On 2/29/2012 8:51 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

In ,
says...

In ,
says...

In , says...

On 2/27/2012 8:18 PM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 14:30:26 -0500, wrote:

In articleL_idnY5npoGXtNTSnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@earthlink .com, dump-on-
says...

On 2/25/12 1:25 PM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

In , says...

On 2/25/2012 8:58 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says...

On 2/24/2012 3:27 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:18:05 -0500,
wrote:

The figures come out to each Volt costing us nearly a quarter million
dollars... Just like Solyndra, sinking money into technology they know
will not stand up in the free market, a blatant political payback...

===

I think that's the wrong way to look at it and not very helpful.

Consider it an investment in future technology, sort of like the space
program. Not all investments in technology pan out but some do, and
frequently in a big way. Clearly there are some things that have to
happen before electric vehicles become practical, even as short range
commuter cars. Obviously battery technology has to improve so that
range can get pushed out beyond 30 miles. Another thing, not as
obvious, is that infrastructure has to be developed so that people can
recharge at their place of work or elsewhere. There is no incentive
at all to develop remote charging stations until a certain critical
mass has been reached, and standards have been developed for
interconnection and billing. The process has to start somewhere to
break the development gridlock.



But like in several other "green projects" supported by the
administration, they knew good well long before they even sunk in the
money, the technology they were using, was not up to it and could not
stand up in the free market. They might have been better to put the
money into *real* research, rather than just supplementing over priced
toys for an exclusive consumer. They know damn well, the Volt is not the
answer, not even close...

When the Rural Electric Association started putting electricity into
rural homes, people were afraid of that technology, also. When the first
automobiles were around, non-technical types were afraid of those as
well. Those people said that the auto could NEVER replace the horse and
buggy. Same argument, different time.

Yeah, but they didn't have years of research and tons of practical
information showing them clearly that the technology was not going to
work... We know the Chevy Volt, isn't gonna' work, we (the
administration) knew clearly that the manufacturing technology and
methods were a decade behind the Chinese at the Solyndra corp, but they
went ahead and financed it anyway knowing the product would never be
marketable. That is not research, that is not progress, that is a
campaign payoff. So, when you start talking about technology to be
developed, let's talk about the stuff that has a chance...

Sure it's going to work. Like ALL things technological, there's an
evolution to it. Again, same head in the sand argument, different time.

If solar panels worked they would be on everyone's roof all across the
country. If electric car were practical then they would be in more
places than golf courses and retirement communities. The problem with
electricity is that you can't go to an electric station and get 5
gallons of electricity and walk back to your electric car, on the side
of the Interstate and pour the electrons into your battery and get going
again.

The other day I was reading about the Tesla electric cars. It seems that
they are susceptible to "bricking." Bricking is where the battery is
fully discharged. Once this occurs the car becomes a brick. The wheels
won't turn, the battery won't charge and you can't do anything to get
the battery to charge again. What you can do is pay $40,000 for a new
battery once you get the electric car back to your Tesla dealer.

You can say that we need to start somewhere and I agree with that but, I
would like someone else to buy a Tesla before me.



I don't see you as the Tesla type. Thank goodness there are those
willing to take these risks. If not, a lot more babies would die from
polio.

You are correct. I can't see spending money on an all electric car. I
did buy a Nissan Versa, it is a great car. I get two weeks of driving on
a tank of gas. At today's prices for gasoline I can run my Nissan Versa
for 284,000 miles before I reach the cost of buying a Tesla S, this
includes purchasing the Versa. I will never have to replace the battery
pack in my Versa.

The important question is how many strokes did it knock off your golf score?

None, buy it can hold 4 golf bags in the trunk.


I notice a lot of the "cost" figures on the electric cars don't include
your home electric bill...

Or the cost of rebuilding your home after the fire.

What fire? The one from the ticking time bomb of a car filled with
gasoline?

Please try and keep up.

http://nlpc.org/stories/2011/11/06/c...ted-house-fire

It was big news with my wife, battery expert, and her friends.

I'll ask another way so maybe you'll get it. Have there been more fires
as a result of an electric car or a gasoline driven car?
In an attempt to level the playing field, as one great American is fond
of saying, I have rewritten your question to eliminate your bias.
What percentage of all cars catch fire?
What percentage of Chevy Volts catch fire?

--
O M G