Post by: Tecumseh on February 08, 2008, 07:15:22 AM
Interesting.
Post by: Boomhauer on February 08, 2008, 07:19:39 AM
Only, no good for daily use. One person only, no storage space, stripped down, etc.
Not very much of anything.
Everybody is hollering about electric cars...not much use to me, though. And what happens when the batteries "go flat" like normal electronics batteries? Expensive to replace...
If they could actually produce a 100mpg car that can seat four and do the tasks of a normal vehicles, I'd like to see it. But I think that the ~40 MPG cars that you see these days are about as far as you can push a conventional engined vehicle.
Post by: Tecumseh on February 08, 2008, 07:25:52 AM
I do see a lot of cars with only the driver, imagine it as a daily driver for home to work and places where you will be going alone and not taking any cargo.
Post by: Boomhauer on February 08, 2008, 07:30:02 AM
Bookbag
Dufflebag
uniform
Rifle
Ammo
Tools
Groceries.
My stuff easily fills the backseat of a Chevy extended cab truck.
Post by: Tecumseh on February 08, 2008, 07:37:42 AM
Post by: Boomhauer on February 08, 2008, 07:41:54 AM
And breaking down in the middle of nowhere isn't any fun, and even less fun calling a tow truck for $150 when I can limp home with what I have in the truck.
And I want my rifle with me. I can't carry a pistol, so a rifle it is.
Post by: ilbob on February 08, 2008, 08:01:18 AM
however, no reasone you could not build them mostly for commuters and driving around town. I would bet a lot of driving is one person 20 miles or less.
a lot of families would buy a 1 or 2 person vehicle for the short 1 or 2 person hops, and an SUV for serious driving.
there is an issue that is rarely mentioned. if we do manage to come up with higher mileage vehicles, motor fuel taxes will have to skyrocket. probably add 75 cents to a dollar to every gallon of motor fuel sold just to get the same amount of revenue for roads.
Post by: Brad Johnson on February 08, 2008, 08:14:09 AM
Drag, in and of itself isn't a problem. If the vehicle was pencil thin, rode on extremely low-rolling-resistance wheels, and had an insanely low Cd of say, .10 or some such, 100 mpg would be no problem. Unfortunately, building something that will hold passengers, their stuff, and the propulsion system dictates that ain't going to be the case. You would also need a propulsion system engineered for maximum efficiency at that particular engine speed (which usually also dictates maximum power output at the same speed). A high efficiency gas turbine would actually be the perfect power plant if you had one that produced exactly the power needed to maintain a given speed. Problem is, at any speed other than that exact speed, everything crumbles into mayhem.
Interesting concept, and I don't doubt someone will do it, but just how feasible or practical it will be is highly questionable.
Brad
Post by: Bogie on February 08, 2008, 08:27:44 AM
I'd jump on a "single passenger vehicle." Or even something where you could put one guy in front, and one guy behind. Stick a motorcycle engine in it, maybe in a trike-type arrangement. Tube cage, and you're done.
Post by: MillCreek on February 08, 2008, 08:45:32 AM
Post by: Bogie on February 08, 2008, 08:56:09 AM
I want a comfy seat, controls where I can reach them/see them, and a decent radio. That's pretty much it.
I'm thinking a 750/1000 cc engine would be enough. Steel cage, fiberglass shell.
Hmmm... Running a single electric drive wheel in the rear, how much juice do you think I'd need to throw at it? A generator/battery combo might be a thought.
Just how much power does an electric motor of this size need?
Post by: mtnbkr on February 08, 2008, 09:10:26 AM
It uses conventional technology.
It isn't as cool as a hybrid though.
Chris
Post by: Bogie on February 08, 2008, 09:26:24 AM
Betcha you could get it up to 60mpg for a two seater...
Post by: Manedwolf on February 08, 2008, 09:43:22 AM
Oh, yeah, and good luck getting a heater to work well in something that tiny.
Post by: Bogie on February 08, 2008, 09:54:50 AM
I drive _over_ the snow, not through it. Works a LOT better.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 08, 2008, 10:01:05 AM
I like room for a good sound system, room to fill a trunk with groceries, and a low and wide chassis to handle turns. I have no desire to be a speed bump for SUVs, either.
Post by: ilbob on February 08, 2008, 10:07:46 AM
I'm just never going to be interested in a tiny car, ever. If I wanted that, I'd have wanted to live in East Germany or something, where they had those horrible Trabants.
I like room for a good sound system, room to fill a trunk with groceries, and a low and wide chassis to handle turns. I have no desire to be a speed bump for SUVs, either.
I like room for a good sound system, room to fill a trunk with groceries, and a low and wide chassis to handle turns. I have no desire to be a speed bump for SUVs, either.
To each his own. But I would be willing to bet a decent 1 or 2 passenger car with 80 to 100 mpg, and selling for $6000 or so, would sell a lot of copies. A lot of commuters would love it. And the gas savings would pay for it. you could even keep your SUV for non-commuting times and the gas savings would still pay for the commuting only car.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 08, 2008, 10:09:28 AM
I'm just never going to be interested in a tiny car, ever. If I wanted that, I'd have wanted to live in East Germany or something, where they had those horrible Trabants.
I like room for a good sound system, room to fill a trunk with groceries, and a low and wide chassis to handle turns. I have no desire to be a speed bump for SUVs, either.
I like room for a good sound system, room to fill a trunk with groceries, and a low and wide chassis to handle turns. I have no desire to be a speed bump for SUVs, either.
To each his own. But I would be willing to bet a decent 1 or 2 passenger car with 80 to 100 mpg, and selling for $6000 or so, would sell a lot of copies. A lot of commuters would love it. And the gas savings would pay for it. you could even keep your SUV for non-commuting times and the gas savings would still pay for the commuting only car.
Uh-huh. I think people try it and forget over and over every couple of decades.
Extreme fuel mileage = itty bitty horsepower = you can't get the hell out of the way of things when you really really need to. Or hybrid with expensive electric motors + expensive batteries + fire departments can't pull you out after a crash till they get someone to make sure it's safe.
No thanks. My full-sized Accord gets me 30mpg highway, and is comfortable, agile and powerful. Good enough for me.
Also...and this will likely never change. An itty bitty car does not impress most women, apart from patchouli-smelling treehuggers.
To most others, it's like someone who still uses a laundromat after age 30. It means you've not succeeded yet. Or to put it more succinctly...you're not gonna get any, driving this:
Post by: Declaration Day on February 08, 2008, 10:39:41 AM
It claims 54 MPG, which is not significantly better than the Hyundai Accent I recently sold. That car had four seats, a trunk, and an engine that had plenty of power for its size. I could get 45MPG on the freeway with it.
What is significant is its price. $2500! I'm sure that if they made it here, Federal regulations would jack the price up to double that. I could never trade my pickup for one, but I'd buy one for city commuting.
Post by: Bogie on February 08, 2008, 11:24:01 AM
I like little cars. They're easy to park. They're easy to maneuver around tight spots. I can do a U-turn in a relatively small area.
Used to know a guy who drove a large caddy... New one, every couple of years. The appearance of success was very important to him. Why? I have no freakin' clue - the guy was an accountant. And not self-employed either (having to "look successful" can be a part of success in some businesses). He _had_ to know the kind of depreciation his fixation on "auto as extension of self" was costing him... Could probably have lived in a MUCH nicer house if he cut the car thing back, but hey... Some folks believe the advertising.
If I have to tow something, I use my van. It's going on 13 years old. Works fine. If I have to do a car road trip, I rent something - for $100, I can get an Avis Chevy Impala Rolling Living Room that gets 30mpg on the highway, and put a thousand miles on it in a weekend without twitching.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 08, 2008, 11:30:24 AM
I like little cars. They're easy to park. They're easy to maneuver around tight spots. I can do a U-turn in a relatively small area.
Of course. They'll fit anywhere.
Post by: roo_ster on February 08, 2008, 11:31:55 AM
Folks have tried to sell itty bity autos every decade or so. They usually don't sell well, even when subsidies** are used.
Quote
To each his own. But I would be willing to bet a decent 1 or 2 passenger car with 80 to 100 mpg, and selling for $6000 or so
Sounds like a 250cc street bike.
* china, India, etc.
** To make CAFE regs, some auto makers will intentionally mark down the price of their small autos.
Post by: roo_ster on February 08, 2008, 11:35:25 AM
I like little cars. They're easy to park. They're easy to maneuver around tight spots. I can do a U-turn in a relatively small area.
Of course. They'll fit anywhere.
But, but ,but ,but it had a 5-star crash rating! (The driver & passenger lived a microsecond or two longer than the itty btty auto that got the 3-star crash rating would have.)
Physics is a biatch.
=========
I am not anti-little car. I am just not so taken by tham as others, it seems.
If you want 50+ MPG, I am sure there are still manual shift 3-cyl Geo Metros in the used auto listings. I recall the 3 door got 52 or 54 MPG.
Post by: Declaration Day on February 08, 2008, 11:48:33 AM
One of my dad's friends had a LeCar 25 years ago. It was the same color as the one in that top picture. One day the engine spontaneously combusted in front of our house.
Post by: Bogie on February 08, 2008, 12:09:36 PM
If you were riding a motorcycle and that truck hit you, you'd be in just as bad shape.
If you were in a Corolla or an Accord, you'd still be squashed.
The object isn't to play bumper cars. It's to get Out Of The Way.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 08, 2008, 12:15:44 PM
Yeah, but it was a renault.
If you were riding a motorcycle and that truck hit you, you'd be in just as bad shape.
If you were in a Corolla or an Accord, you'd still be squashed.
The object isn't to play bumper cars. It's to get Out Of The Way.
If you were riding a motorcycle and that truck hit you, you'd be in just as bad shape.
If you were in a Corolla or an Accord, you'd still be squashed.
The object isn't to play bumper cars. It's to get Out Of The Way.
Maybe old ones.
My Accord's dimensions are 16x6 feet, curb weight of almost 3000 lbs. Unless it climbed up over it, it'd likely just get shoved out of the way. They stopped being a "little" car some years ago.
Post by: MechAg94 on February 08, 2008, 01:11:33 PM
The main thing I like about my truck in traffic is that I am sitting tall enough that I can normally see what is going on ahead of the car in front of me. That helps prevent some accidents.
Post by: Scout26 on February 08, 2008, 01:14:20 PM
Post by: doc2rn on February 08, 2008, 06:10:45 PM
Quote
I think that the ~40 MPG cars that you see these days are about as far as you can push a conventional engined vehicle.
I would have to disagree. The 1987 Dodge Omni I bought got 39 in town and 49 on the highway. The 1989 Dodge Charger 2.2 I bought after my brother wrecked my car got 39 in town and closer to 52 highway. The decision to make cars heavier and molded like a cockpit on the inside moved the auto industry away from economy to luxury. Not to mention big oil has bought stakes in all the major auto makers. Where is the incentive to make a cost effective auto?
Post by: Fjolnirsson on February 08, 2008, 08:22:31 PM
Strange. Looking at the technical info, they're only claiming 45 or so highway miles per gallon. Now, looking at that little thing, I would expect it to be more on the line of 60-80MPG, given the size difference n comparison to say, a Corolla...
Wonder what the deal is there?
Post by: Iain on February 09, 2008, 01:26:12 AM
Citroen has a diesel hybrid in development that is pushing very close to 100mpg - link
Post by: Declaration Day on February 09, 2008, 02:40:57 AM
Iain:
Opels / Vauxhalls are sold as Saturns here, so we know the Opel Vectra as the Saturn Aura. It probably has a few styling changes but is essentially an identical car.
Post by: 280plus on February 09, 2008, 03:40:06 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on February 09, 2008, 03:48:50 AM
In Boston, there's regularly gang executions on MBTA buses.
On other buses, you have to deal with such joys as an unidentified wet spot on a seat, the reeking homeless guy generating a noxious cloud, the two groups of guys with their "colors" scowling at each other making you hope you're not in between them, the 600lb lady taking up two seats while filling out this month's welfare paperwork, the meth twitches and crack addicts looking bug-eyed at people...
Oh, and whatever the third-world disease of the month is? You're breathing it. Enjoy.
Basically, whatever segment of humanity wishes to board, including the lowest common denominator, trapped in a small, rocking metal tube with hot, stale air.
I'll be in my car, thanks. With the doors locked, the climate control on, and a nice, powerful audio system. I work so I can afford and enjoy things like that every day, so the commute is a pleasure, not a third-world ordeal.
As regards Connecticut and the Hartford area, every time I've passed through that area, it's a mess of road
Post by: Declaration Day on February 09, 2008, 04:01:31 AM
I'll be in my car, thanks. With the doors locked, the climate control on, and a nice, powerful audio system. I work so I can afford and enjoy things like that every day, so the commute is a pleasure, not a third-world ordeal.
Agreed.I read a really good article once about the psychological importance of having your own car. Something about it being the only environment that you're in complete control of for a couple of hours per day. If I can dig it up, I'll post it.
Post by: AmbulanceDriver on February 09, 2008, 04:32:34 AM
Here in Portland, Tri-Met (the regional transit authority) is nothing more than a sinkhole for money. I mostly rode the bus when it was too much of a hassle to try to find parking downtown. And even then, it was primarily when I was going to college downtown. Because the bus was conveniently close (5 block walk to the stop near my house) and it dropped me off right in front of the school. Plus I could do a little review on the way in if I really needed to (not that it ever actually worked. Was too busy paying attention to the methhead eyeing my backpack or avoiding getting trampled during the commute into town... that bus got packed). The other downside was that it took 2-3 times as long to get down there than just driving myself. And now, for my commute into work, It's only about 5 miles, but I drive because I have to be here at 0600, and leave here at 1800. I don't want to have to wait 15 extra minutes on either end just to avoid driving, and then have to leave the house for a commute 3 or 4 times longer than if I drove myself. Because at that time of the morning, it only takes me 10 minutes to drive to work, as opposed to 30 or 40 minutes if I took the bus. I'd rather spend that extra half an hour snuggled up next to my wife, thank you very much!
Post by: Sergeant Bob on February 09, 2008, 05:04:01 AM
Yeah, but it was a renault.
If you were riding a motorcycle and that truck hit you, you'd be in just as bad shape.
If you were in a Corolla or an Accord, you'd still be squashed.
The object isn't to play bumper cars. It's to get Out Of The Way.
If you were riding a motorcycle and that truck hit you, you'd be in just as bad shape.
If you were in a Corolla or an Accord, you'd still be squashed.
The object isn't to play bumper cars. It's to get Out Of The Way.
Maybe old ones.
My Accord's dimensions are 16x6 feet, curb weight of almost 3000 lbs. Unless it climbed up over it, it'd likely just get shoved out of the way. They stopped being a "little" car some years ago.
Wishful thinking will not save your "3000 lb Accord". Maybe you don't consider 3000 lbs a "little" car but, to an 80,000 lb (thats about 27 times the weight of your Accord) truck it doesn't matter if you're driving a Pious or an Accord.
Don't try to convince us, try to convince the truck.
Post by: Teknoid on February 09, 2008, 05:11:10 AM
Yeah, but it was a renault.
If you were riding a motorcycle and that truck hit you, you'd be in just as bad shape.
If you were in a Corolla or an Accord, you'd still be squashed.
The object isn't to play bumper cars. It's to get Out Of The Way.
If you were riding a motorcycle and that truck hit you, you'd be in just as bad shape.
If you were in a Corolla or an Accord, you'd still be squashed.
The object isn't to play bumper cars. It's to get Out Of The Way.
Maybe old ones.
My Accord's dimensions are 16x6 feet, curb weight of almost 3000 lbs. Unless it climbed up over it, it'd likely just get shoved out of the way. They stopped being a "little" car some years ago.
Wishful thinking will not save your "3000 lb Accord". Maybe you don't consider 3000 lbs a "little" car but, to an 80,000 lb (thats about 27 times the weight of your Accord) truck it doesn't matter if you're driving a Pious or an Accord.
Don't try to convince us, try to convince the truck.
I drive an SUV, and wouldn't want to find out what being rear-ended by the monster in that pic would feel like. It would definitely leave a mark!
Post by: Ben on February 09, 2008, 05:53:23 AM
Quote
The new Audi R8 6.0 litre diesel is Cali legal
Iain -- do you know what the emission technology is that Audi used to make it CA legal? I ask because I have a diesel that meets the 2008 CA emission standards, and the technology they used to make the emissions clean (cleaner than gasoline engines actually) reduced the fuel efficiency over the previous year's model by at least 25%. So the diesel for fuel economy thing is killed. If I could run straight biodiesel, that wouldn't be as much of an issue, however because of the design mods to run the ULSD diesel fuel, the injector manufacturer will void my warranty if I use greater than B5 (due to possibly clogging injectors, etc.).
Post by: Manedwolf on February 09, 2008, 05:56:43 AM
Post by: Sergeant Bob on February 09, 2008, 07:15:36 AM
Audi Diesel Wins Twelve Hours of Sebring Race
19 March 2006
V12_tdi
The aluminum V12 TDI
Audi made racing history on Saturday as its diesel-powered Audi R10 TDI won the Mobil 1 Twelve Hours of Sebring, becoming the first diesel car in the world to win a major sports car race. Audi used Sebring as a test for the 24 Hours of Le Mans race, set for June 17-18.
The new Audi R10 TDI is powered by a completely new all-aluminum, 5.5-liter, twelve-cylinder bi-turbo TDI engine that delivers more than 485 kW (650 hp) and more than 1,100 Nm of torque.
The V12 TDI used in the R10 is the first Audi diesel engine with an aluminium crankcase. The cylinder-bank angle is 90 degrees. The V12 TDI has, like Audi production car engines, four valves per cylinder and twin overhead camshafts. The common rail fuel injection system exceeds 1,600 bar, and ignition pressures reach values never previously seen in any Audi engine. The V12 TDI is equipped with a pair of diesel particle filters.
This engine is the specifically most powerful diesel there is in the world and, up until now, the biggest challenge that Audi Sport has ever faced in its long history. There has never been anything remotely comparable. We started development with a clean sheet of paper.
Ulrich Baretzky, Head of Engine Technology at Audi Sport
Audi wants to use its diesel work in motorsport to increase its technology advantages in the commercial diesel engines. Every second Audi sold today is delivered with a TDI diesel engine.
With regard to fuel consumption, environmental friendliness, the combustion process and other new technologies we expect an enormous push in the coming years. We are still relatively close to the findings of our colleagues from production since we are breaking completely new ground in motorsport. However, this will change. I believe to be able to share the things that we developed specifically for motorsport with production in the future.
Ulrich Baretzky
Post by: Bogie on February 09, 2008, 07:35:11 AM
Post by: mfree on February 09, 2008, 09:02:50 AM
So you either get rid of NOx (urea injection) or filter particulates and cut mileage (Ford powerstroke et.al.)
If they have a cat that cracks NOx, that's the winner right there. Otherwise it's a bodge.
Post by: 280plus on February 09, 2008, 10:23:11 AM
Quote
Perhaps if they finished the highway and left it alone, that'd solve a lot of problems?
WHAT!?! AND RUIN EVERYBODYS FUN!?! Especially the mob owned construction companies and crooked pols? Perish the thought!! This is CT dammit!! Actually, there hasn't been much going on as far as highway construction around Hartford in a while. They did and enormous project about 1985ish (when they added the useless HOV lanes) and now we have BIG BEAUTIFUL HIGHWAYS! All kinds of lanes!! Problem is, the streets in Hartford never got any bigger and are not capable of handling anymore traffic than they could damn near 100 years ago, you know, when things like horses and buggys tooled around. So we can get the 10 pounds of poop over to the 9 pound bag much better than we used to but we STILL can't fit it all into the bag so good. Still, people persist in driving one per car while the very nice and very expensive HOV lane remains idle to this day. NOBODY takes advantage of it.
Another reason, which goes back even further, is because of a woman named Grace Fox Auerbach. You may recognize her by her abbreviated name, G Fox. Grace Fox had a LOTTA pull in Hartford. Enough pull so that when they were going to build a new intersection between 91 and 84 outside of Hartford and nowhere near her store, SHE HAD THE INTERSECTION MOVED!! I don't know if the structure still stands but thanks to Grace 91 and 84 intersect right in front of what used to be the G Fox store in Hartford. Smack dab in the middle of town. Grace is dead now, she doesn't really care. That move on her part is mainly why things are the way they are in Hartford today, and will remain so forever more.
How's THAT for some 'splanations?
Post by: Tecumseh on February 09, 2008, 10:51:42 AM
Won't do public transportation, either. And if they ask for more of my taxpayer dollars for the waste of money known as "trains", I'll vote NO.
In Boston, there's regularly gang executions on MBTA buses.
On other buses, you have to deal with such joys as an unidentified wet spot on a seat, the reeking homeless guy generating a noxious cloud, the two groups of guys with their "colors" scowling at each other making you hope you're not in between them, the 600lb lady taking up two seats while filling out this month's welfare paperwork, the meth twitches and crack addicts looking bug-eyed at people...
Oh, and whatever the third-world disease of the month is? You're breathing it. Enjoy.
Basically, whatever segment of humanity wishes to board, including the lowest common denominator, trapped in a small, rocking metal tube with hot, stale air.
I'll be in my car, thanks. With the doors locked, the climate control on, and a nice, powerful audio system. I work so I can afford and enjoy things like that every day, so the commute is a pleasure, not a third-world ordeal.
As regards Connecticut and the Hartford area, every time I've passed through that area, it's a mess of roadconstruction destruction that causes the traffic nightmare. Perhaps if they finished the highway and left it alone, that'd solve a lot of problems?
You do realize that a while ago we did use public transportation much more in the early part of the century than before. The trolley cars, buses, and subways used to be the way to travel. If we worked toward marketing Amtrak as an efficeient way to travel as well as local public systems we would be seeing more usage. In Boston, there's regularly gang executions on MBTA buses.
On other buses, you have to deal with such joys as an unidentified wet spot on a seat, the reeking homeless guy generating a noxious cloud, the two groups of guys with their "colors" scowling at each other making you hope you're not in between them, the 600lb lady taking up two seats while filling out this month's welfare paperwork, the meth twitches and crack addicts looking bug-eyed at people...
Oh, and whatever the third-world disease of the month is? You're breathing it. Enjoy.
Basically, whatever segment of humanity wishes to board, including the lowest common denominator, trapped in a small, rocking metal tube with hot, stale air.
I'll be in my car, thanks. With the doors locked, the climate control on, and a nice, powerful audio system. I work so I can afford and enjoy things like that every day, so the commute is a pleasure, not a third-world ordeal.
As regards Connecticut and the Hartford area, every time I've passed through that area, it's a mess of road
Ironically, who bought out the public transportation systems? Take a guess.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 09, 2008, 11:38:15 AM
Quote
You do realize that a while ago we did use public transportation much more in the early part of the century than before.
You mean before Henry Ford made the family automobile affordable? No kidding. So? People couldn't afford to have a car before the Model T. Then, when they could, they started using cars instead. Before that, automobiles were for the rich, and the poor and middle class were herded onto public transit.
You arguing against transportation egalitarianism?
Post by: Bogie on February 09, 2008, 11:53:50 AM
Post by: Tecumseh on February 09, 2008, 01:33:31 PM
Amtrak is a collosal subsidized money suck that should have had its funding cut off many years ago. It will never be "efficient" because it's a giant big-government bureaucracy full of useless outdated bureaucrats. Someday, a conservative might grow a pair and actually cut off the funding, but I'm not holding my breath.
You mean before Henry Ford made the family automobile affordable? No kidding. So? People couldn't afford to have a car before the Model T. Then, when they could, they started using cars instead. Before that, automobiles were for the rich, and the poor and middle class were herded onto public transit.
You arguing against transportation egalitarianism?
Not at all. I am saying a few things. If we actually let a private business (NOT A NO BID CONTRACT!!!) run Amtrak for profit we might see profit. Quote
You do realize that a while ago we did use public transportation much more in the early part of the century than before.
You mean before Henry Ford made the family automobile affordable? No kidding. So? People couldn't afford to have a car before the Model T. Then, when they could, they started using cars instead. Before that, automobiles were for the rich, and the poor and middle class were herded onto public transit.
You arguing against transportation egalitarianism?
As far as the automobile, I believe that Ford bought them up to shut them down so people would be forced to drive his car. It was a good business practice on his part. People had no choice but to buy cars.
Post by: MechAg94 on February 09, 2008, 04:20:52 PM
I like to think about the guys who live near Freeport or Texas City or Pasadena and work in chemical plants. I see them commuting 40 miles or more across back roads and such to get to work at various chemical plants. Somehow those chemical plant areas that hire all sorts of people are rarely factored in to public transportation plans. The trains in Houston run from the Football Stadium to Downtown. Why? So some idiot mayor could make a half hearted attempt at the Olympics. They had half a dozen car wrecks with that train system before they even allowed passengers.
Also, Houston has HOV lanes. They are well used and often moving just a slow as the regular traffic. They also are set up to take people to down town. Not everyone works there. Houston is pretty spread out.
Post by: Tecumseh on February 09, 2008, 04:24:05 PM
Yeah, but it was a renault.
If you were riding a motorcycle and that truck hit you, you'd be in just as bad shape.
If you were in a Corolla or an Accord, you'd still be squashed.
The object isn't to play bumper cars. It's to get Out Of The Way.
If you were riding a motorcycle and that truck hit you, you'd be in just as bad shape.
If you were in a Corolla or an Accord, you'd still be squashed.
The object isn't to play bumper cars. It's to get Out Of The Way.
Maybe old ones.
My Accord's dimensions are 16x6 feet, curb weight of almost 3000 lbs. Unless it climbed up over it, it'd likely just get shoved out of the way. They stopped being a "little" car some years ago.
Wishful thinking will not save your "3000 lb Accord". Maybe you don't consider 3000 lbs a "little" car but, to an 80,000 lb (thats about 27 times the weight of your Accord) truck it doesn't matter if you're driving a Pious or an Accord.
Don't try to convince us, try to convince the truck.
I drive an SUV, and wouldn't want to find out what being rear-ended by the monster in that pic would feel like. It would definitely leave a mark!
Post by: Tecumseh on February 09, 2008, 04:25:43 PM
Public Transportation? Ha!! I live 40 miles from the nearest public transportation. There is no public transportation anywhere near me. Y'all do realize that the only people you are bitching at are people who live and commute in big cities right?
I like to think about the guys who live near Freeport or Texas City or Pasadena and work in chemical plants. I see them commuting 40 miles or more across back roads and such to get to work at various chemical plants. Somehow those chemical plant areas that hire all sorts of people are rarely factored in to public transportation plans. The trains in Houston run from the Football Stadium to Downtown. Why? So some idiot mayor could make a half hearted attempt at the Olympics. They had half a dozen car wrecks with that train system before they even allowed passengers.
Also, Houston has HOV lanes. They are well used and often moving just a slow as the regular traffic. They also are set up to take people to down town. Not everyone works there. Houston is pretty spread out.
So those people who drive 80+ miles to and from work, do you think they would possibly buy a smaller more gas friendly car?
I like to think about the guys who live near Freeport or Texas City or Pasadena and work in chemical plants. I see them commuting 40 miles or more across back roads and such to get to work at various chemical plants. Somehow those chemical plant areas that hire all sorts of people are rarely factored in to public transportation plans. The trains in Houston run from the Football Stadium to Downtown. Why? So some idiot mayor could make a half hearted attempt at the Olympics. They had half a dozen car wrecks with that train system before they even allowed passengers.
Also, Houston has HOV lanes. They are well used and often moving just a slow as the regular traffic. They also are set up to take people to down town. Not everyone works there. Houston is pretty spread out.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 09, 2008, 04:46:56 PM
Public Transportation? Ha!! I live 40 miles from the nearest public transportation. There is no public transportation anywhere near me. Y'all do realize that the only people you are bitching at are people who live and commute in big cities right?
I like to think about the guys who live near Freeport or Texas City or Pasadena and work in chemical plants. I see them commuting 40 miles or more across back roads and such to get to work at various chemical plants. Somehow those chemical plant areas that hire all sorts of people are rarely factored in to public transportation plans. The trains in Houston run from the Football Stadium to Downtown. Why? So some idiot mayor could make a half hearted attempt at the Olympics. They had half a dozen car wrecks with that train system before they even allowed passengers.
Also, Houston has HOV lanes. They are well used and often moving just a slow as the regular traffic. They also are set up to take people to down town. Not everyone works there. Houston is pretty spread out.
So those people who drive 80+ miles to and from work, do you think they would possibly buy a smaller more gas friendly car?I like to think about the guys who live near Freeport or Texas City or Pasadena and work in chemical plants. I see them commuting 40 miles or more across back roads and such to get to work at various chemical plants. Somehow those chemical plant areas that hire all sorts of people are rarely factored in to public transportation plans. The trains in Houston run from the Football Stadium to Downtown. Why? So some idiot mayor could make a half hearted attempt at the Olympics. They had half a dozen car wrecks with that train system before they even allowed passengers.
Also, Houston has HOV lanes. They are well used and often moving just a slow as the regular traffic. They also are set up to take people to down town. Not everyone works there. Houston is pretty spread out.
If they can afford the larger, safer, more comfortable car, why the hell would they want a tiny, vibrating bubble that would be a speedbump for the larger vehicles?
That makes no sense at all.
Post by: 280plus on February 09, 2008, 05:26:30 PM
They come in thinking "green", I tell them how much green "green" actually requires and they stop thinking "green" and start turning green instead.
Did you ever get that thing where you look at a word long enough and it starts to look wierd and not like a real word at all? Heh, green...
Post by: Manedwolf on February 09, 2008, 05:33:50 PM
It makes no sense for thousands of people to sit in traffic one to a car, idling, just burning up fuel by the barrel full 5 days a week in every medium to big city there is in the USA.
The Democrat party agrees with you, and wants to pass laws to make it so that only the wealthy can afford to drive their own cars into cities with "congestion charges". London-style cameras tracking you everywhere, seeing your license plate and sending you a bill for driving in a public area owned by taxpayers. We'd be back to the 19th century in terms of vehicular equality.
Do you really want to be on their side?
Post by: 280plus on February 09, 2008, 05:38:40 PM
But then the nanny would have nothing to do... What am I thinking!?!
Post by: 280plus on February 09, 2008, 05:41:24 PM
Post by: Gewehr98 on February 09, 2008, 06:12:26 PM
People will drive one to a car and eschew public transportation and/or fuel-efficient vehicles until they can no longer afford to do so, then cry foul when they've got to re-think their lifestyles. One minute, they'll be parroting Manedwolf with the "I got mine, screw y'all" bit, then the next they'll scream bloody murder that they got no warning and it's somebody's fault, trying to keep the man down, etc. Historians of the future will footnote it in their review of the 20th and 21st centuries, under the "Petroleum-based economy" period of human development.
They're all for "going green", or even pushing the concept, as long as it doesn't inconvenience them in the process. Neat, huh?
Post by: Manedwolf on February 09, 2008, 06:15:42 PM
To me, 30mpg is reasonable. 15mpg more to ride in a toy car is unreasonable.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 09, 2008, 07:08:13 PM
No, I want it to be like the populace itself (rich and poor alike) realized the problem and addressed it all on it's own without the nanny having to step in.
But then the nanny would have nothing to do... What am I thinking!?!
But then the nanny would have nothing to do... What am I thinking!?!
The Nanny MUST be kept busy.
The funny thing about what you're saying is that, when gas gets THAT expensive, people WILL start doing just that. But so far, they really aren't. A guy I know, a tradesman living in a small house in a bad neighborhood, with a wife and three kids; he just traded in his Tahoe on a newer one. I guess no one told him that the gas prices were sky-high, and the economy is WORSE THAN THE GREAT DEPRESSION, THE SKY IS FALLING, WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!. The point being, if gas is as expensive as we seem to think it is, why haven't our lifestyles changed all that much? When it gets THAT expensive, we'll do what it takes. But not until then.
Post by: Gewehr98 on February 09, 2008, 07:38:07 PM
Quote
The point being, if gas is as expensive as we seem to think it is, why haven't our lifestyles changed all that much? When it gets THAT expensive, we'll do what it takes. But not until then.
Fistful, that was my point, to a tee.
Nobody's gonna budge from their comfort zone until forced to, and you'll be able to hear the cacophany from a long ways off when it happens.
In the meantime, the rest of us are just Chicken Littles, I guess.
(Anal-retentive Chicken Littles, at that. I presently have Smart Power Strips shutting off ancillary computer devices and their parasitic current draw, Kill-A-Watt meters monitoring stuff, an expanding solar panel array, a Winco 36VDC Windcharger project, drive a 2.2L E-85 truck, and am looking at a diesel Volvo for my wife to drive using the local pizzeria's waste cooking oil...)
Post by: Manedwolf on February 09, 2008, 07:40:41 PM
Quote
Biofuels Deemed a Greenhouse Threat
By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
Published: February 8, 2008
Almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels if the full emissions costs of producing these green fuels are taken into account, two studies being published Thursday have concluded.
By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
Published: February 8, 2008
Almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels if the full emissions costs of producing these green fuels are taken into account, two studies being published Thursday have concluded.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/science/earth/08wbiofuels.html?hp
The greenies with ethanol or biodiesel vehicles might feel silly when we go to coal-derived gasoline instead.
Which is what I'd hope would happen. We have plenty of coal. Making food into fuel makes no sense at all.
I also expect that when the demand for power gets high enough, legislators will finally tell the enviromental whackjobs to STFU, and start building more nuclear plants.
Post by: Gewehr98 on February 09, 2008, 08:13:54 PM
It'll be damned interesting, though, because coal ain't the most-environmentally friendly fossil fuel out there. If you thought the Sierra Club was on a warpath now, just wait. The smokestack scrubber on the locomotive above would probably be nearly as big as the boiler assembly. Of course, the extra bits needed to make a current steamer safe would also drastically change the appearance and performance of said locomotive (already near a million pounds with locomotive and tender, 5,600 drawbar horsepower), because one cannot have 300 psi of superheated steam traversing every railroad crossing ready to go "Boom" when somebody decides to straddle the warning gates in their soccer mommy van...
(Can you tell I volunteer weekends at a local railroad museum, rebuilding vintage steamers?)
Post by: Manedwolf on February 09, 2008, 08:21:01 PM
So who knows?
It'd certainly help the economy in places like West Virginia and Pennsylvania if they went full-out back into coal mining!
Post by: Gewehr98 on February 09, 2008, 08:28:07 PM
Quote
Making food into fuel makes no sense at all.
News flash -nobody's starving. My family is planting corn on acreage that the FedGov paid them to lie fallow under the PIK program for many, many years, and selling the additional bushels to the distilleries. Normal corn production (how much field corn are you eating, anyway? Mexican tortillas use white corn...) is no less than it was prior to ethanol's debut. Our black angus beef herd is also fat, dumb, and happy.
And all that vitriol completely negates the fact that distilleries around my neck of the woods are built with the capability to switch over to cellulosic ethanol production, anyway. Folks may giggle and snort, but corn was the easiest short-term attempt to create a biofuel using technology that our alcoholic forefathers pioneered. It worked in the gas tank of Jimmy Johnson as he was running shine prior to his NASCAR days, and it works fine in my E-85 truck. I haven't run a drop of regular gasoline in over two years now, and when I run it in my high-compression 383 stroker '53 Chevy pickup project, I'll also drive it to and from the family farms - Jimmy Crap Corn, and I Don't Care...
Now, you want a good biofuel source, I'd start looking at liquifying and cracking Soylent Green, say, from the Berkeley area. Just get the hemp out of the mix, first.
Post by: Bogie on February 09, 2008, 09:46:18 PM
Why not make nice small cage-like vehicles that can run on envirogoo, and run in an HOV lane, or whatever? Make a one-person-cage (two if they're cohabitational...), and make it cheap?
Post by: Manedwolf on February 09, 2008, 09:51:28 PM
So...
Why not make nice small cage-like vehicles that can run on envirogoo, and run in an HOV lane, or whatever? Make a one-person-cage (two if they're cohabitational...), and make it cheap?
Why not make nice small cage-like vehicles that can run on envirogoo, and run in an HOV lane, or whatever? Make a one-person-cage (two if they're cohabitational...), and make it cheap?
A cage will not protect you from physics, only crushing. If you're thinking of what race car drivers use, they survive because they're strapped in a dozen ways and are wearing a neckbrace.
Unless you want to wear a six-point harness, neckbrace, helmet and all the rest, basic physics still says that when your ultra-light bubble gets hit at highway speeds, your neck is going to snap or you're going to die of massive hemmoraging from your body slamming into the interior of the vehicle at the full speed it was going when the collision stopped it.
Lack of mass will ensure that when it hits something bigger and more massive, it will stop faster, and will lack a big crumple zone hood, engine and trunk to soak up kinetic energy.
Your body won't survive that.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 09, 2008, 10:02:44 PM
I'm not a big guy. I am about 5'10", and 220 pounds. I drive a Tacoma, and my wife has a 93 Century. I have difficulty entering or exiting both cars. Actually, I've gotten pretty good with the Tacoma. Just every once in a while it's hard to fit the legs under the wheel. But the Century requires me to crouch down pretty low, just to get down into the seat, and under the wheel. I must have been spoiled, from driving a full-size pick-up for a few years. I never had any problems taking a seat in my old Celebrity, that I owned prior to that.
I'll get a bigger car or go back to a full-size pick-up as soon as I can.
Post by: 280plus on February 10, 2008, 01:32:02 AM
G, what railroad museum? AFAIK that steamer is in Scranton, they've got a HELLUVA frigging rebuild shop there. I was half , ok, more than half, tempted to move back there just so I could work in the shop. Out of 100 volunteers ony like 12 work in the shop. The rest want to drive.
They can't repair it because it is too heavy for the turntable.
A boiler on wheels that pushes itself around. Who woulds thunk?
Post by: mfree on February 10, 2008, 05:23:45 AM
Quote
Lack of mass will ensure that when it hits something bigger and more massive, it will stop faster, and will lack a big crumple zone hood, engine and trunk to soak up kinetic energy.
Your body won't survive that.
Your body won't survive that.
This is why my imaginary tiny little 3 wheeled vehicle has very large chrome-moly steel bars and is kind of pyramid shaped.
Can't crumple? Then submarine
Soccer moms in their SUVs will most certainly be on the lookout for you on the road once it's common knowledge that hitting you means they're going to get launched 5' into the air...
Post by: Gewehr98 on February 10, 2008, 07:46:18 AM
Quote
G, what railroad museum?
Mid-Continent Railway Museum, North Freedom, WI.
http://www.midcontinent.org
We have three steamers undergoing rebuild right now.
It's damned expensive to re-tube a boiler, let me tell you!
Post by: Tecumseh on February 10, 2008, 07:54:16 AM
Or not.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/science/earth/08wbiofuels.html?hp
The greenies with ethanol or biodiesel vehicles might feel silly when we go to coal-derived gasoline instead.
Which is what I'd hope would happen. We have plenty of coal. Making food into fuel makes no sense at all.
I also expect that when the demand for power gets high enough, legislators will finally tell the enviromental whackjobs to STFU, and start building more nuclear plants.
Why not go back to the electric car? We have the technology, it would make a lot more sense to use that. Wouldn't it? Better for National Security and all. Don't you guys support the troops? Quote
Biofuels Deemed a Greenhouse Threat
By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
Published: February 8, 2008
Almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels if the full emissions costs of producing these green fuels are taken into account, two studies being published Thursday have concluded.
By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
Published: February 8, 2008
Almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels if the full emissions costs of producing these green fuels are taken into account, two studies being published Thursday have concluded.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/science/earth/08wbiofuels.html?hp
The greenies with ethanol or biodiesel vehicles might feel silly when we go to coal-derived gasoline instead.
Which is what I'd hope would happen. We have plenty of coal. Making food into fuel makes no sense at all.
I also expect that when the demand for power gets high enough, legislators will finally tell the enviromental whackjobs to STFU, and start building more nuclear plants.
Post by: Gewehr98 on February 10, 2008, 07:56:22 AM
You're simply moving the exhaust from a tailpipe to a bigger smokestack.
Why do you hate America?
Post by: Manedwolf on February 10, 2008, 08:02:00 AM
Except that the electricity to charge said cars has to come from somwhere else, and there's usually a smokestack attached to that big electrical generator.
You're simply moving the exhaust from a tailpipe to a bigger smokestack.
Why do you hate America?
You're simply moving the exhaust from a tailpipe to a bigger smokestack.
Why do you hate America?
There's also the fact that firefighters are reasonably quite hesitant to extract someone from an electric car until they can be sure it's completely grounded. They don't want to catch a lightning bolt.
Plus if the lithium-ions go up while you're in it, if nobody has copper powder, you're screwed.
Post by: Paddy on February 10, 2008, 08:21:55 AM
Quote
And what's wrong with the 30mpg of my full-sized vehicle?
Which came to you as a result of CAFE standards. The only way to increase overall fuel economy is to mandate it.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 10, 2008, 08:25:26 AM
Quote
And what's wrong with the 30mpg of my full-sized vehicle?
Which came to you as a result of CAFE standards. The only way to increase overall fuel economy is to mandate it.
Actually, no, it came to me as a result of Honda engineers. The F23 engine in mine is a natural evolution of Honda designs dating back to the 1980's. It isn't the less-efficient, rather painfully hobbled F23A1 ULEV mandated by California, which has lower horsepower and a weak torque curve in comparison. THAT one is the result of laws, and thankfully, I'm not saddled with it.
Also, I did some stuff to it that made it more fuel-efficient but less emissions-compliant. CA would throw a fit and declare it illegal, my state doesn't care.
Post by: K Frame on February 10, 2008, 08:37:33 AM
Everyone knows that any step towards fuel economy or energy conservation of any kind is an anti-American pro-Communist plot devised by the Satan Worshiping Council on Foreign Relations and is designed only to enslave and lobotomize freedom loving, independent thinking Americans everywhere.
You pack of sheeptools...
Post by: Tecumseh on February 10, 2008, 09:39:56 AM
Except that the electricity to charge said cars has to come from somwhere else, and there's usually a smokestack attached to that big electrical generator.
You're simply moving the exhaust from a tailpipe to a bigger smokestack.
Why do you hate America?
I hate the freedoms. You're simply moving the exhaust from a tailpipe to a bigger smokestack.
Why do you hate America?
I would suggest advocating solar power myself. Or wind power. Something less environemtnally harmful.
Post by: Tecumseh on February 10, 2008, 09:41:08 AM
I'm surprised at you all.
Everyone knows that any step towards fuel economy or energy conservation of any kind is an anti-American pro-Communist plot devised by the Satan Worshiping Council on Foreign Relations and is designed only to enslave and lobotomize freedom loving, independent thinking Americans everywhere.
So you know my employers?
Everyone knows that any step towards fuel economy or energy conservation of any kind is an anti-American pro-Communist plot devised by the Satan Worshiping Council on Foreign Relations and is designed only to enslave and lobotomize freedom loving, independent thinking Americans everywhere.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 10, 2008, 09:41:46 AM
I would suggest advocating solar power myself. Or wind power. Something less environemtnally harmful.
Compared to the daily energy needs of the country, that would be like trying to power an aircraft carrier with a AA battery.
The percentage of power that can be obtained via those means would be something like .00001 percent of the national daily power consumption.
Post by: roo_ster on February 10, 2008, 09:49:39 AM
If the whole country would take a giant step towards public transportation you wouldn't be having this discussion. That's the real solution. To see the thousands upon thousands of cars stuck in traffic every day commuting back and forth from Hartford, each one with a single occupant, is just laughable. Alleviate that alone and you'll see gas prices plummet. The whole situation is self induced by all those who refuse to pool up one way or another and MUSt each drive their own car to work. They built an HOV lane here on I-84. What a wonderful idea! First it was three or more occupants to qualify, the lane was a ghost town. So they lowered it to two occupants. The lane is STILL a ghost town. We're talking YEARS now, still very little use. Go figger...
Aside from the added risk of mayhem from riding public transport, I would add that a person's time has a value. And, public transport almost invariably means more time spent in transit.
Also, public transport is just about worthless to 99.99% of commuters. They all seem to be a hub/spoke system, when the job growth is out in the 'burbs. So folks travel radially around the inner-city hub from home to work.
Post by: 280plus on February 10, 2008, 12:03:33 PM
Post by: Declaration Day on February 10, 2008, 12:34:00 PM
Post by: Tecumseh on February 10, 2008, 12:39:24 PM
I would suggest advocating solar power myself. Or wind power. Something less environemtnally harmful.
Compared to the daily energy needs of the country, that would be like trying to power an aircraft carrier with a AA battery.
The percentage of power that can be obtained via those means would be something like .00001 percent of the national daily power consumption.
There is some good information on Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy
What if we started to use natural light more, solar heating, and other methods to reduce our expenditures naturally?
Post by: Tecumseh on February 10, 2008, 12:42:48 PM
If the whole country would take a giant step towards public transportation you wouldn't be having this discussion. That's the real solution. To see the thousands upon thousands of cars stuck in traffic every day commuting back and forth from Hartford, each one with a single occupant, is just laughable. Alleviate that alone and you'll see gas prices plummet. The whole situation is self induced by all those who refuse to pool up one way or another and MUSt each drive their own car to work. They built an HOV lane here on I-84. What a wonderful idea! First it was three or more occupants to qualify, the lane was a ghost town. So they lowered it to two occupants. The lane is STILL a ghost town. We're talking YEARS now, still very little use. Go figger...
Aside from the added risk of mayhem from riding public transport, I would add that a person's time has a value. And, public transport almost invariably means more time spent in transit.
Also, public transport is just about worthless to 99.99% of commuters. They all seem to be a hub/spoke system, when the job growth is out in the 'burbs. So folks travel radially around the inner-city hub from home to work.
I for one actually support a tax increase on gas. I would like to see it go up by at least $1.00 per gallon. Simply so that people will start using otehr means of transportation. Not to mention for research that could be used to end our dependence on oil.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 10, 2008, 12:51:35 PM
I would suggest advocating solar power myself. Or wind power. Something less environemtnally harmful.
Compared to the daily energy needs of the country, that would be like trying to power an aircraft carrier with a AA battery.
The percentage of power that can be obtained via those means would be something like .00001 percent of the national daily power consumption.
There is some good information on Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy
What if we started to use natural light more, solar heating, and other methods to reduce our expenditures naturally?
Of course, they didn't mention that it'd cost about $50,000 to cover the roof of your house with solar panels, right?
And will your insurance cover damage to them in a storm? How long do they last through temperature extremes?
This is why solar has been a non-starter.
Quote
I for one actually support a tax increase on gas. I would like to see it go up by at least $1.00 per gallon. Simply so that people will start using otehr means of transportation. Not to mention for research that could be used to end our dependence on oil.
Response withheld. Go vote for Hillary, you're of like mind.
Maybe once you get out into the real world and have to deal with a daily commute like the rest of us, you'll understand.
(and they want to lower the voting age? I think they need to RAISE it!)
Post by: 280plus on February 10, 2008, 01:05:00 PM
Quote
Of course, they didn't mention that it'd cost about $50,000 to cover the roof of your house with solar panels, right?
I hate to bust yer bubble but I was quoted $89,000 for 875 sq ft of solar voltaic panels to produce a measly 10 amps/1000kwh. You guys would love that I spent Friday last week looking at these new IR vacuum tube type solar arrays (heats a glycol solution). On a cold cloudy New England day they were returning 80* water from the roof. Very neat stuff! I was there doing research for a project that could be a "Green Home" showpiece and would be the first of it's kind in the US, and maybe, quite possibly, the rest of the planet too.
Post by: Bogie on February 10, 2008, 01:46:23 PM
Personally, I can see stuff like small water turbines getting a bit of use... And solar electric - once it's in, it's in. Today's stuff has a decent lifespan, and most of it is actually tougher than your roof...
Wind farms also strike me as very interesting. Especially since a row can be put in along the border of agricultural land with very low impact. And remember - they don't have to be huge. There just needs to be enough of them.
Post by: 280plus on February 10, 2008, 02:31:29 PM
Post by: Tecumseh on February 10, 2008, 02:50:45 PM
I would suggest advocating solar power myself. Or wind power. Something less environemtnally harmful.
Compared to the daily energy needs of the country, that would be like trying to power an aircraft carrier with a AA battery.
The percentage of power that can be obtained via those means would be something like .00001 percent of the national daily power consumption.
There is some good information on Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy
What if we started to use natural light more, solar heating, and other methods to reduce our expenditures naturally?
Of course, they didn't mention that it'd cost about $50,000 to cover the roof of your house with solar panels, right?
And will your insurance cover damage to them in a storm? How long do they last through temperature extremes?
This is why solar has been a non-starter.
Quote
I for one actually support a tax increase on gas. I would like to see it go up by at least $1.00 per gallon. Simply so that people will start using otehr means of transportation. Not to mention for research that could be used to end our dependence on oil.
Response withheld. Go vote for Hillary, you're of like mind.
Maybe once you get out into the real world and have to deal with a daily commute like the rest of us, you'll understand.
(and they want to lower the voting age? I think they need to RAISE it!)
Post by: Manedwolf on February 10, 2008, 02:58:40 PM
I would suggest advocating solar power myself. Or wind power. Something less environemtnally harmful.
Compared to the daily energy needs of the country, that would be like trying to power an aircraft carrier with a AA battery.
The percentage of power that can be obtained via those means would be something like .00001 percent of the national daily power consumption.
There is some good information on Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy
What if we started to use natural light more, solar heating, and other methods to reduce our expenditures naturally?
Of course, they didn't mention that it'd cost about $50,000 to cover the roof of your house with solar panels, right?
And will your insurance cover damage to them in a storm? How long do they last through temperature extremes?
This is why solar has been a non-starter.
Quote
I for one actually support a tax increase on gas. I would like to see it go up by at least $1.00 per gallon. Simply so that people will start using otehr means of transportation. Not to mention for research that could be used to end our dependence on oil.
Response withheld. Go vote for Hillary, you're of like mind.
Maybe once you get out into the real world and have to deal with a daily commute like the rest of us, you'll understand.
(and they want to lower the voting age? I think they need to RAISE it!)
They CHOOSE to live in LA. Personal choice, personal responsibility.
Don't like the smog? MOVE!
Post by: Ryan in Maine on February 10, 2008, 03:21:30 PM
I for one actually support a tax increase on gas. I would like to see it go up by at least $1.00 per gallon. Simply so that people will start using otehr means of transportation. Not to mention for research that could be used to end our dependence on oil.
A tax increase in metro areas? Or nation-wide? Gas has been over $3 per gallon for quite some time now here in Northern Maine. Putting gas over $4 per gallon in such a rural area would be very hard on families.What alternative methods of transportation do we have here in Northern Maine between October and May? No one is going to walk across town, let alone commute from outside of town during those months, when temperatures can fall below freezing (likely only at night from late April-May, but people work at night too). Not to mention we get 10-11' of snow on average here every season.
Walking? Not going to work unless it's summer. Even then, it's limited to people who live within walking distance of their careers, which I'm going to bet isn't a whole lot.
Car-pooling? You're going to run into trouble when people are commuting to work 10-20 minutes (or more) from outside of town in opposite directions. Feasible option for some folks, though.
Alternative fuels? Not available around here (or even three hours in any direction as far as I know).
What else is there if gas hits us at over $4 per gallon?
Post by: Bogie on February 10, 2008, 04:12:13 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on February 10, 2008, 04:24:20 PM
Too many folks think that solar entails a big battery bank, etc... Personally, I'd like to see some small hybrid systems - basically just a few panels and a utility intertie... During the day, you're at work, and presumably you've got most of the house's systems shut down... Why not spin that meter backwards a while?
Have you priced that sort of thing? The ones I'd seen, it'd not pay itself off for several decades.
Post by: Paddy on February 10, 2008, 04:24:52 PM
BTW, the Prius gets 40-45 mpg. It would get more, but SWMBO has a lead foot. And my Echo easily gets 40mpg on the highway, and with the VVT-i engine it never wants for power. It was $12k out the door.
Post by: 280plus on February 10, 2008, 04:27:05 PM
Post by: Tecumseh on February 10, 2008, 04:47:04 PM
Public transportation is good for the densely populated tiny little east coast states. Here in the west, though, the distances are too great and population too sparse to support rails and busses. We need cars, thanks all the same.
BTW, the Prius gets 40-45 mpg. It would get more, but SWMBO has a lead foot. And my Echo easily gets 40mpg on the highway, and with the VVT-i engine it never wants for power. It was $12k out the door.
Obviously though it would be much different for rural areas but in larger cities and metro areas I think it is feasible to work on improving mass transit.
BTW, the Prius gets 40-45 mpg. It would get more, but SWMBO has a lead foot. And my Echo easily gets 40mpg on the highway, and with the VVT-i engine it never wants for power. It was $12k out the door.
Post by: Tecumseh on February 10, 2008, 04:52:45 PM
I would suggest advocating solar power myself. Or wind power. Something less environemtnally harmful.
Compared to the daily energy needs of the country, that would be like trying to power an aircraft carrier with a AA battery.
The percentage of power that can be obtained via those means would be something like .00001 percent of the national daily power consumption.
There is some good information on Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy
What if we started to use natural light more, solar heating, and other methods to reduce our expenditures naturally?
Of course, they didn't mention that it'd cost about $50,000 to cover the roof of your house with solar panels, right?
And will your insurance cover damage to them in a storm? How long do they last through temperature extremes?
This is why solar has been a non-starter.
Quote
I for one actually support a tax increase on gas. I would like to see it go up by at least $1.00 per gallon. Simply so that people will start using otehr means of transportation. Not to mention for research that could be used to end our dependence on oil.
Response withheld. Go vote for Hillary, you're of like mind.
Maybe once you get out into the real world and have to deal with a daily commute like the rest of us, you'll understand.
(and they want to lower the voting age? I think they need to RAISE it!)
They CHOOSE to live in LA. Personal choice, personal responsibility.
Don't like the smog? MOVE!
Post by: Manedwolf on February 10, 2008, 05:35:26 PM
Public transportation is good for the densely populated tiny little east coast states. Here in the west, though, the distances are too great and population too sparse to support rails and busses. We need cars, thanks all the same.
BTW, the Prius gets 40-45 mpg. It would get more, but SWMBO has a lead foot. And my Echo easily gets 40mpg on the highway, and with the VVT-i engine it never wants for power. It was $12k out the door.
Obviously though it would be much different for rural areas but in larger cities and metro areas I think it is feasible to work on improving mass transit. BTW, the Prius gets 40-45 mpg. It would get more, but SWMBO has a lead foot. And my Echo easily gets 40mpg on the highway, and with the VVT-i engine it never wants for power. It was $12k out the door.
And force the taxpayers to pay for it, even if they don't use it?
Yeah, you're heading right for the statist bobblehead crowd. Watch yourself.
Post by: 280plus on February 11, 2008, 02:12:21 AM
Post by: ilbob on February 11, 2008, 05:08:53 AM
I would suggest advocating solar power myself. Or wind power. Something less environemtnally harmful.
Compared to the daily energy needs of the country, that would be like trying to power an aircraft carrier with a AA battery.
The percentage of power that can be obtained via those means would be something like .00001 percent of the national daily power consumption.
Solar energy has some potential, but the photo-voltaic side is not it. Another problem with solar is that the energy is not where the people are for the most part, so it suffers from all the same inefficiencies as all the current energy delivery methods do. Cities are very dense energy users, and there is no chance at all that the relatively small amount of solar radiation available per person in urban areas would ever be adequate.
Post by: ilbob on February 11, 2008, 05:15:35 AM
The public transportation systems in Detroit used to go to and from some of the surrounding suburbs. One by one, those surrounding cities are cutting off funds for the system because fewer than 1% of the city's residents ride the bus.
For those that support mass transit, I would suggest they consider the following undeniable fact.There is not a single mass transit system in the entire US that even breaks even. Few even break even on the operating side. If people who used mass transit had to pay the full cost of it themselves, it is likely it would be even less popular.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 11, 2008, 05:22:39 AM
The public transportation systems in Detroit used to go to and from some of the surrounding suburbs. One by one, those surrounding cities are cutting off funds for the system because fewer than 1% of the city's residents ride the bus.
For those that support mass transit, I would suggest they consider the following undeniable fact.There is not a single mass transit system in the entire US that even breaks even. Few even break even on the operating side. If people who used mass transit had to pay the full cost of it themselves, it is likely it would be even less popular.
Correct. Even the "trains that go everwhere" in Europe only exist due to taxes on all citizens that are tantamount to a mugging.
Post by: roo_ster on February 11, 2008, 06:06:07 AM
Aside from the added risk of mayhem from riding public transport, I would add that a person's time has a value. And, public transport almost invariably means more time spent in transit.
Also, public transport is just about worthless to 99.99% of commuters. They all seem to be a hub/spoke system, when the job growth is out in the 'burbs. So folks travel radially around the inner-city hub from home to work.
How much time in transit from these large cities with gridlock? Does that not also add up? So people will have to get to the station and then tehy will have to walk from the station to work or hop a bus. I can't imagine walking more is going to do this country bad. Is it? Also, public transport is just about worthless to 99.99% of commuters. They all seem to be a hub/spoke system, when the job growth is out in the 'burbs. So folks travel radially around the inner-city hub from home to work.
I for one actually support a tax increase on gas. I would like to see it go up by at least $1.00 per gallon. Simply so that people will start using otehr means of transportation. Not to mention for research that could be used to end our dependence on oil.
There are very few locations in the USA where public transit can compete with personal transit, time-wise.
I have used it in several of our larger cities (Dallas, Atlanta, DC, LA, TPA, Miami, Chicago), and found the above to be my observation. Maybe there is an exception in one of the cities I have yet to visit, such as NYC.
All those folks in their autos are making the best choice available to them, for the most part. If they were able to save big bucks or save big time, something more than 1/10 of 1% of LA's commuters would use LA's pub transport. Think about it: running the gauntlet of other commuters on congested streets is more appealing than using pub transit. Just how worthless must pub transit be to come out sucking hind teat in that competition?
Frankly, your words are those of a social-engineering statist. No respect for the time and decisions of others and ham-handed attempts to use excise taxes to force others to conform to your whim.
Why vote for Ron Paul when all your instincts are to bend others to your will? I think Hillary or Obama is closer to your heart.
That's because people don't USE it. If they used it more often it would be able to turn a profit and maybe improve upon itself. Like I said, it'll never change until gas or whatever is SO expensive it's forced upon us. Then still, the only ones who will be able to drive their vehicles to town will be the rich folk. The rest of us peons will be swapping dread diseases on the bus...
Even if gas gets really expensive, don't expect pub transport to go up dramatically or pub transport systems to make a profit. The fact is, most pub transport does not go where folks want when they want to go there. Well let me throw it at you a different way, you do believe that we should not be forced to pay for our health care. However as a side effect of all the cars and their exhaust we are seeing numerous sicknesses such as asthma, lung cancer, and other respiratory problems which are found in areas with high smog such as Los Angeles. Now those drivers are all in part responsible for someone getting sick, should tey be able to seek compensation?
I call bullshiite.
A simple statistical exercise for folks:
1. Acquire the data detailing generally accepted macro levels of air pollution.
2. Do the same for the incidence of asthma
A little analysis will show you that as pollution levels in the USA have dropped over time, asthma cases have risen.
Negative correlation, IOW.
Whatever it is that is causing the rise in asthma cases, it is not pollution.
LA is a wonderful case as an example of air pollution dropping while respiratory disease incidence has risen.
I find it amazing that folks parrot such easily-disprovable notions.
In fact, if you took economics, convenience, and national security out of the picture...
ilbob, I hope that was in jest, 'cause it was d@mn funny.
I can imagine a surgeon telling the family of a patient, "If you discount the inoperable lung cancers, heart disease, and his recent stroke, your uncle Bob is the picture of health..."
Post by: Tecumseh on February 11, 2008, 08:22:24 AM
Quote
Here are some articles on Air pollution and respiratory disorders:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0302008.pdf
http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4419
http://www.lungnet.com.au/fact_sheets/pollution-health.html
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/air/heart_lung-cardio_pulmon_e.html
http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=315910
http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/airpollution/about.htm
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0302008.pdf
http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4419
http://www.lungnet.com.au/fact_sheets/pollution-health.html
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/air/heart_lung-cardio_pulmon_e.html
http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=315910
http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/airpollution/about.htm
Post by: Tecumseh on February 11, 2008, 08:37:44 AM
Quote
From: , Green Energy News, More from this Affiliate
Published February 8, 2008 09:36 AM
Mechanically Energized: Readily Commercialized
RELATED ARTICLES
* $1 Dollar a Watt Solar.
* The Lawn Mower of My Dreams
* Adsorbed Natural Gas: fuel storage solution?
* Green New Zealand to get Greener
/business/article/30847/print
Current conventionally powered vehicles, gasoline-electric hybrids, natural gas vehicles, biofueled vehicles as well as rechargeable battery electric, plug-in hybrid and fuel cell vehicles all have something in common: Theyre refueled by way of a tether ? that links them to a stationary energy source. A hose is used to replenish a supply of gaseous or liquid fuels, or a cord is used to supply a flow of electrons.
Yet while thats how we refuel our vehicles, we refuel, reenergize, other devices quickly and safely by mechanical means. We remove and replace batteries in flashlights and power tools. We mechanically exchange gas filled cylinders for barbecue grilles and tools such as propane torches.
Mechanical reenergizing by batteries and gaseous cylinders use a totally different supply and distribution network that is reliable and ingrained into our economy: brick and mortar retail stores, Internet sales and package delivery services. We buy batteries at stores to bring home to put to work. We exchange spent gas cylinders at home improvement stores. While gas-filled tanks cant be ordered over the Internet and delivered to our front doors, batteries of all kinds certainly can.
So, if mechanical refueling as well as the distribution supply chain of retail sales and package delivery services are used to keep flashlights lit, power tools operating and grilles fired, why cant we use this fueling method and reliable distribution network to energize our cars? Business and industry already use mechanical fueling for industrial equipment such as fork lift trucks, why cant we mechanically refuel our cars and light trucks?
Well, some have been thinking about this. There are at least four, possibly more, plans out there to bring mechanical refueling to our personal vehicles.
--- Power Zinc Electric, of the City of Industry, California and Shanghai, China have a mechanical refueling model where the companys zinc-air fuel cells are removed, replaced and recycled. The fuel cells provide electricity to drive an electric vehicle. The electricity is generated in the electrochemical reaction of zinc when exposed to air in a electrolytic solution (not unlike that in a disposable flashlight. Spent fuel cells would be recycled at centralized or local plants.
(This zinc-air refueling/recycling scenario was proven in the early 2000s by Electric-Fuel, now Arotech, in a program which culminated in the development of a zinc-air powered transit bus. In the US federally-assisted program the bus achieved well over 100 miles range in testing. The project is now shelved.)
ADVERTISEMENT
Click Here!
--- Project Better Place, of California, has a business model for electric cars that would be similar to that used by mobile phone operators. Instead of cell towers to provide a wide area of mobile phone coverage, Project Better Place would establish a network of charging spots and battery remove and replace exchange stations. Already somewhat advanced in this plan, the organization, in partnership with French automaker Renault, has a memorandum of understanding with the state of Israel to begin building a network there.
In this plan the cost of a vehicles battery and its recharging and/or exchange would be paid for in a subscription plan like that used by the cell phone industry where the cost of cell phone usage also subsidizes the cost of the phone. With Project Better Place, battery usage by subscription would subsidize the cost of the battery.
Battery replacement would take only a few minutes and within a fully-built network driving range would be unlimited.
--- Hydrogen Power of Seattle, Washington is developing a technology where hydrogen is generated by the reaction of aluminum and water. Hydrogen generated would be used to power a fuel cell or even an internal combustion engine.
Since canisters or cartridges would contain little other than aluminum powder mix they could be sold in retail stores or on the Internet to be delivered to peoples front doors. Presumably the canisters could be recycled.
While the company doesnt specifically mention the use of its technology in passenger vehicles, the idea seems feasible.
--- Finally, Limnia of San Francisco, California is developing a system where hydrogen is stored in a solid state storage cassette. Cassettes would be removed and replaced in a vehicle they could be recharged with hydrogen with a home based unit or at refilling and/or exchange outlets. The cassettes would be safe to ship by package delivery services thus could be sold over the Internet. Hydrogen would be used to power a fuel cell in the vehicle.
The company says that their cassettes could also be used to power a home.
While the fine details of the solid state hydrogen storage are proprietary; the company has received a US patent on the technology: US. Patent No. 7279222. Further solid state hydrogen storage itself is a proven technology. Well respected Energy Conversion Devices (ECD) has been working with it for a number of years.
Even if solid state hydrogen storage were expensive, a model similar to the Project Better Place (see above) subscription model could be developed.
All of the above have commonalities too. All could be readily commercialized: the sales and distribution network, for the most part, already exists. Further, they all could be considered really disruptive to the status quo, fuel-by-tether model. (Unless of course the existing members of the current energy supply chain chose to get involved with this new way of fueling.)
Links:
Power Zinc Electric
http://www.powerzinc.com
Energy Conversion Devices
http://www.ovonic.com
Electric Fuel (Arotech) Electric Vehicle division
http://www.electric-fuel.com/ev/index.shtml
Hydrogen Power
http://www.hydrogenpowerinc.com
Project Better Place
http://www.projectbetterplace.com
Limnia
http://www.limnia.com
U.S. Patent No. 7279222
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7279222.html
Published February 8, 2008 09:36 AM
Mechanically Energized: Readily Commercialized
RELATED ARTICLES
* $1 Dollar a Watt Solar.
* The Lawn Mower of My Dreams
* Adsorbed Natural Gas: fuel storage solution?
* Green New Zealand to get Greener
/business/article/30847/print
Current conventionally powered vehicles, gasoline-electric hybrids, natural gas vehicles, biofueled vehicles as well as rechargeable battery electric, plug-in hybrid and fuel cell vehicles all have something in common: Theyre refueled by way of a tether ? that links them to a stationary energy source. A hose is used to replenish a supply of gaseous or liquid fuels, or a cord is used to supply a flow of electrons.
Yet while thats how we refuel our vehicles, we refuel, reenergize, other devices quickly and safely by mechanical means. We remove and replace batteries in flashlights and power tools. We mechanically exchange gas filled cylinders for barbecue grilles and tools such as propane torches.
Mechanical reenergizing by batteries and gaseous cylinders use a totally different supply and distribution network that is reliable and ingrained into our economy: brick and mortar retail stores, Internet sales and package delivery services. We buy batteries at stores to bring home to put to work. We exchange spent gas cylinders at home improvement stores. While gas-filled tanks cant be ordered over the Internet and delivered to our front doors, batteries of all kinds certainly can.
So, if mechanical refueling as well as the distribution supply chain of retail sales and package delivery services are used to keep flashlights lit, power tools operating and grilles fired, why cant we use this fueling method and reliable distribution network to energize our cars? Business and industry already use mechanical fueling for industrial equipment such as fork lift trucks, why cant we mechanically refuel our cars and light trucks?
Well, some have been thinking about this. There are at least four, possibly more, plans out there to bring mechanical refueling to our personal vehicles.
--- Power Zinc Electric, of the City of Industry, California and Shanghai, China have a mechanical refueling model where the companys zinc-air fuel cells are removed, replaced and recycled. The fuel cells provide electricity to drive an electric vehicle. The electricity is generated in the electrochemical reaction of zinc when exposed to air in a electrolytic solution (not unlike that in a disposable flashlight. Spent fuel cells would be recycled at centralized or local plants.
(This zinc-air refueling/recycling scenario was proven in the early 2000s by Electric-Fuel, now Arotech, in a program which culminated in the development of a zinc-air powered transit bus. In the US federally-assisted program the bus achieved well over 100 miles range in testing. The project is now shelved.)
ADVERTISEMENT
Click Here!
--- Project Better Place, of California, has a business model for electric cars that would be similar to that used by mobile phone operators. Instead of cell towers to provide a wide area of mobile phone coverage, Project Better Place would establish a network of charging spots and battery remove and replace exchange stations. Already somewhat advanced in this plan, the organization, in partnership with French automaker Renault, has a memorandum of understanding with the state of Israel to begin building a network there.
In this plan the cost of a vehicles battery and its recharging and/or exchange would be paid for in a subscription plan like that used by the cell phone industry where the cost of cell phone usage also subsidizes the cost of the phone. With Project Better Place, battery usage by subscription would subsidize the cost of the battery.
Battery replacement would take only a few minutes and within a fully-built network driving range would be unlimited.
--- Hydrogen Power of Seattle, Washington is developing a technology where hydrogen is generated by the reaction of aluminum and water. Hydrogen generated would be used to power a fuel cell or even an internal combustion engine.
Since canisters or cartridges would contain little other than aluminum powder mix they could be sold in retail stores or on the Internet to be delivered to peoples front doors. Presumably the canisters could be recycled.
While the company doesnt specifically mention the use of its technology in passenger vehicles, the idea seems feasible.
--- Finally, Limnia of San Francisco, California is developing a system where hydrogen is stored in a solid state storage cassette. Cassettes would be removed and replaced in a vehicle they could be recharged with hydrogen with a home based unit or at refilling and/or exchange outlets. The cassettes would be safe to ship by package delivery services thus could be sold over the Internet. Hydrogen would be used to power a fuel cell in the vehicle.
The company says that their cassettes could also be used to power a home.
While the fine details of the solid state hydrogen storage are proprietary; the company has received a US patent on the technology: US. Patent No. 7279222. Further solid state hydrogen storage itself is a proven technology. Well respected Energy Conversion Devices (ECD) has been working with it for a number of years.
Even if solid state hydrogen storage were expensive, a model similar to the Project Better Place (see above) subscription model could be developed.
All of the above have commonalities too. All could be readily commercialized: the sales and distribution network, for the most part, already exists. Further, they all could be considered really disruptive to the status quo, fuel-by-tether model. (Unless of course the existing members of the current energy supply chain chose to get involved with this new way of fueling.)
Links:
Power Zinc Electric
http://www.powerzinc.com
Energy Conversion Devices
http://www.ovonic.com
Electric Fuel (Arotech) Electric Vehicle division
http://www.electric-fuel.com/ev/index.shtml
Hydrogen Power
http://www.hydrogenpowerinc.com
Project Better Place
http://www.projectbetterplace.com
Limnia
http://www.limnia.com
U.S. Patent No. 7279222
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7279222.html