The right wingers won't like this!
 

"Califbill" wrote in message
m...


-----------------------------------------------
Actually the new, modern car is not as efficient as the Model T Ford.
More
comfortable, safer, but the Model T averaged 25 mpg. That was a real
average, not an EPA faux number. Our coal and fuel oiled fired power
plants
are not much different technology from 100 years ago. I retired from
the
high tech world. Even hold a patent. So in 40+ years of working in
computers I saw a vast increase in power and efficiency. Cars have
not kept
up. The Prius Hybrid is closer to a technology leap than most other
vehicles. But other than stop and go traffic, there are a bunch of
cars
that get better mileage. Early 1900's had a bunch of electric vehicle
makers. Got about same distance on a charge as a 2012 electric car.
Better
engine efficiency through electronic controls, but about the same
kilowatt
hours available then and now in the car. Until we either build more
nuclear
plants or come up with viable fusion reactors we are not going to be
able to
charge the amount of electric cars you think will be on the road.
Plus the
new batteries need to be much better and a whole lot less toxic to
manufacture.

--------------------------------------------------

Henry Ford originally intended the Model T to run on ethanol. In
fact, he
built a car that ran on Hemp ... a plant of the cannabis species. It
has the
same THC as marijuana, but in lower quantities. Imagine our congested
highways with millions of cars belching out THC laden vapors.

Might take the edge off of rush hour commutes.

Eisboch

The right wingers won't like this!
 

On 6/27/12 7:20 AM, Eisboch wrote:

Henry Ford originally intended the Model T to run on ethanol. In fact, he
built a car that ran on Hemp ... a plant of the cannabis species. It
has the
same THC as marijuana, but in lower quantities. Imagine our congested
highways with millions of cars belching out THC laden vapors.

Might take the edge off of rush hour commutes.

Eisboch

---

Love it and you are right...it would be a "relief" for bumper-to-bumper-ism!

The right wingers won't like this!
 

In article , says...

On 6/26/2012 8:54 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 20:14:45 -0400, JustWait
wrote:

Of course "are not viable over the long term"... I know that and that's
why we need to spend that time looking for "viable" alternatives. We
have plenty of time though, don't have to do it on one election cycle.
We can take our time and get it right, and in the mean time, still find
better and cleaner ways to use what we have.... I guess my sarcasm
missed you but I am not against new technology at all, as long as it's
not technology we already know won't work... And certainly I don't want
it to turn into just more Global Taxing for nothing...

===

People who are afraid to make mistakes never move forward. Not all
R&D is destined to be successful. It's a matter of risk management
and cutting your losses when things aren't working out. Trying to
position energy development failures as a political issue is a huge
mistake and bad for the country in the long term.


I don't know how I could be more clear. Although I think a lot of the
Global taxing and fuss is political, that is not my main point. I don't
think we should be spending money on technology "such as Solyndra" where
we already knew the technology was obsolete and couldn't compete with
the Chinese Technology which was already up and running at the time.
What is so unclear about that. I don't know why we would spend billions
for instance on Wind when we already know it's not going to be the
answer... Spend money on technology we haven't already figured out will
not suit our needs...

Please show where the "technology was obsolete".....

The right wingers won't like this!
 

"thumper" wrote in message ...

On 6/26/2012 10:31 PM, Califbill wrote:

Major problem with home and other solar panels is the degradation over
time. The wattage output declines significantly over 5 years.

About 0.5% per year. Major problem?


---------------------------------------
Depends on the panel type. I think most cheap panels are C-SI which has up
to 10% the first year and .5 to 5% the second year. Multicrystaline is an
about 0.5%. A lot of the actual degradation is not the silicon part of the
panel and UV absorption but the glass covering the panel. Environmental
etching is the main problem.