|
Told you the Volt was dead...
On 3/6/2012 10:46 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In aweb.com, says... On 3/6/2012 9:04 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... In , says... In , says... In , says... In , says... In , says... In , says... In , says... On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 09:20:57 -0500, wrote: http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2012...lectric-lemon/ Told you, and you laughed...snerk Sometimes it pays to look at the world with an open mind... Maybe if all of the whiny-ass neo-cons would quit badmouthing the car, people would buy it. Maybe you WANT to continue supporting Arab Oil. Why would we stop bad mouthing a car that is a useless pile of junk? I have already proved that you can buy a car for $10,000 new and drive it for hundreds of thousands of miles before you reach the acquisition cost of a Volt. I don't want to support Arab Oil, I want to support US Oil. Drill here, drill now. Oil is a finite resource. Let alone old technology. Oil is a new technology. It is only about 170 years old. Now that's the typical Republican response to technology! You said the Volt was dead, obviously, you are entirely wrong again. A five week suspension in production is hardly a death. We will see if they restart production. They have dealers who refuse to order Volt's and who refuse to have Volts pushed onto them. There must be a reason that the Chevy's own dealers don't want the cars on their lots. Cite? http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/201...ers-rejection- volt-allocation/ http://www.dailytech.com/Some+Chevro...g+on+Volt+EVs+ After+Fire+Concerns+Dwindling+Customer+Interest/article23852.htm http://www.opposingviews.com/i/polit...-green-%E2%80% 9Cfield-dreams%E2%80%9D And NONE of those are peer reviewed studies, so it's just hearsay and speculation, right? I never said they were peer reviewed studies. You wanted cites to support my argument that Chevy dealers did not want Volt's on their lots because they were hard to sell. But using your standards, they have to be peer reviewed studies to be taken seriously. The medical profession has higher standards than the news profession, if you can call it a profession. So, you can use hearsay if it's not the medical profession, but if it is the medical profession, everything has to be peer reviewed? Oh, wait, I get it, if someone posts something that YOU don't' believe, it has to be peer reviewed (which I did but you've still not shown me a peer reviewed study that says second hand smoke is NOT harmful), but if you need to prove something, then hearsay is just fine. Incoherent raving. Same as plume. Incoherent? You didn't understand what I said? Need someone to help you? You seem to be the only one here who doesn't understand. Yawn! -- O M G |
What Will GE Force Its People To Drive Now
In article m,
says... On 3/6/2012 10:47 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In aweb.com, says... On 3/6/2012 9:07 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... In b.com, says... On Mon, 5 Mar 2012 09:47:44 -0500, wrote: In b.com, says... On Mon, 5 Mar 2012 08:37:06 -0500, wrote: In , says... On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 13:35:14 -0500, wrote: The jury is in on electric cars. They are the future. The problem is that there hasn't been enough R&D to make them feasible yet. The hybrid, gas-electric, is just a diesel-electric locomotive downsized with the added benefit of pulling the electricity generated from breaking and coasting to charge the batteries. The all electric needs needs work with storing enough power to be useful over a longer period of time and distance. === I think we both agree on most of those points. Where we seem to disagree is whether or not it makes sense to roll out half a loaf. Knowing full well the limitations of half a loaf, I still say yes. The reason being that getting some electric cars on the road starts to get people thinking about the infrastucture issues (like charging stations and better batteries). Same thing with alternative energy like wind and solar. If you don't start rolling some of this out to the public you end up with a perpetual chicken and egg syndrome where you can't have the chicken because you don't yet have an egg and vice versa. There are also a lot of people whose transportation needs would be well served right now by a car like the Volt. The problem is price of course, and prices will not come down until there is economy of scale, with the engineering and tooling costs amortized across a wider base. I could use a Volt right now if the price was right. It would be great for running short errands and the like, running on gas for the occasional longer trip. You are 100% correct, but it just gives the far right wing the ability to say SEE, new technology is BAD.... Got your Cheby Volt yet? Didn't think so. Me, being moderate and slightly right leaning, prefers to wait till the elec car matures and shakes out most of the bugs. Buyers who must be on the bleeding edge will pay dearly for the privilage of owning a product that ain't quite there yet. By the way, you are far too polarîzed. A common trait among democrats. What makes you think I'm a democrat, to start with? Also, Scotty and BAR claim that there will never be an electric car that works! Never say never. I'll bet you are a fiscal conservative and a social liberal.:-) Most Democrats are fiscally conservative when it comes to their own money, however, when it comes to your money they are as fiscally liberal as they can be. Typical unhinged far right winger, telling everybody else what they think and what they do. But it's ok when your boyfriend harry does it. Snerk 1. Harry's not my "boyfriend". I have true disdain for his actions. 2. No, it's not okay when Harry does it, and I've called him out on it hundreds of times right here. references please. iBoaterer, March 6, 2012 |
What Will GE Force Its People To Drive Now
In article m,
says... On 3/6/2012 10:48 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In aweb.com, says... On 3/6/2012 9:09 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... In , says... In , says... On 3/4/2012 5:20 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 13:35:14 -0500, wrote: The jury is in on electric cars. They are the future. The problem is that there hasn't been enough R&D to make them feasible yet. The hybrid, gas-electric, is just a diesel-electric locomotive downsized with the added benefit of pulling the electricity generated from breaking and coasting to charge the batteries. The all electric needs needs work with storing enough power to be useful over a longer period of time and distance. === I think we both agree on most of those points. Where we seem to disagree is whether or not it makes sense to roll out half a loaf. Knowing full well the limitations of half a loaf, I still say yes. The reason being that getting some electric cars on the road starts to get people thinking about the infrastucture issues (like charging stations and better batteries). Same thing with alternative energy like wind and solar. If you don't start rolling some of this out to the public you end up with a perpetual chicken and egg syndrome where you can't have the chicken because you don't yet have an egg and vice versa. There are also a lot of people whose transportation needs would be well served right now by a car like the Volt. The problem is price of course, and prices will not come down until there is economy of scale, with the engineering and tooling costs amortized across a wider base. I could use a Volt right now if the price was right. It would be great for running short errands and the like, running on gas for the occasional longer trip. The problem Wayne, is the administration is trying to make these cars feasible by raising the cost of the alternatives so they have talking points... Right now it takes almost ten years to recover the price of the car, when they get the gas up to 8 dollars a gallon, they can say "look, you recover your investment in three years!"... They said they were gonna' do it. I know most of you here aren't bothered by the price of gas, but that nearly 75 extra dollars a week we are spending is killing us.... New technology bad.... FOX tell me. Never install version 1.0 software. Never purchase the first versions of anything. Let someone else work out the bugs. New technology bad, FOX tell me. Do you read or listen to Fox? whooooooosh...... Plume, you couldn't woooooosh anyone. Rapid fire posting is another plume trait. Fess up now, sister. But John says I'm Kevin. I wish you stupid speculators would get your stories straight. |
What Will GE Force Its People To Drive Now
In article ,
says... On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 10:53:26 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 3/6/2012 9:11 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 20:06:14 -0500, X ` Man wrote: On 3/5/12 7:43 PM, JustWait wrote: On 3/5/2012 7:26 PM, BAR wrote: In , says... In , says... On 3/4/2012 5:20 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 13:35:14 -0500, wrote: The jury is in on electric cars. They are the future. The problem is that there hasn't been enough R&D to make them feasible yet. The hybrid, gas-electric, is just a diesel-electric locomotive downsized with the added benefit of pulling the electricity generated from breaking and coasting to charge the batteries. The all electric needs needs work with storing enough power to be useful over a longer period of time and distance. === I think we both agree on most of those points. Where we seem to disagree is whether or not it makes sense to roll out half a loaf. Knowing full well the limitations of half a loaf, I still say yes. The reason being that getting some electric cars on the road starts to get people thinking about the infrastucture issues (like charging stations and better batteries). Same thing with alternative energy like wind and solar. If you don't start rolling some of this out to the public you end up with a perpetual chicken and egg syndrome where you can't have the chicken because you don't yet have an egg and vice versa. There are also a lot of people whose transportation needs would be well served right now by a car like the Volt. The problem is price of course, and prices will not come down until there is economy of scale, with the engineering and tooling costs amortized across a wider base. I could use a Volt right now if the price was right. It would be great for running short errands and the like, running on gas for the occasional longer trip. The problem Wayne, is the administration is trying to make these cars feasible by raising the cost of the alternatives so they have talking points... Right now it takes almost ten years to recover the price of the car, when they get the gas up to 8 dollars a gallon, they can say "look, you recover your investment in three years!"... They said they were gonna' do it. I know most of you here aren't bothered by the price of gas, but that nearly 75 extra dollars a week we are spending is killing us.... New technology bad.... FOX tell me. Never install version 1.0 software. Never purchase the first versions of anything. Let someone else work out the bugs. What is Plum talking about with the "Fox tell me" crap.. The desperate whining of someone with no platform.. "The difference between Engineers and Technicians is, Engineers can draw it on paper, it takes a technician to actually make it work... :) More of the undereducated trashing those with educations. Apparently, you've never worked with an engineer that has no practical experience (or common sense). Note to Universe: Being Highly Qualified (which, in today's PC world means having papers) does NOT make one competent. But it doesn't necessarily make them INcompetent as Scotty is suggesting. I am so sick of you lying about what I said or meant... You make a good democrat... plonk again.. Gee, you almost lasted 12 hours! YOU posted this: "The difference between Engineers and Technicians is, Engineers can draw it on paper, it takes a technician to actually make it work... :) Are you saying you don't believe it then? The real world does not exist on paper or in a CAD package. Engineers, in way too large a percentage, live in their paper and CAD virtual world and simply can't fathom something that they could draw not working in the real world. There is no validity to things that don't work in the real world Cite: feel free to cite me, if you wish. I am speaking from personal experience. Simply not true. I've been in the industry all of my life, from being a laborer to an engineer. |
What Will GE Force Its People To Drive Now
In article ,
says... On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 09:11:28 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 20:06:14 -0500, X ` Man wrote: On 3/5/12 7:43 PM, JustWait wrote: On 3/5/2012 7:26 PM, BAR wrote: In , says... In , says... On 3/4/2012 5:20 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 13:35:14 -0500, wrote: The jury is in on electric cars. They are the future. The problem is that there hasn't been enough R&D to make them feasible yet. The hybrid, gas-electric, is just a diesel-electric locomotive downsized with the added benefit of pulling the electricity generated from breaking and coasting to charge the batteries. The all electric needs needs work with storing enough power to be useful over a longer period of time and distance. === I think we both agree on most of those points. Where we seem to disagree is whether or not it makes sense to roll out half a loaf. Knowing full well the limitations of half a loaf, I still say yes. The reason being that getting some electric cars on the road starts to get people thinking about the infrastucture issues (like charging stations and better batteries). Same thing with alternative energy like wind and solar. If you don't start rolling some of this out to the public you end up with a perpetual chicken and egg syndrome where you can't have the chicken because you don't yet have an egg and vice versa. There are also a lot of people whose transportation needs would be well served right now by a car like the Volt. The problem is price of course, and prices will not come down until there is economy of scale, with the engineering and tooling costs amortized across a wider base. I could use a Volt right now if the price was right. It would be great for running short errands and the like, running on gas for the occasional longer trip. The problem Wayne, is the administration is trying to make these cars feasible by raising the cost of the alternatives so they have talking points... Right now it takes almost ten years to recover the price of the car, when they get the gas up to 8 dollars a gallon, they can say "look, you recover your investment in three years!"... They said they were gonna' do it. I know most of you here aren't bothered by the price of gas, but that nearly 75 extra dollars a week we are spending is killing us.... New technology bad.... FOX tell me. Never install version 1.0 software. Never purchase the first versions of anything. Let someone else work out the bugs. What is Plum talking about with the "Fox tell me" crap.. The desperate whining of someone with no platform.. "The difference between Engineers and Technicians is, Engineers can draw it on paper, it takes a technician to actually make it work... :) More of the undereducated trashing those with educations. Apparently, you've never worked with an engineer that has no practical experience (or common sense). Note to Universe: Being Highly Qualified (which, in today's PC world means having papers) does NOT make one competent. But it doesn't necessarily make them INcompetent as Scotty is suggesting. Having only a University education certainly doesn't insure competence, either. Never said that it did. |
What Will GE Force Its People To Drive Now
On 3/6/2012 2:01 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says... On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 10:53:26 -0500, wrote: In , says... On 3/6/2012 9:11 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 20:06:14 -0500, X ` Man wrote: On 3/5/12 7:43 PM, JustWait wrote: On 3/5/2012 7:26 PM, BAR wrote: In , says... In , says... On 3/4/2012 5:20 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 13:35:14 -0500, wrote: The jury is in on electric cars. They are the future. The problem is that there hasn't been enough R&D to make them feasible yet. The hybrid, gas-electric, is just a diesel-electric locomotive downsized with the added benefit of pulling the electricity generated from breaking and coasting to charge the batteries. The all electric needs needs work with storing enough power to be useful over a longer period of time and distance. === I think we both agree on most of those points. Where we seem to disagree is whether or not it makes sense to roll out half a loaf. Knowing full well the limitations of half a loaf, I still say yes. The reason being that getting some electric cars on the road starts to get people thinking about the infrastucture issues (like charging stations and better batteries). Same thing with alternative energy like wind and solar. If you don't start rolling some of this out to the public you end up with a perpetual chicken and egg syndrome where you can't have the chicken because you don't yet have an egg and vice versa. There are also a lot of people whose transportation needs would be well served right now by a car like the Volt. The problem is price of course, and prices will not come down until there is economy of scale, with the engineering and tooling costs amortized across a wider base. I could use a Volt right now if the price was right. It would be great for running short errands and the like, running on gas for the occasional longer trip. The problem Wayne, is the administration is trying to make these cars feasible by raising the cost of the alternatives so they have talking points... Right now it takes almost ten years to recover the price of the car, when they get the gas up to 8 dollars a gallon, they can say "look, you recover your investment in three years!"... They said they were gonna' do it. I know most of you here aren't bothered by the price of gas, but that nearly 75 extra dollars a week we are spending is killing us.... New technology bad.... FOX tell me. Never install version 1.0 software. Never purchase the first versions of anything. Let someone else work out the bugs. What is Plum talking about with the "Fox tell me" crap.. The desperate whining of someone with no platform.. "The difference between Engineers and Technicians is, Engineers can draw it on paper, it takes a technician to actually make it work... :) More of the undereducated trashing those with educations. Apparently, you've never worked with an engineer that has no practical experience (or common sense). Note to Universe: Being Highly Qualified (which, in today's PC world means having papers) does NOT make one competent. But it doesn't necessarily make them INcompetent as Scotty is suggesting. I am so sick of you lying about what I said or meant... You make a good democrat...plonk again.. Gee, you almost lasted 12 hours! YOU posted this: "The difference between Engineers and Technicians is, Engineers can draw it on paper, it takes a technician to actually make it work... :) Are you saying you don't believe it then? The real world does not exist on paper or in a CAD package. Engineers, in way too large a percentage, live in their paper and CAD virtual world and simply can't fathom something that they could draw not working in the real world. There is no validity to things that don't work in the real world Cite: feel free to cite me, if you wish. I am speaking from personal experience. Simply not true. I've been in the industry all of my life, from being a laborer to an engineer. Which specific industry are you in? -- O M G |
What Will GE Force Its People To Drive Now
|
What Will GE Force Its People To Drive Now
On 3/6/2012 12:37 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In aweb.com, says... On 3/6/2012 10:48 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In aweb.com, says... On 3/6/2012 9:09 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... In , says... In , says... On 3/4/2012 5:20 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 13:35:14 -0500, wrote: The jury is in on electric cars. They are the future. The problem is that there hasn't been enough R&D to make them feasible yet. The hybrid, gas-electric, is just a diesel-electric locomotive downsized with the added benefit of pulling the electricity generated from breaking and coasting to charge the batteries. The all electric needs needs work with storing enough power to be useful over a longer period of time and distance. === I think we both agree on most of those points. Where we seem to disagree is whether or not it makes sense to roll out half a loaf. Knowing full well the limitations of half a loaf, I still say yes. The reason being that getting some electric cars on the road starts to get people thinking about the infrastucture issues (like charging stations and better batteries). Same thing with alternative energy like wind and solar. If you don't start rolling some of this out to the public you end up with a perpetual chicken and egg syndrome where you can't have the chicken because you don't yet have an egg and vice versa. There are also a lot of people whose transportation needs would be well served right now by a car like the Volt. The problem is price of course, and prices will not come down until there is economy of scale, with the engineering and tooling costs amortized across a wider base. I could use a Volt right now if the price was right. It would be great for running short errands and the like, running on gas for the occasional longer trip. The problem Wayne, is the administration is trying to make these cars feasible by raising the cost of the alternatives so they have talking points... Right now it takes almost ten years to recover the price of the car, when they get the gas up to 8 dollars a gallon, they can say "look, you recover your investment in three years!"... They said they were gonna' do it. I know most of you here aren't bothered by the price of gas, but that nearly 75 extra dollars a week we are spending is killing us.... New technology bad.... FOX tell me. Never install version 1.0 software. Never purchase the first versions of anything. Let someone else work out the bugs. New technology bad, FOX tell me. Do you read or listen to Fox? whooooooosh...... Plume, you couldn't woooooosh anyone. Rapid fire posting is another plume trait. Fess up now, sister. But John says I'm Kevin. I wish you stupid speculators would get your stories straight. I have no recollection of any Kevins ever posting here -- O M G |
What Will GE Force Its People To Drive Now
In article om, 5@
5.com says... On 3/6/2012 2:01 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 10:53:26 -0500, wrote: In , says... On 3/6/2012 9:11 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 20:06:14 -0500, X ` Man wrote: On 3/5/12 7:43 PM, JustWait wrote: On 3/5/2012 7:26 PM, BAR wrote: In , says... In , says... On 3/4/2012 5:20 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 13:35:14 -0500, wrote: The jury is in on electric cars. They are the future. The problem is that there hasn't been enough R&D to make them feasible yet. The hybrid, gas-electric, is just a diesel-electric locomotive downsized with the added benefit of pulling the electricity generated from breaking and coasting to charge the batteries. The all electric needs needs work with storing enough power to be useful over a longer period of time and distance. === I think we both agree on most of those points. Where we seem to disagree is whether or not it makes sense to roll out half a loaf. Knowing full well the limitations of half a loaf, I still say yes. The reason being that getting some electric cars on the road starts to get people thinking about the infrastucture issues (like charging stations and better batteries). Same thing with alternative energy like wind and solar. If you don't start rolling some of this out to the public you end up with a perpetual chicken and egg syndrome where you can't have the chicken because you don't yet have an egg and vice versa. There are also a lot of people whose transportation needs would be well served right now by a car like the Volt. The problem is price of course, and prices will not come down until there is economy of scale, with the engineering and tooling costs amortized across a wider base. I could use a Volt right now if the price was right. It would be great for running short errands and the like, running on gas for the occasional longer trip. The problem Wayne, is the administration is trying to make these cars feasible by raising the cost of the alternatives so they have talking points... Right now it takes almost ten years to recover the price of the car, when they get the gas up to 8 dollars a gallon, they can say "look, you recover your investment in three years!"... They said they were gonna' do it. I know most of you here aren't bothered by the price of gas, but that nearly 75 extra dollars a week we are spending is killing us.... New technology bad.... FOX tell me. Never install version 1.0 software. Never purchase the first versions of anything. Let someone else work out the bugs. What is Plum talking about with the "Fox tell me" crap.. The desperate whining of someone with no platform.. "The difference between Engineers and Technicians is, Engineers can draw it on paper, it takes a technician to actually make it work... :) More of the undereducated trashing those with educations. Apparently, you've never worked with an engineer that has no practical experience (or common sense). Note to Universe: Being Highly Qualified (which, in today's PC world means having papers) does NOT make one competent. But it doesn't necessarily make them INcompetent as Scotty is suggesting. I am so sick of you lying about what I said or meant... You make a good democrat...plonk again.. Gee, you almost lasted 12 hours! YOU posted this: "The difference between Engineers and Technicians is, Engineers can draw it on paper, it takes a technician to actually make it work... :) Are you saying you don't believe it then? The real world does not exist on paper or in a CAD package. Engineers, in way too large a percentage, live in their paper and CAD virtual world and simply can't fathom something that they could draw not working in the real world. There is no validity to things that don't work in the real world Cite: feel free to cite me, if you wish. I am speaking from personal experience. Simply not true. I've been in the industry all of my life, from being a laborer to an engineer. Which specific industry are you in? Construction. |
What Will GE Force Its People To Drive Now
In article ,
says... On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 14:01:13 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 10:53:26 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 3/6/2012 9:11 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 20:06:14 -0500, X ` Man wrote: On 3/5/12 7:43 PM, JustWait wrote: On 3/5/2012 7:26 PM, BAR wrote: In , says... In , says... On 3/4/2012 5:20 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 13:35:14 -0500, wrote: The jury is in on electric cars. They are the future. The problem is that there hasn't been enough R&D to make them feasible yet. The hybrid, gas-electric, is just a diesel-electric locomotive downsized with the added benefit of pulling the electricity generated from breaking and coasting to charge the batteries. The all electric needs needs work with storing enough power to be useful over a longer period of time and distance. === I think we both agree on most of those points. Where we seem to disagree is whether or not it makes sense to roll out half a loaf. Knowing full well the limitations of half a loaf, I still say yes. The reason being that getting some electric cars on the road starts to get people thinking about the infrastucture issues (like charging stations and better batteries). Same thing with alternative energy like wind and solar. If you don't start rolling some of this out to the public you end up with a perpetual chicken and egg syndrome where you can't have the chicken because you don't yet have an egg and vice versa. There are also a lot of people whose transportation needs would be well served right now by a car like the Volt. The problem is price of course, and prices will not come down until there is economy of scale, with the engineering and tooling costs amortized across a wider base. I could use a Volt right now if the price was right. It would be great for running short errands and the like, running on gas for the occasional longer trip. The problem Wayne, is the administration is trying to make these cars feasible by raising the cost of the alternatives so they have talking points... Right now it takes almost ten years to recover the price of the car, when they get the gas up to 8 dollars a gallon, they can say "look, you recover your investment in three years!"... They said they were gonna' do it. I know most of you here aren't bothered by the price of gas, but that nearly 75 extra dollars a week we are spending is killing us.... New technology bad.... FOX tell me. Never install version 1.0 software. Never purchase the first versions of anything. Let someone else work out the bugs. What is Plum talking about with the "Fox tell me" crap.. The desperate whining of someone with no platform.. "The difference between Engineers and Technicians is, Engineers can draw it on paper, it takes a technician to actually make it work... :) More of the undereducated trashing those with educations. Apparently, you've never worked with an engineer that has no practical experience (or common sense). Note to Universe: Being Highly Qualified (which, in today's PC world means having papers) does NOT make one competent. But it doesn't necessarily make them INcompetent as Scotty is suggesting. I am so sick of you lying about what I said or meant... You make a good democrat... plonk again.. Gee, you almost lasted 12 hours! YOU posted this: "The difference between Engineers and Technicians is, Engineers can draw it on paper, it takes a technician to actually make it work... :) Are you saying you don't believe it then? The real world does not exist on paper or in a CAD package. Engineers, in way too large a percentage, live in their paper and CAD virtual world and simply can't fathom something that they could draw not working in the real world. There is no validity to things that don't work in the real world Cite: feel free to cite me, if you wish. I am speaking from personal experience. Simply not true. I've been in the industry all of my life, from being a laborer to an engineer. The opinion of an engineer. Noted. Yes, a LOT of uninformed silly people think that engineers don't think things out. Noted. |
What Will GE Force Its People To Drive Now
On 3/6/2012 3:28 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In raweb.com, 5@ 5.com says... On 3/6/2012 2:01 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 10:53:26 -0500, wrote: In , says... On 3/6/2012 9:11 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 20:06:14 -0500, X ` Man wrote: On 3/5/12 7:43 PM, JustWait wrote: On 3/5/2012 7:26 PM, BAR wrote: In , says... In , says... On 3/4/2012 5:20 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 13:35:14 -0500, wrote: The jury is in on electric cars. They are the future. The problem is that there hasn't been enough R&D to make them feasible yet. The hybrid, gas-electric, is just a diesel-electric locomotive downsized with the added benefit of pulling the electricity generated from breaking and coasting to charge the batteries. The all electric needs needs work with storing enough power to be useful over a longer period of time and distance. === I think we both agree on most of those points. Where we seem to disagree is whether or not it makes sense to roll out half a loaf. Knowing full well the limitations of half a loaf, I still say yes. The reason being that getting some electric cars on the road starts to get people thinking about the infrastucture issues (like charging stations and better batteries). Same thing with alternative energy like wind and solar. If you don't start rolling some of this out to the public you end up with a perpetual chicken and egg syndrome where you can't have the chicken because you don't yet have an egg and vice versa. There are also a lot of people whose transportation needs would be well served right now by a car like the Volt. The problem is price of course, and prices will not come down until there is economy of scale, with the engineering and tooling costs amortized across a wider base. I could use a Volt right now if the price was right. It would be great for running short errands and the like, running on gas for the occasional longer trip. The problem Wayne, is the administration is trying to make these cars feasible by raising the cost of the alternatives so they have talking points... Right now it takes almost ten years to recover the price of the car, when they get the gas up to 8 dollars a gallon, they can say "look, you recover your investment in three years!"... They said they were gonna' do it. I know most of you here aren't bothered by the price of gas, but that nearly 75 extra dollars a week we are spending is killing us.... New technology bad.... FOX tell me. Never install version 1.0 software. Never purchase the first versions of anything. Let someone else work out the bugs. What is Plum talking about with the "Fox tell me" crap.. The desperate whining of someone with no platform.. "The difference between Engineers and Technicians is, Engineers can draw it on paper, it takes a technician to actually make it work... :) More of the undereducated trashing those with educations. Apparently, you've never worked with an engineer that has no practical experience (or common sense). Note to Universe: Being Highly Qualified (which, in today's PC world means having papers) does NOT make one competent. But it doesn't necessarily make them INcompetent as Scotty is suggesting. I am so sick of you lying about what I said or meant... You make a good democrat...plonk again.. Gee, you almost lasted 12 hours! YOU posted this: "The difference between Engineers and Technicians is, Engineers can draw it on paper, it takes a technician to actually make it work... :) Are you saying you don't believe it then? The real world does not exist on paper or in a CAD package. Engineers, in way too large a percentage, live in their paper and CAD virtual world and simply can't fathom something that they could draw not working in the real world. There is no validity to things that don't work in the real world Cite: feel free to cite me, if you wish. I am speaking from personal experience. Simply not true. I've been in the industry all of my life, from being a laborer to an engineer. Which specific industry are you in? Construction. You assemble things that architechs design? -- O M G |
What Will GE Force Its People To Drive Now
On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 10:33:41 -0500, Oscar wrote:
On 3/6/2012 9:24 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 14:18:13 -0500, wrote: On 3/5/2012 1:58 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 13:33:35 -0500, wrote: On 3/5/2012 11:03 AM, Happy John wrote: On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 09:51:10 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 09:19:14 -0500, X ` Man wrote: On 3/5/12 9:12 AM, Happy John wrote: On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 08:33:12 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 08:20:52 -0500, Happy wrote: On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 21:57:19 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 18:48:21 -0500, wrote: They said they were gonna' do it. I know most of you here aren't bothered by the price of gas, but that nearly 75 extra dollars a week we are spending is killing us.... === I think everyone is affected by the price of gas to one extent or another. My suggestion to people who do a lot of driving is to get a more fuel efficient vehicle if at all possible. My truck is getting expensive at $80+ per fill up. I find it very strange that we don't have the large variety of small, fuel efficient diesels like they do in Europe. My gut feel is that it is yet another head-in-the-sand Detroit issue. Last year we drove a full size Volkswagon diesel van through the mountains of France, Switzerland and northern Italy. It had plenty of power, seating for 6 adults, and a huge amount of luggage space. Average fuel economy was better than 20 mpg. Good point. If the VW diesel van had not been withdrawn from the US market, that's probably what we'd have been doing our camping in. Of course, the Mercedes Sprinter is available, but they ain't cheap. What you just bought is way more beterer :-) Well, it's definitely roomierer! Lots of room to store a spare 500-gallon fuel tank? :) Seriously, what sort of mileage do you anticipate? I hope you get at least 10 mpg. I'd be tickled pink if my barge got even close to 10 MPG. I expect to get about 12-14 with the trailer. I'm considering one of these, but don't know if they're worthwhile: http://www.bullydog.com/product.php?ID=2 I think I'll start a separate thread to see if anyone knows anything about them. And, BTW, I don't think Harry can ask something serious, which is why I responded to you. If that thing can get your engine to open it's mouth wider it might be worth the 600 bucks. Otherwise dunno what you can do. A few of the camping forum guys recommend getting the smog crap off the engine. But, they don't get specific enough. You'll void any warranty you have doing that. IIRC, it's a federal rap too.... Maybe that's just if a garage does it... Kevin's warranty comment lead me to get out the warranty book again. I'd thought the warranty was for three years or 36000. But, the Duramax is for five years or 100,000 miles. Now all thoughts of any engine mods are out the window for a couple years! Hey, John, just a warning. Keep calling me who I'm not, I'm sure it's ****ing Kevin off. In order to play your game, asshole, I'll post your phone number, and your address. Go ahead, ****head. Try me. You have just proven yourself to be a worse slimeball than Harry. Plume, you have reached a new low. Can't figure that guy out. I refer to an email from Kevin and iboater gets all ****ed off. Strange as hell. Besides, my phone number and address has been posted here before. |
What Will GE Force Its People To Drive Now
In article m,
says... On 3/6/2012 3:28 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In raweb.com, 5@ 5.com says... On 3/6/2012 2:01 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 10:53:26 -0500, wrote: In , says... On 3/6/2012 9:11 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 20:06:14 -0500, X ` Man wrote: On 3/5/12 7:43 PM, JustWait wrote: On 3/5/2012 7:26 PM, BAR wrote: In , says... In , says... On 3/4/2012 5:20 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 13:35:14 -0500, wrote: The jury is in on electric cars. They are the future. The problem is that there hasn't been enough R&D to make them feasible yet. The hybrid, gas-electric, is just a diesel-electric locomotive downsized with the added benefit of pulling the electricity generated from breaking and coasting to charge the batteries. The all electric needs needs work with storing enough power to be useful over a longer period of time and distance. === I think we both agree on most of those points. Where we seem to disagree is whether or not it makes sense to roll out half a loaf. Knowing full well the limitations of half a loaf, I still say yes. The reason being that getting some electric cars on the road starts to get people thinking about the infrastucture issues (like charging stations and better batteries). Same thing with alternative energy like wind and solar. If you don't start rolling some of this out to the public you end up with a perpetual chicken and egg syndrome where you can't have the chicken because you don't yet have an egg and vice versa. There are also a lot of people whose transportation needs would be well served right now by a car like the Volt. The problem is price of course, and prices will not come down until there is economy of scale, with the engineering and tooling costs amortized across a wider base. I could use a Volt right now if the price was right. It would be great for running short errands and the like, running on gas for the occasional longer trip. The problem Wayne, is the administration is trying to make these cars feasible by raising the cost of the alternatives so they have talking points... Right now it takes almost ten years to recover the price of the car, when they get the gas up to 8 dollars a gallon, they can say "look, you recover your investment in three years!"... They said they were gonna' do it. I know most of you here aren't bothered by the price of gas, but that nearly 75 extra dollars a week we are spending is killing us.... New technology bad.... FOX tell me. Never install version 1.0 software. Never purchase the first versions of anything. Let someone else work out the bugs. What is Plum talking about with the "Fox tell me" crap.. The desperate whining of someone with no platform.. "The difference between Engineers and Technicians is, Engineers can draw it on paper, it takes a technician to actually make it work... :) More of the undereducated trashing those with educations. Apparently, you've never worked with an engineer that has no practical experience (or common sense). Note to Universe: Being Highly Qualified (which, in today's PC world means having papers) does NOT make one competent. But it doesn't necessarily make them INcompetent as Scotty is suggesting. I am so sick of you lying about what I said or meant... You make a good democrat...plonk again.. Gee, you almost lasted 12 hours! YOU posted this: "The difference between Engineers and Technicians is, Engineers can draw it on paper, it takes a technician to actually make it work... :) Are you saying you don't believe it then? The real world does not exist on paper or in a CAD package. Engineers, in way too large a percentage, live in their paper and CAD virtual world and simply can't fathom something that they could draw not working in the real world. There is no validity to things that don't work in the real world Cite: feel free to cite me, if you wish. I am speaking from personal experience. Simply not true. I've been in the industry all of my life, from being a laborer to an engineer. Which specific industry are you in? Construction. You assemble things that architechs design? No. |
Told you the Volt was dead...
On 3/6/12 6:21 AM, BAR wrote:
In , dump-on- says... On 3/5/12 8:21 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 09:40:14 -0500, X ` Man wrote: In most cases the "speculator" is the logistics manager for some large petroleum consumer who is trying to do their job by locking up sufficient future supplies. I will grant what you say with this modification: "In some cases, the speculator is the logistics manager..." ====== Let's take an example that everyone understands. Most people fill up the tank of their car when it starts getting low, possibly less than a quarter of a tank give or take. However, if there is talk of a possible shortage or a major price increase, many people would start filling up more often, oerhaps when half full or even 3/4ths. Does that make them speculators? The exact same thing happens with logistics managers who are hired to ensure adequate future deliveries. Does that cause an increse in demand and increased auction prices? Of course it does. Does that make them speculators? And when they sell what they bought on a futures market? They're not speculating? We now know why you sold your dad's boat business when he died. You haven't got a clue as to how to operate a profitable business. I sold the boat business because I didn't want to be in the retail boat business. Nothing more. |
Told you the Volt was dead...
In article ,
says... In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 09:40:14 -0500, X ` Man wrote: In most cases the "speculator" is the logistics manager for some large petroleum consumer who is trying to do their job by locking up sufficient future supplies. I will grant what you say with this modification: "In some cases, the speculator is the logistics manager..." ====== Let's take an example that everyone understands. Most people fill up the tank of their car when it starts getting low, possibly less than a quarter of a tank give or take. However, if there is talk of a possible shortage or a major price increase, many people would start filling up more often, oerhaps when half full or even 3/4ths. Does that make them speculators? The exact same thing happens with logistics managers who are hired to ensure adequate future deliveries. Does that cause an increse in demand and increased auction prices? Of course it does. Does that make them speculators? What's your point? Most people know how commodity suppliers and consumers lock in future prices. The fact is speculators run the show. 70% of oil contracts are held by Wall Street banks and hedge funds. Pure speculation by the one-percenters. They don't produce oil or buy it in bulk. They shuffle and trade paper to suck up money any way they can. The 99-percent provide the money when they pay for oil. That's the face of it. Put all the make-up you want on it. It's still the same face. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/05/1...explains-more- about.html Are you saying you want all commodities futures trading to be made illegal? The farmers would revolt. Only one who said that is you - cocksucker. Why are you so disagreeable? |
Told you the Volt was dead...
|
Told you the Volt was dead...
In article ,
says... On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 08:56:06 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 06:50:09 -0500, wrote: Because it's not strategic in the long run. The energy situation has to be viewed as a global chess game. He who finishes with the last oil wins. That is ridiculous. He who finishes last will be the one that has energy resources to continue playing. Those depending on oil will be the first ones out of the game. === Those depending on oil for *energy* will be the first ones out. The real value of oil is as an industrial feedstock and high efficiency transportation fuel (jet aviation). That is a joke, right? If you are desperate for a cite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_eng...ive_efficiency http://njchp.rutgers.edu/files/Recip...ng_Engines.pdf Something has to get those vehicles moving from 0 MPH. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Energy_density.svg |
Told you the Volt was dead...
In article ,
says... On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 18:57:23 -0500, BAR wrote: In article , says... On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 10:00:39 -0800, "Califbill" wrote: wrote in message ... On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 10:36:10 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2012...lectric-lemon/ Told you, and you laughed... snerk Sometimes it pays to look at the world with an open mind... Has nothing to do with the technology and everything to do with the sales. It has everything to do with the COST of the technology tho. Basically the problem is battery cost vs price. These things are rich man's toys. If saving money is your objective, buy a Cruze and put the left over $20,000-30,000 toward gas. I understand the government will subsidize your electric car purchase to make that price delta look more attractive but that does not reduce the cost, it only transfers it to people who can't afford to buy one. ----------------------------------- Very true. Look at the subsidy for a Tesla. Average income of a Tesla buyer? $250k. As to technology. In 1919 an electric car got 30 miles to the charge. What does a Volt get? 30 miles. Not a lot of technology improvement in nearly a 100 years. Still down to battery technology. Plus where is the power to charge going to come from? They say no pollution. What about that coal or oil fired generating plant? Actually they had a range of about 100 miles, but you'd probably bitch about the 20 mph top speed, the eisenglass windows, and no gasoline backup. It appears that the same problems they were having 100 years ago with electric vehicles are the same problems they have today. http://inventors.about.com/od/estart...c-Vehicles.htm The initiation of mass production of internal combustion engine vehicles by Henry Ford made these vehicles widely available and affordable in the $500 to $1,000 price range. By contrast, the price of the less efficiently produced electric vehicles continued to rise. In 1912, an electric roadster sold for $1,750, while a gasoline car sold for $650. I'm waiting on the fuel cell. You people talk like the Wright Brothers were idiots for not building the 747, first. Maybe Edison should have invented the halogen bulb, first. You will notice that the Wright brothers plane runs on the same fuel that today's 747 runs on. I don't know where you came up with that gem of misinformation, but it is demonstrably totally wrong. (Like the rest of your assertions.) The response you'll type to this will be possible because of all of the money spent 50+ years ago on the space program, which a lot of people said was idiotic and useless. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet Things change and the gas station as we know it is on the same path as the blacksmith at the end of the 19th century. The fueling station will not change for another 50 years. You will soon be proven wrong. Look for LPG light trucks and cars in the next model year or so, with road tractors soon to follow. It will be a small leap to add electrical power. http://www.extraordinaryroadtrip.org/research- library/technology/liqufied-petroleum/ad-draw.asp The drawbacks of LPG include: In cold conditions, below 32 degrees Fahrenheit, starting could be a problem because of the low vapor pressure of propane at low temperatures. One gallon of LPG contains less energy than a gallon of gasoline. The driving range of a propane vehicle is about 14 percent lower than a comparable gasoline-powered vehicle. LPG is generally higher priced than other fuel alternatives such as CNG and gasoline. There are over 4,000 LPG refueling sites in the US, more than all of the other alternative fuels combined. Most of these stations, however, are not readily available to consumers on a 24/7 basis. This is one of the reasons why most on-road applications are bi-fuel vehicles, which burn LPG and gasoline. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Energy_density.svg You will notice that the Lion battery is way down near 0,0. The Lion battery's days are numbered. Better technology is just around the corner. They are working on the heat problem. They haven't come up with anything better, NiMh isn't any better. The plastic batteries are not ready for prime time. And the ceramic batteries are not cost effective to manufacture. |
Told you the Volt was dead...
On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 18:23:17 -0500, BAR wrote:
In article , says... On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 13:11:08 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 09:53:09 -0500, oscar wrote: What's the point of selling this country's natural resources overseas? I hope your answer isn't "making money." Why? === Because it's not strategic in the long run. The energy situation has to be viewed as a global chess game. He who finishes with the last oil wins. That is ridiculous. He who finishes last will be the one that has energy resources to continue playing. Those depending on oil will be the first ones out of the game. What do you know about hydrogen fuel cells? Promising technology, not ready for prime time unfortunately. What do you know about nuclear powered planes and cars? That's a real long shot unless someone comes up with small scale fusion. Right now they've been working on large scale fusion for over 50 years and we're not even close yet. Like I said however, the real value of oil in the long term is not as a fuel. |
Told you the Volt was dead...
|
Told you the Volt was dead...
|
Told you the Volt was dead...
On 3/6/12 11:25 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 3/6/2012 11:15 PM, wrote: On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 21:44:41 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: What do you know about nuclear powered planes and cars? That's a real long shot unless someone comes up with small scale fusion. Right now they've been working on large scale fusion for over 50 years and we're not even close yet. Once we get that flux capacitor thing worked out we will have a fusion car. And until then, we will use gas... D'oh. You're a funny little guy. |
Told you the Volt was dead...
In article , says...
On 3/6/2012 11:15 PM, wrote: On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 21:44:41 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: What do you know about nuclear powered planes and cars? That's a real long shot unless someone comes up with small scale fusion. Right now they've been working on large scale fusion for over 50 years and we're not even close yet. Once we get that flux capacitor thing worked out we will have a fusion car. And until then, we will use gas... Want to bet? |
Told you the Volt was dead...
In article ,
says... In article , says... On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 18:57:23 -0500, BAR wrote: In article , says... On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 10:00:39 -0800, "Califbill" wrote: wrote in message ... On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 10:36:10 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2012...lectric-lemon/ Told you, and you laughed... snerk Sometimes it pays to look at the world with an open mind... Has nothing to do with the technology and everything to do with the sales. It has everything to do with the COST of the technology tho. Basically the problem is battery cost vs price. These things are rich man's toys. If saving money is your objective, buy a Cruze and put the left over $20,000-30,000 toward gas. I understand the government will subsidize your electric car purchase to make that price delta look more attractive but that does not reduce the cost, it only transfers it to people who can't afford to buy one. ----------------------------------- Very true. Look at the subsidy for a Tesla. Average income of a Tesla buyer? $250k. As to technology. In 1919 an electric car got 30 miles to the charge. What does a Volt get? 30 miles. Not a lot of technology improvement in nearly a 100 years. Still down to battery technology. Plus where is the power to charge going to come from? They say no pollution. What about that coal or oil fired generating plant? Actually they had a range of about 100 miles, but you'd probably bitch about the 20 mph top speed, the eisenglass windows, and no gasoline backup. It appears that the same problems they were having 100 years ago with electric vehicles are the same problems they have today. http://inventors.about.com/od/estart...c-Vehicles.htm The initiation of mass production of internal combustion engine vehicles by Henry Ford made these vehicles widely available and affordable in the $500 to $1,000 price range. By contrast, the price of the less efficiently produced electric vehicles continued to rise. In 1912, an electric roadster sold for $1,750, while a gasoline car sold for $650. I'm waiting on the fuel cell. You people talk like the Wright Brothers were idiots for not building the 747, first. Maybe Edison should have invented the halogen bulb, first. You will notice that the Wright brothers plane runs on the same fuel that today's 747 runs on. I don't know where you came up with that gem of misinformation, but it is demonstrably totally wrong. (Like the rest of your assertions.) The response you'll type to this will be possible because of all of the money spent 50+ years ago on the space program, which a lot of people said was idiotic and useless. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet Things change and the gas station as we know it is on the same path as the blacksmith at the end of the 19th century. The fueling station will not change for another 50 years. You will soon be proven wrong. Look for LPG light trucks and cars in the next model year or so, with road tractors soon to follow. It will be a small leap to add electrical power. http://www.extraordinaryroadtrip.org/research- library/technology/liqufied-petroleum/ad-draw.asp The drawbacks of LPG include: In cold conditions, below 32 degrees Fahrenheit, starting could be a problem because of the low vapor pressure of propane at low temperatures. One gallon of LPG contains less energy than a gallon of gasoline. The driving range of a propane vehicle is about 14 percent lower than a comparable gasoline-powered vehicle. LPG is generally higher priced than other fuel alternatives such as CNG and gasoline. There are over 4,000 LPG refueling sites in the US, more than all of the other alternative fuels combined. Most of these stations, however, are not readily available to consumers on a 24/7 basis. This is one of the reasons why most on-road applications are bi-fuel vehicles, which burn LPG and gasoline. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Energy_density.svg You will notice that the Lion battery is way down near 0,0. The Lion battery's days are numbered. Better technology is just around the corner. They are working on the heat problem. They haven't come up with anything better, NiMh isn't any better. The plastic batteries are not ready for prime time. And the ceramic batteries are not cost effective to manufacture. LPG is NOT higher priced than gasoline. |
Told you the Volt was dead...
In article ,
says... In article , says... On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 18:36:58 -0500, BAR wrote: LPG is generally higher priced than other fuel alternatives such as CNG and gasoline. Wrong. I buy 33# forklift tanks for just over $14.00. That is about $2.23/gallon at an 80% fill. Don't argue with me, argue with the website where I got the information, asshole. Typical. |
Told you the Volt was dead...
In article ,
says... On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 08:43:02 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 3/6/2012 11:15 PM, wrote: On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 21:44:41 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: What do you know about nuclear powered planes and cars? That's a real long shot unless someone comes up with small scale fusion. Right now they've been working on large scale fusion for over 50 years and we're not even close yet. Once we get that flux capacitor thing worked out we will have a fusion car. And until then, we will use gas... Want to bet? Oh, he could be right! I still see people using a horse and buggy. They haven't got past hay to gasoline. Like them, he hasn't bought into the next fuel, either. Giddy up. And if you post a website to him, he wants it peer reviewed, blah, blah blah..... |
Told you the Volt was dead...
On 3/7/2012 8:46 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says... In , says... On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 18:57:23 -0500, wrote: In , says... On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 10:00:39 -0800, "Califbill" wrote: wrote in message ... On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 10:36:10 -0500, wrote: In , says... http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2012...lectric-lemon/ Told you, and you laughed...snerk Sometimes it pays to look at the world with an open mind... Has nothing to do with the technology and everything to do with the sales. It has everything to do with the COST of the technology tho. Basically the problem is battery cost vs price. These things are rich man's toys. If saving money is your objective, buy a Cruze and put the left over $20,000-30,000 toward gas. I understand the government will subsidize your electric car purchase to make that price delta look more attractive but that does not reduce the cost, it only transfers it to people who can't afford to buy one. ----------------------------------- Very true. Look at the subsidy for a Tesla. Average income of a Tesla buyer? $250k. As to technology. In 1919 an electric car got 30 miles to the charge. What does a Volt get? 30 miles. Not a lot of technology improvement in nearly a 100 years. Still down to battery technology. Plus where is the power to charge going to come from? They say no pollution. What about that coal or oil fired generating plant? Actually they had a range of about 100 miles, but you'd probably bitch about the 20 mph top speed, the eisenglass windows, and no gasoline backup. It appears that the same problems they were having 100 years ago with electric vehicles are the same problems they have today. http://inventors.about.com/od/estart...c-Vehicles.htm The initiation of mass production of internal combustion engine vehicles by Henry Ford made these vehicles widely available and affordable in the $500 to $1,000 price range. By contrast, the price of the less efficiently produced electric vehicles continued to rise. In 1912, an electric roadster sold for $1,750, while a gasoline car sold for $650. I'm waiting on the fuel cell. You people talk like the Wright Brothers were idiots for not building the 747, first. Maybe Edison should have invented the halogen bulb, first. You will notice that the Wright brothers plane runs on the same fuel that today's 747 runs on. I don't know where you came up with that gem of misinformation, but it is demonstrably totally wrong. (Like the rest of your assertions.) The response you'll type to this will be possible because of all of the money spent 50+ years ago on the space program, which a lot of people said was idiotic and useless. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet Things change and the gas station as we know it is on the same path as the blacksmith at the end of the 19th century. The fueling station will not change for another 50 years. You will soon be proven wrong. Look for LPG light trucks and cars in the next model year or so, with road tractors soon to follow. It will be a small leap to add electrical power. http://www.extraordinaryroadtrip.org/research- library/technology/liqufied-petroleum/ad-draw.asp The drawbacks of LPG include: In cold conditions, below 32 degrees Fahrenheit, starting could be a problem because of the low vapor pressure of propane at low temperatures. One gallon of LPG contains less energy than a gallon of gasoline. The driving range of a propane vehicle is about 14 percent lower than a comparable gasoline-powered vehicle. LPG is generally higher priced than other fuel alternatives such as CNG and gasoline. There are over 4,000 LPG refueling sites in the US, more than all of the other alternative fuels combined. Most of these stations, however, are not readily available to consumers on a 24/7 basis. This is one of the reasons why most on-road applications are bi-fuel vehicles, which burn LPG and gasoline. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Energy_density.svg You will notice that the Lion battery is way down near 0,0. The Lion battery's days are numbered. Better technology is just around the corner. They are working on the heat problem. They haven't come up with anything better, NiMh isn't any better. The plastic batteries are not ready for prime time. And the ceramic batteries are not cost effective to manufacture. LPG is NOT higher priced than gasoline. By what measure? -- O M G |
Told you the Volt was dead...
In article ,
says... On 3/7/2012 8:46 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... In , says... On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 18:57:23 -0500, wrote: In , says... On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 10:00:39 -0800, "Califbill" wrote: wrote in message ... On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 10:36:10 -0500, wrote: In , says... http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2012...lectric-lemon/ Told you, and you laughed...snerk Sometimes it pays to look at the world with an open mind... Has nothing to do with the technology and everything to do with the sales. It has everything to do with the COST of the technology tho. Basically the problem is battery cost vs price. These things are rich man's toys. If saving money is your objective, buy a Cruze and put the left over $20,000-30,000 toward gas. I understand the government will subsidize your electric car purchase to make that price delta look more attractive but that does not reduce the cost, it only transfers it to people who can't afford to buy one. ----------------------------------- Very true. Look at the subsidy for a Tesla. Average income of a Tesla buyer? $250k. As to technology. In 1919 an electric car got 30 miles to the charge. What does a Volt get? 30 miles. Not a lot of technology improvement in nearly a 100 years. Still down to battery technology. Plus where is the power to charge going to come from? They say no pollution. What about that coal or oil fired generating plant? Actually they had a range of about 100 miles, but you'd probably bitch about the 20 mph top speed, the eisenglass windows, and no gasoline backup. It appears that the same problems they were having 100 years ago with electric vehicles are the same problems they have today. http://inventors.about.com/od/estart...c-Vehicles.htm The initiation of mass production of internal combustion engine vehicles by Henry Ford made these vehicles widely available and affordable in the $500 to $1,000 price range. By contrast, the price of the less efficiently produced electric vehicles continued to rise. In 1912, an electric roadster sold for $1,750, while a gasoline car sold for $650. I'm waiting on the fuel cell. You people talk like the Wright Brothers were idiots for not building the 747, first. Maybe Edison should have invented the halogen bulb, first. You will notice that the Wright brothers plane runs on the same fuel that today's 747 runs on. I don't know where you came up with that gem of misinformation, but it is demonstrably totally wrong. (Like the rest of your assertions.) The response you'll type to this will be possible because of all of the money spent 50+ years ago on the space program, which a lot of people said was idiotic and useless. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet Things change and the gas station as we know it is on the same path as the blacksmith at the end of the 19th century. The fueling station will not change for another 50 years. You will soon be proven wrong. Look for LPG light trucks and cars in the next model year or so, with road tractors soon to follow. It will be a small leap to add electrical power. http://www.extraordinaryroadtrip.org/research- library/technology/liqufied-petroleum/ad-draw.asp The drawbacks of LPG include: In cold conditions, below 32 degrees Fahrenheit, starting could be a problem because of the low vapor pressure of propane at low temperatures. One gallon of LPG contains less energy than a gallon of gasoline. The driving range of a propane vehicle is about 14 percent lower than a comparable gasoline-powered vehicle. LPG is generally higher priced than other fuel alternatives such as CNG and gasoline. There are over 4,000 LPG refueling sites in the US, more than all of the other alternative fuels combined. Most of these stations, however, are not readily available to consumers on a 24/7 basis. This is one of the reasons why most on-road applications are bi-fuel vehicles, which burn LPG and gasoline. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Energy_density.svg You will notice that the Lion battery is way down near 0,0. The Lion battery's days are numbered. Better technology is just around the corner. They are working on the heat problem. They haven't come up with anything better, NiMh isn't any better. The plastic batteries are not ready for prime time. And the ceramic batteries are not cost effective to manufacture. LPG is NOT higher priced than gasoline. By what measure? Cost. |
Told you the Volt was dead...
On 3/7/2012 1:33 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In web.com, says... On 3/7/2012 8:46 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... In , says... On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 18:57:23 -0500, wrote: In , says... On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 10:00:39 -0800, "Califbill" wrote: wrote in message ... On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 10:36:10 -0500, wrote: In , says... http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2012...lectric-lemon/ Told you, and you laughed...snerk Sometimes it pays to look at the world with an open mind... Has nothing to do with the technology and everything to do with the sales. It has everything to do with the COST of the technology tho. Basically the problem is battery cost vs price. These things are rich man's toys. If saving money is your objective, buy a Cruze and put the left over $20,000-30,000 toward gas. I understand the government will subsidize your electric car purchase to make that price delta look more attractive but that does not reduce the cost, it only transfers it to people who can't afford to buy one. ----------------------------------- Very true. Look at the subsidy for a Tesla. Average income of a Tesla buyer? $250k. As to technology. In 1919 an electric car got 30 miles to the charge. What does a Volt get? 30 miles. Not a lot of technology improvement in nearly a 100 years. Still down to battery technology. Plus where is the power to charge going to come from? They say no pollution. What about that coal or oil fired generating plant? Actually they had a range of about 100 miles, but you'd probably bitch about the 20 mph top speed, the eisenglass windows, and no gasoline backup. It appears that the same problems they were having 100 years ago with electric vehicles are the same problems they have today. http://inventors.about.com/od/estart...c-Vehicles.htm The initiation of mass production of internal combustion engine vehicles by Henry Ford made these vehicles widely available and affordable in the $500 to $1,000 price range. By contrast, the price of the less efficiently produced electric vehicles continued to rise. In 1912, an electric roadster sold for $1,750, while a gasoline car sold for $650. I'm waiting on the fuel cell. You people talk like the Wright Brothers were idiots for not building the 747, first. Maybe Edison should have invented the halogen bulb, first. You will notice that the Wright brothers plane runs on the same fuel that today's 747 runs on. I don't know where you came up with that gem of misinformation, but it is demonstrably totally wrong. (Like the rest of your assertions.) The response you'll type to this will be possible because of all of the money spent 50+ years ago on the space program, which a lot of people said was idiotic and useless. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet Things change and the gas station as we know it is on the same path as the blacksmith at the end of the 19th century. The fueling station will not change for another 50 years. You will soon be proven wrong. Look for LPG light trucks and cars in the next model year or so, with road tractors soon to follow. It will be a small leap to add electrical power. http://www.extraordinaryroadtrip.org/research- library/technology/liqufied-petroleum/ad-draw.asp The drawbacks of LPG include: In cold conditions, below 32 degrees Fahrenheit, starting could be a problem because of the low vapor pressure of propane at low temperatures. One gallon of LPG contains less energy than a gallon of gasoline. The driving range of a propane vehicle is about 14 percent lower than a comparable gasoline-powered vehicle. LPG is generally higher priced than other fuel alternatives such as CNG and gasoline. There are over 4,000 LPG refueling sites in the US, more than all of the other alternative fuels combined. Most of these stations, however, are not readily available to consumers on a 24/7 basis. This is one of the reasons why most on-road applications are bi-fuel vehicles, which burn LPG and gasoline. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Energy_density.svg You will notice that the Lion battery is way down near 0,0. The Lion battery's days are numbered. Better technology is just around the corner. They are working on the heat problem. They haven't come up with anything better, NiMh isn't any better. The plastic batteries are not ready for prime time. And the ceramic batteries are not cost effective to manufacture. LPG is NOT higher priced than gasoline. By what measure? Cost. Cost per gallon? Cost per pound? Engineers are supposed to be precise and un ambiguous. So far you ain't doin so good. -- O M G |
Told you the Volt was dead...
In article m,
says... On 3/7/2012 1:33 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In web.com, says... On 3/7/2012 8:46 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... In , says... On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 18:57:23 -0500, wrote: In , says... On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 10:00:39 -0800, "Califbill" wrote: wrote in message ... On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 10:36:10 -0500, wrote: In , says... http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2012...lectric-lemon/ Told you, and you laughed...snerk Sometimes it pays to look at the world with an open mind... Has nothing to do with the technology and everything to do with the sales. It has everything to do with the COST of the technology tho. Basically the problem is battery cost vs price. These things are rich man's toys. If saving money is your objective, buy a Cruze and put the left over $20,000-30,000 toward gas. I understand the government will subsidize your electric car purchase to make that price delta look more attractive but that does not reduce the cost, it only transfers it to people who can't afford to buy one. ----------------------------------- Very true. Look at the subsidy for a Tesla. Average income of a Tesla buyer? $250k. As to technology. In 1919 an electric car got 30 miles to the charge. What does a Volt get? 30 miles. Not a lot of technology improvement in nearly a 100 years. Still down to battery technology. Plus where is the power to charge going to come from? They say no pollution. What about that coal or oil fired generating plant? Actually they had a range of about 100 miles, but you'd probably bitch about the 20 mph top speed, the eisenglass windows, and no gasoline backup. It appears that the same problems they were having 100 years ago with electric vehicles are the same problems they have today. http://inventors.about.com/od/estart...c-Vehicles.htm The initiation of mass production of internal combustion engine vehicles by Henry Ford made these vehicles widely available and affordable in the $500 to $1,000 price range. By contrast, the price of the less efficiently produced electric vehicles continued to rise. In 1912, an electric roadster sold for $1,750, while a gasoline car sold for $650. I'm waiting on the fuel cell. You people talk like the Wright Brothers were idiots for not building the 747, first. Maybe Edison should have invented the halogen bulb, first. You will notice that the Wright brothers plane runs on the same fuel that today's 747 runs on. I don't know where you came up with that gem of misinformation, but it is demonstrably totally wrong. (Like the rest of your assertions.) The response you'll type to this will be possible because of all of the money spent 50+ years ago on the space program, which a lot of people said was idiotic and useless. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet Things change and the gas station as we know it is on the same path as the blacksmith at the end of the 19th century. The fueling station will not change for another 50 years. You will soon be proven wrong. Look for LPG light trucks and cars in the next model year or so, with road tractors soon to follow. It will be a small leap to add electrical power. http://www.extraordinaryroadtrip.org/research- library/technology/liqufied-petroleum/ad-draw.asp The drawbacks of LPG include: In cold conditions, below 32 degrees Fahrenheit, starting could be a problem because of the low vapor pressure of propane at low temperatures. One gallon of LPG contains less energy than a gallon of gasoline. The driving range of a propane vehicle is about 14 percent lower than a comparable gasoline-powered vehicle. LPG is generally higher priced than other fuel alternatives such as CNG and gasoline. There are over 4,000 LPG refueling sites in the US, more than all of the other alternative fuels combined. Most of these stations, however, are not readily available to consumers on a 24/7 basis. This is one of the reasons why most on-road applications are bi-fuel vehicles, which burn LPG and gasoline. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Energy_density.svg You will notice that the Lion battery is way down near 0,0. The Lion battery's days are numbered. Better technology is just around the corner. They are working on the heat problem. They haven't come up with anything better, NiMh isn't any better. The plastic batteries are not ready for prime time. And the ceramic batteries are not cost effective to manufacture. LPG is NOT higher priced than gasoline. By what measure? Cost. Cost per gallon? Cost per pound? Engineers are supposed to be precise and un ambiguous. So far you ain't doin so good. plonk. |
Told you the Volt was dead...
On 3/7/2012 3:14 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 14:25:15 -0500, wrote: On 3/7/2012 1:33 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In web.com, says... On 3/7/2012 8:46 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... In , says... On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 18:57:23 -0500, wrote: In , says... On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 10:00:39 -0800, "Califbill" wrote: wrote in message ... On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 10:36:10 -0500, wrote: In , says... http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2012...lectric-lemon/ Told you, and you laughed...snerk Sometimes it pays to look at the world with an open mind... Has nothing to do with the technology and everything to do with the sales. It has everything to do with the COST of the technology tho. Basically the problem is battery cost vs price. These things are rich man's toys. If saving money is your objective, buy a Cruze and put the left over $20,000-30,000 toward gas. I understand the government will subsidize your electric car purchase to make that price delta look more attractive but that does not reduce the cost, it only transfers it to people who can't afford to buy one. ----------------------------------- Very true. Look at the subsidy for a Tesla. Average income of a Tesla buyer? $250k. As to technology. In 1919 an electric car got 30 miles to the charge. What does a Volt get? 30 miles. Not a lot of technology improvement in nearly a 100 years. Still down to battery technology. Plus where is the power to charge going to come from? They say no pollution. What about that coal or oil fired generating plant? Actually they had a range of about 100 miles, but you'd probably bitch about the 20 mph top speed, the eisenglass windows, and no gasoline backup. It appears that the same problems they were having 100 years ago with electric vehicles are the same problems they have today. http://inventors.about.com/od/estart...c-Vehicles.htm The initiation of mass production of internal combustion engine vehicles by Henry Ford made these vehicles widely available and affordable in the $500 to $1,000 price range. By contrast, the price of the less efficiently produced electric vehicles continued to rise. In 1912, an electric roadster sold for $1,750, while a gasoline car sold for $650. I'm waiting on the fuel cell. You people talk like the Wright Brothers were idiots for not building the 747, first. Maybe Edison should have invented the halogen bulb, first. You will notice that the Wright brothers plane runs on the same fuel that today's 747 runs on. I don't know where you came up with that gem of misinformation, but it is demonstrably totally wrong. (Like the rest of your assertions.) The response you'll type to this will be possible because of all of the money spent 50+ years ago on the space program, which a lot of people said was idiotic and useless. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet Things change and the gas station as we know it is on the same path as the blacksmith at the end of the 19th century. The fueling station will not change for another 50 years. You will soon be proven wrong. Look for LPG light trucks and cars in the next model year or so, with road tractors soon to follow. It will be a small leap to add electrical power. http://www.extraordinaryroadtrip.org/research- library/technology/liqufied-petroleum/ad-draw.asp The drawbacks of LPG include: In cold conditions, below 32 degrees Fahrenheit, starting could be a problem because of the low vapor pressure of propane at low temperatures. One gallon of LPG contains less energy than a gallon of gasoline. The driving range of a propane vehicle is about 14 percent lower than a comparable gasoline-powered vehicle. LPG is generally higher priced than other fuel alternatives such as CNG and gasoline. There are over 4,000 LPG refueling sites in the US, more than all of the other alternative fuels combined. Most of these stations, however, are not readily available to consumers on a 24/7 basis. This is one of the reasons why most on-road applications are bi-fuel vehicles, which burn LPG and gasoline. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Energy_density.svg You will notice that the Lion battery is way down near 0,0. The Lion battery's days are numbered. Better technology is just around the corner. They are working on the heat problem. They haven't come up with anything better, NiMh isn't any better. The plastic batteries are not ready for prime time. And the ceramic batteries are not cost effective to manufacture. LPG is NOT higher priced than gasoline. By what measure? Cost. Cost per gallon? Cost per pound? Engineers are supposed to be precise and un ambiguous. So far you ain't doin so good. Does it matter? Considering the current respective costs, cheaper is cheaper. At this time it is cheaper per gallon. doesn't matter At this time it is cheaper per pound. doesn't matter At this time it is cheaper in cost per distance covered. matters if true At this time it is cheaper in BTU consumed. matters if true It is cheaper to use as a fuel. ambiguous statement -- O M G |
Told you the Volt was dead...
|
Told you the Volt was dead...
In article ,
says... On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 14:25:15 -0500, Oscar wrote: On 3/7/2012 1:33 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In web.com, says... On 3/7/2012 8:46 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... In , says... On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 18:57:23 -0500, wrote: In , says... On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 10:00:39 -0800, "Califbill" wrote: wrote in message ... On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 10:36:10 -0500, wrote: In , says... http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2012...lectric-lemon/ Told you, and you laughed...snerk Sometimes it pays to look at the world with an open mind... Has nothing to do with the technology and everything to do with the sales. It has everything to do with the COST of the technology tho. Basically the problem is battery cost vs price. These things are rich man's toys. If saving money is your objective, buy a Cruze and put the left over $20,000-30,000 toward gas. I understand the government will subsidize your electric car purchase to make that price delta look more attractive but that does not reduce the cost, it only transfers it to people who can't afford to buy one. ----------------------------------- Very true. Look at the subsidy for a Tesla. Average income of a Tesla buyer? $250k. As to technology. In 1919 an electric car got 30 miles to the charge. What does a Volt get? 30 miles. Not a lot of technology improvement in nearly a 100 years. Still down to battery technology. Plus where is the power to charge going to come from? They say no pollution. What about that coal or oil fired generating plant? Actually they had a range of about 100 miles, but you'd probably bitch about the 20 mph top speed, the eisenglass windows, and no gasoline backup. It appears that the same problems they were having 100 years ago with electric vehicles are the same problems they have today. http://inventors.about.com/od/estart...c-Vehicles.htm The initiation of mass production of internal combustion engine vehicles by Henry Ford made these vehicles widely available and affordable in the $500 to $1,000 price range. By contrast, the price of the less efficiently produced electric vehicles continued to rise. In 1912, an electric roadster sold for $1,750, while a gasoline car sold for $650. I'm waiting on the fuel cell. You people talk like the Wright Brothers were idiots for not building the 747, first. Maybe Edison should have invented the halogen bulb, first. You will notice that the Wright brothers plane runs on the same fuel that today's 747 runs on. I don't know where you came up with that gem of misinformation, but it is demonstrably totally wrong. (Like the rest of your assertions.) The response you'll type to this will be possible because of all of the money spent 50+ years ago on the space program, which a lot of people said was idiotic and useless. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet Things change and the gas station as we know it is on the same path as the blacksmith at the end of the 19th century. The fueling station will not change for another 50 years. You will soon be proven wrong. Look for LPG light trucks and cars in the next model year or so, with road tractors soon to follow. It will be a small leap to add electrical power. http://www.extraordinaryroadtrip.org/research- library/technology/liqufied-petroleum/ad-draw.asp The drawbacks of LPG include: In cold conditions, below 32 degrees Fahrenheit, starting could be a problem because of the low vapor pressure of propane at low temperatures. One gallon of LPG contains less energy than a gallon of gasoline. The driving range of a propane vehicle is about 14 percent lower than a comparable gasoline-powered vehicle. LPG is generally higher priced than other fuel alternatives such as CNG and gasoline. There are over 4,000 LPG refueling sites in the US, more than all of the other alternative fuels combined. Most of these stations, however, are not readily available to consumers on a 24/7 basis. This is one of the reasons why most on-road applications are bi-fuel vehicles, which burn LPG and gasoline. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Energy_density.svg You will notice that the Lion battery is way down near 0,0. The Lion battery's days are numbered. Better technology is just around the corner. They are working on the heat problem. They haven't come up with anything better, NiMh isn't any better. The plastic batteries are not ready for prime time. And the ceramic batteries are not cost effective to manufacture. LPG is NOT higher priced than gasoline. By what measure? Cost. Cost per gallon? Cost per pound? Engineers are supposed to be precise and un ambiguous. So far you ain't doin so good. Does it matter? Considering the current respective costs, cheaper is cheaper. At this time it is cheaper per gallon. At this time it is cheaper per pound. At this time it is cheaper in cost per distance covered. At this time it is cheaper in BTU consumed. It is cheaper to use as a fuel. You haven't provided any proof. |
Told you the Volt was dead...
On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 12:39:04 -0500, X ` Man
wrote: I see no reason to help corporations achieve their goal of bleeding this country dry. === You should buy stock in some of these evil corporations. It would give you a voice at the annual meeting, the election of directors, and a piece of the dividend pie. |
Told you the Volt was dead...
wrote in message ...
On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 14:25:15 -0500, Oscar wrote: On 3/7/2012 1:33 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In web.com, says... On 3/7/2012 8:46 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... In , says... On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 18:57:23 -0500, wrote: In , says... On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 10:00:39 -0800, "Califbill" wrote: wrote in message ... On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 10:36:10 -0500, wrote: In , says... http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2012...lectric-lemon/ Told you, and you laughed...snerk Sometimes it pays to look at the world with an open mind... Has nothing to do with the technology and everything to do with the sales. It has everything to do with the COST of the technology tho. Basically the problem is battery cost vs price. These things are rich man's toys. If saving money is your objective, buy a Cruze and put the left over $20,000-30,000 toward gas. I understand the government will subsidize your electric car purchase to make that price delta look more attractive but that does not reduce the cost, it only transfers it to people who can't afford to buy one. ----------------------------------- Very true. Look at the subsidy for a Tesla. Average income of a Tesla buyer? $250k. As to technology. In 1919 an electric car got 30 miles to the charge. What does a Volt get? 30 miles. Not a lot of technology improvement in nearly a 100 years. Still down to battery technology. Plus where is the power to charge going to come from? They say no pollution. What about that coal or oil fired generating plant? Actually they had a range of about 100 miles, but you'd probably bitch about the 20 mph top speed, the eisenglass windows, and no gasoline backup. It appears that the same problems they were having 100 years ago with electric vehicles are the same problems they have today. http://inventors.about.com/od/estart...c-Vehicles.htm The initiation of mass production of internal combustion engine vehicles by Henry Ford made these vehicles widely available and affordable in the $500 to $1,000 price range. By contrast, the price of the less efficiently produced electric vehicles continued to rise. In 1912, an electric roadster sold for $1,750, while a gasoline car sold for $650. I'm waiting on the fuel cell. You people talk like the Wright Brothers were idiots for not building the 747, first. Maybe Edison should have invented the halogen bulb, first. You will notice that the Wright brothers plane runs on the same fuel that today's 747 runs on. I don't know where you came up with that gem of misinformation, but it is demonstrably totally wrong. (Like the rest of your assertions.) The response you'll type to this will be possible because of all of the money spent 50+ years ago on the space program, which a lot of people said was idiotic and useless. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet Things change and the gas station as we know it is on the same path as the blacksmith at the end of the 19th century. The fueling station will not change for another 50 years. You will soon be proven wrong. Look for LPG light trucks and cars in the next model year or so, with road tractors soon to follow. It will be a small leap to add electrical power. http://www.extraordinaryroadtrip.org/research- library/technology/liqufied-petroleum/ad-draw.asp The drawbacks of LPG include: In cold conditions, below 32 degrees Fahrenheit, starting could be a problem because of the low vapor pressure of propane at low temperatures. One gallon of LPG contains less energy than a gallon of gasoline. The driving range of a propane vehicle is about 14 percent lower than a comparable gasoline-powered vehicle. LPG is generally higher priced than other fuel alternatives such as CNG and gasoline. There are over 4,000 LPG refueling sites in the US, more than all of the other alternative fuels combined. Most of these stations, however, are not readily available to consumers on a 24/7 basis. This is one of the reasons why most on-road applications are bi-fuel vehicles, which burn LPG and gasoline. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Energy_density.svg You will notice that the Lion battery is way down near 0,0. The Lion battery's days are numbered. Better technology is just around the corner. They are working on the heat problem. They haven't come up with anything better, NiMh isn't any better. The plastic batteries are not ready for prime time. And the ceramic batteries are not cost effective to manufacture. LPG is NOT higher priced than gasoline. By what measure? Cost. Cost per gallon? Cost per pound? Engineers are supposed to be precise and un ambiguous. So far you ain't doin so good. Does it matter? Considering the current respective costs, cheaper is cheaper. At this time it is cheaper per gallon. At this time it is cheaper per pound. At this time it is cheaper in cost per distance covered. At this time it is cheaper in BTU consumed. It is cheaper to use as a fuel. ---------------------------------------- Cost per MPG? LPG is about $3+ around here. |
What Will GE Force Its People To Drive Now
wrote in message ...
On Mon, 5 Mar 2012 19:08:00 -0500, BAR wrote: I have a 11 year old vehicle that costs me $200 a year in insurance Where can you get liability only for just $200 a year? (even at a minimum level) ----------------------------- Actually you only have to look at the comprehensive / collision portion. Liability insurance cost will be pretty close no matter what vehicle you insure. |
What Will GE Force Its People To Drive Now
"oscar" wrote in message
om... On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 23:10:15 -0800, "Califbill" wrote: "oscar" wrote in message om... On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 13:37:27 -0500, wrote: In article , says... On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 09:35:24 -0500, BAR wrote: In article , says... http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2012...g-the-plug-on- a-government-funded-electric-lemon/ Told you, and you laughed... snerk Sometimes it pays to look at the world with an open mind... Jeffrey Immelt, the CEO of GE who doesn't pay taxes, will have to find another vehicle to force his people who have company cars to purchase and drive. http://gas2.org/2012/02/20/ge-forcin...o-chevy-volts/ If my employer "forced" me to drive a company car, I wouldn't bitch about who made it. But maybe you feel entitled to force your employer to chose the car of YOUR choice? I have never had a job where my employer provided me with a car or a car allowance. I have. It's a pretty nice perk. --------------------------------- Yes it is a nice perk. But if it is a car allowance and not a company provided car, it has to meet your own requirements also, as that vehicle will be your daily driver as well as weekend vehicle in most cases. since I also towed my boat, I picked an Expedition in 1999 as that was the closest to meeting all my requirements. That car allowance is taxable but you get to write most of it off to the car, if you drive the car enough percentage on company business, and the commute to work does not count in the company miles for tax purposes. I've had it both ways. I prefer getting the car with expenses, including gas. ------------------------------------------------------ Difference between a company car and a car allowance, is if you leave the company and you have a company car, you turn in the keys and walk away. With a car allowance, you drive away. |
What Will GE Force Its People To Drive Now
"iBoaterer" wrote in message
... In article , says... "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 09:35:24 -0500, BAR wrote: In article , says... http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2012...lectric-lemon/ Told you, and you laughed... snerk Sometimes it pays to look at the world with an open mind... Jeffrey Immelt, the CEO of GE who doesn't pay taxes, will have to find another vehicle to force his people who have company cars to purchase and drive. http://gas2.org/2012/02/20/ge-forcin...o-chevy-volts/ === With all due respect Bert, that sounds like a regurgitation from a Rush Limbaugh rant. The republican party needs to put a muzzle on that dude before he alienates every swing voter in the country. I think the jury is still out on electric cars but any program at all which encourages energy independence is a good thing in my opinion. Exactly! I don't know why so many far right wingers are against getting us off of oil. The alternatives are not cost effective and you cannot turn the wind on when you need more power nor can you turn the Sun on when it is night time. And there is a finite quantity of oil. The amount of oil in North America makes Arabia look like an oil can compared to a tanker truck. Or so says FOX. So you think we should go to any length to get it, like the oil sands of Canada? Isn't this a lovely sight: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...nd-landscapes/ Our whole country could look like that! ______________________________ So it is OK to drill and pollute the Middle East and South America, but not here? Looks about like an open pit mine for most any mineral in the world. US included. Most of the Electricity is oil or coal fired plants. So you get to mine that or drill for that. Electric cars are burning fossil fuel also, just not at the vehicle. A well is a pipe in the ground, oil sands are gotten from stripping the landscape, two entirely different things. -------------------------------------------- A coal mine most likely anymore is a strip mine operation. Just like a gravel quarry or a copper mine. |
Told you the Volt was dead...
On 3/7/12 11:52 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 12:39:04 -0500, X ` wrote: I see no reason to help corporations achieve their goal of bleeding this country dry. === You should buy stock in some of these evil corporations. It would give you a voice at the annual meeting, the election of directors, and a piece of the dividend pie. And just how is my participation or presence going to stop corporations from bleeding this country dry and shipping cash and jobs overseas? It isn't. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:43 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com