TEA Parties

[sugarpop]

You really should have gone Bullitt. The spring baths are totally awesome! Just be expecting lots of nudity...

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Electrics ARE viable for a large portion of the population. Most people probably don't drive anywhere near 100 miles per day.

You're probably right for normal commuting. Now what do you do when you want to go to the mountains skiing or down to the shore for the weekend or just to the casinos for the evening? You need another car and it's got to be a good one for traveling, but what if you can't afford another car?

Does that ski lodge, shore motel or casino have a charging station? Not in the future, not even in the fall, RFN? No they don't. Electrics are not viable for most people as the family sedan without a lot of bullshit.

A hybrid with a small engine is viable for most people RFN. Go anywhere anytime and still get 40, 50, 60, miles per gallon. The biggest drawback of hybrids is they have been designed and built for maximum bragging rights on mileage, rather than vehicles that are comfortable and with enough space to be useful for a family of four.

[sugarpop]

If you tend to travel a lot I can understand needing something else. If you can afford two cars, why not have an electric one for home use and another one for travel?

I am really looking forward to the high speed rail systems Obama wants to create. It would be extremely useful for the US to have the same kind of rail system that other countries enjoy.

There is this one commericial that was on TV not too long ago, and as much as I hate commercials, I loved this one. It was for a car company (I don't remember which one), and in the commercial it showed one person driving somewhere and then giving the keys to someone else, and they drove somewhere and then gave the keys to someone else, etc. I thought that was brilliant. I wish we could do something like that in society, where no one really had to own cars, they were just available for anyone to drive whenever they needed to go somewhere.

[sugarpop]

Bruce, you can get 50+ mpg out of a regular Toyota now if you practice certain driving techniques. My 91 Geo can get more than 40. I coast a lot. The reason I would like to get a newer car though is because the emmission standards are better now in newer cars. I can't afford a new car right now though.

oh, and as far as elecric cars go, you don't necessarily need plug in stations, some electrics can by plugged into a regular outlet with an adapter, I believe. I remember seeing something about that a while back.

[TheMercenary]

So if we significantly increase the demand for electricity by plugging into our houses where do you think that electricity is going to come from? Oh, that would be the coal fired or nuclear plant down the road.

[sugarpop]

It is a matter of choosing the things that do the least amount of harm. Electric cars, from what I learned on that show last night, are a lot more efficient, so they are actually a much better choice. Not to mention the fact that we get most of our oil from countries that are hostile to us. No technology is going to be perfect, at least not anytime soon. We can only continue trying to move in the right direction with regard to ALL our energy resources, and to me, that means creating a lot more solar and wind and geothermal, etc. If we could get the government to sponsor a program where people could solarize their homes (where there is a lot of sun), or have individual wind mills (where there is high wind) at a reasonable cost, and sell the excess back to the grid, that is one way to help solve the problem. Less people getting energy FROM the grid, more people supplying energy TO the grid. Less need for big electric companies. More sustainable power for individuals, more empoerment for people. Less costly power. See what I mean? It would feed on itself, and in a good way. Honestly, I don't know why they haven't peoposed that yet. Over time, we might end up with practically free power for everyone.

[TheMercenary]

Look up the contribution of coal fired plants to global warming and get back to me. It is a major source of pollution. China is build about 2 - 4 a month.

[sugarpop]

Did you even bother reading the rest of what I wrote? I do not like coal. look, just go here and read the transcripts or watch the show, OK?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/car/

[TheMercenary]

But the fact is, even if you don't like them, they are the primary souce of electric power in this country and around the world. So if you want to take a technology and apply it to the cars I am sure that the power companies of the world would be really happy to to have us do that. Because the alternatives are not being practially considered. Although there is evidence that the public outcry against coal is having an effect. The fact remains that there is not a huge incentive at this time to stop building them. And as long as countries like China and India do not have to apply the same standards of technology to newly built or existing coal fired plants it will not make a difference to global warming how many electric cars we build. It may make us feel better and make the coal companies and power companies rich, but it is not going to improve the environment.

[sugarpop]

Whatever. There is more than one reason to get off of oil. Electric cars are only one way to go. I would prefer we have choices. Electric, biofuel, compressed air, hybrids...

I would also prefer no more coal plants be built, and people who own those plants have to pay big taxes. There is no such thing a "clean" coal.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

It may make us feel better and make the coal companies and power companies rich, but it is not going to improve the environment.

I really think that we will have to go nuclear soon. The safety standards have been raised and it is cleaner and more practical than any other option. Although, a lot of research is going into other clean alternative energy sources (wind, solar) and in a few decades, those will start to become more viable options as well.

[sugarpop]

They are viable now. I'm sick of people saying they aren't viable. They are.

[glatt]

sure, they are viable when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing. Neither of those things are happening at the moment here.

[sugarpop]

The sun shines here almost all of the time. And in California and the southwestern states.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

The biggest drawback of hybrids is they have been designed and built for maximum bragging rights on mileage, rather than vehicles that are comfortable and with enough space to be useful for a family of four.

Biggest problem are the many labeled as hybrids that, instead, pervert the technology only to increase horsepower during acceleration. And other hybrids that provide none of those needed benefits.

Routine for all driving is for a hybrid to get over 50 MPH. So we put hybrids in larger car and get something around 40 MPG. Meanwhile, even GM's smallest cars average (at best) 26 MPG.

But again, how many horsepower is required to maintain 50 MPH? My worst case calculations on an Olds 88 and Taurus were 8 and 10 hp. GM engineers told me it was more like 4 and 2. That means most every car needs maybe a 1 liter engine. If using hybrid technology, it accelerates same, but does not waste a 200+ horsepower engine putting only 10 hp to the wheels. Damning numbers that say why hybrids should have been routine ten years earlier - when even President Clinton was a better innovator than auto executives.

Hybrid technology is the 'at minimum' requirement for all cars of the future. So what will GM introduce in 2010? A 500 hp obsolete technology Camaro. Could they be any dumber?