On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 13:48:47 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 11:35:54 -0400, gfretwell wrote:

On Sat, 3 Oct 2009 08:54:04 -0400, BAR wrote:

Electricity isn't free. How much does it cost to charge the batteries?
And, how is this electricity being produced? Coal, oil? Is there an
outlet at your client's office 45 miles away?

An electric with any range at all will be using about 25-30 KWH of
energy per charge (that is the typical Ed Begly home built) That
translates to $4-$4.50 at my electric rate. A car that has the
performance of that electric would easily get 40 MPG so it is maybe half
to 2/3ds the cost of gas, even with $4 gas ... if you are talking about
fairly well moving traffic.
Where the electrics and hybrids make sense is stop and go traffic in a
place that is cool enough to ride with the windows down. Then your
"sitting" time is free .
The flip side of that is the computer fuel injected engines idle cheaper
than the old cars.

In the long run, one of the pluses of electric cars is the possibility of
getting away from the use of oil, especially foreign oil. As it stands
now, our electric plants may not be that clean, but in the future?
Single source pollution is easier to clean up than multi-source pollution.

Gosh, if we went nuclear, like France, wouldn't that be much cleaner?
Don't you ever wonder what the liberal aversion to nuclear energy is
all about? Could it simply be an aversion to problem solving?
--
John H

All decisions, even those of liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 15:14:56 -0400, JohnH wrote:


Gosh, if we went nuclear, like France, wouldn't that be much cleaner?
Don't you ever wonder what the liberal aversion to nuclear energy is all
about? Could it simply be an aversion to problem solving?

Liberal aversion? Yeah, right. Only if all businessmen are liberal.
France went nuclear because it doesn't have oil or coal reserves. We do,
and they are still cheaper than nuclear power. Of course, we could go
totally nuclear, but you explain to the American public the reason for
the surge in their utility bills.

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 13:48:47 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 11:35:54 -0400, gfretwell wrote:

On Sat, 3 Oct 2009 08:54:04 -0400, BAR wrote:

Electricity isn't free. How much does it cost to charge the batteries?
And, how is this electricity being produced? Coal, oil? Is there an
outlet at your client's office 45 miles away?

An electric with any range at all will be using about 25-30 KWH of
energy per charge (that is the typical Ed Begly home built) That
translates to $4-$4.50 at my electric rate. A car that has the
performance of that electric would easily get 40 MPG so it is maybe half
to 2/3ds the cost of gas, even with $4 gas ... if you are talking about
fairly well moving traffic.
Where the electrics and hybrids make sense is stop and go traffic in a
place that is cool enough to ride with the windows down. Then your
"sitting" time is free .
The flip side of that is the computer fuel injected engines idle cheaper
than the old cars.

In the long run, one of the pluses of electric cars is the possibility of
getting away from the use of oil, especially foreign oil. As it stands
now, our electric plants may not be that clean, but in the future?
Single source pollution is easier to clean up than multi-source pollution.

Gosh, if we went nuclear, like France, wouldn't that be much cleaner?
Don't you ever wonder what the liberal aversion to nuclear energy is
all about? Could it simply be an aversion to problem solving?
--
John H

All decisions, even those of liberals, are the result of binary thinking.


I'd have an aversion to another of your Three Mile Island 'incidents'.

On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 17:41:04 -0300, Don White wrote:


I'd have an aversion to another of your Three Mile Island 'incidents'.

As do I, but Generation IV technology makes that risk quite small.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor

An example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_Bed_Reactor

On Sat, 3 Oct 2009 17:41:04 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 13:48:47 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 11:35:54 -0400, gfretwell wrote:

On Sat, 3 Oct 2009 08:54:04 -0400, BAR wrote:

Electricity isn't free. How much does it cost to charge the batteries?
And, how is this electricity being produced? Coal, oil? Is there an
outlet at your client's office 45 miles away?

An electric with any range at all will be using about 25-30 KWH of
energy per charge (that is the typical Ed Begly home built) That
translates to $4-$4.50 at my electric rate. A car that has the
performance of that electric would easily get 40 MPG so it is maybe half
to 2/3ds the cost of gas, even with $4 gas ... if you are talking about
fairly well moving traffic.
Where the electrics and hybrids make sense is stop and go traffic in a
place that is cool enough to ride with the windows down. Then your
"sitting" time is free .
The flip side of that is the computer fuel injected engines idle cheaper
than the old cars.

In the long run, one of the pluses of electric cars is the possibility of
getting away from the use of oil, especially foreign oil. As it stands
now, our electric plants may not be that clean, but in the future?
Single source pollution is easier to clean up than multi-source pollution.

Gosh, if we went nuclear, like France, wouldn't that be much cleaner?
Don't you ever wonder what the liberal aversion to nuclear energy is
all about? Could it simply be an aversion to problem solving?
--
John H

All decisions, even those of liberals, are the result of binary thinking.


I'd have an aversion to another of your Three Mile Island 'incidents'.


Typical liberal.
--
John H

All decisions, even those of liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 15:48:24 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 17:41:04 -0300, Don White wrote:


I'd have an aversion to another of your Three Mile Island 'incidents'.

As do I, but Generation IV technology makes that risk quite small.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor

An example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_Bed_Reactor

More enlightened liberal.
--
John H

All decisions, even those of liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 15:20:22 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 15:14:56 -0400, JohnH wrote:


Gosh, if we went nuclear, like France, wouldn't that be much cleaner?
Don't you ever wonder what the liberal aversion to nuclear energy is all
about? Could it simply be an aversion to problem solving?

Liberal aversion? Yeah, right. Only if all businessmen are liberal.
France went nuclear because it doesn't have oil or coal reserves. We do,
and they are still cheaper than nuclear power. Of course, we could go
totally nuclear, but you explain to the American public the reason for
the surge in their utility bills.

Cap and trade won't affect utility bills?
--
John H

All decisions, even those of liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 17:12:28 -0400, JohnH wrote:


Typical liberal.

Typical asshole.

JohnH wrote:
On Sat, 3 Oct 2009 17:41:04 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 13:48:47 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 11:35:54 -0400, gfretwell wrote:

On Sat, 3 Oct 2009 08:54:04 -0400, BAR wrote:

Electricity isn't free. How much does it cost to charge the batteries?
And, how is this electricity being produced? Coal, oil? Is there an
outlet at your client's office 45 miles away?
An electric with any range at all will be using about 25-30 KWH of
energy per charge (that is the typical Ed Begly home built) That
translates to $4-$4.50 at my electric rate. A car that has the
performance of that electric would easily get 40 MPG so it is maybe half
to 2/3ds the cost of gas, even with $4 gas ... if you are talking about
fairly well moving traffic.
Where the electrics and hybrids make sense is stop and go traffic in a
place that is cool enough to ride with the windows down. Then your
"sitting" time is free .
The flip side of that is the computer fuel injected engines idle cheaper
than the old cars.
In the long run, one of the pluses of electric cars is the possibility of
getting away from the use of oil, especially foreign oil. As it stands
now, our electric plants may not be that clean, but in the future?
Single source pollution is easier to clean up than multi-source pollution.
Gosh, if we went nuclear, like France, wouldn't that be much cleaner?
Don't you ever wonder what the liberal aversion to nuclear energy is
all about? Could it simply be an aversion to problem solving?
--
John H

All decisions, even those of liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

I'd have an aversion to another of your Three Mile Island 'incidents'.


Typical liberal.

He's just a simple minded lemming, Googling for his master.

Gene wrote:
On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 10:12:58 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 08:25:38 -0400, H the K
wrote:

It's the new all-electric vehicle coming from GM. Runs 40 miles per
battery charge, then a gasoline generator kicks in to recharge the
battery and keep you running.

Seems like a perfect commuter car.
I am still having problems getting the money to work out. When you
amortize the cost of the batteries across 40,000 miles or so and then
add in the electric bill you could be driving a real car. These
glorified golf carts cost more than my wife's Lincoln.

If used as the sales department suggests, the 230 MPG sounds great.
However, a very small car won't go for $40,000 unless fuel cost are
REALLY high. We'd like one to commute, but not for that much money, up
front....

Who is/are "we"? You and WAFA?