Sat, 02 February 2008 16:26 |
|
Bill Z. wrote:
> Alan Baker <alangbaker [at] telus.net> writes:
>
>> In article
>> <a0f6f19d-aa77-450b-8f19-98b0bdc34662 [at] i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
>> Carl Rogers <carl-mtr [at] calrog.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Viatologists,
>>>
>>> Wow... Here's an outfit out of Carlsbad, Calif. (outside San Diego)
>>> who reportedly offers a car capable of 300 MPG:
>>>
>>> http://www.aptera.com
>>>
>>> If you've got $30,000 (USD), patience, California residency and a
>>> sense of adventure, have at it! Oh yeah... No--it does not fly. :)
>> And...
>>
>> ...oh, yeah...
>>
>> ...the production model doesn't exist and as of now has no firm
>> introduction date.
>>
>> They don't even have the funding to build the production facilities yet.
>
> Better, check out <http://www.aptera.com/details.php>, which claims the
> mileage drops with how far you drive, going to an asymptotic value of
> 130 miles per gallon. This sounds crazy, but what they seem to be
> doing is measuring on-board fuel consumption and not counting the
> energy stored in the battery as part of the fuel.
>
> It's basically a three-wheel electric or hybrid motorcycle with a
> faring to cut air drag, and seems to be able to seat two people.
> You can plug it in to recharge the battery.
Yea, but how much will it cost and how much coal will be burned to recharge
the battery when you plug it in?
--
___________________________________________ ____ _______________
Regards, | |\ ____
| | | | |\
Michael G. Koerner May they | | | | | | rise again!
Appleton, Wisconsin USA | | | | | |
___________________________________________ | | | | | | _______________
|
|
|
| Re: Impressive auto [message #792850 ] |
Sat, 02 February 2008 21:51 |
|
In article <ya6dnbFD09EVFjnanZ2dnUVZ_qLinZ2d [at] athenet.net>,
"Michael G. Koerner" <mgk920 [at] dataex.com> wrote:
> Bill Z. wrote:
> > Alan Baker <alangbaker [at] telus.net> writes:
> >
> >> In article
> >> <a0f6f19d-aa77-450b-8f19-98b0bdc34662 [at] i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
> >> Carl Rogers <carl-mtr [at] calrog.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Viatologists,
> >>>
> >>> Wow... Here's an outfit out of Carlsbad, Calif. (outside San Diego)
> >>> who reportedly offers a car capable of 300 MPG:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.aptera.com
> >>>
> >>> If you've got $30,000 (USD), patience, California residency and a
> >>> sense of adventure, have at it! Oh yeah... No--it does not fly. :)
> >> And...
> >>
> >> ...oh, yeah...
> >>
> >> ...the production model doesn't exist and as of now has no firm
> >> introduction date.
> >>
> >> They don't even have the funding to build the production facilities yet.
> >
> > Better, check out <http://www.aptera.com/details.php>, which claims the
> > mileage drops with how far you drive, going to an asymptotic value of
> > 130 miles per gallon. This sounds crazy, but what they seem to be
> > doing is measuring on-board fuel consumption and not counting the
> > energy stored in the battery as part of the fuel.
> >
> > It's basically a three-wheel electric or hybrid motorcycle with a
> > faring to cut air drag, and seems to be able to seat two people.
> > You can plug it in to recharge the battery.
>
> Yea, but how much will it cost and how much coal will be burned to recharge
> the battery when you plug it in?
Yup.
One of the things the proponents of the electric car don't want to talk
about is where all the electricity is going to come from.
It's not like there are lots of hydro-electric generating stations just
sitting idle until they're needed. When demand spikes, that's when the
power companies fire up the coal generating stations.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
|
|
|
| Re: Impressive auto [message #792854 ] |
Sat, 02 February 2008 22:41 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Impressive auto [message #792856 ] |
Sat, 02 February 2008 23:10 |
|
In article <3oo9q3hd0ecfo90aoffgujhk6nofp1rhq0 [at] 4ax.com>,
Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 20:51:16 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker [at] telus.net>
> wrote:
>
> >One of the things the proponents of the electric car don't want to talk
> >about is where all the electricity is going to come from.
>
> Even if it comes from burning coal that's still better than importing
> oil, IMHO.
Why?
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
|
|
|
| Re: Impressive auto [message #792859 ] |
Sun, 03 February 2008 00:00 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Impressive auto [message #792876 ] |
Sun, 03 February 2008 01:55 |
|
In article <l5t9q3h2afs4st3drfmlc722oio2ajkvkn [at] 4ax.com>,
Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 22:10:30 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker [at] telus.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <3oo9q3hd0ecfo90aoffgujhk6nofp1rhq0 [at] 4ax.com>,
> > Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 20:51:16 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker [at] telus.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >One of the things the proponents of the electric car don't want to talk
> >> >about is where all the electricity is going to come from.
> >>
> >> Even if it comes from burning coal that's still better than importing
> >> oil, IMHO.
> >
> >Why?
>
> Well, for starters, we don't have to import coal from unstable regions
> of the world, and we don't have to send American troops to die in
> order to keep the coal trains rolling. It doesn't fuck up our balance
> of trade, either.
1. There's lots of oil to be imported from stable parts of the world.
2. There's no need to send American troops anywhere to get it. Just pay
for it.
3. If there are problems with your balance of trade, start making better
goods to export instead of worrying about what you need to import.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
|
|
|
| Re: Impressive auto [message #792884 ] |
Sun, 03 February 2008 03:12 |
|
Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan [at] yahoo.com> wrote in
news:l5t9q3h2afs4st3drfmlc722oio2ajkvkn [at] 4ax.com:
> Well, for starters, we don't have to import coal from unstable
> regions of the world, and we don't have to send American troops to
> die in order to keep the coal trains rolling.
I wasn't aware that we had troops dying in Canada.
--
|
|
|
| Re: Impressive auto [message #792886 ] |
Sun, 03 February 2008 03:27 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Impressive auto [message #792891 ] |
Sun, 03 February 2008 03:53 |
|
In article <b99aq3psl704mcthrr477m0aicv03tf97f [at] 4ax.com>,
Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 00:55:36 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker [at] telus.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <l5t9q3h2afs4st3drfmlc722oio2ajkvkn [at] 4ax.com>,
> > Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 22:10:30 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker [at] telus.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <3oo9q3hd0ecfo90aoffgujhk6nofp1rhq0 [at] 4ax.com>,
> >> > Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 20:51:16 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker [at] telus.net>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >One of the things the proponents of the electric car don't want to
> >> >> >talk
> >> >> >about is where all the electricity is going to come from.
> >> >>
> >> >> Even if it comes from burning coal that's still better than importing
> >> >> oil, IMHO.
> >> >
> >> >Why?
> >>
> >> Well, for starters, we don't have to import coal from unstable regions
> >> of the world, and we don't have to send American troops to die in
> >> order to keep the coal trains rolling. It doesn't fuck up our balance
> >> of trade, either.
> >
> >1. There's lots of oil to be imported from stable parts of the world.
>
> And there are a lot of Indians and Chinese who are ready to enter a
> bidding war with us in order to obtain it. OTOH, there is nobody
> waiting to bid on our coal deposits, and, even if there were, we will
> always have first dibs.
So what you're saying is that you don't want to *pay* the going rate and
so acid rain and pollution don't bother you...
>
> >2. There's no need to send American troops anywhere to get it. Just pay
> >for it.
>
> Then why do we have troops in Iraq?
Damned if I know.
>
> >3. If there are problems with your balance of trade, start making better
> >goods to export instead of worrying about what you need to import.
>
> Since you seem to have all the answers, perhaps you'd consider running
> for political office? :)
I don't have all the answers. I just know that your reasons for burning
coal aren't valid.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
|
|
|
| Re: Impressive auto [message #792897 ] |
Sun, 03 February 2008 04:42 |
|
In article <alangbaker-CFA8CF.12511602022008 [at] [74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]>,
Alan Baker <alangbaker [at] telus.net> wrote:
>
>One of the things the proponents of the electric car don't want to talk
>about is where all the electricity is going to come from.
>
>It's not like there are lots of hydro-electric generating stations just
>sitting idle until they're needed. When demand spikes, that's when the
>power companies fire up the coal generating stations.
Coal and hydro are both base load. When demand spikes, they fire up
oil and natural gas generators. Except in California, where they burn
natural gas for base load, then wonder why electricity costs so much.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
|
|
| Re: Impressive auto [message #792902 ] |
Sun, 03 February 2008 04:47 |
|
In article <b99aq3psl704mcthrr477m0aicv03tf97f [at] 4ax.com>,
Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 00:55:36 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker [at] telus.net>
>wrote:
>
>>2. There's no need to send American troops anywhere to get it. Just pay
>>for it.
>
>Then why do we have troops in Iraq?
Not for the oil. Saddam would have sold us as much oil as we were
willing to pay for.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
|
|
| Re: Impressive auto [message #792905 ] |
Sun, 03 February 2008 05:34 |
|
In article <heudnVvdA9-BpTjanZ2dnUVZ_t2inZ2d [at] speakeasy.net>,
russotto [at] grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
> In article <alangbaker-CFA8CF.12511602022008 [at] [74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]>,
> Alan Baker <alangbaker [at] telus.net> wrote:
> >
> >One of the things the proponents of the electric car don't want to talk
> >about is where all the electricity is going to come from.
> >
> >It's not like there are lots of hydro-electric generating stations just
> >sitting idle until they're needed. When demand spikes, that's when the
> >power companies fire up the coal generating stations.
>
> Coal and hydro are both base load. When demand spikes, they fire up
> oil and natural gas generators. Except in California, where they burn
> natural gas for base load, then wonder why electricity costs so much.
That's not the way it is in BC or Ontario (the two regions with which
I'm familiar), but the point is somewhat moot.
The real point is that if electric cars are going to need electricity
derived from fossil fuels, then there is no real advantage over internal
combustion vehicles. In fact, if one remembers that electricity is
neither produced nor transported with 100% efficiency, electric cars
could in theory produce *more* greenhouse gases than highly efficient IC
cars.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
|
|
|
| Re: Impressive auto [message #792916 ] |
Sun, 03 February 2008 07:51 |
|
Alan Baker <alangbaker [at] telus.net> writes:
> In article <ya6dnbFD09EVFjnanZ2dnUVZ_qLinZ2d [at] athenet.net>,
> "Michael G. Koerner" <mgk920 [at] dataex.com> wrote:
>
> > Bill Z. wrote:
> > > Alan Baker <alangbaker [at] telus.net> writes:
> > >
> > >> In article
> > >> <a0f6f19d-aa77-450b-8f19-98b0bdc34662 [at] i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
> > >> Carl Rogers <carl-mtr [at] calrog.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Hi Viatologists,
> > >>>
> > >>> Wow... Here's an outfit out of Carlsbad, Calif. (outside San Diego)
> > >>> who reportedly offers a car capable of 300 MPG:
> > >>>
> > >>> http://www.aptera.com
> > >>>
> > >>> If you've got $30,000 (USD), patience, California residency and a
> > >>> sense of adventure, have at it! Oh yeah... No--it does not fly. :)
> > >> And...
> > >>
> > >> ...oh, yeah...
> > >>
> > >> ...the production model doesn't exist and as of now has no firm
> > >> introduction date.
> > >>
> > >> They don't even have the funding to build the production facilities yet.
> > >
> > > Better, check out <http://www.aptera.com/details.php>, which claims the
> > > mileage drops with how far you drive, going to an asymptotic value of
> > > 130 miles per gallon. This sounds crazy, but what they seem to be
> > > doing is measuring on-board fuel consumption and not counting the
> > > energy stored in the battery as part of the fuel.
> > >
> > > It's basically a three-wheel electric or hybrid motorcycle with a
> > > faring to cut air drag, and seems to be able to seat two people.
> > > You can plug it in to recharge the battery.
> >
> > Yea, but how much will it cost and how much coal will be burned to recharge
> > the battery when you plug it in?
>
> Yup.
>
> One of the things the proponents of the electric car don't want to talk
> about is where all the electricity is going to come from.
>
> It's not like there are lots of hydro-electric generating stations just
> sitting idle until they're needed. When demand spikes, that's when the
> power companies fire up the coal generating stations.
There's some truth to that. However, electric vehicles would be
plugged in mainly at night, when existing demand is at its lowest.
Might be able to supply them primarily with hydro after all.
-- Patrick
|
|
|
| Re: Impressive auto [message #792917 ] |
Sun, 03 February 2008 08:00 |
|
On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 21:47:46 -0600, in misc.transport.road
russotto [at] grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote in
<zM6dnRwYvYv_pDjanZ2dnUVZ_o-mnZ2d [at] speakeasy.net>:
>In article <b99aq3psl704mcthrr477m0aicv03tf97f [at] 4ax.com>,
>Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 00:55:36 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker [at] telus.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>2. There's no need to send American troops anywhere to get it. Just pay
>>>for it.
>>
>>Then why do we have troops in Iraq?
>
>Not for the oil. Saddam would have sold us as much oil as we were
>willing to pay for.
"Daddy screwed up and I wanna prove that I can do better than he did."
Of course, US troops were better off when Saddam ran Iraq and US troops
weren't targets of Iraqis, but W is a bit confused by the idea of
competence.
|
|
|
| Re: Impressive auto [message #792918 ] |
Sun, 03 February 2008 08:00 |
|
In article <w9zir16lehs.fsf [at] zipcon.net>, kkt <kkt [at] zipcon.net> wrote:
> Alan Baker <alangbaker [at] telus.net> writes:
>
> > In article <ya6dnbFD09EVFjnanZ2dnUVZ_qLinZ2d [at] athenet.net>,
> > "Michael G. Koerner" <mgk920 [at] dataex.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Bill Z. wrote:
> > > > Alan Baker <alangbaker [at] telus.net> writes:
> > > >
> > > >> In article
> > > >> <a0f6f19d-aa77-450b-8f19-98b0bdc34662 [at] i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
> > > >> Carl Rogers <carl-mtr [at] calrog.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Hi Viatologists,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Wow... Here's an outfit out of Carlsbad, Calif. (outside San Diego)
> > > >>> who reportedly offers a car capable of 300 MPG:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> http://www.aptera.com
> > > >>>
> > > >>> If you've got $30,000 (USD), patience, California residency and a
> > > >>> sense of adventure, have at it! Oh yeah... No--it does not fly. :)
> > > >> And...
> > > >>
> > > >> ...oh, yeah...
> > > >>
> > > >> ...the production model doesn't exist and as of now has no firm
> > > >> introduction date.
> > > >>
> > > >> They don't even have the funding to build the production facilities
> > > >> yet.
> > > >
> > > > Better, check out <http://www.aptera.com/details.php>, which claims the
> > > > mileage drops with how far you drive, going to an asymptotic value of
> > > > 130 miles per gallon. This sounds crazy, but what they seem to be
> > > > doing is measuring on-board fuel consumption and not counting the
> > > > energy stored in the battery as part of the fuel.
> > > >
> > > > It's basically a three-wheel electric or hybrid motorcycle with a
> > > > faring to cut air drag, and seems to be able to seat two people.
> > > > You can plug it in to recharge the battery.
> > >
> > > Yea, but how much will it cost and how much coal will be burned to
> > > recharge
> > > the battery when you plug it in?
> >
> > Yup.
> >
> > One of the things the proponents of the electric car don't want to talk
> > about is where all the electricity is going to come from.
> >
> > It's not like there are lots of hydro-electric generating stations just
> > sitting idle until they're needed. When demand spikes, that's when the
> > power companies fire up the coal generating stations.
>
> There's some truth to that. However, electric vehicles would be
> plugged in mainly at night, when existing demand is at its lowest.
> Might be able to supply them primarily with hydro after all.
Ummmmm... ...no.
Electric cars are going to add lots of load at two very obvious times:
When everyone commutes in to the office and parks, what do they do? They
plug in, of course! So spike in demand from 0800 - 1000.
And the same again when everyone returns home. They all plug in their
electric cars right then and there, because the last thing anyone will
want when they go out to use their cars later in the evening is for it
to be sitting with a half charge. So another spike from 1600 - 1800.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
|
|
|
| Re: Impressive auto [message #792919 ] |
Sun, 03 February 2008 08:03 |
|
Alan Baker <alangbaker [at] telus.net> writes:
> In article <heudnVvdA9-BpTjanZ2dnUVZ_t2inZ2d [at] speakeasy.net>,
> russotto [at] grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>
> > In article <alangbaker-CFA8CF.12511602022008 [at] [74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]>,
> > Alan Baker <alangbaker [at] telus.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >One of the things the proponents of the electric car don't want to talk
> > >about is where all the electricity is going to come from.
> > >
> > >It's not like there are lots of hydro-electric generating stations just
> > >sitting idle until they're needed. When demand spikes, that's when the
> > >power companies fire up the coal generating stations.
> >
> > Coal and hydro are both base load. When demand spikes, they fire up
> > oil and natural gas generators. Except in California, where they burn
> > natural gas for base load, then wonder why electricity costs so much.
>
> That's not the way it is in BC or Ontario (the two regions with which
> I'm familiar), but the point is somewhat moot.
>
> The real point is that if electric cars are going to need electricity
> derived from fossil fuels, then there is no real advantage over internal
> combustion vehicles. In fact, if one remembers that electricity is
> neither produced nor transported with 100% efficiency, electric cars
> could in theory produce *more* greenhouse gases than highly efficient IC
> cars.
You can justify a lot more expensive pollution control equipment on
one power plant than you can on 10,000 cars...
-- Patrick
|
|
|
| Re: Impressive auto [message #792920 ] |
Sun, 03 February 2008 08:07 |
|
In article <w9zfxwaldwx.fsf [at] zipcon.net>, kkt <kkt [at] zipcon.net> wrote:
> Alan Baker <alangbaker [at] telus.net> writes:
>
> > In article <heudnVvdA9-BpTjanZ2dnUVZ_t2inZ2d [at] speakeasy.net>,
> > russotto [at] grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
> >
> > > In article
> > > <alangbaker-CFA8CF.12511602022008 [at] [74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]>,
> > > Alan Baker <alangbaker [at] telus.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >One of the things the proponents of the electric car don't want to talk
> > > >about is where all the electricity is going to come from.
> > > >
> > > >It's not like there are lots of hydro-electric generating stations just
> > > >sitting idle until they're needed. When demand spikes, that's when the
> > > >power companies fire up the coal generating stations.
> > >
> > > Coal and hydro are both base load. When demand spikes, they fire up
> > > oil and natural gas generators. Except in California, where they burn
> > > natural gas for base load, then wonder why electricity costs so much.
> >
> > That's not the way it is in BC or Ontario (the two regions with which
> > I'm familiar), but the point is somewhat moot.
> >
> > The real point is that if electric cars are going to need electricity
> > derived from fossil fuels, then there is no real advantage over internal
> > combustion vehicles. In fact, if one remembers that electricity is
> > neither produced nor transported with 100% efficiency, electric cars
> > could in theory produce *more* greenhouse gases than highly efficient IC
> > cars.
>
> You can justify a lot more expensive pollution control equipment on
> one power plant than you can on 10,000 cars...
>
> -- Patrick
True, but modern cars are getting pretty good at pollution control as it
is...
....and all the pollution control in the world won't do anything about
CO2.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
|
|
|
| Re: Impressive auto [message #792924 ] |
Sun, 03 February 2008 10:41 |
|
Alan Baker <alangbaker [at] telus.net> writes:
> In article <w9zir16lehs.fsf [at] zipcon.net>, kkt <kkt [at] zipcon.net> wrote:
>
> > Alan Baker <alangbaker [at] telus.net> writes:
> >
> > > In article <ya6dnbFD09EVFjnanZ2dnUVZ_qLinZ2d [at] athenet.net>,
> > > "Michael G. Koerner" <mgk920 [at] dataex.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Bill Z. wrote:
> > > > > Alan Baker <alangbaker [at] telus.net> writes:
> > > > >
> > > > >> In article
> > > > >> <a0f6f19d-aa77-450b-8f19-98b0bdc34662 [at] i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > >> Carl Rogers <carl-mtr [at] calrog.com> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Hi Viatologists,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Wow... Here's an outfit out of Carlsbad, Calif. (outside San Diego)
> > > > >>> who reportedly offers a car capable of 300 MPG:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> http://www.aptera.com
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> If you've got $30,000 (USD), patience, California residency and a
> > > > >>> sense of adventure, have at it! Oh yeah... No--it does not fly. :)
> > > > >> And...
> > > > >>
> > > > >> ...oh, yeah...
> > > > >>
> > > > >> ...the production model doesn't exist and as of now has no firm
> > > > >> introduction date.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> They don't even have the funding to build the production facilities
> > > > >> yet.
> > > > >
> > > > > Better, check out <http://www.aptera.com/details.php>, which claims the
> > > > > mileage drops with how far you drive, going to an asymptotic value of
> > > > > 130 miles per gallon. This sounds crazy, but what they seem to be
> > > > > doing is measuring on-board fuel consumption and not counting the
> > > > > energy stored in the battery as part of the fuel.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's basically a three-wheel electric or hybrid motorcycle with a
> > > > > faring to cut air drag, and seems to be able to seat two people.
> > > > > You can plug it in to recharge the battery.
> > > >
> > > > Yea, but how much will it cost and how much coal will be burned to
> > > > recharge
> > > > the battery when you plug it in?
> > >
> > > Yup.
> > >
> > > One of the things the proponents of the electric car don't want to talk
> > > about is where all the electricity is going to come from.
> > >
> > > It's not like there are lots of hydro-electric generating stations just
> > > sitting idle until they're needed. When demand spikes, that's when the
> > > power companies fire up the coal generating stations.
> >
> > There's some truth to that. However, electric vehicles would be
> > plugged in mainly at night, when existing demand is at its lowest.
> > Might be able to supply them primarily with hydro after all.
>
> Ummmmm... ...no.
>
> Electric cars are going to add lots of load at two very obvious times:
>
> When everyone commutes in to the office and parks, what do they do? They
> plug in, of course! So spike in demand from 0800 - 1000.
No. Employers aren't going to let their employees charge their cars
at company expense, any more than they let them fill their tanks at
company expense. There's no outlets in the parking lot now, and I
don't think they'll be installing them.
Cars will have to be able to make it to and from work on a single
charge. Long-distance commuters for whom that's a problem will be
stuck with gas or hybrids.
> And the same again when everyone returns home. They all plug in their
> electric cars right then and there, because the last thing anyone will
> want when they go out to use their cars later in the evening is for it
> to be sitting with a half charge. So another spike from 1600 - 1800.
That's a little more likely, but it does correspond with a decrease in
demand as workplaces close.
Perhaps utilities will start charging more for peak power. Some
already do. If utilities do that, it would be easy to install a timer
so it doesn't start charging until midnight.
-- Patrick
|
|
|
| Re: Impressive auto [message #792925 ] |
Sun, 03 February 2008 11:02 |
|
In article <w9zprve1ina.fsf [at] zipcon.net>, kkt <kkt [at] zipcon.net> wrote:
<snip>
> > > > > Yea, but how much will it cost and how much coal will be burned to
> > > > > recharge
> > > > > the battery when you plug it in?
> > > >
> > > > Yup.
> > > >
> > > > One of the things the proponents of the electric car don't want to talk
> > > > about is where all the electricity is going to come from.
> > > >
> > > > It's not like there are lots of hydro-electric generating stations just
> > > > sitting idle until they're needed. When demand spikes, that's when the
> > > > power companies fire up the coal generating stations.
> > >
> > > There's some truth to that. However, electric vehicles would be
> > > plugged in mainly at night, when existing demand is at its lowest.
> > > Might be able to supply them primarily with hydro after all.
> >
> > Ummmmm... ...no.
> >
> > Electric cars are going to add lots of load at two very obvious times:
> >
> > When everyone commutes in to the office and parks, what do they do? They
> > plug in, of course! So spike in demand from 0800 - 1000.
>
> No. Employers aren't going to let their employees charge their cars
> at company expense, any more than they let them fill their tanks at
> company expense. There's no outlets in the parking lot now, and I
> don't think they'll be installing them.
Hmmmm...
So people will need to charge their vehicles -- potentially -- and you
don't think that anyone will come up with a way to charge for the charge?
>
> Cars will have to be able to make it to and from work on a single
> charge. Long-distance commuters for whom that's a problem will be
> stuck with gas or hybrids.
Because in our society nobody ever comes up with a means to sell
something.
If no one else jumps on the opportunity first, I'd love to be the guy
who invented a little pay-for-juice charging station you could install
in parking lots.
>
> > And the same again when everyone returns home. They all plug in their
> > electric cars right then and there, because the last thing anyone will
> > want when they go out to use their cars later in the evening is for it
> > to be sitting with a half charge. So another spike from 1600 - 1800.
>
> That's a little more likely, but it does correspond with a decrease in
> demand as workplaces close.
Do a little study. Early evening is on-peak in winter and mid-peak in
summer and late afternoon is the reverse.
Now add millions of electric cars...
>
> Perhaps utilities will start charging more for peak power. Some
> already do. If utilities do that, it would be easy to install a timer
> so it doesn't start charging until midnight.
And then you won't have a car you can use until midnight. Sure you
*could* install a charger, but who would?
Think, man!
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
|
|
|
| Re: Impressive auto [message #792940 ] |
Sun, 03 February 2008 17:27 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Impressive auto [message #792942 ] |
Sun, 03 February 2008 17:31 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Impressive auto [message #792943 ] |
Sun, 03 February 2008 17:33 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Impressive auto [message #792953 ] |
Sun, 03 February 2008 19:49 |
|
Scott in SoCal wrote, On 2008-02-03 08:27:
[...]
> 3) I'd prefer not to have the basis for our entire economy under the
> control from a part of the world that hates us, hates our way of life,
> and wants to destroy us. [...]
Wyoming.
|
|
|
| Re: Impressive auto [message #792955 ] |
Sun, 03 February 2008 20:07 |
|
Alan Baker <alangbaker [at] telus.net> writes:
> In article <w9zprve1ina.fsf [at] zipcon.net>, kkt <kkt [at] zipcon.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > > > > Yea, but how much will it cost and how much coal will be burned to
> > > > > > recharge
> > > > > > the battery when you plug it in?
> > > > >
> > > > > Yup.
> > > > >
> > > > > One of the things the proponents of the electric car don't want to talk
> > > > > about is where all the electricity is going to come from.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's not like there are lots of hydro-electric generating stations just
> > > > > sitting idle until they're needed. When demand spikes, that's when the
> > > > > power companies fire up the coal generating stations.
> > > >
> > > > There's some truth to that. However, electric vehicles would be
> > > > plugged in mainly at night, when existing demand is at its lowest.
> > > > Might be able to supply them primarily with hydro after all.
> > >
> > > Ummmmm... ...no.
> > >
> > > Electric cars are going to add lots of load at two very obvious times:
> > >
> > > When everyone commutes in to the office and parks, what do they do? They
> > > plug in, of course! So spike in demand from 0800 - 1000.
> >
> > No. Employers aren't going to let their employees charge their cars
> > at company expense, any more than they let them fill their tanks at
> > company expense. There's no outlets in the parking lot now, and I
> > don't think they'll be installing them.
>
> Hmmmm...
>
> So people will need to charge their vehicles -- potentially -- and you
> don't think that anyone will come up with a way to charge for the charge?
>
> >
> > Cars will have to be able to make it to and from work on a single
> > charge. Long-distance commuters for whom that's a problem will be
> > stuck with gas or hybrids.
>
> Because in our society nobody ever comes up with a means to sell
> something.
>
> If no one else jumps on the opportunity first, I'd love to be the guy
> who invented a little pay-for-juice charging station you could install
> in parking lots.
>
>
>
> >
> > > And the same again when everyone returns home. They all plug in their
> > > electric cars right then and there, because the last thing anyone will
> > > want when they go out to use their cars later in the evening is for it
> > > to be sitting with a half charge. So another spike from 1600 - 1800.
> >
> > That's a little more likely, but it does correspond with a decrease in
> > demand as workplaces close.
>
> Do a little study. Early evening is on-peak in winter and mid-peak in
> summer and late afternoon is the reverse.
>
> Now add millions of electric cars...
>
> >
> > Perhaps utilities will start charging more for peak power. Some
> > already do. If utilities do that, it would be easy to install a timer
> > so it doesn't start charging until midnight.
>
> And then you won't have a car you can use until midnight. Sure you
> *could* install a charger, but who would?
The car would need to be able to go to work, back, and out a shorter
distance in the evening as well on a single charge. I don't think
that's impossible. The census reported in 2004 that the average
commute is 24 minutes one way.
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/am erican_community_survey_acs/001695.html
Evening trips would be shorter; restaurants, grocery stores, etc., are
usually closer to home than work is. So you'd be talking about 90
minutes of operation on a charge.
-- Patrick
|
|
|
| Re: Impressive auto [message #792965 ] |
Sun, 03 February 2008 21:24 |
|
In article <a4rbq3h6n54fj7u2vfc8psh27bha7mmefc [at] 4ax.com>,
Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 07:07:11 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker [at] telus.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> You can justify a lot more expensive pollution control equipment on
> >> one power plant than you can on 10,000 cars...
> >
> >True, but modern cars are getting pretty good at pollution control as it
> >is...
> >
> >...and all the pollution control in the world won't do anything about
> >CO2.
>
> So prove to us that replacing gasoline-powered cars with electric cars
> would not result in a net decrease in overall CO2 emissions.
Sorry, but that's not the way it works.
Those who advocate changing the status quo must prove the advantages of
doing so.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
|
|
|
| Re: Impressive auto [message #792966 ] |
Sun, 03 February 2008 21:29 |
|
In article <w9zabmhc0z7.fsf [at] zipcon.net>, kkt <kkt [at] zipcon.net> wrote:
> Alan Baker <alangbaker [at] telus.net> writes:
>
> > In article <w9zprve1ina.fsf [at] zipcon.net>, kkt <kkt [at] zipcon.net> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > > > > > Yea, but how much will it cost and how much coal will be burned
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > recharge
> > > > > > > the battery when you plug it in?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yup.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > One of the things the proponents of the electric car don't want to
> > > > > > talk
> > > > > > about is where all the electricity is going to come from.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's not like there are lots of hydro-electric generating stations
> > > > > > just
> > > > > > sitting idle until they're needed. When demand spikes, that's when
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > power companies fire up the coal generating stations.
> > > > >
> > > > > There's some truth to that. However, electric vehicles would be
> > > > > plugged in mainly at night, when existing demand is at its lowest.
> > > > > Might be able to supply them primarily with hydro after all.
> > > >
> > > > Ummmmm... ...no.
> > > >
> > > > Electric cars are going to add lots of load at two very obvious times:
> > > >
> > > > When everyone commutes in to the office and parks, what do they do?
> > > > They
> > > > plug in, of course! So spike in demand from 0800 - 1000.
> > >
> > > No. Employers aren't going to let their employees charge their cars
> > > at company expense, any more than they let them fill their tanks at
> > > company expense. There's no outlets in the parking lot now, and I
> > > don't think they'll be installing them.
> >
> > Hmmmm...
> >
> > So people will need to charge their vehicles -- potentially -- and you
> > don't think that anyone will come up with a way to charge for the charge?
> >
> > >
> > > Cars will have to be able to make it to and from work on a single
> > > charge. Long-distance commuters for whom that's a problem will be
> > > stuck with gas or hybrids.
> >
> > Because in our society nobody ever comes up with a means to sell
> > something.
> >
> > If no one else jumps on the opportunity first, I'd love to be the guy
> > who invented a little pay-for-juice charging station you could install
> > in parking lots.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > And the same again when everyone returns home. They all plug in their
> > > > electric cars right then and there, because the last thing anyone will
> > > > want when they go out to use their cars later in the evening is for it
> > > > to be sitting with a half charge. So another spike from 1600 - 1800.
> > >
> > > That's a little more likely, but it does correspond with a decrease in
> > > demand as workplaces close.
> >
> > Do a little study. Early evening is on-peak in winter and mid-peak in
> > summer and late afternoon is the reverse.
> >
> > Now add millions of electric cars...
> >
> > >
> > > Perhaps utilities will start charging more for peak power. Some
> > > already do. If utilities do that, it would be easy to install a timer
> > > so it doesn't start charging until midnight.
> >
> > And then you won't have a car you can use until midnight. Sure you
> > *could* install a charger, but who would?
>
> The car would need to be able to go to work, back, and out a shorter
> distance in the evening as well on a single charge. I don't think
> that's impossible. The census reported in 2004 that the average
> commute is 24 minutes one way.
>
> http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/am erican_community
> _survey_acs/001695.html
>
> Evening trips would be shorter; restaurants, grocery stores, etc., are
> usually closer to home than work is. So you'd be talking about 90
> minutes of operation on a charge.
>
> -- Patrick
And you're talking about *people* who are used to having more like 2 or
three times that. If they're going to be sold on vehicles with more
limited energy capacity it is obvious that they're going to want ways to
recharge that vehicle to its capacity.
Hell, if there were a way you could easily ensure your gasoline-powered
car was always kept full "just in case", wouldn't you?
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
|
|
|
| Re: Impressive auto [message #792970 ] |
Sun, 03 February 2008 22:01 |
|
In article <alangbaker-CD3270.20345102022008 [at] [74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]>,
Alan Baker <alangbaker [at] telus.net> wrote:
>In article <heudnVvdA9-BpTjanZ2dnUVZ_t2inZ2d [at] speakeasy.net>,
> russotto [at] grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>>
>> Coal and hydro are both base load. When demand spikes, they fire up
>> oil and natural gas generators. Except in California, where they burn
>> natural gas for base load, then wonder why electricity costs so much.
>
>That's not the way it is in BC or Ontario (the two regions with which
>I'm familiar), but the point is somewhat moot.
Both hydro strongholds. I live in Pennsylvania, where coal is still
king. We've got nuclear, hydro, and most of all coal base loads.
>The real point is that if electric cars are going to need electricity
>derived from fossil fuels, then there is no real advantage over internal
>combustion vehicles. In fact, if one remembers that electricity is
>neither produced nor transported with 100% efficiency, electric cars
>could in theory produce *more* greenhouse gases than highly efficient IC
>cars.
Indeed they could, especially with coal.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
|
|
| Re: Impressive auto [message #792972 ] |
Sun, 03 February 2008 22:04 |
|
In article <tgpaq3tubtv4th64siqiafpg3g289vdvhi [at] 4ax.com>,
Free Lunch <lunch [at] nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 21:47:46 -0600, in misc.transport.road
>russotto [at] grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote in
><zM6dnRwYvYv_pDjanZ2dnUVZ_o-mnZ2d [at] speakeasy.net>:
>>In article <b99aq3psl704mcthrr477m0aicv03tf97f [at] 4ax.com>,
>>Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 00:55:36 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker [at] telus.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>2. There's no need to send American troops anywhere to get it. Just pay
>>>>for it.
>>>
>>>Then why do we have troops in Iraq?
>>
>>Not for the oil. Saddam would have sold us as much oil as we were
>>willing to pay for.
>
>"Daddy screwed up and I wanna prove that I can do better than he did."
Or "That son of a bitch took a shot at my Daddy".
>Of course, US troops were better off when Saddam ran Iraq and US troops
>weren't targets of Iraqis, but W is a bit confused by the idea of
>competence.
He's never really been exposed to it.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
|
|
| Re: Impressive auto [message #792973 ] |
Sun, 03 February 2008 22:07 |
|
In article <alangbaker-ADB246.23003002022008 [at] [74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]>,
Alan Baker <alangbaker [at] telus.net> wrote:
>
>Ummmmm... ...no.
>
>Electric cars are going to add lots of load at two very obvious times:
>
>When everyone commutes in to the office and parks, what do they do? They
>plug in, of course! So spike in demand from 0800 - 1000.
>
>And the same again when everyone returns home. They all plug in their
>electric cars right then and there, because the last thing anyone will
>want when they go out to use their cars later in the evening is for it
>to be sitting with a half charge. So another spike from 1600 - 1800.
Exactly. And that second spike -- when people start returning home --
also happens to coincide to the current summer spike in warm areas,
when many commercial and industrial customers are still running high
loads, and residential A/C load ramps up as people turn their
thermostats down when they get home.
So electric cars end up hitting right at peak demand times.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
|
|
| Re: Impressive auto [message #792974 ] |
Sun, 03 February 2008 22:11 |
|
In article <w9zfxwaldwx.fsf [at] zipcon.net>, kkt <kkt [at] zipcon.net> wrote:
>>
>> The real point is that if electric cars are going to need electricity
>> derived from fossil fuels, then there is no real advantage over internal
>> combustion vehicles. In fact, if one remembers that electricity is
>> neither produced nor transported with 100% efficiency, electric cars
>> could in theory produce *more* greenhouse gases than highly efficient IC
>> cars.
>
>You can justify a lot more expensive pollution control equipment on
>one power plant than you can on 10,000 cars...
For real pollution, perhaps. But for carbon dioxide, which is a result of
the complete combustion of hydrocarbons, there isn't any pollution
control equipment.
Furthermore, it's not necessarily more expensive to control the
pollution on a power plant than it is on 10,000 cars. Just as some
technologies don't scale down well, some technologies don't scale up
well.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
|
|
| Re: Impressive auto [message #792976 ] |
Sun, 03 February 2008 22:23 |
|
In article <w9zprve1ina.fsf [at] zipcon.net>, kkt <kkt [at] zipcon.net> wrote:
>>
>> When everyone commutes in to the office and parks, what do they do? They
>> plug in, of course! So spike in demand from 0800 - 1000.
>
>No. Employers aren't going to let their employees charge their cars
>at company expense, any more than they let them fill their tanks at
>company expense. There's no outlets in the parking lot now, and I
>don't think they'll be installing them.
If electric cars became popular enough, they might. They wouldn't be
free. Plug in and swipe a card through, more likely.
>
>> And the same again when everyone returns home. They all plug in their
>> electric cars right then and there, because the last thing anyone will
>> want when they go out to use their cars later in the evening is for it
>> to be sitting with a half charge. So another spike from 1600 - 1800.
>
>That's a little more likely, but it does correspond with a decrease in
>demand as workplaces close.
Unfortunately, it actually corresponds with summer peak demand.
>Perhaps utilities will start charging more for peak power. Some
>already do. If utilities do that, it would be easy to install a timer
>so it doesn't start charging until midnight.
Then what do you use for a car for your evening activities, after
you've already driven to work and back and nearly used up your charge?
And charging an electric car is serious demand, too -- the Tesla
Roadster takes 3.5 hours for a full charge (250 miles) using their
"home charging station" -- which draws 70 amps at 220V, a larger load
than most air conditioners. If every household had one and charged only at
night, there would be no more off-peak. If many households had two,
the current electric infrastrucure is totally inadequate, even with
night charging.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Thu Jan 8 02:40:08 CET 2009
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0.18499 Sekunden |
