|
General » rec.autos.driving » Re: Coping With The New CAFÉ Standards, leotard78sp whines again..
| Re: Coping With The New CAFÉ Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #793289] |
Wed, 06 February 2008 09:34 |
|
>> Really? I thought they were otherwise called "electric motors".
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> but you don't like fuel cells, remember, moron?
Like has nothing to do with it. They simply have little future in
personal transportation.
Are you purposely ignoring Batteries? My little Shit Sucker..
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFÉ Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #793343 ] |
Wed, 06 February 2008 21:54 |
|
V-for-Vendicar wrote:
>>> Really? I thought they were otherwise called "electric motors".
>
>
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
>>but you don't like fuel cells, remember, moron?
>
>
> Like has nothing to do with it. They simply have little future in
> personal transportation.
Says you.
>
> Are you purposely ignoring Batteries?
I'm disregarding them as inferior to fuel cells.
> My little Shit Sucker..
Eat me, cockbite troll.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFÉ Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #793355 ] |
Thu, 07 February 2008 01:18 |
|
>> Like has nothing to do with it. They simply have little future in
>> personal transportation.
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> Says you.
It's been a decade since Ballard Power provided demonstration fuel cells
for Public buses in British Columbia.
What's stopping them from reaching the marketplace?
Satan?
>> Are you purposely ignoring Batteries?
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> I'm disregarding them as inferior to fuel cells.
And that is why battery powered vehicles are available today but there
doesn't exist a single fuel cell product that is available to the general
public.
Yup, your 110 kilowatt fuel cell the size of a bread box is gonna be
available any day now. Oh, look... there... there, closer, here it comes,,
here it is.... Oh, it's a toaster.
>> My little Shit Sucker..
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> Eat me, cockbite troll.
How long have you been having these homosexual fantasies about me Nate?
Were you abused by your father when you were a young Shit Sucker?
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFÉ Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #793362 ] |
Thu, 07 February 2008 01:29 |
|
V-for-Vendicar wrote:
>>> Like has nothing to do with it. They simply have little future in
>>>personal transportation.
>
>
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
>>Says you.
>
>
> It's been a decade since Ballard Power provided demonstration fuel cells
> for Public buses in British Columbia.
>
> What's stopping them from reaching the marketplace?
>
> Satan?
>
>
>
>>> Are you purposely ignoring Batteries?
>
>
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
>>I'm disregarding them as inferior to fuel cells.
>
>
> And that is why battery powered vehicles are available today but there
> doesn't exist a single fuel cell product that is available to the general
> public.
The battery powered vehicles SUCK. That's why you almost never see
them. (that would be just plain "never" around here.)
The reason you don't see fuel cells is because they're still developing
ones that can handle *thanol instead of straight hydrogen. Once that
happens, they'll be practical. An unlike batteries, they can be
refueled quickly.
>
> Yup, your 110 kilowatt fuel cell the size of a bread box is gonna be
> available any day now. Oh, look... there... there, closer, here it comes,,
> here it is.... Oh, it's a toaster.
>
>
>
>>>My little Shit Sucker..
>
>
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
>>Eat me, cockbite troll.
>
>
> How long have you been having these homosexual fantasies about me Nate?
>
> Were you abused by your father when you were a young Shit Sucker?
>
Stop acting like you're five and you might get a more civil response,
cockbite.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFÉ Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #793372 ] |
Thu, 07 February 2008 02:52 |
|
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> The battery powered vehicles SUCK.
No.. AmeriKKKan Cars suck. Well actually, everything AmeriKKKan sucks.
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> That's why you almost never see them. (that would be just plain "never"
> around here.)
Wouldn't be becasue AmeriKKKan auto makers have used every trick available
to them to avoid making them.
They know, once the infrastructure for electric exists, they are out of
business bacause the only thing that keeps them alive today is the stupidity
of people like you who like to take their big hot rods up your ignorant gay
boy ass.
Now, shit sucker, tell us all about those non-existant 110 kilowatt fuel
cells of yours. You know the ones in those mystery labs that never seem to
make it to market.
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> The reason you don't see fuel cells is because they're still developing
> ones that can handle *thanol instead of straight hydrogen. Once that
> happens, they'll be practical. An unlike batteries, they can be refueled
> quickly.
Translation - Your fuel cells don't exist.
Yup.. Much better than batteries, things that don't exist.
Yup, your 110 kilowatt fuel cell the size of a bread box is gonna be
available any day now. Oh, look... there... there, closer, here it comes,,
here it is.... Oh, it's a toaster.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFÉ Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #793376 ] |
Thu, 07 February 2008 03:05 |
|
V-for-Vendicar wrote:
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
>>The battery powered vehicles SUCK.
>
>
> No.. AmeriKKKan Cars suck. Well actually, everything AmeriKKKan sucks.
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
>>That's why you almost never see them. (that would be just plain "never"
>>around here.)
>
>
> Wouldn't be becasue AmeriKKKan auto makers have used every trick available
> to them to avoid making them.
>
You mean like GM? I'm not a big fan of American cars, myself, but they
*did* produce the EV-1 which seemed to be a decent effort at a practical
electric.
> They know, once the infrastructure for electric exists, they are out of
> business bacause the only thing that keeps them alive today is the stupidity
> of people like you who like to take their big hot rods up your ignorant gay
> boy ass.
That's why they're scrambling to have the technology on the shelf for
when it becomes practical, right?
> Now, shit sucker,
Random unwarranted insult duly noted, ass worshipping rimjobber.
> tell us all about those non-existant 110 kilowatt fuel
> cells of yours. You know the ones in those mystery labs that never seem to
> make it to market.
>
see below.
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
>>The reason you don't see fuel cells is because they're still developing
>>ones that can handle *thanol instead of straight hydrogen. Once that
>>happens, they'll be practical. An unlike batteries, they can be refueled
>>quickly.
>
>
> Translation - Your fuel cells don't exist.
>
> Yup.. Much better than batteries, things that don't exist.
>
> Yup, your 110 kilowatt fuel cell the size of a bread box is gonna be
> available any day now. Oh, look... there... there, closer, here it comes,,
> here it is.... Oh, it's a toaster.
>
Practical batteries don't exist, either. Fuel cells show more promise.
Oh, wait, that's right, you're an uneducated moron who is just posting
stream of consciousness babble to various newsgroups. DAGS on "methanol
fuel cell" or "alcohol fuel cell" and you will see that while the
applications closest to prime time may be for small battery replacements
people are seriously considering them not only for vehicle powerplants
but also for large-scale stationary power production as well.
We seem to be hitting a wall in terms of battery energy density; no
great leaps forward have been made and most large capacity batteries
still in use are decades-old lead-acid technology.
Even ultracapacitors show more promise than batteries at this point,
barring new technology of which I'm not aware yet.
The fact of the matter is, the reason that we're still driving ICE
powered cars is that that is the most economical, practical technology
currently available. Dismissing out of hand new technologies that show
promise simply because of personal bias and based on a clearly
uneducated, non-engineering background is immature at best not to
mention irresponsible. Thank God you're not in any position to
determine energy policy.
nate
(of course, sometimes I think that the people that *are* setting energy
policy are just as biased and uneducated as our offensive little friend
here...)
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFÉ Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #793392 ] |
Thu, 07 February 2008 05:54 |
|
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> You mean like GM? I'm not a big fan of American cars, myself, but they
> *did* produce the EV-1 which seemed to be a decent effort at a practical
> electric.
Ya, a honest effort at forcably taking those cars back from their drivers
while in perfectly good working condition and then crushing the lot of them
in the middle of the night.
Sounds like a decent effort at AmeriKKKan KKKorporate KKKorruption to me.
>> They know, once the infrastructure for electric exists, they are out of
>> business bacause the only thing that keeps them alive today is the
>> stupidity of people like you who like to take their big hot rods up your
>> ignorant gay boy ass.
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> That's why they're scrambling to have the technology on the shelf for when
> it becomes practical, right?
Nope. They are scrambling because the AmeriKKKan automotive Industry is
almost extinct and gasping for it's final few breaths of air.
Now, shit sucker, tell us all about those non-existant 110 kilowatt fuel
cells of yours. You know the ones in those mystery labs that never seem to
make it to market.
>> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>>
>>>The reason you don't see fuel cells is because they're still developing
>>>ones that can handle *thanol instead of straight hydrogen. Once that
>>>happens, they'll be practical. An unlike batteries, they can be refueled
>>>quickly.
>>
>>
>> Translation - Your fuel cells don't exist.
>>
>> Yup.. Much better than batteries, things that don't exist.
>>
>> Yup, your 110 kilowatt fuel cell the size of a bread box is gonna be
>> available any day now. Oh, look... there... there, closer, here it
>> comes,,
>> here it is.... Oh, it's a toaster.
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> Practical batteries don't exist, either. Fuel cells show more promise.
Yup. NICD and LIon and NmIh are figmants of your imagination.
Woo Hooo...
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> Oh, wait, that's right, you're an uneducated moron who is just posting
> stream of consciousness babble to various newsgroups. DAGS on "methanol
> fuel cell" or "alcohol fuel cell" and you will see that while the
> applications closest to prime time may be for small battery replacements
> people are seriously considering them not only for vehicle powerplants but
> also for large-scale stationary power production as well.
Ya... Seriously considering a product that doesn't exist.
I guess that's how serious auto manufactures are serious about making
serious inroads into seriously electric vehicles.
Ahahahahah...
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> We seem to be hitting a wall in terms of battery energy density; no great
> leaps forward have been made and most large capacity batteries still in
> use are decades-old lead-acid technology.
Becuase they are robust, inexpensive, and commonly available.
NmIh batteries exist on the market today an have done for a decade. I can
walk down to my local wallmart and pick one up. Along with a charger.
Where is your hydrogen fuel cell? Why doesn't wallmart carry them?
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> Even ultracapacitors show more promise than batteries at this point,
> barring new technology of which I'm not aware yet.
Would be nice, but they only have 1/100th the storage capacity of
batteries.
Meanwhile your fuel cells are nonexistant in the marketplace.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFÉ Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #793422 ] |
Thu, 07 February 2008 12:16 |
|
V-for-Vendicar wrote:
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
>>You mean like GM? I'm not a big fan of American cars, myself, but they
>>*did* produce the EV-1 which seemed to be a decent effort at a practical
>>electric.
>
>
> Ya, a honest effort at forcably taking those cars back from their drivers
> while in perfectly good working condition and then crushing the lot of them
> in the middle of the night.
>
> Sounds like a decent effort at AmeriKKKan KKKorporate KKKorruption to me.
>
>
>
>
>>> They know, once the infrastructure for electric exists, they are out of
>>>business bacause the only thing that keeps them alive today is the
>>>stupidity of people like you who like to take their big hot rods up your
>>>ignorant gay boy ass.
>
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
>>That's why they're scrambling to have the technology on the shelf for when
>>it becomes practical, right?
>
>
> Nope. They are scrambling because the AmeriKKKan automotive Industry is
> almost extinct and gasping for it's final few breaths of air.
>
>
> Now, shit sucker, tell us all about those non-existant 110 kilowatt fuel
> cells of yours. You know the ones in those mystery labs that never seem to
> make it to market.
>
>
>
>
>>>"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>The reason you don't see fuel cells is because they're still developing
>>>>ones that can handle *thanol instead of straight hydrogen. Once that
>>>>happens, they'll be practical. An unlike batteries, they can be refueled
>>>>quickly.
>>>
>>>
>>> Translation - Your fuel cells don't exist.
>>>
>>> Yup.. Much better than batteries, things that don't exist.
>>>
>>> Yup, your 110 kilowatt fuel cell the size of a bread box is gonna be
>>> available any day now. Oh, look... there... there, closer, here it
>>>comes,,
>>> here it is.... Oh, it's a toaster.
>
>
>
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
>>Practical batteries don't exist, either. Fuel cells show more promise.
>
>
> Yup. NICD and LIon and NmIh are figmants of your imagination.
>
> Woo Hooo...
>
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
>>Oh, wait, that's right, you're an uneducated moron who is just posting
>>stream of consciousness babble to various newsgroups. DAGS on "methanol
>>fuel cell" or "alcohol fuel cell" and you will see that while the
>>applications closest to prime time may be for small battery replacements
>>people are seriously considering them not only for vehicle powerplants but
>>also for large-scale stationary power production as well.
>
>
> Ya... Seriously considering a product that doesn't exist.
>
> I guess that's how serious auto manufactures are serious about making
> serious inroads into seriously electric vehicles.
>
> Ahahahahah...
>
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
>>We seem to be hitting a wall in terms of battery energy density; no great
>>leaps forward have been made and most large capacity batteries still in
>>use are decades-old lead-acid technology.
>
>
> Becuase they are robust, inexpensive, and commonly available.
>
> NmIh batteries exist on the market today an have done for a decade. I can
> walk down to my local wallmart and pick one up. Along with a charger.
>
> Where is your hydrogen fuel cell? Why doesn't wallmart carry them?
>
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
>>Even ultracapacitors show more promise than batteries at this point,
>>barring new technology of which I'm not aware yet.
>
>
> Would be nice, but they only have 1/100th the storage capacity of
> batteries.
>
> Meanwhile your fuel cells are nonexistant in the marketplace.
>
>
>
So are practical batteries, what's your point? It's ALL vaporware at
this point, and all exceeded in normal utility by an ICE.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFÉ Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #793517 ] |
Fri, 08 February 2008 06:51 |
|
>> Meanwhile your fuel cells are nonexistant in the marketplace.
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> So are practical batteries, what's your point? It's ALL vaporware at this
> point, and all exceeded in normal utility by an ICE.
With Nate Nagel claiming to be the final arbitor of what is "practical".
So Nate tell us why you believe non-existant fuel cells are more practical
than existing Lithium Ion batteries that are used in electric vehicles
today.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFÉ Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #793526 ] |
Fri, 08 February 2008 12:49 |
|
V-for-Vendicar wrote:
>>> Meanwhile your fuel cells are nonexistant in the marketplace.
>
>
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
>>So are practical batteries, what's your point? It's ALL vaporware at this
>>point, and all exceeded in normal utility by an ICE.
>
>
> With Nate Nagel claiming to be the final arbitor of what is "practical".
>
> So Nate tell us why you believe non-existant fuel cells are more practical
> than existing Lithium Ion batteries that are used in electric vehicles
> today.
Show me one practical electric car PERIOD that I can buy today.
You can't.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFÉ Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #793566 ] |
Fri, 08 February 2008 19:27 |
|
Nate Nagel <njnagel [at] roosters.net> used a stick in the sand to babble
>>>So are practical batteries, what's your point? It's ALL vaporware at this
>>>point, and all exceeded in normal utility by an ICE.
>>
>>
>> With Nate Nagel claiming to be the final arbitor of what is "practical".
>>
>> So Nate tell us why you believe non-existant fuel cells are more practical
>> than existing Lithium Ion batteries that are used in electric vehicles
>> today.
>
>Show me one practical electric car PERIOD that I can buy today.
I can answer his question.
Because it takes too long to fill up a battery.
Swill
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFÉ Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #793604 ] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 04:11 |
|
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> Show me one practical electric car PERIOD that I can buy today.
EV1.
You can buy one but only in it's crushed state. But it was working
perfectly before GM took it back from it's user and crushed it in the middle
of the night.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFÉ Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #793605 ] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 04:15 |
|
V-for-Vendicar wrote:
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
>>Show me one practical electric car PERIOD that I can buy today.
>
>
> EV1.
>
> You can buy one but only in it's crushed state. But it was working
> perfectly before GM took it back from it's user and crushed it in the middle
> of the night.
>
Balls.
It still wasn't a practical car for most people.
Here's the straight scoop from GM itself on the EV-1 program and its end.
http://www.americathegreen.com/2006/12/
(there's an applet that tries to run when you load that page, so don't
click the link unless you're confident in your security. Sorry, it's
the only copy I could find online.)
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFÉ Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #793617 ] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 06:52 |
|
>> EV1.
>>
>> You can buy one but only in it's crushed state. But it was working
>> perfectly before GM took it back from it's user and crushed it in the
>> middle of the night.
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> It still wasn't a practical car for most people.
A range of 80 miles wasn't practical enough for most people?
BULLSHIT.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFÉ Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #793638 ] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 08:48 |
|
"V-for-Vendicar" <Justice [at] ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> used a stick in
the sand to babble
>
>"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>> Show me one practical electric car PERIOD that I can buy today.
>
> EV1.
>
> You can buy one but only in it's crushed state. But it was working
>perfectly before GM took it back from it's user and crushed it in the middle
>of the night.
>
>
Well, it's not going to be much good if it's crushed, is it?
Swill
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFÉ Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #793639 ] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 08:50 |
|
"V-for-Vendicar" <Justice [at] ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> used a stick in
the sand to babble
>"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>> It still wasn't a practical car for most people.
>
> A range of 80 miles wasn't practical enough for most people?
>
> BULLSHIT.
Not for me. A range of 80 miles limits your maximum trip to half that
because you have to get back home to charge the vehicle.
I drive down to Atlanta once in a while and that's a 70 mile trip. I
also drive 600 miles to my Dad's in Florida a few times a year and to
my Mom's in Texas once a year or two.
Swill
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFÉ Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #793641 ] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 09:10 |
|
>> A range of 80 miles wasn't practical enough for most people?
>>
>> BULLSHIT.
"Governor Swill" <governor.swill [at] gmail.com> wrote
> Not for me. A range of 80 miles limits your maximum trip to half that
> because you have to get back home to charge the vehicle.
Or charge it in route, or charge it at the other end, etc, etc, etc.
The car was designed as a luxury car, but is mostly suitable for a
commuter car.
And that's the market you are after - the principle use for automobiles.
Short distance commutes.
But at every step GM conspired to have the car be a failure. And then
when it wasn't. They took them from their users and crushed them in the
middle of the night.
"Governor Swill" <governor.swill [at] gmail.com> wrote
> I drive down to Atlanta once in a while and that's a 70 mile trip.
So? Plug it in when you get to your destination.
Infrastructure not there? Gosh, then I suppose you will have to build it.
"Governor Swill" <governor.swill [at] gmail.com> wrote
> I also drive 600 miles to my Dad's in Florida a few times a year and to
> my Mom's in Texas once a year or two.
I suppose you will have to take a train or fly.
Some might complain that all those dang roads are preventing them from
riding their horse there.
Too bad.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFÉ Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #793662 ] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 14:34 |
|
V-for-Vendicar wrote:
>>> EV1.
>>>
>>> You can buy one but only in it's crushed state. But it was working
>>>perfectly before GM took it back from it's user and crushed it in the
>>>middle of the night.
>
>
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
>>It still wasn't a practical car for most people.
>
>
> A range of 80 miles wasn't practical enough for most people?
>
> BULLSHIT.
>
>
yes, a range of 80 miles is bullshit, impractical, and unacceptable for
any device that aspires to the name of "car." Utterly worthless for the
average person.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFÉ Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #793704 ] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 23:35 |
|
>> A range of 80 miles wasn't practical enough for most people?
>>
>> BULLSHIT.
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> yes, a range of 80 miles is bullshit, impractical,
BULLSHIT
The average AmeriKKKan automobile uses about 1 gallon of gasoline per day
and travels a distance of less than 25 miles, and when commuting to work,
there is a full 8 hour period where the vehicle can recharge allowing
commuters to reliably travel 80 miles to get to work. And that is with
batteries that are not particularly long range. Adding a few more
batteries, and upgrading the batteries used on the EV1 with modern batteries
can double that distance if required - which it isn't.
An 80 mile range is over three times that distance.
You are quite the MORON.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFÉ Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #793707 ] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 23:42 |
|
V-for-Vendicar wrote:
>>> A range of 80 miles wasn't practical enough for most people?
>>>
>>> BULLSHIT.
>
>
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
>>yes, a range of 80 miles is bullshit, impractical,
>
>
> BULLSHIT
>
> The average AmeriKKKan automobile uses about 1 gallon of gasoline per day
> and travels a distance of less than 25 miles, and when commuting to work,
> there is a full 8 hour period where the vehicle can recharge allowing
> commuters to reliably travel 80 miles to get to work.
Really. And where are they supposed to plug their vehicles in at? I
haven't seen too many parking lots with handy receptacles.
> And that is with
> batteries that are not particularly long range. Adding a few more
> batteries, and upgrading the batteries used on the EV1 with modern batteries
> can double that distance if required - which it isn't.
It *is* required, and please provide cites that any of these
super-batteries are currently available. Just saying "add more
batteries" doesn't cut it, as you know as well as I do that more weight
means more power used so it doesn't really work as neatly as you think
it does. Sure, you *can* add more batteries, but the more you add, the
less efficient your vehicle gets, so not only is it more sluggish but
you also don't get, say, twice the range out of twice the battery capacity.
>
> An 80 mile range is over three times that distance.
Three times what distance? And it's still about 1/6th - that's 16% - of
the range of a perfectly average gasoline car.
> You are quite the MORON.
You know, someday someone's going to take you seriously and then you'll
find out why you should be polite to your betters (in your case it is
safe to assume that that is everyone you meet.)
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFÉ Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #793729 ] |
Sun, 10 February 2008 02:14 |
|
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> Really. And where are they supposed to plug their vehicles in at?
At a charging station. In the Canadian province of Alberta, parking lots
provide electric outlets for block heaters so that car engines can be kept
warm in winter.
You will have to tear up a few meters of asphalt in order to lay down the
necessary conduit.
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> I haven't seen too many parking lots with handy receptacles.
Are you saying that the automobiles aren't practical because the
infrastructure isn't available?
I'm sure horse owners made the same complaint about horseless carriages.
They are not as practical as my horse because there are no refueling
stations.
Ahahahahahahahahah............ MMMMOOOOOORRRRROOOOOOONNNNNN
>> And that is with batteries that are not particularly long range. Adding
>> a few more batteries, and upgrading the batteries used on the EV1 with
>> modern batteries can double that distance if required - which it isn't.
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> It *is* required
Yup, as much as spray on cheese and Incandescent bulbs.
"I want them,. and I fear change." Says the Moron. So 'THEY ARE
REQUIRED."
Ahahahahahahah............... MMMMMMOOOOOOOORRRRRROOOOOOONNNNN.
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> and please provide cites that any of these super-batteries are currently
> available.
If you have a laptop computer, just turn it upside down and look.
Lithium Ion cells are improved over the last decade.
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> Just saying "add more batteries" doesn't cut it
Just saying just add fuel - doesn't cut it.
But then it does doesn't it.
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> as you know as well as I do that more weight means more power used so it
> doesn't really work as neatly as you think it does.
And more volume. Yup. In some instances volume is the limiting factor,
you really can't easily exceed the
volume of a premade vehicle. Unless of course, you pull a trailer. And
that is quite possible as well.
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> Sure, you *can* add more batteries, but the more you add, the less
> efficient your vehicle gets, so not only is it more sluggish but you also
> don't get, say, twice the range out of twice the battery capacity.
Yup. You don't get twice the range if you double your fuel tank size
either.
>> An 80 mile range is over three times that distance.
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> Three times what distance? And it's still about 1/6th - that's 16% - of
> the range of a perfectly average gasoline car.
You are bourderline illiterate aren't you?
The average car travels about 25 miles per day. Your own reference makes
that very claim, and as it happens
that claim was confirmed just a few moments ago in a CBC radio clip I was
listening to. The claim on the CBC was that the average car consumes about 1
gallon of gas per day, corresponding to a distance of about 25 miles.
An 80 mile range is over three times that distance.
>> You are quite the MORON.
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> You know, someday someone's going to take you seriously and then you'll
> find out why you should be polite to your betters (in your case it is safe
> to assume that that is everyone you meet.)
I can't wait. But I warn you. My intent from the outset will be to do
severe, lasting, physcal damage..
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFÉ Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #794044 ] |
Tue, 12 February 2008 21:51 |
|
In article <7edrj.8144$612.1708 [at] read1.cgocable.net>,
V-for-Vendicar <Justice [at] ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
>
> And that's the market you are after - the principle use for automobiles.
>Short distance commutes.
It's not sufficient to cover the easy 80% of uses.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFÉ Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #794132 ] |
Wed, 13 February 2008 14:13 |
|
"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto [at] grace.speakeasy.net> wrote
>> And that's the market you are after - the principle use for automobiles.
>>Short distance commutes.
>
> It's not sufficient to cover the easy 80% of uses.
Over 90% of the cars on the road have one occupant.
So it's easily sufficient for 90% of uses.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFÉ Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #794160 ] |
Wed, 13 February 2008 18:10 |
|
In article <b2Csj.14743$612.7783 [at] read1.cgocable.net>,
V-for-Vendicar <Justice [at] ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
>
>"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto [at] grace.speakeasy.net> wrote
>>> And that's the market you are after - the principle use for automobiles.
>>>Short distance commutes.
>>
>> It's not sufficient to cover the easy 80% of uses.
>
> Over 90% of the cars on the road have one occupant.
>
> So it's easily sufficient for 90% of uses.
Does not follow; the reason your hypothetical shit car only works for
short distance commutes is range, not number of occupants.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFÉ Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #794373 ] |
Fri, 15 February 2008 14:10 |
|
"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto [at] grace.speakeasy.net> wrote
> Does not follow; the reason your hypothetical shit car only works for
> short distance commutes is range, not number of occupants.
Yup, short distances like 35 miles to the store, and 35 miles back.
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Thu Jan 8 17:18:49 CET 2009
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0.17684 Sekunden |
