The right wing anti-technology types won't like this!!!
 

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 21 May 2013 08:51:56 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

Yeah, don't those fools who use flashlights know that they aren't going
to work? And that car battery that starts the car, who would be so
foolish as to depend on that?

The ignorance is kind of funny. No concept of the advantage of electric
power plant efficiency vs internal combustion engine efficiency.
Basically just knees jerking all over the place.

If the power plant is an old technology coal plant, the modern
gasoline engine is a lot cleaner.

No. It's not.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/au...-are-electric-
cars-depends-on-where-you-plug-in.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Even where dirty coal is generating the electricity, it takes a 40-50
mpg ICE car to beat an electric car in carbon emissions.
Who's driving a 40-50 mpg (combined) in coal country? They aren't
common, and probably never will be.
There are other power plant emissions beside greenhouse, and they aren't
addressed in the article. So you have to define "dirty" before making
such generalizations. Modern ICE cars with cats are really good at not
emitting poisons. But coal use is decreasing, probably less than 40%
total now, and will have to become "clean" to survive the EPA.

There are also transmission line losses. That averages 6-7% but in the
north east where the lines are running over the design capacity, those
losses are much higher. IAEI had an article in their magazine a few
years ago talking about the problems of line sag because these wires
are running so hot.. Heat is lost energy.

It is easy to say we will just upgrade the grid but nobody wants a
power line in their back yard.

The grid will be updated. But you won't be around to see it. Just like
my grand pappy never saw an interstate highway.
Of course maybe there'll be a zombie apocalypse. Never know.

Make sure you read paragraphs 3 and 4 of the article at the URL below.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/sci...ar-production-
waste-offset-hybrid-benefits1.htm

Your electric care is raping the environment.

The right wing anti-technology types won't like this!!!
 

In article , says...

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 22 May 2013 13:11:20 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:06:16 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

when caveman made fire, they
thought that that damned new technology would burn up all of the wood
they use to built shelter....

It did. Have you see Haiti?
In fact that was the reason England started using coal. They were
burning the trees so fast that they forests were in danger and the
navy was worried about how they would build ships

Well, there you go, damned technology! So, you don't use fire then, I
assume?

I don't burn a lot of wood.

Fire is fire. And like I said, people said the exact same thing about
gasoline when the first internal combustion engines were used in cars
that you are saying about electric cars. We'll completely run out of
fuel for heat, etc.

If you really cared about the environment you would be using natural gas for all of your fire
needs.

http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=73&t=11

The right wing anti-technology types won't like this!!!
 

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

"Boating All Out" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..


A battery is an energy storage device.

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

Exactly. It took some other form of energy to create the charge
in
the battery. Hocus Pocus.

Yeah, don't those fools who use flashlights know that they aren't
going
to work? And that car battery that starts the car, who would be so
foolish as to depend on that?

The ignorance is kind of funny. No concept of the advantage of
electric
power plant efficiency vs internal combustion engine efficiency.
Basically just knees jerking all over the place.
Expect that from BAR, but somewhat surprised that Richard wasn't more
thoughtful before saying what he did.
Kool-Aid has strange effects.

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

OMG. You too?

Me too - what? You supported somebody (BAR) saying "The questions arise
out of forcing the new technology on to the people before it is ready."
Everybody knows a battery stores energy. Is that what you were agreeing
with? If that's the case, then good for you. There's probably somebody
out there who still thinks a battery generates electricity and never
dies, so that makes you smarter than him. And if you think a battery is
"hocus pocus," good for you on that too. Probably makes you sympatico
with some as yet unfound New Guinea aboriginals who would think a
battery is a magical device.
If you were really just stating the obvious about a battery, my
apologies. I took it as an often used poor argument against battery
power by right-wingers. Namely, that power generation is just
transferred elsewhere. That's true, but doesn't mean that batteries
aren't more efficient in fossil fuel consumption than an ICE.


You do know that my wife is a battery expert, she has over 28 years in the field of satellite
batteries. She is well versed in NiCd, NiMh, Lithium and even plastic batteries. She talks
batteries all of the time.

The right wing anti-technology types won't like this!!!
 

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 21 May 2013 17:06:55 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

Most of the tiny, roller-skate-on-wheels electric cars being marketed
today are good for about 80 miles before recharge. A full recharge
takes 4-8 hours.
Not very comfortable and unrealistic for a 400 mile trip.

=========

I would guesstimate that about 95% of my driving could be done with a
reliable range of 120 miles. Without some breakthrough it may never
be realistic to take an EV on long trips. Most people have a second
vehicle of some sort however.

The EV is nothing more that a smart phone. You want to take it everywhere you go but, you
have to make sure that you have some way of charging its batteries where ever you go.

The right wing anti-technology types won't like this!!!
 

On Wed, 22 May 2013 18:43:14 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 21 May 2013 17:06:55 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

Most of the tiny, roller-skate-on-wheels electric cars being marketed
today are good for about 80 miles before recharge. A full recharge
takes 4-8 hours.
Not very comfortable and unrealistic for a 400 mile trip.

=========

I would guesstimate that about 95% of my driving could be done with a
reliable range of 120 miles. Without some breakthrough it may never
be realistic to take an EV on long trips. Most people have a second
vehicle of some sort however.

The EV is nothing more that a smart phone. You want to take it everywhere you go but, you
have to make sure that you have some way of charging its batteries where ever you go.

====

I think that comparing an EV to a smart phone is a poor analogy. Most
people don't want to bother with a second phone or a second phone
number, but lots of people have second vehicles. Like I said, at
least 95% of my driving could be done with a range of 120 miles or
perhaps even less. For everything else I'd take the truck.

The right wing anti-technology types won't like this!!!
 

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 22 May 2013 18:43:14 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 21 May 2013 17:06:55 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

Most of the tiny, roller-skate-on-wheels electric cars being marketed
today are good for about 80 miles before recharge. A full recharge
takes 4-8 hours.
Not very comfortable and unrealistic for a 400 mile trip.

=========

I would guesstimate that about 95% of my driving could be done with a
reliable range of 120 miles. Without some breakthIrough it may never
be realistic to take an EV on long trips. Most people have a second
vehicle of some sort however.

The EV is nothing more that a smart phone. You want to take it everywhere you go but, you
have to make sure that you have some way of charging its batteries where ever you go.

====

I think that comparing an EV to a smart phone is a poor analogy. Most
people don't want to bother with a second phone or a second phone
number, but lots of people have second vehicles. Like I said, at
least 95% of my driving could be done with a range of 120 miles or
perhaps even less. For everything else I'd take the truck.

Sure it is, comparing a smart phone to an EV. Most people only have one auto for
transportation. Both types of devices need to be charged daily just from normal usage.

If I only had one auto I would not have an all electric vehicle, it limits my ability to
travel freely.

The right wing anti-technology types won't like this!!!
 

On Thu, 23 May 2013 07:17:45 -0400, BAR wrote:

If I only had one auto I would not have an all electric vehicle, it limits my ability to
travel freely.

===

I agree with that. With only one vehicle you either need rapid
recharge, battery pack swapping or much longer range than is available
now. However at some point it becomes cheaper to rent a car for
taking long trips if you don't do it that often. If you can get a
rental with unlimited mileage for around $200/week, it is cheaper than
driving your own on long trips.

The right wing anti-technology types won't like this!!!
 

On 5/23/2013 10:01 AM, Wayne B wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2013 07:17:45 -0400, BAR wrote:

If I only had one auto I would not have an all electric vehicle, it limits my ability to
travel freely.

===

I agree with that. With only one vehicle you either need rapid
recharge, battery pack swapping or much longer range than is available
now. However at some point it becomes cheaper to rent a car for
taking long trips if you don't do it that often. If you can get a
rental with unlimited mileage for around $200/week, it is cheaper than
driving your own on long trips.


Small electric vehicles would be perfect for you to carry on your boat.

The right wing anti-technology types won't like this!!!
 

In article ,
says...

In article , says...

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:07:47 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

I'd buy an all-electric car the size of a Toyota Corolla if it sold for
about $20,000, had a 300-mile range at 55-60 mph, and there weren't long
term issues with the batteries.

That's easy enough!

If it is so easy, why isn't someone doing it.

They are coming down in price as we speak.

Why don't you take one for the team and help bring down the price by purchasing one of these
over priced 30 mile per charge electric vehicles. Don't wait for other people to do it, be a
leader yourself.

My sister and BIL have one and love it.

The right wing anti-technology types won't like this!!!
 

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 22 May 2013 18:43:14 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 21 May 2013 17:06:55 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

Most of the tiny, roller-skate-on-wheels electric cars being marketed
today are good for about 80 miles before recharge. A full recharge
takes 4-8 hours.
Not very comfortable and unrealistic for a 400 mile trip.

=========

I would guesstimate that about 95% of my driving could be done with a
reliable range of 120 miles. Without some breakthrough it may never
be realistic to take an EV on long trips. Most people have a second
vehicle of some sort however.

The EV is nothing more that a smart phone. You want to take it everywhere you go but, you
have to make sure that you have some way of charging its batteries where ever you go.

====

I think that comparing an EV to a smart phone is a poor analogy. Most
people don't want to bother with a second phone or a second phone
number, but lots of people have second vehicles. Like I said, at
least 95% of my driving could be done with a range of 120 miles or
perhaps even less. For everything else I'd take the truck.

Now you are making SENSE, instead of just repeating what FOX says!!