# Mandate Electric Cars to save the environment.



## TTPANL

Electric cars need to be mandated. PERIOD !


----------



## Modbert

The planet is fine, the people are fucked.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

No we do NOT nor SHOULD we mandate electric cars. What we should do is give HUGE amounts of funding to AMERICAN companies to build viable electric cars(which by the way CAN and IS being done). We should also provide tax breaks like the ones Bush gave for people to go buy HUMMERS and the HEAVIEST least fule efficient cars on the road.


----------



## RadiomanATL

TTPANL said:


> Electric cars need to be mandated. PERIOD !



Hell no.

What needs to be done is to slowly make it more economically feasible for companies to produce less expensive and more desirable hybrids and electrics. Things like upping the CAFE standards a bit, and giving tax breaks for R&D into those models. And then give tax breaks to people who purchase them.

The key word there is "slowly". Any time the government gets to mucking around with supply, demand and the market, it can really screw things up if done too quickly.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

The tech is here NOW it just has to be made available for a reasonable price. Massive tax breaks for electric cars.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

If the Bush admin could litterally GIVE AWAY Hummers then we can give massive tax breaks to plug in electrics.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Elctric cars, nuclear power, wind, solar, hydro......If we follow this plan then we will be TOTALLY independent of foreign oil. We would be able to build INDUSTRIES around these sources of energy. PLEASE my fellow Americans get behind this it is our ONLY hope to remain as the only dominant super power into the next century.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE if we were all to just replace ONE of our household vehicles then we would be energy independant. If you just CAN'T accept a plug in car then go Diesel. The new BMWs and VWs have GREAT cars that have few of the older diesel problems have good performance any get GREAT MPG.



Please my fellow Americans I think this is something we can ALL get behind. US POWER and NO FOREIGN entanglements.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Like I said I was strongly opposed to more drilling but I have changed my mind about it. I think we need more refinery capacity to go with it though.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

How can this issue not be the NUMBER ONE STORY EVERY DAY!!??


----------



## Cold Fusion38

I just don't see ANY single issue of more importance to our country including national debt or healthcare.


----------



## DiveCon

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Like I said I was strongly opposed to more drilling but I have changed my mind about it. I think we need more refinery capacity to go with it though.


drilling here will allow more oil into the market and lower prices all around
it will also allow time to develop alternatives


----------



## Cold Fusion38

We can't allow ourselves to become distracted from this issue no matter what. However we always seem to. WHY!!??


----------



## RetiredGySgt

TTPANL said:


> Electric cars need to be mandated. PERIOD !



You are aware that 60 percent of electrical generation in the United States is by coal and oil fired plants right?


----------



## Cold Fusion38

You're aware that IC engines in cars are the least efficient use of fossil fuels right?


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Come on people whether you like it or not plug in electrics will be the car of the future.


----------



## DiveCon

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Come on people whether you like it or not plug in electrics will be the car of the future.


not without the means to actually charge them


----------



## Cold Fusion38

They are both capable as far as performance and are improving in range almost daily.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

There is PLENTY of power to charge them as they will mostly charge during "OFF PEAK" hours.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

And as I have said I don't EVEN KNOW how many times I favor nuclear power.


----------



## DiveCon

Cold Fusion38 said:


> And as I have said I don't EVEN KNOW how many times I favor nuclear power.


but not many are in favor of nuke power that matter


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Well I think once enough people REALLY look into it especially with reprocessing the waste many will come around.


----------



## JBeukema

steam engines

coals burn hotter than jet fuel- let alone gasoline!


----------



## Midnight Marauder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> We should also provide tax breaks like the ones Bush gave for people to go buy HUMMERS


Tax breaks to buy Hummers?

I'm so certain you can back that assertion with a credible link.

Wait, no I'm not..... Forgot the idiot who posted that never backs up anything said.

And it's FUEL, idiot. Not "fule."


----------



## DiveCon

Midnight Marauder said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should also provide tax breaks like the ones Bush gave for people to go buy HUMMERS
> 
> 
> 
> Tax breaks to buy Hummers?
> 
> I'm so certain you can back that assertion with a credible link.
> 
> Wait, no I'm not..... Forgot the idiot who posted that never backs up anything said.
> 
> And it's FUEL, idiot. Not "fule."
Click to expand...

actually they did have tax breaks and the hummers did qualify

and give him a break on a typo


----------



## Midnight Marauder

DiveCon said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should also provide tax breaks like the ones Bush gave for people to go buy HUMMERS
> 
> 
> 
> Tax breaks to buy Hummers?
> 
> I'm so certain you can back that assertion with a credible link.
> 
> Wait, no I'm not..... Forgot the idiot who posted that never backs up anything said.
> 
> And it's FUEL, idiot. Not "fule."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> actually they did have tax breaks and the hummers did qualify
> 
> and give him a break on a typo
Click to expand...

I'd actually, like to see that from a credible source.

And morons don't get breaks on anything. They have spell check and edit buttons just like the rest of us. If they give a fuck about what they are posting they should at least make SOME effort at legibility and literacy.


----------



## DiveCon

Midnight Marauder said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tax breaks to buy Hummers?
> 
> I'm so certain you can back that assertion with a credible link.
> 
> Wait, no I'm not..... Forgot the idiot who posted that never backs up anything said.
> 
> And it's FUEL, idiot. Not "fule."
> 
> 
> 
> actually they did have tax breaks and the hummers did qualify
> 
> and give him a break on a typo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd actually, like to see that from a credible source.
> 
> And morons don't get breaks on anything. They have spell check and edit buttons just like the rest of us. If they give a fuck about what they are posting they should at least make SOME effort at legibility and literacy.
Click to expand...

It's not just a Hummer, it's a tax break

credible enough?


----------



## Midnight Marauder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> We should also provide tax breaks like the ones Bush gave for people to go buy HUMMERS and the HEAVIEST least fule efficient cars on the road.


I found your link for you about what you assert, and of course as I suspected, you're LYING.

Booooosh didn't "give tax breaks" for buying Hummers. CONGRESS inadvertently, did. The SAME Congress that's in power still.

Read and learn:

Buy a Hummer, Get a $25,000 Tax Break - ABC News


> It's one of the many loopholes buried within the fine print of the tax code: *Business owners* who purchase heavy luxury SUVs, those weighing over 6,000 pounds, get to take deductions up to $25,000.
> 
> Now some members of Congress are pushing to close the so-called Hummer Tax Loophole. Led by Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., the Ways and Means Committee passed an energy bill last week that is expected on the House floor next month.
> 
> "We're allowing people to buy a huge expensive gas guzzler and get a benefit that *was never intended for them,*" Blumenauer told ABCNEWS.com.
> 
> He explains that the provision in the tax code was *originally intended to allow farmers and small-business owners to recover the cost of buying trucks and heavy-duty working vehicles.* "But that was before the explosion of huge SUVs like Cadillac Escalades and now we're providing a tax break for a luxury car."
> 
> Blumenauer said that the new bill includes provisions for legitimate business use by exempting farm vehicles, vans, flatbed trucks and school buses from the closure of the loophole. He predicts that the provision will give back to the government about $750 million over five years, which will be used to promote conservation and alternative energy.


And gee, the problem was fixed. And it wasn't Booooosh. It was a typical government FUBAR, just like you'll see with cap and trade, the health scare bill, and which you ARE seeing with the stimulus.


----------



## Midnight Marauder

DiveCon said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually they did have tax breaks and the hummers did qualify
> 
> and give him a break on a typo
> 
> 
> 
> I'd actually, like to see that from a credible source.
> 
> And morons don't get breaks on anything. They have spell check and edit buttons just like the rest of us. If they give a fuck about what they are posting they should at least make SOME effort at legibility and literacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not just a Hummer, it's a tax break
> 
> credible enough?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I didn't see anything there that says Booooosh "gave tax breaks" for people buying Hummers.

Did you?


----------



## DiveCon

Midnight Marauder said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd actually, like to see that from a credible source.
> 
> And morons don't get breaks on anything. They have spell check and edit buttons just like the rest of us. If they give a fuck about what they are posting they should at least make SOME effort at legibility and literacy.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not just a Hummer, it's a tax break
> 
> credible enough?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I didn't see anything there that says Booooosh "gave tax breaks" for people buying Hummers.
> 
> Did you?
Click to expand...

well, he had to have signed the bill


----------



## Midnight Marauder

DiveCon said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not just a Hummer, it's a tax break
> 
> credible enough?
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I didn't see anything there that says Booooosh "gave tax breaks" for people buying Hummers.
> 
> Did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well, he had to have signed the bill
Click to expand...

Wrong. Read the article you linked. Turns out, this loophole existed since the 80s.

He DID however sign the bill that FIXED the loophole.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

The best thing about electric cars is that they use no energy!  You just plug them in!  FREE ENERGY!

HELLO!  MCFLY!  BUELLER!  FREE ENERGY!

Dude, just plug it in and it recharges without using any energy at all!

See, the outlet is a magical devise that provides FREE ENERGY!  No one really know where the electricity comes from!


----------



## DiveCon

Midnight Marauder said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I didn't see anything there that says Booooosh "gave tax breaks" for people buying Hummers.
> 
> Did you?
> 
> 
> 
> well, he had to have signed the bill
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. Read the article you linked. Turns out, this loophole existed since the 80s.
> 
> He DID however sign the bill that FIXED the loophole.
Click to expand...

ah ok
so it did


----------



## Midnight Marauder

DiveCon said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> well, he had to have signed the bill
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. Read the article you linked. Turns out, this loophole existed since the 80s.
> 
> He DID however sign the bill that FIXED the loophole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ah ok
> so it did
Click to expand...

So, another "Booooosh did it" lie squelched. Debunked. Proven false.

These pukes go unchallenged, this is why this shit propagates. Forgive them not their typos and misspellings, for these are an indicator of a person who is sloppy with facts as well. And intellectually lazy.

And liars, as we see here.


----------



## Midnight Marauder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> What we should do is give HUGE amounts of funding to AMERICAN companies to build viable electric cars


What we SHOULD do if we are SERIOUS about reducing CO2 in the atmosphere is START by OUTLAWING its RECREATIONAL use first!

Uses such as Hollywood "smoke" special effects, wrestling events and rock concerts, football, basketball and hockey games, toys which use CO2 canisters such as paint ball guns, and so on. DRY ICE should be banned except for medical use. It's PURE CO2 which goes into the atmosphere as well!

We could ban the use of CO2 for such things as fire suppression and water treatment, where better methods have been developed but aren't mandated.

Why no outcry over those? It's _millions_ of tons of unnecessary CO2 every year!

_Because, THESE uses aren't the byproduct of EVIL fossil fuels combustion!_ CO2 is a convenient devil, so long as you don't look too closely and ask too many hard questions.

Ya see? There's apparently "good CO2" and "bad" CO2 just like with cholesterol? Except with CO2, it's ALL bad or it's ALL good, there's NO middle ground there. It's all the same CO2, no matter how you make it and release it into the atmosphere. We should FIRST stop manufacturing it and releasing it for purely entertainment reasons, and for reasons which are superseded, if we are REALLY sure it's causing global climate catastrophe.

Right?

THINK.


----------



## mdn2000

CO2 is food for plants, not pollution no matter where it comes from.

Mandate electric cars, what is the environmental impact of manufacturer of 100,000,000 new cars. This idea will create more CO2 than if we drove our old cars to the end of thier useful life.

What about taking shorter breaths, maybe no running, no excercise.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

CrusaderFrank said:


> The best thing about electric cars is that they use no energy!  You just plug them in!  FREE ENERGY!
> 
> HELLO!  MCFLY!  BUELLER!  FREE ENERGY!
> 
> Dude, just plug it in and it recharges without using any energy at all!
> 
> See, the outlet is a magical devise that provides FREE ENERGY!  No one really know where the electricity comes from!







Who the fuck EVER said anything about FREE energy.

You must have a pretty weak point to have to lie you ass off and print that kind of BLATANT LIE!!


----------



## Cold Fusion38

What a bunch of TOTALLY ignorant come backs.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Cold Fusion38 said:


> You're aware that IC engines in cars are the least efficient use of fossil fuels right?



And yet you ignore the4 fact that over half of all electricity produced in the US is produced using fossil fuels. Go figure.


----------



## Midnight Marauder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> What a bunch of TOTALLY ignorant come backs.


I suppose your definition of "ignorant" isn't the same as normal. For one, your Boooooosh lie was _completely_ debunked, and for another it's clearly been shown you don't understand the concept of, if something's good, viable and efficient, it doesn't NEED government subsidizing or mandates!

When electric cars can compete with gasoline IC vehicles in BHP, torque, reliability, and efficiency, they will succeed in the marketplace. Meanwhile, today's gasoline IC engines are far more efficient and run 80% cleaner than their 70s counterparts.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

RetiredGySgt said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're aware that IC engines in cars are the least efficient use of fossil fuels right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you ignore the4 fact that over half of all electricity produced in the US is produced using fossil fuels. Go figure.
Click to expand...





Well there is fossil fuels for powerplants which are highly efficient at turning fossil fuels into electricity or we can burn fossil fuel in IC vehicles which are highly INefficient.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

O.K. I'll give you the BOOOSH thing although I worked in the auto industry at the time and Boosh sure as hell wasn't breaking any speed records to try to get rid of it. 


Oh and let's see as far as HP and TORQUE go you should look up electric drag race....Watch PLUG IN ELECTRICS shred the IC competition.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrHXdM9f13k]YouTube - Electric Drag racing: White Zombie[/ame]



Check it out.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

11.96 good enough for you?


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Gawd man you HAVE to be impressed with those #s.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Are you,


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Like


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Trying


----------



## RetiredGySgt

To boost your post count?


----------



## KittenKoder

TTPANL said:


> Electric cars need to be mandated. PERIOD !



Bullshit, They cause just as much damage to the environment as gas powered cars. Just because you like being babysat by the government doesn't mean the rest of us should have to.


----------



## Midnight Marauder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> O.K. I'll give you the BOOOSH thing although I worked in the auto industry at the time and Boosh sure as hell wasn't breaking any speed records to try to get rid of it.


You're like, only 15 or so, correct? It shows. You blamed Boooosh for something the Congress in the 80s did, and only Congress could ever UN do. You realize that?





> Oh and let's see as far as HP and TORQUE go you should look up electric drag race....Watch PLUG IN ELECTRICS shred the IC competition.


Your video shows IC vehicles which are NOT drag race cars. They are street cars which weigh twice as much as the electric they're up against, driven by amateurs. Hardly an apples to apples comparison.

There's also NO word on how much _money_ he's got tied up there, but I think it's safe to say you could buy any four of his competition easily, with the money spent on that one.

However, that little impractical car IS an impressive performer, _in the quarter-mile_. But can it run 300 miles at highway speed between charges with a 20 minute stop for fuel, like IC cars can? Can it provide comfort to the driver and passengers, with AC in summer and heat in winter? Can it defrost the glass? Can it burn headlights and running lights at night without losing significant range between charges? Does it have power steering? Any other creature features?

Also left out of the equation is all the COPPER in the motor. Do you have any idea how much pollution is created and energy is used by digging up and refining copper?

If the windings in the motor are aluminum, the carbon footprint is even worse yet.

The car still has a massive carbon footprint, it takes alot of energy and pollution to make the batteries, and the motor. You're just deluding yourself if you think wind turbines, solar panels, and plug-in electric vehicles are anything close to carbon neutral, much less carbon negative.

But of course, you're deluded anyway because you know these cannot compete in the marketplace without massive government subsidies we all pay for. That's why you're _for _them either being subsidized or mandated!

Because you know


They're not


practical or


a viable alternative.

Otherwise, you wouldn't be for the government mandates and subsidies.

Now, you never answered any of this, from my previous post:

_What we SHOULD do if we are SERIOUS about reducing CO2 in the atmosphere is START by OUTLAWING its RECREATIONAL use first!

Uses such as Hollywood "smoke" special effects, wrestling events and rock concerts, football, basketball and hockey games, toys which use CO2 canisters such as paint ball guns, and so on. DRY ICE should be banned except for medical use. It's PURE CO2 which goes into the atmosphere as well!

We could ban the use of CO2 for such things as fire suppression and water treatment, where better methods have been developed but aren't mandated.

Why no outcry over those? It's _ _millions of tons of unnecessary CO2 every year!

_ _Because, THESE uses aren't the byproduct of EVIL fossil fuels combustion!

Ya see? There's apparently "good CO2" and "bad" CO2 just like with cholesterol? Except with CO2, it's ALL bad or it's ALL good, there's NO middle ground there. It's all the same CO2, no matter how you make it and release it into the atmosphere. We should FIRST stop manufacturing it and releasing it for purely entertainment reasons, and for reasons which are superseded, if we are REALLY sure it's causing global climate catastrophe.

Right?

THINK.     _ CO2 is a convenient devil, so long as you don't look too closely and ask too many hard questions.


----------



## Polk

DiveCon said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said I was strongly opposed to more drilling but I have changed my mind about it. I think we need more refinery capacity to go with it though.
> 
> 
> 
> drilling here will allow more oil into the market and lower prices all around
> it will also allow time to develop alternatives
Click to expand...


A fair argument, except that we don't have any large untapped domestic reserves.


----------



## DiveCon

Polk said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said I was strongly opposed to more drilling but I have changed my mind about it. I think we need more refinery capacity to go with it though.
> 
> 
> 
> drilling here will allow more oil into the market and lower prices all around
> it will also allow time to develop alternatives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A fair argument, except that we don't have any large untapped domestic reserves.
Click to expand...

how do you know?
till they actually drill


----------



## Polk

DiveCon said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> drilling here will allow more oil into the market and lower prices all around
> it will also allow time to develop alternatives
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A fair argument, except that we don't have any large untapped domestic reserves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how do you know?
> till they actually drill
Click to expand...


Tools exist to measure with a high degree of accuracy.


----------



## KittenKoder

DiveCon said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> drilling here will allow more oil into the market and lower prices all around
> it will also allow time to develop alternatives
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A fair argument, except that we don't have any large untapped domestic reserves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how do you know?
> till they actually drill
Click to expand...


Actually, the oil companies do know, and they say we do have a lot which government regulations are not allowing them to drill. I believe the oil companies more right now, the domestic ones that is. One reason I believe them on that is because there are a lot of land use restrictions enacted just to "protect" the environment.


----------



## DiveCon

Polk said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> A fair argument, except that we don't have any large untapped domestic reserves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how do you know?
> till they actually drill
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tools exist to measure with a high degree of accuracy.
Click to expand...

i know they do
and those tools have been saying they expect LARGE deposits off the coasts
but the feds wont allow them to drill


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Polk said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said I was strongly opposed to more drilling but I have changed my mind about it. I think we need more refinery capacity to go with it though.
> 
> 
> 
> drilling here will allow more oil into the market and lower prices all around
> it will also allow time to develop alternatives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A fair argument, except that we don't have any large untapped domestic reserves.
Click to expand...


LOL YES we do.


----------



## Ringel05

Polk said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said I was strongly opposed to more drilling but I have changed my mind about it. I think we need more refinery capacity to go with it though.
> 
> 
> 
> drilling here will allow more oil into the market and lower prices all around
> it will also allow time to develop alternatives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A fair argument, except that we don't have any large untapped domestic reserves.
Click to expand...


Exactly.  Sit on the untapped oil fields we have till the Middle East runs out, possibly 50 years from now.  The technology to reach ours will be better making our fields easier to get to and of course the icing on the cake no more oil in the Middle East.


----------



## Polk

DiveCon said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> how do you know?
> till they actually drill
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tools exist to measure with a high degree of accuracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i know they do
> and those tools have been saying they expect LARGE deposits off the coasts
> but the feds wont allow them to drill
Click to expand...


It's a misdirection argument on their part. They already hold rights to large areas for drilling and could start setting up wells tomorrow if they wanted to, but choose to not do so.


----------



## MalibuMan

Can an electric vehicle pull my boat and haul my family of 5 with all our luggage 350 miles without stopping?  Didn't think so. Until then I will keep my 2007 Tahoe.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Like I said if you replace just ONE of your houshold cars with plug in electric we could eliminate our dependency on oil. You can keep your truck AND your boat I don't much give a shit if you do but if you replace your COMMUTER car with a plug in electric you can save money AND oil. Fully 80% of dialy commuters can use a plug in electric for their daily commute so what is your problem with that.


----------



## DiveCon

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Like I said if you replace just ONE of your houshold cars with plug in electric we could eliminate our dependency on oil. You can keep your truck AND your boat I don't much give a shit if you do but if you replace your COMMUTER car with a plug in electric you can save money AND oil. Fully 80% of dialy commuters can use a plug in electric for their daily commute so what is your problem with that.


what if you only have one?


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Sweet boat by the way. But can you tell me why you would be opposed to at least replacing ONE of your cars if the cost for a nice sedan was say $30k? Electrics have 100% torque from 0 RPM. They are quick as hell for their size = FUN TO DRIVE. Let's say it has a 100 mile range which is MORE than enough for most commutes. Would you have a problem with that? Note that I am a gear head...I LIKE to drive fast but when I am in my wife's Passat I drive VERY mellow because it has an instant trip computer.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Dive if you only have one then do what you have to. I am just asking people to consider replacing ONE of their cars. Many have two or three. What are you people so afraid of? Getting stuck on the side of the road? Hey guess what that can happen with an IC car too.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

I drive a Pontiac Grand Am GT. 3.4 liter V-6. Not a super car by any means but it gets up and goes. If Tesla came to me RIGHT NOW and wanted me to Beta test the new Tesla S I would do it in a HEARTBEAT even if I knew there may be problems that need to be ironed out.


----------



## DiveCon

Cold Fusion38 said:


> I drive a Pontiac Grand Am GT. 3.4 liter V-6. Not a super car by any means but it gets up and goes. If Tesla came to me RIGHT NOW and wanted me to Beta test the new Tesla S I would do it in a HEARTBEAT even if I knew there may be problems that need to be ironed out.


hell, i would too
LOL
as long as the car was free
i'd prefer it be an SUV though(2 door)
we get snow up here and need the extra traction
also, how will those batteries respond in the sub zero temps we get in Jan and Feb?


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Well how do you dive in the ICE? Anyway there are certainly SOME areas issues where a plug in electric would not be a viable option but those are FEW and FAR between and are becoming FEWER and FARTHER between.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

And by the way was that a swipe at my POS Pontiac? The thing is I OWN it outright as I do my wife's Passat so I am not too keen on a car payment at least till I graduate and find out that even University grads can go unemployed.


----------



## DiveCon

Cold Fusion38 said:


> And by the way was that a swipe at my POS Pontiac? The thing is I OWN it outright as I do my wife's Passat so I am not too keen on a car payment at least till I graduate and find out that even University grads can go unemployed.


not at all
you drive what you can afford


----------



## Midnight Marauder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Like I said if you replace just ONE of your houshold cars with plug in electric we could eliminate our dependency on oil. You can keep your truck AND your boat I don't much give a shit if you do but if you replace your COMMUTER car with a plug in electric you can save money AND oil. Fully 80% of dialy commuters can use a plug in electric for their daily commute so what is your problem with that.


Hey, clueless moron. The thread isn't about buying a EV as a novelty or a toy. It's about the government MANDATING them.

Try to keep up.


----------



## manu1959

TTPANL said:


> Electric cars need to be mandated. PERIOD !



how do you plan to get every country in the world to use only electric cars.....


----------



## Midnight Marauder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Sweet boat by the way. But can you tell me why you would be opposed to at least replacing ONE of your cars if the cost for a nice sedan was say $30k? Electrics have 100% torque from 0 RPM. They are quick as hell for their size = FUN TO DRIVE. Let's say it has a 100 mile range which is MORE than enough for most commutes. Would you have a problem with that?


Why? They are NOT carbon negative, or even carbon neutral. They're a "feel good" deal, not anything that actually helps the environment.

All can see now why you skipped my post above, >here<


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Because your posts are predicated on flaws and outright LIES!! So they have BATTERIES.....Batteries can be recycled. Oh and guess what you almost surely have at least TWO items that are powered by rechageable batteries. Maybe you should have your cell phone plugged into an extension cord.


----------



## Midnight Marauder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Because your posts are predicated on flaws and outright LIES!! So they have BATTERIES.....Batteries can be recycled. Oh and guess what you almost surely have at least TWO items that are powered by rechageable batteries. Maybe you should have your cell phone plugged into an extension cord.


I never really knocked the batteries. I guess you either cannot read or refuse to do so.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Oh let me guess your argument is about WHERE they get the power to RECHARGE? The IC engine is one of the LEAST efficient ways to use fossil fuels and most of the cars would charge during NON-PEAK hours so don't even TRY to bring up the BS that they will crash the grid. Oh and one more thing.....When I advocate for plug in electrics I ALSO advocate for nuclear power.


----------



## Midnight Marauder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Oh let me guess your argument is about WHERE they get the power to RECHARGE? The IC engine is one of the LEAST efficient ways to use fossil fuels and most of the cars would charge during NON-PEAK hours so don't even TRY to bring up the BS that they will crash the grid. Oh and one more thing.....When I advocate for plug in electrics I ALSO advocate for nuclear power.


Why don't you  just read my post I linked you to, quote it, and respond to it point by point?

I never said anything about "crashing the grid."

Now you're 0 for five!


----------



## Cold Fusion38

And no I don't agree with them being mandated but I think that they are the ONLY way we will get off of fossile fuels before they run out completely. Fossil fuels are a FINITE source. Wind, tidal, geo, solar, hydro and to a degree nuclear are INFINITE SOURCES of power.


----------



## Midnight Marauder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> BATTERIES.....Batteries can be recycled.


Have you any idea what it takes to "recycle" the batteries? You really should research it. Prepare to be shocked.


----------



## KittenKoder

Midnight Marauder said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BATTERIES.....Batteries can be recycled.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you any idea what it takes to "recycle" the batteries? You really should research it. Prepare to be shocked.
Click to expand...


Recycling anything is actually worse for the environment. But shhh ... it's fun to watch them spread more Gorean lies.


----------



## Midnight Marauder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> And no I don't agree with them being mandated but I think that they are the ONLY way we will get off of fossile fuels before they run out completely. Fossil fuels are a FINITE source. Wind, tidal, geo, solar, hydro and to a degree nuclear are INFINITE SOURCES of power.


What will eventually happen is what's always happened -- the free market will provide an economical and efficient solution to energy problems, IF the government will stay out of the way.

I'd start right now by the way, with requiring "country of origin" labels on gas pumps. So we in the marketplace can choose not to buy gasoline that comes from oil from countries who don't like us. We have such labels on our food now, we need it for gasoline.

This will most probably do more to spur the market for an alternative then anything else that can be done, while bankrupting our enemies.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Well we get 80% of our oil from Canada so I don't think your "country of origin" idea would amount to much.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Oh and by the way I don't click on LINKS that I don't know WTF they lead to so POST your "facts" and I'll dispute them.


----------



## Midnight Marauder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Well we get 80% of our oil from Canada


Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries

It's NOT 80%. I have no idea where you're getting that figure. But read the link and learn.

It wouldn't damage our Canadian friends. It would demolish our S. American and M.E. enemies however.


----------



## Midnight Marauder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Oh and by the way I don't click on LINKS that I don't know WTF they lead to so POST your "facts" and I'll dispute them.


Hey stupid, the link I sent before was a link BACK TO A POST IN THIS THREAD. If you hover over links, your browser will TELL you where it goes. I'm not going to repeat posts, because I have consideration for other readers. If you must do it the paranoid and ignorant way, it's post #51 you completely ignored.

It does have some multi-syllable words in it though, and no videos or pictures, so I understand why a moron such as yourself skipped it.

You simply don't want to have an honest debate.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Yeah scrolling over those sites doesn't link to anything I know of. One is tinhyurl.com WTF is that?


----------



## Cold Fusion38

The other is epinnetworks.com.....Not familiar site to me.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Post your "facts" or don't.


----------



## KittenKoder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Yeah scrolling over those sites doesn't link to anything I know of. One is tinhyurl.com WTF is that?



 A keyboard commando that doesn't know what tinyurl is?


----------



## Midnight Marauder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Yeah scrolling over those sites doesn't link to anything I know of. One is tinhyurl.com WTF is that?


That's in my signature, it's in every post I make. (except this one) Look at links within the posts.

tinyurl.com however, is a neat little utility for making monstrously LONG links, tiny ones. It's perfectly clean and safe.


----------



## Midnight Marauder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Post your "facts" or don't.


I have been posting them. You are refusing to read them. Very trollish.


----------



## Midnight Marauder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> The other is eipnetworks.com.....Not familiar site to me.


That's one of MY sites I own and operate. Perfectly clean and safe too, otherwise Gunny and the staff here wouldn't let me link it in my sig.

But these are SIG links you're looking at. The POST you ignored is in this thread, #51.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Why not just post your claims? Shouldn't be hard for a guy who "owns his own web site" big fing deal.


----------



## KittenKoder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Why not just post your claims? Shouldn't be hard for a guy who "owns his own web site" big fing deal.



You don't have a website? Sheesh, you are a n00b.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Why would I I have a LIFE.


----------



## KittenKoder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Why would I I have a LIFE.



Meh, I do to. I have a few, two that I kept, the others I delete when I grow tired of maintaining them. But in all seriousness, why are you afraid to click on links?


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Because I don't trust people. Especially people who I have absolutely NO IDEA who they are.


----------



## DiveCon

KittenKoder said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah scrolling over those sites doesn't link to anything I know of. One is tinhyurl.com WTF is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A keyboard commando that doesn't know what tinyurl is?
Click to expand...

i dont click on tinyurl links either
because they redirect and could potentially go ANYWHERE
i know MM wouldnt do that
but i can understand him not trusting it out of hand


----------



## DiveCon

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Because I don't trust people. Especially people who I have absolutely NO IDEA who they are.


epinet is MM's domain
you can relax he isnt going to send you to sites that would do damage to your computer


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Well if it's o.k. for dive it's o.k. for me but considering the way MM has been acting the last couple of hours I think I'll avoid it just the same.


----------



## JBeukema

KittenKoder said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I I have a LIFE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meh, I do to. I have a few, two that I kept, the others I delete when I grow tired of maintaining them. But in all seriousness, why are you afraid to click on links?
Click to expand...



Second Life accounts don't count as lives


----------



## Midnight Marauder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Why not just post your claims?


They were posted. In this thread. You have no answers for them so you avoid them, pretend they don't exist. Like any other typical, infantile troll.

You are also a complete moron and obviously new to the internet. Being new to the 'net isn't really a bad thing, but being a willfully total moron is.


----------



## Midnight Marauder

DiveCon said:


> i dont click on tinyurl links either
> because they redirect and could potentially go ANYWHERE


Actually, tinyurl will NOT redirect you to anything that can harm your computer. They fixed that issue a couple of years ago. Just FYI.


----------



## DiveCon

Midnight Marauder said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> i dont click on tinyurl links either
> because they redirect and could potentially go ANYWHERE
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, tinyurl will NOT redirect you to anything that can harm your computer. They fixed that issue a couple of years ago. Just FYI.
Click to expand...

glad to hear they fixed that


----------



## Midnight Marauder

DiveCon said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> i dont click on tinyurl links either
> because they redirect and could potentially go ANYWHERE
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, tinyurl will NOT redirect you to anything that can harm your computer. They fixed that issue a couple of years ago. Just FYI.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> glad to hear they fixed that
Click to expand...

When you enter a URL to them, they test it like Google also started reccently doing. If it's malicious, they reject it.

Tinyurl also has a preview function built-in. When you see a URL with &#8220;tinyurl&#8221; in it, copy it. Paste it into your browser&#8217;s address bar. Add &#8220;preview.&#8221; (dot included) to the front of the URL. So, &#8220;The Kim Komando Show - Free Tips, Downloads, Reviews, Software and Advice for Your Digital Lifestyle becomes &#8220;TinyURL.com - shorten that long URL into a tiny URL. This will show you where the link will send you.


----------



## sitarro

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Sweet boat by the way. But can you tell me why you would be opposed to at least replacing ONE of your cars if the cost for a nice sedan was say $30k? Electrics have 100% torque from 0 RPM. They are quick as hell for their size = FUN TO DRIVE. Let's say it has a 100 mile range which is MORE than enough for most commutes. Would you have a problem with that? Note that I am a gear head...I LIKE to drive fast but when I am in my wife's Passat I drive VERY mellow because it has an instant trip computer.



Is this what it's like to drive fast with your wife?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIhGJyLR6TI]YouTube - Riccardo Patrese drives wife crazy in Civic Type-R[/ame]

subtitled version is even better............ He is so cool, doesn't say a word, just a knowing smirk.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpo8RDyOEWY&feature=related]YouTube - Patrese & Wife - subtitled[/ame]


----------



## Ringel05

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Oh let me guess your argument is about WHERE they get the power to RECHARGE? The IC engine is one of the LEAST efficient ways to use fossil fuels and most of the cars would charge during NON-PEAK hours so don't even TRY to bring up the BS that they will crash the grid. Oh and one more thing.....When I advocate for plug in electrics I ALSO advocate for nuclear power.



The issue for me is mandating electric vehicles means greater use of existing energy sources, which are still primarily carbon based.  With out adding, say, more nuclear power plants to the grid the elevated use of fossil fuels to contantly recharge the electric motors will in essence cancel out the possitive effect.
Most environmentalists will blindly champion electric vehicles but fight tooth and nail againt nuclear power plants.  Go figure.


----------



## Shooterman

Polk said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said I was strongly opposed to more drilling but I have changed my mind about it. I think we need more refinery capacity to go with it though.
> 
> 
> 
> drilling here will allow more oil into the market and lower prices all around
> it will also allow time to develop alternatives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A fair argument, except that we don't have any large untapped domestic reserves.
Click to expand...


We have a shit pot full of coal reserves, though.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Ringel05 said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh let me guess your argument is about WHERE they get the power to RECHARGE? The IC engine is one of the LEAST efficient ways to use fossil fuels and most of the cars would charge during NON-PEAK hours so don't even TRY to bring up the BS that they will crash the grid. Oh and one more thing.....When I advocate for plug in electrics I ALSO advocate for nuclear power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issue for me is mandating electric vehicles means greater use of existing energy sources, which are still primarily carbon based.  With out adding, say, more nuclear power plants to the grid the elevated use of fossil fuels to contantly recharge the electric motors will in essence cancel out the possitive effect.
> Most environmentalists will blindly champion electric vehicles but fight tooth and nail againt nuclear power plants.  Go figure.
Click to expand...





The point is fossil fueled power plants are WAY more efficient than IC engines.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Midnight Marauder said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> O.K. I'll give you the BOOOSH thing although I worked in the auto industry at the time and Boosh sure as hell wasn't breaking any speed records to try to get rid of it.
> 
> 
> 
> You're like, only 15 or so, correct? It shows. You blamed Boooosh for something the Congress in the 80s did, and only Congress could ever UN do. You realize that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and let's see as far as HP and TORQUE go you should look up electric drag race....Watch PLUG IN ELECTRICS shred the IC competition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your video shows IC vehicles which are NOT drag race cars. They are street cars which weigh twice as much as the electric they're up against, driven by amateurs. Hardly an apples to apples comparison.
> 
> There's also NO word on how much _money_ he's got tied up there, but I think it's safe to say you could buy any four of his competition easily, with the money spent on that one.
> 
> However, that little impractical car IS an impressive performer, _in the quarter-mile_. But can it run 300 miles at highway speed between charges with a 20 minute stop for fuel, like IC cars can? Can it provide comfort to the driver and passengers, with AC in summer and heat in winter? Can it defrost the glass? Can it burn headlights and running lights at night without losing significant range between charges? Does it have power steering? Any other creature features?
> 
> Also left out of the equation is all the COPPER in the motor. Do you have any idea how much pollution is created and energy is used by digging up and refining copper?
> 
> If the windings in the motor are aluminum, the carbon footprint is even worse yet.
> 
> The car still has a massive carbon footprint, it takes alot of energy and pollution to make the batteries, and the motor. You're just deluding yourself if you think wind turbines, solar panels, and plug-in electric vehicles are anything close to carbon neutral, much less carbon negative.
> 
> But of course, you're deluded anyway because you know these cannot compete in the marketplace without massive government subsidies we all pay for. That's why you're _for _them either being subsidized or mandated!
> 
> Because you know
> 
> 
> They're not
> 
> 
> practical or
> 
> 
> a viable alternative.
> 
> Otherwise, you wouldn't be for the government mandates and subsidies.
> 
> Now, you never answered any of this, from my previous post:
> 
> _What we SHOULD do if we are SERIOUS about reducing CO2 in the atmosphere is START by OUTLAWING its RECREATIONAL use first!
> 
> Uses such as Hollywood "smoke" special effects, wrestling events and rock concerts, football, basketball and hockey games, toys which use CO2 canisters such as paint ball guns, and so on. DRY ICE should be banned except for medical use. It's PURE CO2 which goes into the atmosphere as well!
> 
> We could ban the use of CO2 for such things as fire suppression and water treatment, where better methods have been developed but aren't mandated.
> 
> Why no outcry over those? It's _ _millions of tons of unnecessary CO2 every year!
> 
> _ _Because, THESE uses aren't the byproduct of EVIL fossil fuels combustion!
> 
> Ya see? There's apparently "good CO2" and "bad" CO2 just like with cholesterol? Except with CO2, it's ALL bad or it's ALL good, there's NO middle ground there. It's all the same CO2, no matter how you make it and release it into the atmosphere. We should FIRST stop manufacturing it and releasing it for purely entertainment reasons, and for reasons which are superseded, if we are REALLY sure it's causing global climate catastrophe.
> 
> Right?
> 
> THINK.     _ CO2 is a convenient devil, so long as you don't look too closely and ask too many hard questions.
Click to expand...





THIS is your FUCKING argument you keep refering to? So we should BAN copper and aluminum mining. So YOUR solution is to ban smoke machines!!!??? Talk about a drop in the fucking barrel. 

So if we are going to ban it for "entertainment" purposes then EVERY TYPE of RECREATIONAL vehicle would be BANNED.....That's going to piss off a BUNCH of boat owners.



And it is NOT all the same CO2 because IC engines are the LEAST efficient way to burn fossil fuels for transportation.



I guess we will just have to say NO MORE houses because of copper wiring huh? 

Your points are so GD ignorant that they really don't even DESERVE a response but since you've been bitching about it for so long I thought I HAD to to try to SHUT YOU THE FUCK UP about it.


Your entire post is worthless bullshit unless you advocate banning mining!!!


----------



## KittenKoder

Any technology that has to be forced onto the population by an over reaching government is a failed technology, period.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Guess we should quit building cars too huh? FUCKING STUPID!!! 100% FUCKING stupid post your #51.


----------



## KittenKoder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Guess we should quit building cars too huh? FUCKING STUPID!!! 100% FUCKING stupid post your #51.



Wow ... do you have a point in this?


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Hey Kitty Kat you really DON'T know much about electric cars do you? Would it surprise you to know that at one point there were more ELECTRIC cars in the US than fossil fuel cars? Do you know ALL the increases in battery tech that have occured in the last 10 years. Did you know that to almost EVERY person who LEASED an EV1 BEGGED GM to let them buy the cars they were leasing?


----------



## KittenKoder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Hey Kitty Kat you really DON'T know much about electric cars do you? Would it surprise you to know that at one point there were more ELECTRIC cars in the US than fossil fuel cars? Do you know ALL the increases in battery tech that have occured in the last 10 years. Did you know that to almost EVERY person who LEASED an EV1 BEGGED GM to let them buy the cars they were leasing?



If it's a good technology then people would prefer to buy it and the company that makes it would thrive without a government law forcing people to use it.


----------



## Ringel05

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh let me guess your argument is about WHERE they get the power to RECHARGE? The IC engine is one of the LEAST efficient ways to use fossil fuels and most of the cars would charge during NON-PEAK hours so don't even TRY to bring up the BS that they will crash the grid. Oh and one more thing.....When I advocate for plug in electrics I ALSO advocate for nuclear power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issue for me is mandating electric vehicles means greater use of existing energy sources, which are still primarily carbon based.  With out adding, say, more nuclear power plants to the grid the elevated use of fossil fuels to contantly recharge the electric motors will in essence cancel out the possitive effect.
> Most environmentalists will blindly champion electric vehicles but fight tooth and nail againt nuclear power plants.  Go figure.
Click to expand...


I didn't know that, but it stands to figure they would be when you think about it.  But until you can consistently and inexpensively give me something electrically powered to match a Ford F350 then I'm not interested.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Ring have I said ANYTHING about replacing your F-350 a one ton HEAVY DUTY TRUCK? You (hopefully) have a need for such a truck but do you also have a smaller car? If so would you be opposed to replacing your comuter car with a plug in?


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Is your 350 a dually?


----------



## KittenKoder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Ring have I said ANYTHING about replacing your F-350 a one ton HEAVY DUTY TRUCK? You (hopefully) have a need for such a truck but do you also have a smaller car? If so would you be opposed to replacing your comuter car with a plug in?



"Plug ins" use electricity, electricity is created by burning resources and polluting. "Plug ins" solve nothing.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

KittenKoder said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ring have I said ANYTHING about replacing your F-350 a one ton HEAVY DUTY TRUCK? You (hopefully) have a need for such a truck but do you also have a smaller car? If so would you be opposed to replacing your comuter car with a plug in?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Plug ins" use electricity, electricity is created by burning resources and polluting. "Plug ins" solve nothing.
Click to expand...






GAWD do I have to fucking S-P-E-L-L this out for you AGAIN!!!??? IC engines are HIGHLY inefficeint compared to power plants.


----------



## KittenKoder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ring have I said ANYTHING about replacing your F-350 a one ton HEAVY DUTY TRUCK? You (hopefully) have a need for such a truck but do you also have a smaller car? If so would you be opposed to replacing your comuter car with a plug in?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Plug ins" use electricity, electricity is created by burning resources and polluting. "Plug ins" solve nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GAWD do I have to fucking S-P-E-L-L this out for you AGAIN!!!??? IC engines are HIGHLY inefficeint compared to power plants.
Click to expand...


Um ... there is no proof that electric vehicles are any more efficient. They still need oil for lubricant, they still need plastics (actually they need more plastic than internal combustion engines do), and they still use a lot of resources. The amount of fuel they use is actually more when you factor in horse power. You do realize that internal combustion engines also produce all the electricity the car uses, right? Even in old cars almost half the machine is run on electricity produced by the generator. The torque produced by an electric engine is no less than 25% lower than a combustion engine.


----------



## KittenKoder

Face it, if electric cars were better then they would dominate the market without the government forcing it on the people, period. You can't rationalize these laws anymore, people are wising up.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

KittenKoder said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Plug ins" use electricity, electricity is created by burning resources and polluting. "Plug ins" solve nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GAWD do I have to fucking S-P-E-L-L this out for you AGAIN!!!??? IC engines are HIGHLY inefficeint compared to power plants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um ... there is no proof that electric vehicles are any more efficient. They still need oil for lubricant, they still need plastics (actually they need more plastic than internal combustion engines do), and they still use a lot of resources. The amount of fuel they use is actually more when you factor in horse power. You do realize that internal combustion engines also produce all the electricity the car uses, right? Even in old cars almost half the machine is run on electricity produced by the generator. The torque produced by an electric engine is no less than 25% lower than a combustion engine.
Click to expand...





First of all BULLSHIT and secondly have you ever wondered why your car needs a water pump and a RADIATOR? Becuase most of the fuel is wasted by HEAT which is nice during the winter but NOT very good in 105 degree heat.


----------



## JBeukema

KittenKoder said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ring have I said ANYTHING about replacing your F-350 a one ton HEAVY DUTY TRUCK? You (hopefully) have a need for such a truck but do you also have a smaller car? If so would you be opposed to replacing your comuter car with a plug in?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Plug ins" use electricity, electricity is created by burning resources and polluting. "Plug ins" solve nothing.
Click to expand...



They do if that electricity is generated ata central plant that doesn't use fossil fuels


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Kitty Kat have you even RESEARCHED plug in electrics? NOT THOSE HYBRID pieces of crap but PURE PLUG INS. Do yourself a favor and check the Tesla and the Pheonix SUT. Just LOOK at the capabilities with an open mind. Unless you HAVE to travel cross contry in your care a plug in would work for virtually 100% of your daily needs. JUST RESEARCH and tell me what the problem is with the Tesla S.


----------



## KittenKoder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> GAWD do I have to fucking S-P-E-L-L this out for you AGAIN!!!??? IC engines are HIGHLY inefficeint compared to power plants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um ... there is no proof that electric vehicles are any more efficient. They still need oil for lubricant, they still need plastics (actually they need more plastic than internal combustion engines do), and they still use a lot of resources. The amount of fuel they use is actually more when you factor in horse power. You do realize that internal combustion engines also produce all the electricity the car uses, right? Even in old cars almost half the machine is run on electricity produced by the generator. The torque produced by an electric engine is no less than 25% lower than a combustion engine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all BULLSHIT and secondly have you ever wondered why your car needs a water pump and a RADIATOR? Becuase most of the fuel is wasted by HEAT which is nice during the winter but NOT very good in 105 degree heat.
Click to expand...


The heat can still be harnessed even more than it is, some of the newest engines are beginning to do just that. 

Face it, if electric cars were better then they would dominate the market without the government forcing it on the people, period. You can't rationalize these laws anymore, people are wising up.


----------



## KittenKoder

JBeukema said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ring have I said ANYTHING about replacing your F-350 a one ton HEAVY DUTY TRUCK? You (hopefully) have a need for such a truck but do you also have a smaller car? If so would you be opposed to replacing your comuter car with a plug in?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Plug ins" use electricity, electricity is created by burning resources and polluting. "Plug ins" solve nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They do if that electricity is generated ata central plant that doesn't use fossil fuels
Click to expand...


Then we will need to switch to nuclear.  But the same people pushing for this to be forced by law are also against that option.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Wind could be used to generate power for plug ins since winds are typically higher during "off peak" hours when the VAST majority of plug ins would be charged. 


One more thing if I have to S-P-E-L-L it out AGAIN I favor more nuclear power plants with reprocessing of spent fuel rods.


----------



## KittenKoder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Kitty Kat have you even RESEARCHED plug in electrics? NOT THOSE HYBRID pieces of crap but PURE PLUG INS. Do yourself a favor and check the Tesla and the Pheonix SUT. Just LOOK at the capabilities with an open mind. Unless you HAVE to travel cross contry in your care a plug in would work for virtually 100% of your daily needs. JUST RESEARCH and tell me what the problem is with the Tesla S.



Yes, I have, and I liked the idea however, I do not like laws that force people to do something just because someone likes it.


----------



## JBeukema

KittenKoder said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Plug ins" use electricity, electricity is created by burning resources and polluting. "Plug ins" solve nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do if that electricity is generated ata central plant that doesn't use fossil fuels
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we will need to switch to nuclear.  But the same people pushing for this to be forced by law are also against that option.
Click to expand...

  Nuclearis a finite resource

it solves nothing in the long run


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Oh and your WHEEL bearings require grease too. The FACT is plug ins would be VERY easy to maintain. Basically it has three count them THREE major componants. Batteries which are becoming better almost EVERY DAY.....An electric motor(sealed bearings) and a power control unit. Have you ever played with a slot car? The little trigger you depress to make the car go faster? That is as simple as the control unit to be. Press harder on the "gas" peddle and more power goes to the motor.


----------



## JBeukema

KittenKoder said:


> I do not like laws that force people to do something just because someone likes it.



I wonder whether you apply that to child labor laws, women's suffrage, 'abortion rights', civil rights laws or any of the other laws which have been passed to push liberal principles


----------



## Cold Fusion38

KittenKoder said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kitty Kat have you even RESEARCHED plug in electrics? NOT THOSE HYBRID pieces of crap but PURE PLUG INS. Do yourself a favor and check the Tesla and the Pheonix SUT. Just LOOK at the capabilities with an open mind. Unless you HAVE to travel cross contry in your care a plug in would work for virtually 100% of your daily needs. JUST RESEARCH and tell me what the problem is with the Tesla S.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I have, and I liked the idea however, I do not like laws that force people to do something just because someone likes it.
Click to expand...




O.K. KK on your last part I agree completely but I would favor massive tax cuts to make them more cost effective. We did it with Hummers and we can do it with electrics. If you live in areas that have high polution (smog) like we do in the Treasure VALLEY it can get REALLY bad during the winter. Plug in electrics could lessen the problem to a large degree if even 10% were pure plug ins.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

KittenKoder said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um ... there is no proof that electric vehicles are any more efficient. They still need oil for lubricant, they still need plastics (actually they need more plastic than internal combustion engines do), and they still use a lot of resources. The amount of fuel they use is actually more when you factor in horse power. You do realize that internal combustion engines also produce all the electricity the car uses, right? Even in old cars almost half the machine is run on electricity produced by the generator. The torque produced by an electric engine is no less than 25% lower than a combustion engine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all BULLSHIT and secondly have you ever wondered why your car needs a water pump and a RADIATOR? Becuase most of the fuel is wasted by HEAT which is nice during the winter but NOT very good in 105 degree heat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The heat can still be harnessed even more than it is, some of the newest engines are beginning to do just that.
> 
> Face it, if electric cars were better then they would dominate the market without the government forcing it on the people, period. You can't rationalize these laws anymore, people are wising up.
Click to expand...





Tell me KK how is the heat harnessd by those new cars. What possible use can harnessing heat in a new car? Does it heat hot water so you can have a shower while you are driving?


----------



## KittenKoder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kitty Kat have you even RESEARCHED plug in electrics? NOT THOSE HYBRID pieces of crap but PURE PLUG INS. Do yourself a favor and check the Tesla and the Pheonix SUT. Just LOOK at the capabilities with an open mind. Unless you HAVE to travel cross contry in your care a plug in would work for virtually 100% of your daily needs. JUST RESEARCH and tell me what the problem is with the Tesla S.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I have, and I liked the idea however, I do not like laws that force people to do something just because someone likes it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> O.K. KK on your last part I agree completely but I would favor massive tax cuts to make them more cost effective. We did it with Hummers and we can do it with electrics. If you live in areas that have high polution (smog) like we do in the Treasure VALLEY it can get REALLY bad during the winter. Plug in electrics could lessen the problem to a large degree if even 10% were pure plug ins.
Click to expand...


Tax cuts in one area always show up as tax hikes in others. So that isn't a good option either. All I say, again, if it's a good product people will buy it and the company will thrive, if not it will fail as it should be. Most of our products are now forced on us, with little choice because of laws that keep options out of the country. Without choice we are now relying on many sub-par products and services while spending more money on them. Put the car out, let people choose, if people don't like the version they offer then make it better, that's how capitalism works and how business benefits the people. Making laws to take away choice or give tax breaks has so far done nothing but harm us, the consumer.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

KittenKoder said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kitty Kat have you even RESEARCHED plug in electrics? NOT THOSE HYBRID pieces of crap but PURE PLUG INS. Do yourself a favor and check the Tesla and the Pheonix SUT. Just LOOK at the capabilities with an open mind. Unless you HAVE to travel cross contry in your care a plug in would work for virtually 100% of your daily needs. JUST RESEARCH and tell me what the problem is with the Tesla S.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I have, and I liked the idea however, I do not like laws that force people to do something just because someone likes it.
Click to expand...





I agree I don't like mandates but many gov'ts around the WORLD subsidise industries. Why do you think our aircraft companies are having such a hard time competeing with Air bus?


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Tell me KK HOW is excess heat being used in IC cars......Heat is the BANE of IC cars. Do you knoe why turbos and supercharged cars offten have intercoolers? Because the cooler the intake charge increases power. You knoe what happens on a high performance car when the air fuel charge is too HOT? Detonation when the fuel air charge ignites before it is in the cylinder. BAD BAD NEWS!


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Well KK I guess I have just seen more of the new techs for plug ins in the last decade that makes them a VIABLE alt to IC engines......To be fair there have been MANY improvments in IC engins. Fuel injection, electronic ignition, variable timing, variable displacement where a V-8 has great power to accelerate and cruises on 4 cylinders. LOTS of great improvements but based on the 70's oil embargo I see no reason why the AVERAGE MPG isn't 50 to 80 MPG. If we had just mandated 3% improvement would have our cars with WAY higher MPG.


----------



## KittenKoder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Well KK I guess I have just seen more of the new techs for plug ins in the last decade that makes them a VIABLE alt to IC engines......To be fair there have been MANY improvments in IC engins. Fuel injection, electronic ignition, variable timing, variable displacement where a V-8 has great power to accelerate and cruises on 4 cylinders. LOTS of great improvements but based on the 70's oil embargo I see no reason why the AVERAGE MPG isn't 50 to 80 MPG. If we had just mandated 3% improvement would have our cars with WAY higher MPG.



There you go again, calling for more government. More government control is always bad.


----------



## JBeukema

KittenKoder said:


> More government control is always bad.



really?

ever heard of an 'interstate'?


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Come on KK to mandate better MPG it's done all the time with CAFE standards but they are so weak that we had cars in the 70's that were getting 50 MPG in order to get that kind of MPG you have to drive one of those piece of shit Mercedes "Smart" cars.


----------



## KittenKoder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Come on KK to mandate better MPG it's done all the time with CAFE standards but they are so weak that we had cars in the 70's that were getting 50 MPG in order to get that kind of MPG you have to drive one of those piece of shit Mercedes "Smart" cars.



Just because it's been done in the past doesn't mean it's right now.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

They tried to do variable displacement in I think an early 80s Cadilac......It was a horrible flop because it didn't work well at ALL. But it has been perfected so why isn't it available on ALL cars? You car can "Cruise" on hlaf the cylinders saving gas AND polution.

The plug ins have GREATLY improved as has the battery tech. These cars are improving in leaps and bounds but there is this odd hatred of plug ins.......I can't figure out WHY!!! Fully 80% of Americans can use a plug in for their EVERY DAY NEEDS.......That means NO FUEL in an IC engine. Plug it in at night and you recharge it using POWER PLANTS and even if they are COAL FIRED they are more efficient that ANY IC engine out there. Now if we were to get 10-20-100 nuke power plants on line there would be ZERO emissions. Even if we had WIND power which by the way INCREASES at NIGHT when most cars will charge......ZERO emissions. Why do you combat this idea?


----------



## Cold Fusion38

So like going to the MOON we could do it 40 years ago but not NOW!!?? Makes no sense what-so-ever. The Fiat X-19 got upto 50 MPG. Were they trouble proned? Yeah they were but they were also fun as hell to drive. So let's see.....Fun to drive.....50MPG......And that was in the 70's. The fact is that in the 70's and 80's the Japanese saw and perfected the tech while the Big Three kept their heads buried in the sand and fucked us ALL OVER!


----------



## KittenKoder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> So like going to the MOON we could do it 40 years ago but not NOW!!?? Makes no sense what-so-ever. The Fiat X-19 got upto 50 MPG. Were they trouble proned? Yeah they were but they were also fun as hell to drive. So let's see.....Fun to drive.....50MPG......And that was in the 70's. The fact is that in the 70's and 80's the Japanese saw and perfected the tech while the Big Three kept their heads buried in the sand and fucked us ALL OVER!



I have not mentioned it here, but I do agree that this "new" gas mileage is rather stupid, it has to do with a government regulation that oil companies pushed for. *hint hint*


----------



## Cold Fusion38

KittenKoder said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So like going to the MOON we could do it 40 years ago but not NOW!!?? Makes no sense what-so-ever. The Fiat X-19 got upto 50 MPG. Were they trouble proned? Yeah they were but they were also fun as hell to drive. So let's see.....Fun to drive.....50MPG......And that was in the 70's. The fact is that in the 70's and 80's the Japanese saw and perfected the tech while the Big Three kept their heads buried in the sand and fucked us ALL OVER!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have not mentioned it here, but I do agree that this "new" gas mileage is rather stupid, it has to do with a government regulation that oil companies pushed for. *hint hint*
Click to expand...




Elaborate please.


----------



## KittenKoder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So like going to the MOON we could do it 40 years ago but not NOW!!?? Makes no sense what-so-ever. The Fiat X-19 got upto 50 MPG. Were they trouble proned? Yeah they were but they were also fun as hell to drive. So let's see.....Fun to drive.....50MPG......And that was in the 70's. The fact is that in the 70's and 80's the Japanese saw and perfected the tech while the Big Three kept their heads buried in the sand and fucked us ALL OVER!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have not mentioned it here, but I do agree that this "new" gas mileage is rather stupid, it has to do with a government regulation that oil companies pushed for. *hint hint*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Elaborate please.
Click to expand...


By utilizing government regulations and laws the oil companies had managed to manipulate the manufacturing "standards" imposed by the government. The standards actually forced auto makers in the US to reduce the mileage in order to accommodate the changes which were rationalized as "safety precautions" or other such nonsense. One of the biggest decreases in efficiency was due to being forced to make them more environmentally safe, though in reality the changes did not come close (actually as we see quite the opposite). The problem people don't realize is that the government doesn't care about the people, it makes money for it's politicians much the same way organized crime does, bribes.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Yeah.. ok.  Who's gonna save us from numbnuts like YOU?


----------



## Cold Fusion38

So tell me KK you never explained how HEAT is being used in IC engines. Are you aware of a technology that I'm not?


----------



## Cold Fusion38

KittenKoder said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not mentioned it here, but I do agree that this "new" gas mileage is rather stupid, it has to do with a government regulation that oil companies pushed for. *hint hint*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Elaborate please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By utilizing government regulations and laws the oil companies had managed to manipulate the manufacturing "standards" imposed by the government. The standards actually forced auto makers in the US to reduce the mileage in order to accommodate the changes which were rationalized as "safety precautions" or other such nonsense. One of the biggest decreases in efficiency was due to being forced to make them more environmentally safe, though in reality the changes did not come close (actually as we see quite the opposite). The problem people don't realize is that the government doesn't care about the people, it makes money for it's politicians much the same way organized crime does, bribes.
Click to expand...





Well I know one saftey factor that dogged US cars was the need for sealed headlights. Supposedly "safer" but at least we got rid of that little scam.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

I don't think you have shown how CAFE standards have had the opposite effect.


----------



## DiveCon

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Kitty Kat have you even RESEARCHED plug in electrics? NOT THOSE HYBRID pieces of crap but PURE PLUG INS. Do yourself a favor and check the Tesla and the Pheonix SUT. Just LOOK at the capabilities with an open mind. Unless you HAVE to travel cross contry in your care a plug in would work for virtually 100% of your daily needs. JUST RESEARCH and tell me what the problem is with the Tesla S.


Electric Cars, Green Vehicle :: Phoenix Motorcars, Inc.

dang, too bad they dont make a 2 door


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Damn Dive now it has to be a TWO DOOR.


----------



## Midnight Marauder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> O.K. I'll give you the BOOOSH thing although I worked in the auto industry at the time and Boosh sure as hell wasn't breaking any speed records to try to get rid of it.
> 
> 
> 
> You're like, only 15 or so, correct? It shows. You blamed Boooosh for something the Congress in the 80s did, and only Congress could ever UN do. You realize that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and let's see as far as HP and TORQUE go you should look up electric drag race....Watch PLUG IN ELECTRICS shred the IC competition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your video shows IC vehicles which are NOT drag race cars. They are street cars which weigh twice as much as the electric they're up against, driven by amateurs. Hardly an apples to apples comparison.
> 
> There's also NO word on how much _money_ he's got tied up there, but I think it's safe to say you could buy any four of his competition easily, with the money spent on that one.
> 
> However, that little impractical car IS an impressive performer, _in the quarter-mile_. But can it run 300 miles at highway speed between charges with a 20 minute stop for fuel, like IC cars can? Can it provide comfort to the driver and passengers, with AC in summer and heat in winter? Can it defrost the glass? Can it burn headlights and running lights at night without losing significant range between charges? Does it have power steering? Any other creature features?
> 
> Also left out of the equation is all the COPPER in the motor. Do you have any idea how much pollution is created and energy is used by digging up and refining copper?
> 
> If the windings in the motor are aluminum, the carbon footprint is even worse yet.
> 
> The car still has a massive carbon footprint, it takes alot of energy and pollution to make the batteries, and the motor. You're just deluding yourself if you think wind turbines, solar panels, and plug-in electric vehicles are anything close to carbon neutral, much less carbon negative.
> 
> But of course, you're deluded anyway because you know these cannot compete in the marketplace without massive government subsidies we all pay for. That's why you're _for _them either being subsidized or mandated!
> 
> Because you know
> 
> 
> They're not
> 
> 
> practical or
> 
> 
> a viable alternative.
> 
> Otherwise, you wouldn't be for the government mandates and subsidies.
> 
> Now, you never answered any of this, from my previous post:
> 
> _What we SHOULD do if we are SERIOUS about reducing CO2 in the atmosphere is START by OUTLAWING its RECREATIONAL use first!
> 
> Uses such as Hollywood "smoke" special effects, wrestling events and rock concerts, football, basketball and hockey games, toys which use CO2 canisters such as paint ball guns, and so on. DRY ICE should be banned except for medical use. It's PURE CO2 which goes into the atmosphere as well!
> 
> We could ban the use of CO2 for such things as fire suppression and water treatment, where better methods have been developed but aren't mandated.
> 
> Why no outcry over those? It's _ _millions of tons of unnecessary CO2 every year!
> 
> _ _Because, THESE uses aren't the byproduct of EVIL fossil fuels combustion!
> 
> Ya see? There's apparently "good CO2" and "bad" CO2 just like with cholesterol? Except with CO2, it's ALL bad or it's ALL good, there's NO middle ground there. It's all the same CO2, no matter how you make it and release it into the atmosphere. We should FIRST stop manufacturing it and releasing it for purely entertainment reasons, and for reasons which are superseded, if we are REALLY sure it's causing global climate catastrophe.
> 
> Right?
> 
> THINK.     _ CO2 is a convenient devil, so long as you don't look too closely and ask too many hard questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THIS is your FUCKING argument you keep refering to? So *we should BAN copper and aluminum mining*. So YOUR solution is to *ban smoke machines!!!???* Talk about a drop in the fucking barrel.
> 
> So if we are going to ban it for "entertainment" purposes then EVERY TYPE of RECREATIONAL vehicle would be BANNED.....That's going to piss off a BUNCH of boat owners.
> 
> 
> 
> And it is *NOT all the same CO2* because IC engines are the LEAST efficient way to burn fossil fuels for transportation.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess we will just have to say *NO MORE houses because of copper wiring huh? *
> 
> Your points are so GD ignorant that they really don't even DESERVE a response but since you've been bitching about it for so long I thought I HAD to to try to SHUT YOU THE FUCK UP about it.
> 
> 
> Your entire post is worthless bullshit unless you advocate banning mining!!!
Click to expand...

Your reading comprehension leaves alot to be desired, as I pointed out earlier. And you've shown that, by your reply which erects many strawman arguments:

_A *straw man* argument is an informal fallacy based on *misrepresentation of an opponent's position*. To "attack a straw man" is to *create the illusion* of having refuted a proposition by substituting a *superficially similar proposition* (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position._

If you go back and read carefully, you might have your one working brain cell kick in and say, "Oh, he never said anything I asserted."

And by the way, gonna have to require a credible source for this bullshit assertion you keep making:





> IC engines are the LEAST efficient way to burn fossil fuels for transportation.


----------



## Midnight Marauder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Would it surprise you to know that at one point there were more ELECTRIC cars in the US than fossil fuel cars?


Again, credible source needed.


----------



## DiveCon

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Damn Dive now it has to be a TWO DOOR.


its what i WANT
no one makes an SUV 2 door anymore


----------



## Midnight Marauder

KittenKoder said:


> Face it, if electric cars were better then they would dominate the market without the government forcing it on the people, period. You can't rationalize these laws anymore, people are wising up.


This is why infantile morons like Cold Fusion get so upset. Because they are operating merely on emotion, not intellect. If they operated on some intellect, they not only wouldn't be getting upset, they would be cognizant of the actual issue.


----------



## keee keee

How are you going to charge all the electric cars you want everyone to use? The greenies won't let any new power plants coal, nukes be built? Wind won't cut it!!!! this green stuff is all bull shit!!!! Global warming is not happening!!!!


----------



## Midnight Marauder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> There ya go and I could SPAM the hell out of this entire US NEWS MESSAGE BOARD with a shitload of FACTS about electric cars.


Your assertion was "at one time there were more electric cars than IC ones" or some such, and that's accurate so long as one doesn't consider that electric motors were invented long before the IC engine. I mean, yeah it's like saying "at one time there were more oil lamps than lightbulbs." No shit!

And providing credible links to your assertions isn't "spamming" it's called, "honest discourse." However, posting entire copyrighted articles or a large part of them will get you in trouble here real fast, not due to "spamming" but because, it's illegal.

Now...

The IC engine, like the light bulb, came along and blew away it's predecessor totally.

And still does, and still will unless you get the government to do what Al Gore wants, and ban IC engines.

Have you read his book, "Earth in the Balance?"


----------



## Midnight Marauder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> The History of Electric Vehicles
> 
> Recent Years (1990 to 1998)


A link is all that's necessary. Again, pasting vast amounts of copyrighted material is a quick way to get in trouble here.

Still, you ignore my point.


----------



## del

Cold Fusion38 said:


> The History of Electric Vehicles
> 
> The Early Years - Electric Cars (1890 - 1930)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More of This EV History Feature
>  EV History - Early Years
>  EV History - Middle Years
>  EV History - Current Years
> 
> 
> 
> Related Car Resources
>  Solar Powered Cars
>  Alternative Energy
>  History of Cars
>  History of Streetcars
>  History of Electricity
>  Car Invention Trivia
> 
> 
> 
> Between 1832 and 1839 (the exact year is uncertain), Robert Anderson of Scotland invented the first crude electric carriage. A small-scale electric car was designed by Professor Stratingh of Groningen, Holland, and built by his assistant Christopher Becker in 1835. Practical and more successful electric road vehicles were invented by both American Thomas Davenport and Scotsmen Robert Davidson around 1842. Both inventors were the first to use non-rechargeable electric cells. Frenchmen Gaston Plante invented a better storage battery in 1865 and his fellow countrymen Camille Faure improved the storage battery in 1881. This improved-capacity storage battery paved the way for electric vehicles to flourish.
> Sponsored Links
> Honda Insight Hybrid
> The hybrid for everyone is here. Compare at the Official Site.
> Honda.com: Official Site of American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
> 
> Bike Electrified Kits
> 600 watt conversion kit only $489 400 watt conversion kit only $280
> www.werelectrified.com
> 
> Electric Car
> Read the latest on fuel economy and green cars on Auto123.com.
> www.auto123.com
> 
> France and Great Britain were the first nations to support the widespread development of electric vehicles in the late 1800s. In 1899, a Belgian built electric racing car called "La Jamais Contente" set a world record for land speed - 68 mph - designed by Camille Jénatzy.
> 
> It was not until 1895 that Americans began to devote attention to electric vehicles after an electric tricycle was built by A. L. Ryker and William Morrison built a six-passenger wagon both in 1891. Many innovations followed and interest in motor vehicles increased greatly in the late 1890s and early 1900s. In 1897, the first commercial application was established as a fleet of New York City taxis built by the Electric Carriage and Wagon Company of Philadelphia.
> 
> The early electric vehicles, such as the 1902 Wood's Phaeton (top image), were little more than electrified horseless carriages and surreys. The Phaeton had a range of 18 miles, a top speed of 14 mph and cost $2,000. Later in 1916, Woods invented a hybrid car that had both an internal combustion engine and an electric motor.
> 
> By the turn of the century, America was prosperous and cars, now available in steam, electric, or gasoline versions, were becoming more popular. The years 1899 and 1900 were the high point of electric cars in America, as they outsold all other types of cars. Electric vehicles had many advantages over their competitors in the early 1900s. They did not have the vibration, smell, and noise associated with gasoline cars. Changing gears on gasoline cars was the most difficult part of driving, while electric vehicles did not require gear changes. While steam-powered cars also had no gear shifting, they suffered from long start-up times of up to 45 minutes on cold mornings. The steam cars had less range before needing water than an electric's range on a single charge. The only good roads of the period were in town, causing most travel to be local commuting, a perfect situation for electric vehicles, since their range was limited. The electric vehicle was the preferred choice of many because it did not require the manual effort to start, as with the hand crank on gasoline vehicles, and there was no wrestling with a gear shifter.
> 
> While basic electric cars cost under $1,000, most early electric vehicles were ornate, massive carriages designed for the upper class. They had fancy interiors, with expensive materials, and averaged $3,000 by 1910. Electric vehicles enjoyed success into the 1920s with production peaking in 1912.
> 
> The decline of the electric vehicle was brought about by several major developments:
> 
> By the 1920s, America had a better system of roads that now connected cities, bringing with it the need for longer-range vehicles.
> The discovery of Texas crude oil reduced the price of gasoline so that it was affordable to the average consumer.
> The invention of the electric starter by Charles Kettering in 1912 eliminated the need for the hand crank.
> 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.
> Next page > History of Electric Cars - The Middle Years (1930 - 1990
> 
> 
> 
> There ya go and *I could SPAM the hell out of this entire US NEWS MESSAGE BOARD with a shitload of FACTS about electric cars.*


*regardless of the merits of electric cars, that would be a really bad idea. i'd also appreciate it if you'd read and adhere to board rules for copyrighted material. go back and edit your posts appropriately or they will be deleted.
thanks
del*


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Oh yeah I gues I wouldn't want to break any copy write laws. My bad but there is litterally TONS of info in favor of electric at least as much for gas cars and hell they had a whole LOBBY for them. Go up against big oil and see what that gets ya. And no I am NOT an enviro-nut I just think that electric cars with proper development can be fun efficient clean and BETTER than IC based cars. Oh and by the way I HATE hybrids they have all the problems of BOTH in one small package.


----------



## Midnight Marauder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Oh yeah I gues I wouldn't want to break any copy write laws. My bad but there is litterally TONS of info in favor of electric at least as much for gas cars and hell they had a whole LOBBY for them. Go up against big oil and see what that gets ya. And no I am NOT an enviro-nut I just think that electric cars with proper development can be fun efficient clean and BETTER than IC based cars. Oh and by the way I HATE hybrids they have all the problems of BOTH in one small package.


All anyone is asking is for you to practice honest discourse. Your constant fallacies, unbacked assertions, and repetitive posting aren't conductive to rational discussion.

Thus far you're not looking too good in this thread. Mostly because you really are ignorant of physics, thermodynamics, Ohm's law and science in general.

And you haven't even really studied modern electric controls, otherwise you wouldn't be making the infantile, idiotic comparison between slot car controllers and digital commutators in use today.

You simply don't know what you're talking about, and it shows, miserably.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Can I go back and edit them out. I really didn't think about any Copy Rite laws. Not looking for a Federal charge or anything hell I don't even pirate MUSIC.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

You COULD make an electric out of say a VW Bug and you wouldnt need anythink more than a slot car controler under a gas peddle.

I just wonder WHY you are so vehmently opposed to electric cars? Do you have an AGENDA that you would like to let us all know about?


----------



## del

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Can I go back and edit them out. I really didn't think about any Copy Rite laws. Not looking for a Federal charge or anything hell I don't even pirate MUSIC.



most of it seems to be linked, just don't do it going forward. a link and a couple of paragraphs at most. thanks for cooperating


----------



## Cold Fusion38

del said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can I go back and edit them out. I really didn't think about any Copy Rite laws. Not looking for a Federal charge or anything hell I don't even pirate MUSIC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> most of it seems to be linked, just don't do it going forward. a link and a couple of paragraphs at most. thanks for cooperating
Click to expand...





I just deleted I don't want to cause trouble. But there is a TON of info for how and WHY plug in electrics can be better in most every way than IC cars. Tell me if you could why to just about the LAST person BEGGED GM to let them keep their EV1s.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

So tell me MM how efficient are IC engines? Why do they produce SO MUCH unwanted heat that has to be vented out through radiators?


----------



## Midnight Marauder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> You COULD make an electric out of say a VW Bug and you wouldnt need anythink more than a slot car controler under a gas peddle.


Yes, you would need alot more than that. If you knew anything about it, you would know that.





> I just wonder WHY you are so vehmently opposed to electric cars? Do you have an AGENDA that you would like to let us all know about?


Another straw man. I am _not _opposed to electric cars. I am opposed to the government MANDATING them. I am opposed to the government _creating a false market for them_ with my tax dollars, through subsidies.

I am designing a diesel-electric vehicle, been working on it for two years and I have a couple of patents on it, that will get 200 miles per gallon and the prototype will be built out of a Hummer.

It will be able to be charged by plugging in or, by letting the genset run. It will maintain its charge during operation -- never any need to _stop_ to recharge. It's basically a locomotive, like you see pulling freight, scaled down.

This diesel-electric Hummer will be driven to Detroit, Washington, Times Square then on to Berkley using 40 gallons of diesel fuel, when it is built. I am still a long way from building it however.

You have no concept at all of how electric motors and controls work. I _do_ have, having been an engineer for most of my adult life. To give you a clue of how successful that career was, I am retired at age 47 and never have to work again. Although, I get calls and emails quite often from people asking me to take on projects.

You're relying on assumptions and false arguments, fallacies and outright inaccuracies. You're bereft of any logic or reason. And, you're emotionally overwrought.

All products of the lazy, sloppy, undisciplined mush-mind.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Well I'm out gotta go do REAL things. Have a good one and sorry for my violation of board rules. I tend to just agree to them than rather than try to read all the "LEGALEZE"


----------



## Midnight Marauder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> So tell me MM how efficient are IC engines?


_You_ prove YOUR assertion, with a credible source, that IC engines are "THE most inefficient user of fossil fuels."


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Midnight Marauder said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You COULD make an electric out of say a VW Bug and you wouldnt need anythink more than a slot car controler under a gas peddle.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you would need alot more than that. If you knew anything about it, you would know that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just wonder WHY you are so vehmently opposed to electric cars? Do you have an AGENDA that you would like to let us all know about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another straw man. I am _not _opposed to electric cars. I am opposed to the government MANDATING them. I am opposed to the government _creating a false market for them_ with my tax dollars, through subsidies.
> 
> I am designing a diesel-electric vehicle, been working on it for two years and I have a couple of patents on it, that will get 200 miles per gallon and the prototype will be built out of a Hummer.
> 
> It will be able to be charged by plugging in or, by letting the genset run. It will maintain its charge during operation -- never any need to _stop_ to recharge. It's basically a locomotive, like you see pulling freight, scaled down.
> 
> This diesel-electric Hummer will be driven to Detroit, Washington, Times Square then on to Berkley using 40 gallons of diesel fuel, when it is built. I am still a long way from building it however.
> 
> You have no concept at all of how electric motors and controls work. I _do_ have, having been an engineer for most of my adult life. To give you a clue of how successful that career was, I am retired at age 47 and never have to work again. Although, I get calls and emails quite often from people asking me to take on projects.
> 
> You're relying on assumptions and false arguments, fallacies and outright inaccuracies. You're bereft of any logic or reason. And, you're emotionally overwrought.
> 
> All products of the lazy, sloppy, undisciplined mush-mind.
Click to expand...




Dude rock on hope it works!!!


----------



## Midnight Marauder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You COULD make an electric out of say a VW Bug and you wouldnt need anythink more than a slot car controler under a gas peddle.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you would need alot more than that. If you knew anything about it, you would know that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just wonder WHY you are so vehmently opposed to electric cars? Do you have an AGENDA that you would like to let us all know about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another straw man. I am _not _opposed to electric cars. I am opposed to the government MANDATING them. I am opposed to the government _creating a false market for them_ with my tax dollars, through subsidies.
> 
> I am designing a diesel-electric vehicle, been working on it for two years and I have a couple of patents on it, that will get 200 miles per gallon and the prototype will be built out of a Hummer.
> 
> It will be able to be charged by plugging in or, by letting the genset run. It will maintain its charge during operation -- never any need to _stop_ to recharge. It's basically a locomotive, like you see pulling freight, scaled down.
> 
> This diesel-electric Hummer will be driven to Detroit, Washington, Times Square then on to Berkley using 40 gallons of diesel fuel, when it is built. I am still a long way from building it however.
> 
> You have no concept at all of how electric motors and controls work. I _do_ have, having been an engineer for most of my adult life. To give you a clue of how successful that career was, I am retired at age 47 and never have to work again. Although, I get calls and emails quite often from people asking me to take on projects.
> 
> You're relying on assumptions and false arguments, fallacies and outright inaccuracies. You're bereft of any logic or reason. And, you're emotionally overwrought.
> 
> All products of the lazy, sloppy, undisciplined mush-mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude rock on hope it works!!!
Click to expand...

Diesel-electric locomotives work. So there is no question of a scaled down version working.


----------



## Maple

TTPANL said:


> Electric cars need to be mandated. PERIOD !



Oh yeah, like anyone can actually afford one. Remember the economy worst since the depression, double digit unemployment. Get real and engage your brain bubba.


----------



## Ringel05

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Ring have I said ANYTHING about replacing your F-350 a one ton HEAVY DUTY TRUCK? You (hopefully) have a need for such a truck but do you also have a smaller car? If so would you be opposed to replacing your comuter car with a plug in?



Nope, don't have any need other than as a penis extender, having the opportunity to waste as much gas as possible and pump as many polutants into the atmosphere as I can.  Just kidding.  It _is_ my commuter car.  At this point in time I have no desire to fork out the purchase price, maintenance and licensing costs of an additional vehicle, electric or otherwise.


----------



## The T

Midnight Marauder said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you would need alot more than that. If you knew anything about it, you would know that.Another straw man. I am _not _opposed to electric cars. I am opposed to the government MANDATING them. I am opposed to the government _creating a false market for them_ with my tax dollars, through subsidies.
> 
> I am designing a diesel-electric vehicle, been working on it for two years and I have a couple of patents on it, that will get 200 miles per gallon and the prototype will be built out of a Hummer.
> 
> It will be able to be charged by plugging in or, by letting the genset run. It will maintain its charge during operation -- never any need to _stop_ to recharge. It's basically a locomotive, like you see pulling freight, scaled down.
> 
> This diesel-electric Hummer will be driven to Detroit, Washington, Times Square then on to Berkley using 40 gallons of diesel fuel, when it is built. I am still a long way from building it however.
> 
> You have no concept at all of how electric motors and controls work. I _do_ have, having been an engineer for most of my adult life. To give you a clue of how successful that career was, I am retired at age 47 and never have to work again. Although, I get calls and emails quite often from people asking me to take on projects.
> 
> You're relying on assumptions and false arguments, fallacies and outright inaccuracies. You're bereft of any logic or reason. And, you're emotionally overwrought.
> 
> All products of the lazy, sloppy, undisciplined mush-mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude rock on hope it works!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Diesel-electric locomotives work. So there is no question of a scaled down version working.
Click to expand...

 
Agreed. And that technology has been refined since it's advent. It is very efficient.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

The cool thing about what you are proposing is if you had 4 electric motors at each wheel you could transfer upto 100% to the wheel with traction. Especially cool if it's a sports car. Have you looked into the new Diesel cars from BMW and VW? Thay sounnd pretty nice with none of the old diesel problems. What are your thoughts?


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Well I guess technically you could have 25% go to the wheel with traction but for sports cars it would be handy.


----------



## DiveCon

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Well I guess technically you could have 25% go to the wheel with traction but for sports cars it would be handy.


if your in a situation where only 1 wheel has traction, your already in deep shit
LOL


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Good point! I'm out have a good one!


----------



## Midnight Marauder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> The cool thing about what you are proposing is if you had 4 electric motors at each wheel you could transfer upto 100% to the wheel with traction.


Wheelmotors is what locomotives use. However, not practical in the scaled down version. At first blush it does sound right, and my design originally incorporated them. But I quickly realized that it was really more for show than go, just vanity. Just for showing off. When I need 4WD I can get it mechanically. You don't need all four wheels driving at highway speeds anyway, two of them would just be idling most of the time, so why bother? Locomotives however, DO need all 16 wheels powered at all times.

Mine uses a single motor with limited slip differential. It just quite simply replaces the original engine and tranny in the drive train. It's also, AC instead of DC. Far more efficient, you have far better control, need much fewer batteries, everything's smaller from the wires to the controller to the stator. Higher voltage means much fewer amps to do the same work. Fewer amps also means alot less heat. You get alot more bang for the buck.

It's all controlled by a PLC. (Programmable Logic Controller) Everything on the vehicle. Everything for controls is digital +-5 volt, from the footfeed commutator to the turn signals to the headlamp switches. Everything. No matter what control is used, it's +-5 volt and goes as an input to the PLC. No 12 volt anywhere but on the output side of the PLC and PoU. (Point of Use)

The PLC is also constantly monitoring speed, (Yes we have cruise control) AC motor performance, the DC bus, the 12 volt system, the hydrogen generator, and even monitors and controls the diesel genset! It also even knows if you have buckled your seat belts or not, and reminds you! Tells you if a door is ajar, all that rot. Controls the climate in the cabin! Everything cars have today, every little bell and whistle, this PLC the size of a brick, controls. And it's programmed from your laptop!

The motor is controlled by a variable frequency drive. It utilizes the onboard DC bus I'll be maintaining with the batteries and the genset, and converts the current into a digitally simulated 3 phase AC waveform. This allows complete control of all parameters in the motor -- from frequency, amperage, magnetism, everything. Can actually magnetically LOCK and hold the rotor completely if need be. This allows me to use _commercially available_ AC motors, and not have to have a custom one made! Important point here, this also makes this easily built and sold as a _refit kit for existing vehicles of any size and type_! THAT's recycling!

By the way, you only need to start the diesel for longer trips. The PLC program decides if we need the diesel, and when. And starts and stops it as necessary, and even controls its RPM. Most little in-town stuff won't require it, since you can plug in when you get home. But for longer trips, you're looking at extremely good fuel mileage at highway speeds. It'll be upwards of 200 MPG if not better. Which is just the opposite of what you get with a hybrid -- they're actually worse on the highway than they are in city driving.

Also, this has Hydrogen injection to supplement the diesel. I have had this on one of my diesel pick-ups for a couple of years. With this diesel-electric powerplant, there's ample power to make lots of hydrogen. In a diesel, hydrogen is very beneficial both for performance, mileage, and also for reducing wear. The only way Hydrogen is viable to make -- where you get back almost (but not quite) what you put into it to make it -- is as a _supplement_ to your diesel fuel. (We cannot change the laws of thermodynamics, for starters.) But, since I have the capability of generating 5kva at all times anyway, it would be nonsensical _not_ to make hydrogen during the process, to supplement the diesel.

Everything on this is in my computer, in my _SolidWorks_ design program. A wonderful piece of software, allows me to design, build and even test_ everything_ in the virtual world. You mentioned BMW and VW earlier? They use _SolidWorks_ or a similar design program as well.

The EV race car you gave us the video of earlier? I went to the guy's website and studied his specs. He's easily got $300,000 in that car. It has a 30 mile range at normal driving, then it needs plugged in. It's designed as a _novelty drag racer_, basically a rich man's _toy_ -- he makes no pretense at all of it being in any way practical to own for just driving around, and he cannot take it on trips of any distance without trailering it and hauling it with his..... Diesel Dually pick-up.

Not cutting it down, it just is what it is. It's exactly what he wanted to build. I want to build a 200 MPG Hummer, and it's a much taller, much more challenging -- and much more universally beneficial, order.

By the way, I chose a Hummer for the symbolism. It's the poster boy of excess and waste, almost universally. The _shock value_ of converting it to the most practical, most luxurious, and definitely easily the highest mileage vehicle around is what I'm going for.

I am waiting for a junked one to pop up, which isn't totaled. That I can buy pretty cheap. I'm not getting any gubmint grants or funding to do this, so I have to be miserly. When the right Hummer pops up, this all starts in the real world. Gonna cost me around $122,000, give or take 5 or 6, to build this prototype.

Now I hope you understand why I so strenuously object to the OP of this thread. We don't need any freaking mandates or subsidies from the gubmint to make shit work. It only _stymies_ true progress in most cases. And also causes alot of waste, because people who get grants don't worry too much about being miserly.

If I got a gubmint grant for this, I would fast-track it and not worry too much about getting a junked Hummer on the cheap. I would go out and buy a used one and pay twice as much or more. I wouldn't have the incentive to really design this thing, it would be mostly trial and error. I would probably hire help as well -- all of this driving the cost up to probably triple or more what I am projecting.

See?


----------



## KittenKoder

I will always be against the government telling anyone how to live, it's why I am still in the US to begin with, they aren't suppose to be able to do this. Now we are not much different from Japan, and becoming more like China every year.


----------



## Old Rocks

Midnight Marauder said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should also provide tax breaks like the ones Bush gave for people to go buy HUMMERS
> 
> 
> 
> Tax breaks to buy Hummers?
> 
> I'm so certain you can back that assertion with a credible link.
> 
> Wait, no I'm not..... Forgot the idiot who posted that never backs up anything said.
> 
> And it's FUEL, idiot. Not "fule."
Click to expand...


Well, old man, look who is the idiot;

BELLEVUE -- Standing next to his shiny Hummer H2, John Brightbill recounted a perk that a fellow owner noted about driving this immense sport utility vehicle.

"He said some young women wanted to drive around the block with him," said Brightbill, a real estate broker. "That hasn't happened to me yet."


   Gilbert W. Arias / P-I 
  Real estate broker John Brightbill stands beside his Hummer H2. He is considering the tax write-off -- "I've been using it partially for business." 
But some people have a more practical reason for laying down $50,000 to $60,000 to buy an H2: a federal tax deduction of nearly $38,000. 

"The government is sort of subsidizing people for buying these land yachts," said Henry Pierman, a certified public accountant with Hauser & Associates in Bellevue. "It's one of those odd things that happen. I would say maybe half of the CPAs are aware of this loophole."
It's not just a Hummer, it's a tax break


----------



## Midnight Marauder

Old Rocks said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should also provide tax breaks like the ones Bush gave for people to go buy HUMMERS
> 
> 
> 
> Tax breaks to buy Hummers?
> 
> I'm so certain you can back that assertion with a credible link.
> 
> Wait, no I'm not..... Forgot the idiot who posted that never backs up anything said.
> 
> And it's FUEL, idiot. Not "fule."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, old man, look who is the idiot;
> 
> BELLEVUE -- Standing next to his shiny Hummer H2, John Brightbill recounted a perk that a fellow owner noted about driving this immense sport utility vehicle.
> 
> "He said some young women wanted to drive around the block with him," said Brightbill, a real estate broker. "That hasn't happened to me yet."
> 
> 
> Gilbert W. Arias / P-I
> Real estate broker John Brightbill stands beside his Hummer H2. He is considering the tax write-off -- "I've been using it partially for business."
> But some people have a more practical reason for laying down $50,000 to $60,000 to buy an H2: a federal tax deduction of nearly $38,000.
> 
> "The government is sort of subsidizing people for buying these land yachts," said Henry Pierman, a certified public accountant with Hauser & Associates in Bellevue. "It's one of those odd things that happen. I would say maybe half of the CPAs are aware of this loophole."
> It's not just a Hummer, it's a tax break
Click to expand...

Clearly you're a ignorant idiot. This was covered in the thread, and the assertion that it was Booooosh who made this happen was blown away totally.

Aren't you embarrassed now?


----------



## DiveCon

Midnight Marauder said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tax breaks to buy Hummers?
> 
> I'm so certain you can back that assertion with a credible link.
> 
> Wait, no I'm not..... Forgot the idiot who posted that never backs up anything said.
> 
> And it's FUEL, idiot. Not "fule."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, old man, look who is the idiot;
> 
> BELLEVUE -- Standing next to his shiny Hummer H2, John Brightbill recounted a perk that a fellow owner noted about driving this immense sport utility vehicle.
> 
> "He said some young women wanted to drive around the block with him," said Brightbill, a real estate broker. "That hasn't happened to me yet."
> 
> 
> Gilbert W. Arias / P-I
> Real estate broker John Brightbill stands beside his Hummer H2. He is considering the tax write-off -- "I've been using it partially for business."
> But some people have a more practical reason for laying down $50,000 to $60,000 to buy an H2: a federal tax deduction of nearly $38,000.
> 
> "The government is sort of subsidizing people for buying these land yachts," said Henry Pierman, a certified public accountant with Hauser & Associates in Bellevue. "It's one of those odd things that happen. I would say maybe half of the CPAs are aware of this loophole."
> It's not just a Hummer, it's a tax break
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly you're a ignorant idiot. This was covered in the thread, and the assertion that it was Booooosh who made this happen was blown away totally.
> 
> Aren't you embarrassed now?
Click to expand...

he SHOULD be
but i doubt he will admit it


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Midnight Marauder said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The cool thing about what you are proposing is if you had 4 electric motors at each wheel you could transfer upto 100% to the wheel with traction.
> 
> 
> 
> Wheelmotors is what locomotives use. However, not practical in the scaled down version. At first blush it does sound right, and my design originally incorporated them. But I quickly realized that it was really more for show than go, just vanity. Just for showing off. When I need 4WD I can get it mechanically. You don't need all four wheels driving at highway speeds anyway, two of them would just be idling most of the time, so why bother? Locomotives however, DO need all 16 wheels powered at all times.
> 
> Mine uses a single motor with limited slip differential. It just quite simply replaces the original engine and tranny in the drive train. It's also, AC instead of DC. Far more efficient, you have far better control, need much fewer batteries, everything's smaller from the wires to the controller to the stator. Higher voltage means much fewer amps to do the same work. Fewer amps also means alot less heat. You get alot more bang for the buck.
> 
> It's all controlled by a PLC. (Programmable Logic Controller) Everything on the vehicle. Everything for controls is digital +-5 volt, from the footfeed commutator to the turn signals to the headlamp switches. Everything. No matter what control is used, it's +-5 volt and goes as an input to the PLC. No 12 volt anywhere but on the output side of the PLC and PoU. (Point of Use)
> 
> The PLC is also constantly monitoring speed, (Yes we have cruise control) AC motor performance, the DC bus, the 12 volt system, the hydrogen generator, and even monitors and controls the diesel genset! It also even knows if you have buckled your seat belts or not, and reminds you! Tells you if a door is ajar, all that rot. Controls the climate in the cabin! Everything cars have today, every little bell and whistle, this PLC the size of a brick, controls. And it's programmed from your laptop!
> 
> The motor is controlled by a variable frequency drive. It utilizes the onboard DC bus I'll be maintaining with the batteries and the genset, and converts the current into a digitally simulated 3 phase AC waveform. This allows complete control of all parameters in the motor -- from frequency, amperage, magnetism, everything. Can actually magnetically LOCK and hold the rotor completely if need be. This allows me to use _commercially available_ AC motors, and not have to have a custom one made! Important point here, this also makes this easily built and sold as a _refit kit for existing vehicles of any size and type_! THAT's recycling!
> 
> By the way, you only need to start the diesel for longer trips. The PLC program decides if we need the diesel, and when. And starts and stops it as necessary, and even controls its RPM. Most little in-town stuff won't require it, since you can plug in when you get home. But for longer trips, you're looking at extremely good fuel mileage at highway speeds. It'll be upwards of 200 MPG if not better. Which is just the opposite of what you get with a hybrid -- they're actually worse on the highway than they are in city driving.
> 
> Also, this has Hydrogen injection to supplement the diesel. I have had this on one of my diesel pick-ups for a couple of years. With this diesel-electric powerplant, there's ample power to make lots of hydrogen. In a diesel, hydrogen is very beneficial both for performance, mileage, and also for reducing wear. The only way Hydrogen is viable to make -- where you get back almost (but not quite) what you put into it to make it -- is as a _supplement_ to your diesel fuel. (We cannot change the laws of thermodynamics, for starters.) But, since I have the capability of generating 5kva at all times anyway, it would be nonsensical _not_ to make hydrogen during the process, to supplement the diesel.
> 
> Everything on this is in my computer, in my _SolidWorks_ design program. A wonderful piece of software, allows me to design, build and even test_ everything_ in the virtual world. You mentioned BMW and VW earlier? They use _SolidWorks_ or a similar design program as well.
> 
> The EV race car you gave us the video of earlier? I went to the guy's website and studied his specs. He's easily got $300,000 in that car. It has a 30 mile range at normal driving, then it needs plugged in. It's designed as a _novelty drag racer_, basically a rich man's _toy_ -- he makes no pretense at all of it being in any way practical to own for just driving around, and he cannot take it on trips of any distance without trailering it and hauling it with his..... Diesel Dually pick-up.
> 
> Not cutting it down, it just is what it is. It's exactly what he wanted to build. I want to build a 200 MPG Hummer, and it's a much taller, much more challenging -- and much more universally beneficial, order.
> 
> By the way, I chose a Hummer for the symbolism. It's the poster boy of excess and waste, almost universally. The _shock value_ of converting it to the most practical, most luxurious, and definitely easily the highest mileage vehicle around is what I'm going for.
> 
> I am waiting for a junked one to pop up, which isn't totaled. That I can buy pretty cheap. I'm not getting any gubmint grants or funding to do this, so I have to be miserly. When the right Hummer pops up, this all starts in the real world. Gonna cost me around $122,000, give or take 5 or 6, to build this prototype.
> 
> Now I hope you understand why I so strenuously object to the OP of this thread. We don't need any freaking mandates or subsidies from the gubmint to make shit work. It only _stymies_ true progress in most cases. And also causes alot of waste, because people who get grants don't worry too much about being miserly.
> 
> If I got a gubmint grant for this, I would fast-track it and not worry too much about getting a junked Hummer on the cheap. I would go out and buy a used one and pay twice as much or more. I wouldn't have the incentive to really design this thing, it would be mostly trial and error. I would probably hire help as well -- all of this driving the cost up to probably triple or more what I am projecting.
> 
> See?
Click to expand...




LOVE IT MAN!!! ABSOLUTELY LOVE IT!! My mechanic has prob a 90 something Suburban and he gets like 30 mpg just by doing little tweeks here and there. I think he said it was carberated and I think he took some emmisions controls off of it but said it will pass ANY test. He is a really cool guy so I know he's not feeding me any BS. Just not his style.

Like I said your idea sounds cool as hell and I REALLY hope it works out the way you want.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

You mentioned that you heard about the BMW/VW diesel cars but didn't say much more. The one thing that is kind of weird about them is they have to have I don't know the precise addative "uriea" something like that but would only need to be filled like every 30,000 miles. They sound pretty nice to me but as a guy who OBVIOUSLY knows a lot more about it than I what do you think?


----------



## DiveCon

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The cool thing about what you are proposing is if you had 4 electric motors at each wheel you could transfer upto 100% to the wheel with traction.
> 
> 
> 
> Wheelmotors is what locomotives use. However, not practical in the scaled down version. At first blush it does sound right, and my design originally incorporated them. But I quickly realized that it was really more for show than go, just vanity. Just for showing off. When I need 4WD I can get it mechanically. You don't need all four wheels driving at highway speeds anyway, two of them would just be idling most of the time, so why bother? Locomotives however, DO need all 16 wheels powered at all times.
> 
> Mine uses a single motor with limited slip differential. It just quite simply replaces the original engine and tranny in the drive train. It's also, AC instead of DC. Far more efficient, you have far better control, need much fewer batteries, everything's smaller from the wires to the controller to the stator. Higher voltage means much fewer amps to do the same work. Fewer amps also means alot less heat. You get alot more bang for the buck.
> 
> It's all controlled by a PLC. (Programmable Logic Controller) Everything on the vehicle. Everything for controls is digital +-5 volt, from the footfeed commutator to the turn signals to the headlamp switches. Everything. No matter what control is used, it's +-5 volt and goes as an input to the PLC. No 12 volt anywhere but on the output side of the PLC and PoU. (Point of Use)
> 
> The PLC is also constantly monitoring speed, (Yes we have cruise control) AC motor performance, the DC bus, the 12 volt system, the hydrogen generator, and even monitors and controls the diesel genset! It also even knows if you have buckled your seat belts or not, and reminds you! Tells you if a door is ajar, all that rot. Controls the climate in the cabin! Everything cars have today, every little bell and whistle, this PLC the size of a brick, controls. And it's programmed from your laptop!
> 
> The motor is controlled by a variable frequency drive. It utilizes the onboard DC bus I'll be maintaining with the batteries and the genset, and converts the current into a digitally simulated 3 phase AC waveform. This allows complete control of all parameters in the motor -- from frequency, amperage, magnetism, everything. Can actually magnetically LOCK and hold the rotor completely if need be. This allows me to use _commercially available_ AC motors, and not have to have a custom one made! Important point here, this also makes this easily built and sold as a _refit kit for existing vehicles of any size and type_! THAT's recycling!
> 
> By the way, you only need to start the diesel for longer trips. The PLC program decides if we need the diesel, and when. And starts and stops it as necessary, and even controls its RPM. Most little in-town stuff won't require it, since you can plug in when you get home. But for longer trips, you're looking at extremely good fuel mileage at highway speeds. It'll be upwards of 200 MPG if not better. Which is just the opposite of what you get with a hybrid -- they're actually worse on the highway than they are in city driving.
> 
> Also, this has Hydrogen injection to supplement the diesel. I have had this on one of my diesel pick-ups for a couple of years. With this diesel-electric powerplant, there's ample power to make lots of hydrogen. In a diesel, hydrogen is very beneficial both for performance, mileage, and also for reducing wear. The only way Hydrogen is viable to make -- where you get back almost (but not quite) what you put into it to make it -- is as a _supplement_ to your diesel fuel. (We cannot change the laws of thermodynamics, for starters.) But, since I have the capability of generating 5kva at all times anyway, it would be nonsensical _not_ to make hydrogen during the process, to supplement the diesel.
> 
> Everything on this is in my computer, in my _SolidWorks_ design program. A wonderful piece of software, allows me to design, build and even test_ everything_ in the virtual world. You mentioned BMW and VW earlier? They use _SolidWorks_ or a similar design program as well.
> 
> The EV race car you gave us the video of earlier? I went to the guy's website and studied his specs. He's easily got $300,000 in that car. It has a 30 mile range at normal driving, then it needs plugged in. It's designed as a _novelty drag racer_, basically a rich man's _toy_ -- he makes no pretense at all of it being in any way practical to own for just driving around, and he cannot take it on trips of any distance without trailering it and hauling it with his..... Diesel Dually pick-up.
> 
> Not cutting it down, it just is what it is. It's exactly what he wanted to build. I want to build a 200 MPG Hummer, and it's a much taller, much more challenging -- and much more universally beneficial, order.
> 
> By the way, I chose a Hummer for the symbolism. It's the poster boy of excess and waste, almost universally. The _shock value_ of converting it to the most practical, most luxurious, and definitely easily the highest mileage vehicle around is what I'm going for.
> 
> I am waiting for a junked one to pop up, which isn't totaled. That I can buy pretty cheap. I'm not getting any gubmint grants or funding to do this, so I have to be miserly. When the right Hummer pops up, this all starts in the real world. Gonna cost me around $122,000, give or take 5 or 6, to build this prototype.
> 
> Now I hope you understand why I so strenuously object to the OP of this thread. We don't need any freaking mandates or subsidies from the gubmint to make shit work. It only _stymies_ true progress in most cases. And also causes alot of waste, because people who get grants don't worry too much about being miserly.
> 
> If I got a gubmint grant for this, I would fast-track it and not worry too much about getting a junked Hummer on the cheap. I would go out and buy a used one and pay twice as much or more. I wouldn't have the incentive to really design this thing, it would be mostly trial and error. I would probably hire help as well -- all of this driving the cost up to probably triple or more what I am projecting.
> 
> See?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOVE IT MAN!!! ABSOLUTELY LOVE IT!! My mechanic has prob a 90 something Suburban and he gets like 30 mpg just by doing little tweeks here and there. I think he said it was carberated and I think he took some emmisions controls off of it but said it will pass ANY test. He is a really cool guy so I know he's not feeding me any BS. Just not his style.
> 
> Like I said your idea sounds cool as hell and I REALLY hope it works out the way you want.
Click to expand...

but remember, we NEEDED those things on cars to "save the environment"


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Oh I know. The thing is that cars RARELY fail inspection yet we have to get it done once a year. It is what it is cash cow for local gov't.


----------



## KittenKoder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Oh I know. The thing is that cars RARELY fail inspection yet we have to get it done once a year.* It is what it is cash cow for local gov't.*



Wow, you actually posted a fact about the government here, even if the wording is worse than I usually muster up.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Well it's pretty clear that I LOVE the idea of plug ins but I DEFINATELY DON'T like the idea of mandating anything but I beleive it has so much potential that we should have tax credits and even some gov't funding for research. Hell even the Pharmas get funding through research at Universities.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

I mean Hell I would really hate to find us agreeing on EVERYTHING. I told Dive I wouldn't want a friend that I agreed with about EVERYTHING. LOL!


----------



## KittenKoder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Well it's pretty clear that I LOVE the idea of plug ins but I DEFINATELY DON'T like the idea of mandating anything but I beleive it has so much potential that we should have tax credits and even some gov't funding for research. Hell even the Pharmas get funding through research at Universities.



Tax credits are just dressed up mandates in most cases, I'm against those as much. If you like the vehicle then good for you, buy it, enjoy it, etc. just don't con or force people into buying it as well.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Oh I don't think a tax credit is a con or forcing people to buy something they don't want. The fact is they are and will be very expesive until they become more mainstream. I would just like to be able to get a nice plug in sedan for say 30K.......Not that I'm in the market for a 30K car.....Hell I'm not in the market for a $30 car right now but.......CROSS MY FINGERS I hope I won't need to buy a car before I graduate.


----------



## KittenKoder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Oh I don't think a tax credit is a con or forcing people to buy something they don't want. The fact is they are and will be very expesive until they become more mainstream. I would just like to be able to get a nice plug in sedan for say 30K.......Not that I'm in the market for a 30K car.....Hell I'm not in the market for a $30 car right now but.......CROSS MY FINGERS I hope I won't need to buy a car before I graduate.



Tax credits take money from the government, which they have to regain by increasing taxes on other things, therefore forcing people who do not benefit from this to pay for it indirectly. Ultimately taking choice away. As I said, I am against all tax credits though write offs for donating to charities I am for. I won't drive, I prefer to walk everywhere I can (when my knees don't hurt too much) and bus everywhere else, so I would be paying for these tax credits even though I hate all cars.  My dream would be to make horse travel popular again.


----------



## Midnight Marauder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> So tell me MM how efficient are IC engines? Why do they produce SO MUCH unwanted heat that has to be vented out through radiators?


Coming back to this for a second: You seem to equate heat with ineffeciency. Nothing could be further from the truth.

You WANT heat in a IC engine. If it runs _too cool_ is it grossly inefficient. This is why they have thermostats, to keep the coolant from removing ALL the heat. Find this out for yourself, remove the thermostat and replace the hose without it. Your fuel mileage and performance will tank, and if you keep driving like that eventually all the coolant will boil out and your shit will seize up. But the engine will be cooler internally, TOO cool, until this happens.

Because it's all about the efficient use of heat -- using the BTUs the combustion process generates to maximum effect. Cleaner burns, less pollution equals more efficiency.

Electric motors get hot as hell too. The only way to cool them is airflow over them. This is why you see fins and fans on larger motors. The heat's gotta go somewhere. You are going to generate heat by doing work, no matter what it is or how you're doing it. It's a fact of thermodynamics.


----------



## Midnight Marauder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> My mechanic has prob a 90 something Suburban and he gets like 30 mpg just by doing little tweeks here and there. I think he said it was carberated and I think he took some emmisions controls off of it but said it will pass ANY test. He is a really cool guy so I know he's not feeding me any BS. Just not his style.


I seriously doubt the validity of his claim. How is he measuring the mileage? By a scientific method, such as testing on a dynamometer? Or just a seat of the pants guesstimate?

When I want to measure mileage, I connect a digital flow meter to the fuel line and calibrate it. Then I operate the vehicle at a set speed on a dynomometer. This gives me a totalizing figure for the time frame of the test, expressed in GPH. (Gallons per hour) From this you take the time, and miles driven, and you get a damn accurate mileage number that's not guesstimated and isn't dependent on wind resistance, road conditions, etc. Removing many variables from the equation.

Now,

The purpose of most emissions controls is to re-burn the exhaust gases, to get a more complete burn of all fuel elements before expelling them. This is called the AIR system. It helps your mileage and reduces CO2 emissions. But if it's not working right, yeah it will actually have the opposite effect. This is the reason for emissions testing.

There is no way he is actually passing emissions with a carbureted IC engine without emissions controls. I think he is blowing smoke, literally, up your ass.


----------



## eagleseven

TTPANL said:


> Electric cars need to be mandated. PERIOD !



Moron.


----------



## KittenKoder

eagleseven said:


> TTPANL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Electric cars need to be mandated. PERIOD !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moron.
Click to expand...


Simple ...


... to the point ...


... factual.

Now why didn't I think of that?


----------



## DiveCon

KittenKoder said:


> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TTPANL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Electric cars need to be mandated. PERIOD !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple ...
> 
> 
> ... to the point ...
> 
> 
> ... factual.
> 
> Now why didn't I think of that?
Click to expand...

and EZ informed me he owes me a royalty for the use of it



in rep


----------



## eagleseven

DiveCon said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple ...
> 
> 
> ... to the point ...
> 
> 
> ... factual.
> 
> Now why didn't I think of that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and EZ informed me he owes me a royalty for the use of it
> 
> 
> 
> in rep
Click to expand...


----------



## Cold Fusion38

KittenKoder said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I don't think a tax credit is a con or forcing people to buy something they don't want. The fact is they are and will be very expesive until they become more mainstream. I would just like to be able to get a nice plug in sedan for say 30K.......Not that I'm in the market for a 30K car.....Hell I'm not in the market for a $30 car right now but.......CROSS MY FINGERS I hope I won't need to buy a car before I graduate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax credits take money from the government, which they have to regain by increasing taxes on other things, therefore forcing people who do not benefit from this to pay for it indirectly. Ultimately taking choice away. As I said, I am against all tax credits though write offs for donating to charities I am for. I won't drive, I prefer to walk everywhere I can (when my knees don't hurt too much) and bus everywhere else, so I would be paying for these tax credits even though I hate all cars.  My dream would be to make horse travel popular again.
Click to expand...






Well I don't like paying for education as I have no children but I recognise that there is a social "GOOD" in doing so so I don't bitch about my taxes going to it.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

> My dream would be to make horse travel popular again



What a fucking IDIOT.


----------



## sitarro

KittenKoder said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I don't think a tax credit is a con or forcing people to buy something they don't want. The fact is they are and will be very expesive until they become more mainstream. I would just like to be able to get a nice plug in sedan for say 30K.......Not that I'm in the market for a 30K car.....Hell I'm not in the market for a $30 car right now but.......CROSS MY FINGERS I hope I won't need to buy a car before I graduate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My dream would be to make horse travel popular again.
Click to expand...


Electric horses? Otherwise......PEWWWWWWWWWWWW

Ford makes a Mustang.


----------



## frazzledgear

TTPANL said:


> Electric cars need to be mandated. PERIOD !



What do you mean by "mandate" electric cars?  Do you mean government should just force people to give up their gasoline-fueled cars and force them to buy electric ones if they want to drive -like to work, the grocery store or doctor?  I'm sorry but you must think you live under a different system, some other one where government is the master of the people.  But in THIS country, the only authority for government to mandate anything comes from the people and so far the people have not given government any such mandate.  Not real big on that freedom thing, are you.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

sitarro said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I don't think a tax credit is a con or forcing people to buy something they don't want. The fact is they are and will be very expesive until they become more mainstream. I would just like to be able to get a nice plug in sedan for say 30K.......Not that I'm in the market for a 30K car.....Hell I'm not in the market for a $30 car right now but.......CROSS MY FINGERS I hope I won't need to buy a car before I graduate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My dream would be to make horse travel popular again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Electric horses? Otherwise......PEWWWWWWWWWWWW
> 
> Ford makes a Mustang.
Click to expand...




What the hell do you feed electric horses?


----------



## Midnight Marauder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> sitarro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> My dream would be to make horse travel popular again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Electric horses? Otherwise......PEWWWWWWWWWWWW
> 
> Ford makes a Mustang.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell do you feed electric horses?
Click to expand...

Batteries.


----------



## Midnight Marauder

ColdFusion: Getting back to your theory that IC engines are "the most inefficient user of fossil fuels" I'd like you to elucidate on that, especially since you seem to equate heat with inefficiency.

Know what happens if your air/fuel mixture is too lean (too much air) in a IC engine? Well for one, it's an extremely efficient burn. For two, it burns holes in the pistons. The more efficient the combustion, the MORE heat you will generate!

If you made a IC engine out of titanium, you might could beat this issue. You could probably also get 80 MPG out of a 5 liter V8 made this way.

You also, couldn't afford the $200,000 engine.

Gasoline IC engines today, are far, far more efficient than their 70s counterparts. And 80% less polluting. And they _still_ are far more cost effective than any other engine out there.

THIS is why the "alternatives" need to be subsidized. Because you simply cannot make an engine that is economically feasible to compete with IC any other way.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Well I would think you would also risk detonation which isn't very good for an IC car either.


----------



## Midnight Marauder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Well I would think you would also risk detonation which isn't very good for an IC car either.


You get detonation every time the piston comes to the top of the cylinder in the combustion cycle. Detonation of the air-fuel mixture under tremendous compression.

If by "detonation" you mean, premature detonation in the intake manifold? Yeah that can be bad but a lean mixture typically won't cause it.

Hopefully we are now past the "heat equals inefficiency" fallacy. It's the other way around.

Here's another example: Natural gas fired boilers. I'm licensed and am a certified "tuner" of boilers. I use instruments to measure the exhaust gas and make adjustments to the mixture accordingly. But visually, you can tell alot. A yellow flame is a bad flame. It's low on heat, it expels soot, and lots of CO2. Because we are not burning the gas efficiently. We are wasting a good deal of it in this situation.

The fix is always the same -- more air, less fuel. The flame then turns blue and gets five times hotter then the yellow one was, and hundreds of times "cleaner."

Again, when our burn got more efficient, we generated MORE heat.

I can then hook up my instruments and fine tune this boiler. I can tune a boiler to be putting out less than 5% more CO2 than is ambient. That's damned clean. It means, if the atmospheric CO2 right now is say, 380ppm, my exhaust gas from this fine-tuned boiler is 400ppm.

Same boiler, same tuning... But if the ambient CO2 the next day is 480ppm, then this boiler exhaust gas will contain 504ppm of CO2 concentration. What?

Few people realize that the air any engine or boiler or any other combustion device takes in _already has_ CO2 in it. And it will be ambient, whatever ppm it is at any given time, and your combustion process adds to that by only a small percentage if it is reasonably efficient.

The hotter a combustion is, the more efficient and less polluting it is. Always. It's science.


----------



## BaronVonBigmeat

True, but even if you can increase heat and pressure in an engine without premature detonation, you run into a problem with nitrous oxides (NOx). The nitrogen in the ambient air is literally being oxidized. 

It's true that engines are inefficient, much more so than an electric car charged from a modern power plant. But that doesn't matter. "We have the technology, we just need to push it!"--is false. There is no electric car on earth, even prototypes, which can go 300 miles and then charge up in 5~10 minutes. None. Not at any price. Not yet, anyhow. Maybe within 10 years, possibly.

It will happen eventually, and when the technology is available, you won't need government force to ram it down people's throats. People will adopt them voluntarily because they will produce a superior driving experience. Think about why people love Toyota Camrys. Smooth, silent, reliable, economical, cheap to repair. Electric cars can do all these things 10x better, and don't even need transmissions. Once the range/carge time issue is overcome, the IC engine will be history (aside from enthusiasts who love the roar of an engine. But they will be outperformed by electrics, mark my words. The only people driving gassers in 100 years will be crotchety old men who value novelty and nostalgia. Sort of like the guys who like to shoot flintlock muskets.)


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Good post. If you compare the electric car of just 2o years ago with the electric of today you see a QUANTUM increase in range and performance. I just can't wait to be able to buy one. One other great thing about plug in electric cars is they require VERY little maintnance compared to an IC car. Much fewer parts to go bad.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

I think we will have fuel burners for the next century but they will be MUCH more efficient and will only be used for certain needs like heavy towing. MM idea of a diesel electric truck sounds GREAT and I hope he can make it work. As for peole who just NEED to have the sound of an IC engine i suggest cranking up a CD that has whatever sound you want from V-6 to V-12.


----------



## Midnight Marauder

BaronVonBigmeat said:


> True, but even if you can increase heat and pressure in an engine without premature detonation, you run into a problem with nitrous oxides (NOx). The nitrogen in the ambient air is literally being oxidized.


NOx emissions have much to do with _fuel quality_ as well. Which unfortunately varies. Re-burn of exhaust gases can solve some of this. Fuel consistency is a variable which unfortunately has to be lived with.





> It's true that engines are inefficient, much more so than an electric car charged from a modern power plant.


Heat isn't an indicator of inefficiency. I think we have safely put that idea to rest.

Right now there's no purely electric cars that match a IC car in energy efficiency. It's a "feel good" proposition that has nothing to do with science. There's simply no getting around the fact that to do a quantity of work, it costs you a quantity of energy.

The answer so far has been, reduce the work. So they make electric cars lighter, smaller, and compromise on capabilities. They approach it with a defeatist mentality from the start. No one ever wants to compare an IC powerplant in that lower work situation to an electric. The IC would be much smaller and more efficient because you have greatly reduced the workload. So it's a fallacy until you make it a apples to apples comparison. Is an electric car more efficient than a pickup truck? You can't determine that until you compare the workloads. No one really thinks of this, they just accept without really thinking, the "electric is more efficient" mantra.





> But that doesn't matter. "We have the technology, we just need to push it!"--is false. There is no electric car on earth, even prototypes, which can go 300 miles and then charge up in 5~10 minutes. None. Not at any price. Not yet, anyhow. Maybe within 10 years, possibly.


And none that can do comparable work.





> It will happen eventually, and when the technology is available, you won't need government force to ram it down people's throats. People will adopt them voluntarily because they will produce a superior driving experience.


As soon as we stop compromising on capabilities from the outset, drop the initial defeatist mentality, we will cross the technological barrier by ceasing to limit our thinking.





> Think about why people love Toyota Camrys. Smooth, silent, reliable, economical, cheap to repair.


And,they are doing comparable work and don't compromise on capabilities. 





> Electric cars can do all these things 10x better, and don't even need transmissions.


The mechanical advantage here is separate from the comparative energy efficiency advantages, and even with this advantage, you're still not winning the work/energy war.





> Once the range/carge time issue is overcome, the IC engine will be history (aside from enthusiasts who love the roar of an engine. But they will be outperformed by electrics, mark my words. The only people driving gassers in 100 years will be crotchety old men who value novelty and nostalgia. Sort of like the guys who like to shoot flintlock muskets.)


Anyone in the next 20 years at least who will want a vehicle to actually be able to handle a workload beyond simple person travel will still be needing either a diesel or an IC powered vehicle. So don't write the epitaph just yet. But in 100 years? Who knows.... We have now entered the realm of pure speculation. In 100 years we may have fusion. Or something we've never thought of yet.

This is the basic idea behind the diesel-electric Hummer. It starts out by saying, "we are not compromising on capabilities" unlike what we have seen thus far on EV design. Unlike what we see on hybrids even. If we start that way -- instead of starting with a defeatist mentality -- we will do more, faster than what we're seeing right now. Advancing the technology while maintaining practicality. No compromises.


----------



## Midnight Marauder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Good post. If you compare the electric car of just 2o years ago with the electric of today you see a QUANTUM increase in range and performance. I just can't wait to be able to buy one.


Build one!





> One other great thing about plug in electric cars is they require VERY little maintnance compared to an IC car. Much fewer parts to go bad.


There's many, many things that can and do go wrong with EV systems. None of them are repaired cheap either. For every mechanical part we do away with we replace it with an electronic part that hates vibration, moisture and heat. That likes to corrode and short out. That digs losing its electrical tolerance and response. The case is open whether these will be as reliable and cost effective to repair as today's vehicles. Tune in again, when we have a actual baseline, some EVs that have been driven 140,000 miles would be a good start to any such study.


----------



## BaronVonBigmeat

> Heat isn't an indicator of inefficiency. I think we have safely put that idea to rest.



Umm, that is categorically false.

Take three light bulbs that put out 1,000 lumens of light. One is incandescent, another is fluorescent, and the other is white LEDs. The incandescent will burn your hand if you touch it. The fluorescent will be uncomfortably warm, and the LED will barely be above room temperature. The very definition of efficiency here is, "of the electricity consumed, how much is turned into useful lighting, and how much is wasted as heat?" Of course, the incandescent is least efficient, the fluorescent is better, and the LED is best of all.

Same thing with engines. The least thermodynamically efficient engine on the road today is Mazda's wankel rotary. Not surprisingly, it runs blazing hot. Not surprisingly, they also respond extremely well to turbocharging.

Or look at Bruce Crower's six cycle engine. (Owner and founder of crower cams) It eliminates the radiator altogether. After the exhaust stroke, it injects water which flashes to steam and produces power from the heat that was otherwise lost through the radiator.  



> Right now there's no purely electric cars that match a IC car in energy efficiency. It's a "feel good" proposition that has nothing to do with science. There's simply no getting around the fact that to do a quantity of work, it costs you a quantity of energy.



Any mundane, off-the-shelf electric motor can easily hit 80%~85% efficiency. Better motors get into the low 90's. There is no engine on the face of the earth that can begin to approach that. Not turbines, not turbodiesels, not even Stirling engines. The world record holder for brake specific fuel consumption in a gasoline piston engine is Revetec's prototype, which is 39%. Maybe a turbodiesel version of their engine could hit say, 50%. That's still way behind electric motors built 50 years ago.

You can prove this by looking at cost-per-mile for various fuels. Electrics always win. CNG cars come in second, then diesels, then hydrogen cars come in dead last. Electrics run equivalent to 70 cent per gallon gasoline, because they are efficient. 



> The answer so far has been, reduce the work. So they make electric cars lighter, smaller, and compromise on capabilities. They approach it with a defeatist mentality from the start. No one ever wants to compare an IC powerplant in that lower work situation to an electric. The IC would be much smaller and more efficient because you have greatly reduced the workload. So it's a fallacy until you make it a apples to apples comparison. Is an electric car more efficient than a pickup truck? You can't determine that until you compare the workloads. No one really thinks of this, they just accept without really thinking, the "electric is more efficient" mantra.



I do agree that we need an apples to apples comparison. What you will typically find is, for a regular car or truck converted to lead-acid batteries, the range is a paltry 20~40 miles. Ni-Mh...maybe 60. The newest and best lithium batteries? 120 miles. For a full size, steel body 4-door pickup anyhow. Did you ever see that electric truck that Bush posed with for a photo op? It had a 120 mile range and could charge up in 10 minutes. Of course, 120 miles is still not good enough, not by a long shot.

That's the problem. Batteries. It's always been about batteries, not the motors. Motors are great, but batteries are terrible. Electric motors are miserly and make great use of the power they have available, but the trouble is there is very little energy stored in that battery for them to use. Which of course is why they resort to lame gimicks like undersized motors and ultralight ultraexpensive construction, to wring out every last drop of range.


----------



## Midnight Marauder

BaronVonBigmeat said:


> Heat isn't an indicator of inefficiency. I think we have safely put that idea to rest.
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, that is categorically false.
> 
> Take three light bulbs that put out 1,000 lumens of light. One is incandescent, another is fluorescent, and the other is white LEDs. The incandescent will burn your hand if you touch it. The fluorescent will be uncomfortably warm, and the LED will barely be above room temperature. The very definition of efficiency here is, "of the electricity consumed, how much is turned into useful lighting, and how much is wasted as heat?" Of course, the incandescent is least efficient, the fluorescent is better, and the LED is best of all.
Click to expand...

Here we are comparing lighting now, to engines/motors? C'mon now. It might be different were my claim about lighting.

But, stop to think: Your comparison here isn't fair either, because the incandescent light is a _resistive_ load, and the others are _inductive_ loads. A resistive load will always generate heat no matter the application. That alone does not make it inefficient. It is what it is, a resistive load and comparing resistive loads to inductive loads isn't apples to apples right from the jump.

Of course a inductive load is going to be more energy efficient than a resistive load, it's the nature of the two beasts. But there are jobs a resistive load can do that a inductive one cannot, and vice-versa. Inductive loads are much more suited to lighting than resistive ones are. You've taken the resistive load in one of its worst applications, and compared it to inductive loads in one of their best?





> Same thing with engines. The least thermodynamically efficient engine on the road today is Mazda's wankel rotary. Not surprisingly, it runs blazing hot. Not surprisingly, *they also respond extremely well to turbocharging*.


Which does three things: greatly increases fuel efficiency, ability to do work, and heat!





> Or look at Bruce Crower's six cycle engine. (Owner and founder of crower cams) It eliminates the radiator altogether. After the exhaust stroke, it injects water which flashes to steam and produces power from the heat that was otherwise lost through the radiator.


If you trouble yourself to read back, you'll see I quite eloquently shot down the broad-brush, blanket premise that "IC engines are the most inefficient users of fossil fuel," an assertion that was based _solely_ on the fact that they generate "waste heat." Heat _alone_ is not an indicator of inefficiency, that's my only claim here, and in fact in a combustion process it's quite the opposite. 





> Right now there's no purely electric cars that match a IC car in energy efficiency. It's a "feel good" proposition that has nothing to do with science. There's simply no getting around the fact that to do a quantity of work, it costs you a quantity of energy.
> 
> 
> 
> Any mundane, off-the-shelf electric motor can easily hit 80%~85% efficiency. Better motors get into the low 90's. There is no engine on the face of the earth that can begin to approach that. Not turbines, not turbodiesels, not even Stirling engines. The world record holder for brake specific fuel consumption in a gasoline piston engine is Revetec's prototype, which is 39%. Maybe a turbodiesel version of their engine could hit say, 50%. That's still way behind electric motors built 50 years ago.
Click to expand...

These efficiency ratings aren't measured under loaded conditions. And they also aren't application-specific, such as if used to drive an automobile. We're debating mechanical efficiency or fuel efficiency? There's no way when _comparable work is being done_, with comparable sized engines/motors, the electric motor trumps the IC.





> You can prove this by looking at cost-per-mile for various fuels. Electrics always win. CNG cars come in second, then diesels, then hydrogen cars come in dead last. Electrics run equivalent to 70 cent per gallon gasoline, because they are efficient.


We are back to the fact that the workloads are different, and so is the performance. Cost per mile on a EV that is half the weight of a typical IC car, can't go very fast for very long, isn't exactly a fair comparison, as you admit next: 





> The answer so far has been, reduce the work. So they make electric cars lighter, smaller, and compromise on capabilities. They approach it with a defeatist mentality from the start. No one ever wants to compare an IC powerplant in that lower work situation to an electric. The IC would be much smaller and more efficient because you have greatly reduced the workload. So it's a fallacy until you make it a apples to apples comparison. Is an electric car more efficient than a pickup truck? You can't determine that until you compare the workloads. No one really thinks of this, they just accept without really thinking, the "electric is more efficient" mantra.
> 
> 
> 
> I do agree that we need an apples to apples comparison. What you will typically find is, for a regular car or truck converted to lead-acid batteries, the range is a paltry 20~40 miles. Ni-Mh...maybe 60. The newest and best lithium batteries? 120 miles. For a full size, steel body 4-door pickup anyhow. Did you ever see that electric truck that Bush posed with for a photo op? It had a 120 mile range and could charge up in 10 minutes. Of course, 120 miles is still not good enough, not by a long shot.
Click to expand...

When workloads are comparable, electric loses in vehicles. Hugely so.





> That's the problem. Batteries. It's always been about batteries, not the motors. Motors are great, but batteries are terrible.


Batteries are also _heavy_. 





> Electric motors are miserly and make great use of the power they have available,


Huge advantage here, electric motors in most applications don't _idle_. In a electric vehicle, there's NO energy being spent until you are actually propelling the vehicle. Mechanical motors idle, keeping the hydraulic pressure in the tranny up, keeping the 12v system charged, the power steering hydraulic pressure up, the water pump going, and many other things. This is another factor no one takes into consideration when making these comparisons -- the different nature of the two beasts. If the electric motor in a EV had to idle to keep all the same stuff up, it would be further demolished in the comparison.





> but the trouble is there is very little energy stored in that battery for them to use. Which of course is why they resort to lame gimicks like undersized motors and ultralight ultraexpensive construction, to wring out every last drop of range.


This is why they approach EV design with a defeatist mentality from the start. You don't see locomotives ever plug in to charge their batteries, in their design there's no compromise for less work. They are a rolling power plant. You don't need very many batteries when you are generating megawatts of power with a big diesel genset, any more than I will on my 5000 volt/amp diesel-electric Hummer I am building.

The semantic noise in the EV vs. IC vehicle debate prevents logical conclusions until all the parties involved level the playing field of the comparisons and just admit that the limitations of battery-operated electric far outweigh the cherry-picked odious efficiency comparisons. Can you make a EV drag racer to smoke the asses of typical factory stock IC vehicles? Well hell yes, you can and the video posted here earlier shows that quite nicely. But can you take that same vehicle and smoke the ass of a IC vehicle designed for drag racing, with a comparable power to weight ratio? Of course you cannot.

When the workloads are _equal_, the EV loses each and every time.

The diesel-electric? We shall see.


----------



## BaronVonBigmeat

> These efficiency ratings aren't measured under loaded conditions.



Uhh...yes they most certainly are. Electric motors and IC engines have been around for over a century. Engineering organizations like ASME have lengthy and detailed specs which state exactly how stated efficiency is to be determined. They have been testing power producing devices since before your grandparents were born.



> And they also aren't application-specific, such as if used to drive an automobile.



It doesn't matter in the slightest. Work is work. The engine doesn't know what work it is doing. The only question that matters is, "What percentage of potential power fed to the device is converted into mechanical power?" For electric motors, that number is in the 80% range, and no IC engine in existence can touch that.



> We're debating mechanical efficiency or fuel efficiency? There's no way when comparable work is being done, with comparable sized engines/motors, the electric motor trumps the IC.



Let me put this simply.

gasoline > today's batteries
electric motor > IC engine

Comparing a 200 hp motor to a 200 hp IC engine, the motor will convert the battery's power with far greater efficiency than the IC engine will convert the gasoline's potential energy. From Wikipedia:

_Heat engines operate with very low efficiencies because heat cannot be converted directly into mechanical energy. Electric vehicles convert stored electric potential into mechanical energy. Electricity can be converted into mechanical energy at very high efficiencies. A quick analysis will show electric vehicles are significantly more efficient._

_...The greater efficiency of electric vehicles is primarily because most energy in a gasoline-powered vehicle is released as waste heat. With an engine getting only 20% thermal efficiency, a gasoline-powered vehicle using 96 kW·h/100 km of energy is only using 19.2 kW·h/100 km for motion._

_When expressed as a percentage, the thermal efficiency must be between 0% and 100%. Due to inefficiencies such as friction, heat loss, and other factors, thermal engines efficiencies are typically much less than 100%. For example, a typical gasoline automobile engine operates at around 25% efficiency, and a large coal-fueled electrical generating plant peaks at about 46%. The largest diesel engine in the world peaks at 51.7%. In a combined cycle plant, thermal efficiencies are approaching 60%._

Electric car - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thermal efficiency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Admittedly, this is all being a bit pedantic, because an electric vehicle cannot exist without it's battery. Of course EV's suck right now, but I'm just saying it's the batteries that suck, not the motor itself. If motors were inferior to IC engines, you'd see gas powered elevators and gas powered air conditioners in office buildings and so forth. You'd see machine shops powering their lathes and mills with gas engines. Show me a stationary power application with available power (both electric and natural gas), and I'll show you an engineer who picked an electric motor, guaranteed.

If a better battery/capacitor comes along, EV's will be worthwhile. If it doesn't, they won't.


----------



## Midnight Marauder

BaronVonBigmeat said:


> These efficiency ratings aren't measured under loaded conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> Uhh...yes they most certainly are. Electric motors and IC engines have been around for over a century. Engineering organizations like ASME have lengthy and detailed specs which state exactly how stated efficiency is to be determined. They have been testing power producing devices since before your grandparents were born.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And they also aren't application-specific, such as if used to drive an automobile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter in the slightest. Work is work. The engine doesn't know what work it is doing. The only question that matters is, "What percentage of potential power fed to the device is converted into mechanical power?" For electric motors, that number is in the 80% range, and no IC engine in existence can touch that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're debating mechanical efficiency or fuel efficiency? There's no way when comparable work is being done, with comparable sized engines/motors, the electric motor trumps the IC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me put this simply.
> 
> gasoline > today's batteries
> electric motor > IC engine
> 
> Comparing a 200 hp motor to a 200 hp IC engine, the motor will convert the battery's power with far greater efficiency than the IC engine will convert the gasoline's potential energy. From Wikipedia:
> 
> _Heat engines operate with very low efficiencies because heat cannot be converted directly into mechanical energy. Electric vehicles convert stored electric potential into mechanical energy. Electricity can be converted into mechanical energy at very high efficiencies. A quick analysis will show electric vehicles are significantly more efficient._
> 
> _...The greater efficiency of electric vehicles is primarily because most energy in a gasoline-powered vehicle is released as waste heat. With an engine getting only 20% thermal efficiency, a gasoline-powered vehicle using 96 kW·h/100 km of energy is only using 19.2 kW·h/100 km for motion._
> 
> _When expressed as a percentage, the thermal efficiency must be between 0% and 100%. Due to inefficiencies such as friction, heat loss, and other factors, thermal engines efficiencies are typically much less than 100%. For example, a typical gasoline automobile engine operates at around 25% efficiency, and a large coal-fueled electrical generating plant peaks at about 46%. The largest diesel engine in the world peaks at 51.7%. In a combined cycle plant, thermal efficiencies are approaching 60%._
> 
> Electric car - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Thermal efficiency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Admittedly, this is all being a bit pedantic, because an electric vehicle cannot exist without it's battery. Of course EV's suck right now, but I'm just saying it's the batteries that suck, not the motor itself. If motors were inferior to IC engines, you'd see gas powered elevators and gas powered air conditioners in office buildings and so forth. You'd see machine shops powering their lathes and mills with gas engines. Show me a stationary power application with available power (both electric and natural gas), and I'll show you an engineer who picked an electric motor, guaranteed.
> 
> If a better battery/capacitor comes along, EV's will be worthwhile. If it doesn't, they won't.
Click to expand...

I'm sailing the specific ocean, while you're wallowing in the speculantic. Thermal efficiency wasn't the topic. It was the _myth_ that _heat alone_ indicates inefficiency. It does not, especially in the combustion process.

The efficiency specs by ASME and others do not take into account such factors as inrush current under load, and lifetime insulation loss. Off the shelf, you have this efficiency. In real life, you never see it. If that's a thermal efficiency rating, again it's not comparable.

Of course electric motors are used in elevators, lathes, and stationary rotating devices. That's part of the infrastructure. Again, you are unable to make apples to apples comparisons. Take for example the 200hp motor vs. engine: You realize of course that the 200hp electric motor there weighs three times as much as the engine, making the power to weight ratio horribly skewed? This is the point I am making -- when the workload is comparable, the EV loses out hands down, _in vehicles_. Not in lighting, not in stationary rotating machine applications, in vehicles.

As I showed you earlier. If a electric motor had to idle in order to keep the various components such as power steering, alternator, hydraulic pressure in the tranny, water pump, AIR system, vacuum pressure and etc. going, it really begins to lose all of its advantages very quickly. No one takes this into account when making these comparisons because they're locked into group-think.

This is why you don't have any successful EVs. But you _do_ have successful and highly efficient diesel-electric vehicles.

Batteries? As soon as we lose our fear of anything labeled "nuclear" or "radioactive" we will start making great strides in this area. Right now no one seems to want to apply this technology on a scale larger than to power a onboard computer in space, but if they did I think we would see the first major breakthrough in 70 years:

Nuclear battery keeps going, and going ... - LiveScience- msnbc.com


----------



## Bern80

Cold Fusion38 said:


> The tech is here NOW it just has to be made available for a reasonable price. Massive tax breaks for electric cars.



Did any of you boneheads suggesting these ridiculous subsidies ever take an economics class?


----------



## Bern80

The other thing to be aware of with electric motors is the scale to which they must be built to make them compariable to an IC motor. I work for an electric trolling motor company and the issue we are running into is that many state governments are mandating that peope operate electric only motors on bodies of water. The issue is then that people want performance, in terms of power and speed, comparable to the gas motor they used to be able to run. And you just can't get anywhere near it with an electric. Not without a ridiculous number of batteries and ridiculously sized motor. 

Electric motors are most definately efficient users of potential power. What they aren't is efficient producers of work. Sure you could get an electric motor with a couple hudrend horsepower that'll go 50 mph. It would have to be about the size of a house and take 50 or so batteries, but it could be done. That is the simple reason electrics aren't heavily adopted. They are a product that costs more and does less. It shouldn't be much of a head scratcher as to why people aren't waiting in line for smart cars.


----------



## Midnight Marauder

Bern80 said:


> The other thing to be aware of with electric motors is the scale to which they must be built to make them comparable to an IC motor.


That's exactly what I am trying to explain to these flat-thinkers. 





> Electric motors are most definitely efficient users of *potential power*. _What they aren't is efficient producers of work_. ~snip~ They are a product that *costs more and does less*.


Exactamundo. Gee, they don't get as hot because they are not producing anywhere _near_ comparable work!


----------



## Cold Fusion38

KittenKoder said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not mentioned it here, but I do agree that this "new" gas mileage is rather stupid, it has to do with a government regulation that oil companies pushed for. *hint hint*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Elaborate please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By utilizing government regulations and laws the oil companies had managed to manipulate the manufacturing "standards" imposed by the government. The standards actually forced auto makers in the US to reduce the mileage in order to accommodate the changes which were rationalized as "safety precautions" or other such nonsense. One of the biggest decreases in efficiency was due to being forced to make them more environmentally safe, though in reality the changes did not come close (actually as we see quite the opposite). The problem people don't realize is that the government doesn't care about the people, it makes money for it's politicians much the same way organized crime does, bribes.
Click to expand...




O.K. come on KK the REAL reason is because soccer moms didn't feel safe in anythink that couldn't run over a smaller more fuel efficient car. THEY are the biggest threat to our safty not AIR BAGS or better collision safety. It is the SELFESHESNESS that goes along with people wanting to not get the least bit hurt in a sever collision. They don't give a fuck about the four family members they just killed by smashing a smaller likely older car like a tin can.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Midnight Marauder said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I would think you would also risk detonation which isn't very good for an IC car either.
> 
> 
> 
> You get detonation every time the piston comes to the top of the cylinder in the combustion cycle. Detonation of the air-fuel mixture under tremendous compression.
> 
> If by "detonation" you mean, premature detonation in the intake manifold? Yeah that can be bad but a lean mixture typically won't cause it.
> 
> Hopefully we are now past the "heat equals inefficiency" fallacy. It's the other way around.
> 
> Here's another example: Natural gas fired boilers. I'm licensed and am a certified "tuner" of boilers. I use instruments to measure the exhaust gas and make adjustments to the mixture accordingly. But visually, you can tell alot. A yellow flame is a bad flame. It's low on heat, it expels soot, and lots of CO2. Because we are not burning the gas efficiently. We are wasting a good deal of it in this situation.
> 
> The fix is always the same -- more air, less fuel. The flame then turns blue and gets five times hotter then the yellow one was, and hundreds of times "cleaner."
> 
> Again, when our burn got more efficient, we generated MORE heat.
> 
> I can then hook up my instruments and fine tune this boiler. I can tune a boiler to be putting out less than 5% more CO2 than is ambient. That's damned clean. It means, if the atmospheric CO2 right now is say, 380ppm, my exhaust gas from this fine-tuned boiler is 400ppm.
> 
> Same boiler, same tuning... But if the ambient CO2 the next day is 480ppm, then this boiler exhaust gas will contain 504ppm of CO2 concentration. What?
> 
> Few people realize that the air any engine or boiler or any other combustion device takes in _already has_ CO2 in it. And it will be ambient, whatever ppm it is at any given time, and your combustion process adds to that by only a small percentage if it is reasonably efficient.
> 
> The hotter a combustion is, the more efficient and less polluting it is. Always. It's science.
Click to expand...


  So you kinda make my case for Coal power plants being more efficient don't you?


----------



## Midnight Marauder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I would think you would also risk detonation which isn't very good for an IC car either.
> 
> 
> 
> You get detonation every time the piston comes to the top of the cylinder in the combustion cycle. Detonation of the air-fuel mixture under tremendous compression.
> 
> If by "detonation" you mean, premature detonation in the intake manifold? Yeah that can be bad but a lean mixture typically won't cause it.
> 
> Hopefully we are now past the "heat equals inefficiency" fallacy. It's the other way around.
> 
> Here's another example: Natural gas fired boilers. I'm licensed and am a certified "tuner" of boilers. I use instruments to measure the exhaust gas and make adjustments to the mixture accordingly. But visually, you can tell alot. A yellow flame is a bad flame. It's low on heat, it expels soot, and lots of CO2. Because we are not burning the gas efficiently. We are wasting a good deal of it in this situation.
> 
> The fix is always the same -- more air, less fuel. The flame then turns blue and gets five times hotter then the yellow one was, and hundreds of times "cleaner."
> 
> Again, when our burn got more efficient, we generated MORE heat.
> 
> I can then hook up my instruments and fine tune this boiler. I can tune a boiler to be putting out less than 5% more CO2 than is ambient. That's damned clean. It means, if the atmospheric CO2 right now is say, 380ppm, my exhaust gas from this fine-tuned boiler is 400ppm.
> 
> Same boiler, same tuning... But if the ambient CO2 the next day is 480ppm, then this boiler exhaust gas will contain 504ppm of CO2 concentration. What?
> 
> Few people realize that the air any engine or boiler or any other combustion device takes in _already has_ CO2 in it. And it will be ambient, whatever ppm it is at any given time, and your combustion process adds to that by only a small percentage if it is reasonably efficient.
> 
> The hotter a combustion is, the more efficient and less polluting it is. Always. It's science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you kinda make my case for Coal power plants being more efficient don't you?
Click to expand...

I never saw you try to make such a case. You haven't the knowledge or data to even try to do so. You don't know how hot a gas-fired boiler flame is, and you haven't the vaguest clue even how a boiler works.

Again, I am sailing the specific ocean, and you're going off, floundering in the speculantic. At least you're no longer trying to defend your position that heat alone indicates inefficiency, however so there's progress.


----------



## BaronVonBigmeat

Midnight Marauder said:


> The efficiency specs by ASME and others do not take into account such factors as inrush current under load, and lifetime insulation loss. Off the shelf, you have this efficiency. In real life, you never see it. If that's a thermal efficiency rating, again it's not comparable.



Inrush current only matters for a split second. I dunno what you're talking about with insulation loss. 

The bottom line is, the best IC engines cannot touch even a worn out motor for efficiency. Apples to apples. 100 hp versus 100 hp. If you can provide a source that says otherwise, go ahead and post it. Good luck.



> Of course electric motors are used in elevators, lathes, and stationary rotating devices. That's part of the infrastructure. Again, you are unable to make apples to apples comparisons. Take for example the 200hp motor vs. engine: You realize of course that the 200hp electric motor there weighs three times as much as the engine, making the power to weight ratio horribly skewed? This is the point I am making -- when the workload is comparable, the EV loses out hands down, in vehicles. Not in lighting, not in stationary rotating machine applications, in vehicles.



In some applications, engineers choose a big heavy electric motor because they are cheap and sturdy, and the weight does not matter. Kind of like engines--200 hp can come from some tiny little crotch rocket motorcycle engine, or it can come from a truck-size diesel. The truck simply doesn't need the lighter engine, so they don't bother using it.

Likewise, electric motors can be small and lightweight too. For instance, the motor in the Tesla Roadster:









> The motor and transmission together are almost small enough to wrap your arms around and, according to Tesla, weigh in well under 150 lb. Despite its size, this tidy combo puts out a healthy 248 bhp at 8000 rpm and 211 lb.-ft. of torque.



RoadandTrack.com --- First Drives - First Drive: 2008 Tesla Roadster (3/2008)

So...perhaps an 80 lb. powerplant, small enough to wrap your arms around. With horsepower equivalent to a V6, only with a far broader torque curve. You could easily use this in a fullsize pickup or SUV. And IF you had a better battery--the real achilles heel of EV's--it would do everything that the V6 is doing, but better.



Midnight Marauder said:


> As I showed you earlier. If a electric motor had to idle in order to keep the various components such as power steering, alternator, hydraulic pressure in the tranny, water pump, AIR system, vacuum pressure and etc. going, it really begins to lose all of its advantages very quickly. No one takes this into account when making these comparisons because they're locked into group-think.
> 
> This is why you don't have any successful EVs. But you _do_ have successful and highly efficient diesel-electric vehicles.



The ability to sit at rest is an advantage in favor of motors, yes.

But when I say that an electric motor is more efficient than a gasoline engine, I mean exactly and precisely this: put two powerplants of EQUAL POWER on a test stand. Have them produce the full power rating. Now, see which one consumed more energy. Hint: it's the gasoline engine, by a large margin. 

Note: The motor's great efficiency numbers are not due to the idling advantage btw. I'm talking about just a motor on a test stand. The idling ability is just icing on the cake.

If I'm wrong, post something that proves it, an article or paper showing a real actual combustion engine beating the most mundane electric motor's efficiency of 80%.


----------



## BaronVonBigmeat

> Electric motors are most definately efficient users of potential power. What they aren't is efficient producers of work.



If something efficiently converts the potential energy stored in a battery (or a fuel tank) to mechanical power, then it is--by definition--_working_ efficiently!


----------



## Midnight Marauder

BaronVonBigmeat said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> 
> The efficiency specs by ASME and others do not take into account such factors as inrush current under load, and lifetime insulation loss. Off the shelf, you have this efficiency. In real life, you never see it. If that's a thermal efficiency rating, again it's not comparable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inrush current only matters for a split second. I dunno what you're talking about with insulation loss.
Click to expand...

Inrush current without load is for a short time. Under load it's for a long time. In AC motors, it's until rated RPM is reached. Of course, none of that matters with soft start technology on both AC and DC motors.

And if you don't understand insulation losses in motors and its effect on efficiency, you might want to bone up on it.





> Likewise, electric motors can be small and lightweight too. For instance, the motor in the Tesla Roadster:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The motor and transmission together are almost small enough to wrap your arms around and, according to Tesla, weigh in well under 150 lb. Despite its size, this tidy combo puts out a healthy 248 bhp at 8000 rpm and 211 lb.-ft. of torque.
> 
> 
> 
> So...perhaps an 80 lb. powerplant, small enough to wrap your arms around. With horsepower equivalent to a V6, only with a far broader torque curve. You could easily use this in a fullsize pickup or SUV. And IF you had a better battery--the real achilles heel of EV's--it would do everything that the V6 is doing, but better.
Click to expand...

Oh. We were taling about off the shelf motors. Now we're into exotic, specific purpose and highly expensive ones. Got'cha.



Midnight Marauder said:


> As I showed you earlier. If a electric motor had to idle in order to keep the various components such as power steering, alternator, hydraulic pressure in the tranny, water pump, AIR system, vacuum pressure and etc. going, it really begins to lose all of its advantages very quickly. No one takes this into account when making these comparisons because they're locked into group-think.
> 
> This is why you don't have any successful EVs. But you _do_ have successful and highly efficient diesel-electric vehicles.
> 
> 
> 
> The ability to sit at rest is an advantage in favor of motors, yes.
> 
> But when I say that an electric motor is more efficient than a gasoline engine, I mean exactly and precisely this: put two powerplants of EQUAL POWER on a test stand. Have them produce the full power rating. Now, see which one consumed more energy. Hint: it's the gasoline engine, by a large margin.
Click to expand...

Under full LOAD on a dyno instead of just spinning on a test stand?





> If I'm wrong, post something that proves it, an article or paper showing a real actual combustion engine beating the most mundane electric motor's efficiency of 80%.


You are still arguing thermal efficiency, which is how electric motors are rated. Have you any practical experience with electric motors? I do have.

Example: a 5hp AC motor that makes its 5hp at 1750 RPM. This is an off the shelf, squirrel-cage motor. It's highly efficient thermally and in energy usage, spinning with no load. However, load this baby down and you see a geometric increase in heat and power usage. In no load spin, you're using about 2 amps. Load it up, and you get to 20-30 amps very quickly and a hell of alot of heat. Because it's doing _work_ now. And when you calculate out the wattage under the exact workload, and what you pay for that wattage, the electric isn't much better at all than a comparably sized IC engine! It's just a myth!

The reason they NEED all the batteries is alot more because of the approach used, for example I am using a AC motor and need very few batteries to support the DC bus for the VFD that will be controlling the motor. Everyone's approaching this with standard thinking, the defeatist mentality from the jump.

Know what my main worry is? Lifetime mileage. Durability. The Undiscovered Country of EVs is, there aren't any of them with 100,000 miles on them. Again I take my queue from the locomotive application -- but theirs are exotic, specially designed motors so I have no comparison.





> In some applications, engineers choose a big heavy electric motor because they are cheap and sturdy, and the weight does not matter. Kind of like engines--200 hp can come from some tiny little crotch rocket motorcycle engine, or it can come from a truck-size diesel. The truck simply doesn't need the lighter engine, so they don't bother using it.


Now, this is just silly. Have you any clue the HP of a over the road diesel engine? The smaller ones start at around 415 HP. So sorry Charlie, big truck diesel engines are big because they have to be. They also have to be able to run under load for millions of miles. Can any run of the mill, off the shelf, and worn out electric motors do that in this application? Of course not. That's why locomotive wheelmotors are highly specialized, exotic, and very expensive.


----------



## jeffrockit

TTPANL said:


> Electric cars need to be mandated. PERIOD !



And where do you think the energy will come from to recharge their batteries?


----------



## Bern80

BaronVonBigmeat said:


> Electric motors are most definately efficient users of potential power. What they aren't is efficient producers of work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If something efficiently converts the potential energy stored in a battery (or a fuel tank) to mechanical power, then it is--by definition--_working_ efficiently!
Click to expand...


A machines capacity to do work and working efficiently are two different things Baron.


----------



## Bern80

BaronVonBigmeat said:


> The ability to sit at rest is an advantage in favor of motors, yes.
> 
> But when I say that an electric motor is more efficient than a gasoline engine, I mean exactly and precisely this: put two powerplants of EQUAL POWER on a test stand. Have them produce the full power rating. Now, see which one consumed more energy. Hint: it's the gasoline engine, by a large margin.
> 
> Note: The motor's great efficiency numbers are not due to the idling advantage btw. I'm talking about just a motor on a test stand. The idling ability is just icing on the cake.
> 
> If I'm wrong, post something that proves it, an article or paper showing a real actual combustion engine beating the most mundane electric motor's efficiency of 80%.



I think the issue is what is being called efficient and the fact that, that is a bit subjective. You start with wanting to compaire to equal power plants, one IC, one electric. What you don't mention is what it would take to build an electric motor with comparable power to an IC and goes back to what I mentioned before about doing work. You would need such a mass of stuff for the electric (size of the motor, batteries) to have a something that would perform comparably to the IC that it would be rendered entirely impractical. 

So again, yes the electric does indeed use power efficiently, but the scale to which such a motor would need to be built to be comparable, in terms of range, speed, and horsepower is greatly inefficient in terms of the sheer volume you would need to accomplish the same thing.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

jeffrockit said:


> TTPANL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Electric cars need to be mandated. PERIOD !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where do you think the energy will come from to recharge their batteries?
Click to expand...







Nuclear, tidal, wind, solar, coal, natural gas, geo thermal, hydro, oil. EVERY POSSIBLE ENERGY SOURCE even if Obama has to make an EXECUTIVE ORDER paving the way for more drilling, more refining capacity, more coal plants, more wind plants, more solar(mandate,I know you guys HATE that word, solar panels on ALL new residential units in areas where it has enough Clear days) to lessen the power drain during peak hours.


----------



## Single Dad

Cold Fusion38 said:


> You're aware that IC engines in cars are the least efficient use of fossil fuels right?



Why do you say that? Please justify your claim.


----------



## Ringel05

Single Dad said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're aware that IC engines in cars are the least efficient use of fossil fuels right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you say that? Please justify your claim.
Click to expand...


Actually it looks like MM is blowing away that statement, from a practical application standpoint.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Single Dad said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're aware that IC engines in cars are the least efficient use of fossil fuels right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you say that? Please justify your claim.
Click to expand...




Because excess heat indicates inefficiency. I'm sure MM will dispute that but if you have to have a cooling system and radiator that indicates that you are dispursing HEAT which is POWER!


----------



## BaronVonBigmeat

> Oh. We were taling about off the shelf motors. Now we're into exotic, specific purpose and highly expensive ones. Got'cha.



No, we were talking about motors. You're moving the goalposts. You said that equivalent motors have to be bigger/heavier than a comparable engine, when the opposite is true. 

Tesla builds their own special design because it's a high end car and their customers are willing to spend extra for a pretty modest improvement over a cheap vanilla motor from a catalog. Just like Ferrari owners pay thousands and thousands more when a Corvette will perform very nearly the same.

And besides which, the high cost of the Tesla car is--once again--related to *the batteries*. It's like 1/5 the cost of the car or something.



> Under full LOAD on a dyno instead of just spinning on a test stand?



Yes, of course. Why would engineers throw around efficiency numbers based on a motor free spinning? What use would that be? 

Or how would you even measure it without making it do work? Efficiency = mechanical power OUT divided by electrical power IN. If the motor is doing nothing, then the mechanical power is zero. Zero divided by anything is...zero.

Just to be sure though, I emailed a guy I know who is an electrical engineer. This is his response:



> They've got a chart here with various *full load* motor efficiencies. The larger they get, the better they get. In the 100hp range, even the shitty cheap motors have 90% efficiency; high-efficiency motors are closer to 95%. Efficiency is actually lower at lower powers because hysteresis and bearing losses are the same, but there's less output at the shaft to show for it.
> 
> http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/DOE/TECH/ce0384.pdf
> 
> Batteries are pretty efficient, too, like 80-90% for li-ions. They just aren't nearly as energy dense as gasoline.





> Example: a 5hp AC motor that makes its 5hp at 1750 RPM. This is an off the shelf, squirrel-cage motor. It's highly efficient thermally and in energy usage, spinning with no load. However, load this baby down and you see a geometric increase in heat and power usage. In no load spin, you're using about 2 amps. Load it up, and you get to 20-30 amps very quickly and a hell of alot of heat. Because it's doing work now. And when you calculate out the wattage under the exact workload, and what you pay for that wattage, the electric isn't much better at all than a comparably sized IC engine! It's just a myth!



Okay, so it pulls 20-30 amps, presumably @ 220V. 

220V x 25A = 5500 watts of electric power

Now, how much mechanical power is it producing? Unless you had a dyno, we don't have the slightest idea.

If it measured 5,000 watts (6.7 horsepower) of mechanical power, you've got 91% efficiency. If it produced 4,000 watts, efficiency would be 72%. Which would be terrible for a motor, but higher than any petrol engine in existence by far.

Note: The 5,000 and 4,000 watt hypotheticals still leave 500 and 1,500 watts being turned into heat, respectively. Equal to "high" and "low" on a 110V space heater from WalMart, in fact. Enough to keep a small bedroom toasty warm in the winter. Enough to perhaps make you remark that it's "a hell of a lot of heat". But without numbers and measurements, you're just guesstimating. 



> Now, this is just silly. Have you any clue the HP of a over the road diesel engine? The smaller ones start at around 415 HP. So sorry Charlie, big truck diesel engines are big because they have to be. They also have to be able to run under load for millions of miles.



I was thinking of mid and fullsize passenger pickup trucks, not semis.

Anyways, you're agreeing with my point and you don't even seem to realize it. 

If I were I bad engineer, I *could* power a semi with a really souped-up chevy V8. It wouldn't last long. And since weight is of no consequence, why not pick out a motor that is much heavier duty?

Likewise, the engineer picking out a motor to power a locomotive or rooftop A/C or a CNC mill is not going to place the slightest bit of importance on size and weight. He will choose based on price, efficiency, and reliability. 

So does this mean that small/light motors do not exist? If you ask someone who only repairs locomotives, they might mistakenly think so because they never see the small ones--but they would be wrong.



> Know what my main worry is? Lifetime mileage. Durability. The Undiscovered Country of EVs is, there aren't any of them with 100,000 miles on them. Again I take my queue from the locomotive application -- but theirs are exotic, specially designed motors so I have no comparison.



Now THIS truly is silly. Motors routinely run for decades with minimal maintenance. They don't have a goofy reciprocating motion like engines, they don't have cams and lifters and valves and all this other shit rubbing and slapping around, it's just smooth rotary power with one moving part on some bearings. They can be cheap and shitty and disposeable (like some engines) or they can be built like a brick shithouse (like some engines).


----------



## BaronVonBigmeat

Bern80 said:


> BaronVonBigmeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Electric motors are most definately efficient users of potential power. What they aren't is efficient producers of work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If something efficiently converts the potential energy stored in a battery (or a fuel tank) to mechanical power, then it is--by definition--_working_ efficiently!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A machines capacity to do work and working efficiently are two different things Baron.
Click to expand...


Yes I realize that, but he didn't mention work capacity.

Power: ft.lbs / second, or work per unit time.

Work is a subset of power. If you are producing efficient power, you are working efficiently.



Bern80 said:


> I think the issue is what is being called efficient and the fact that, that is a bit subjective.



Not really, it's quite concrete. Energy in vs. energy out. Nothing converts 100%, but motors come pretty close.

If you're talking about "(oil) wells to wheels", that does get complicated. (EV's are the overall winner here too though.)



Bern80 said:


> You start with wanting to compaire to equal power plants, one IC, one electric. What you don't mention is what it would take to build an electric motor with comparable power to an IC and goes back to what I mentioned before about doing work. You would need such a mass of stuff for the electric (size of the motor, batteries) to have a something that would perform comparably to the IC that it would be rendered entirely impractical.



That's (almost) what I've been saying! You would need such a mass of *stuff* to match a gasser's range that it's impractical.

Now let's replace the word "stuff" with the more accurate term *battery*. It's the *battery* that is big and bulky and weak. The size/weight/power of the motor and electronics compare favorably to an engine and transmission. But batteries just get their asses kicked by a gasoline tank, for now.



Bern80 said:


> So again, yes the electric does indeed use power efficiently, but the scale to which such a *motor [no, BATTERY!--Baron ]* would need to be built to be comparable, in terms of range, speed, and horsepower is greatly inefficient in terms of the sheer volume you would need to accomplish the same thing.



Fixed.


----------



## Old Rocks

Midnight Marauder said:


> BaronVonBigmeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> 
> The efficiency specs by ASME and others do not take into account such factors as inrush current under load, and lifetime insulation loss. Off the shelf, you have this efficiency. In real life, you never see it. If that's a thermal efficiency rating, again it's not comparable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inrush current only matters for a split second. I dunno what you're talking about with insulation loss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Inrush current without load is for a short time. Under load it's for a long time. In AC motors, it's until rated RPM is reached. Of course, none of that matters with soft start technology on both AC and DC motors.
> 
> And if you don't understand insulation losses in motors and its effect on efficiency, you might want to bone up on it.Oh. We were taling about off the shelf motors. Now we're into exotic, specific purpose and highly expensive ones. Got'cha.
> 
> Under full LOAD on a dyno instead of just spinning on a test stand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I'm wrong, post something that proves it, an article or paper showing a real actual combustion engine beating the most mundane electric motor's efficiency of 80%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are still arguing thermal efficiency, which is how electric motors are rated. Have you any practical experience with electric motors? I do have.
> 
> Example: a 5hp AC motor that makes its 5hp at 1750 RPM. This is an off the shelf, squirrel-cage motor. It's highly efficient thermally and in energy usage, spinning with no load. However, load this baby down and you see a geometric increase in heat and power usage. In no load spin, you're using about 2 amps. Load it up, and you get to 20-30 amps very quickly and a hell of alot of heat. Because it's doing _work_ now. And when you calculate out the wattage under the exact workload, and what you pay for that wattage, the electric isn't much better at all than a comparably sized IC engine! It's just a myth!
> 
> The reason they NEED all the batteries is alot more because of the approach used, for example I am using a AC motor and need very few batteries to support the DC bus for the VFD that will be controlling the motor. Everyone's approaching this with standard thinking, the defeatist mentality from the jump.
> 
> Know what my main worry is? Lifetime mileage. Durability. The Undiscovered Country of EVs is, there aren't any of them with 100,000 miles on them. Again I take my queue from the locomotive application -- but theirs are exotic, specially designed motors so I have no comparison.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In some applications, engineers choose a big heavy electric motor because they are cheap and sturdy, and the weight does not matter. Kind of like engines--200 hp can come from some tiny little crotch rocket motorcycle engine, or it can come from a truck-size diesel. The truck simply doesn't need the lighter engine, so they don't bother using it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now, this is just silly. Have you any clue the HP of a over the road diesel engine? The smaller ones start at around 415 HP. So sorry Charlie, big truck diesel engines are big because they have to be. They also have to be able to run under load for millions of miles. Can any run of the mill, off the shelf, and worn out electric motors do that in this application? Of course not. That's why locomotive wheelmotors are highly specialized, exotic, and very expensive.
Click to expand...


*Wrong!*
Toyota RAV4 EV - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The RAV4 EV closely resembles the regular internal combustion engine (ICE) version - without a tailpipe - and has a governed top speed of 78 mph (~126 km/h) with a range of 100 to 120 miles (160 to 190 km). The 95 amp-hour NiMH battery pack has a capacity of 27 kWh, charges inductively and has proven to be surprisingly durable. Some RAV4 EVs have achieved over 150,000 miles (240,000 km) on the original battery pack. It was also one of the few vehicles with a single speed automatic transmission at that time.


----------



## Old Rocks

*Now this was done four or five years ago. At present, Eestor has a capacitor that weighs 280 lbs and stores 52 kwh. Hub motors are not rocket science, and costs come down in mass manufacturing. A reasonably priced electric car is not only possible, it will happen shortly.*



Electric Mini: 0-60 in 4 Seconds: It Has Motors In Its Wheels : TreeHugger


A British engineering firm has put together a high-performance hybrid version of BMW's Mini Cooper. The PML Mini QED has a top speed of 150 mph, a 0-60 mph time of 4.5 seconds. The car uses a small gasoline engine with four 160 horsepower electric motors &#8212; one on each wheel. The car has been designed to run for four hours of combined urban/extra urban driving, powered only by a battery and bank of ultra capacitors. The QED supports an all-electric range of 200-250 miles and has a total range of about 932 miles (1,500 km). For longer journeys at higher speeds, a small conventional internal combustion engine (ICE) is used to re-charge the battery. In this hybrid mode, fuel economies of up to 80mpg can be achieved.


Explains Martin Boughtwood, PML&#8217;s MD: &#8220;Until now, most electric vehicles have been little more than souped-up milk floats, limited by range and speed, with compromised performance. For those with a green conscience who also value an enhanced motoring experience, there is still something missing.

&#8220;Working in partnership with our customer, Synergy Innovations, we set out to demonstrate what our electric wheel technology is capable of. We simply took a standard BMW Mini One, discarded the engine, the disc brakes, the wheels, and the gearbox. These components were replaced by four of our electric wheels, a lithium polymer battery, a large ultra capacitor, a very small ICE with generator (so small it almost fits alongside the spare wheel), an energy management system and a sexy in-car display module.&#8221;


----------



## BaronVonBigmeat

Old Rocks said:


> *Now this was done four or five years ago. At present, Eestor has a capacitor that weighs 280 lbs and stores 52 kwh. *



Allegedly. No one has seen a working prototype. No one who is talking, anyhow.

If they can perform as claimed, for the price that's claimed...then yeah, you'll start seeing carmakers roll out electrics. With or without government incentives.



Old Rocks said:


> Electric Mini: 0-60 in 4 Seconds: It Has Motors In Its Wheels : TreeHugger



B-b-but! Don't they know? Electric motors are always bigger and heavier than their gas engine equivalents! Each wheel must weigh like...300 pounds!


----------



## theHawk

Once the Tesla Roadster gets down to about $25k I'll be happy to buy one as my daily driver.  

Until then, its not worth it.


----------



## Single Dad

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Single Dad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're aware that IC engines in cars are the least efficient use of fossil fuels right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you say that? Please justify your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because excess heat indicates inefficiency. I'm sure MM will dispute that but if you have to have a cooling system and radiator that indicates that you are dispursing HEAT which is POWER!
Click to expand...


So becuase IC engine powered cars have radiator systems you claim that makes them have "the least efficient use of fossil fuels"? Those are your exact words. Can you provide evidence that IC engines are absolutely "the least efficient use of fossil fuels" or are you going to backpeddle away?


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Here you go buddy and you'll even notice that I didn't cherrypick a sire that echos my opinion. If we could build cars that get 100 MPH run clean and weigh more than 400 pounds(i.e. safe) then I am all for it. Even though I was highly against new drilling I would even relent on that issue(with more refinery capacity).


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Hey MM could we have valves that go directly into the cylinder? So say fi]or eaxmple the oiston is driven down and at the bottome of the sroke there is an open hole that the exhaust escapes from. The then piston then seals that point by passing it and has an intake further up the stroke and then compresses. no valves nessacery. I guess jkind of like the Wnckle Rotery but could it be modified ti work with a more conventional IC engine?


----------



## Cold Fusion38

So hit back SD any show me where I am wrong,


----------



## theHawk

The problem with electric cars isn't the effiency of the motor, its keeping the batteries charged.  Having to recharge for hours after just a couple of hours driving isn't going to work for most people, especially for people that can only afford or want one car.  It would make driving long distances infeasible.  Simply put if electric cars were more effient, more practical, and competitively priced, they already would of replaced IC vehicles.

Hybrids are lot more practical for that purpose, which is why they are starting to sell.


----------



## Single Dad

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Here you go buddy and you'll even notice that I didn't cherrypick a sire that echos my opinion. If we could build cars that get 100 MPH run clean and weigh more than 400 pounds(i.e. safe) then I am all for it. Even though I was highly against new drilling I would even relent on that issue(with more refinery capacity).



Do you mean 100 MPG? (miles per gallon)


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Yeah MPG good catch though it doesn't dispute the content of my post.


----------



## DiveCon

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Hey MM could we have valves that go directly into the cylinder? So say fi]or eaxmple the oiston is driven down and at the bottome of the sroke there is an open hole that the exhaust escapes from. The then piston then seals that point by passing it and has an intake further up the stroke and then compresses. no valves nessacery. I guess jkind of like the Wnckle Rotery but could it be modified ti work with a more conventional IC engine?


you want to go back to 2 cycle style engines?
the ones that were the LEAST efficient?


----------



## Single Dad

theHawk said:


> The problem with electric cars isn't the effiency of the motor, its keeping the batteries charged.  Having to recharge for hours after just a couple of hours driving isn't going to work for most people, especially for people that can only afford or want one car.  It would make driving long distances infeasible.  Simply put if electric cars were more effient, more practical, and competitively priced, they already would of replaced IC vehicles.
> 
> Hybrids are lot more practical for that purpose, which is why they are starting to sell.



Radical liberal environmentalists don't care if you can't get where you need to go. They want to control your life and you will just shut up and take it! You will drive your electric car and like it mister!


----------



## Old Rocks

theHawk said:


> The problem with electric cars isn't the effiency of the motor, its keeping the batteries charged.  Having to recharge for hours after just a couple of hours driving isn't going to work for most people, especially for people that can only afford or want one car.  It would make driving long distances infeasible.  Simply put if electric cars were more effient, more practical, and competitively priced, they already would of replaced IC vehicles.
> 
> Hybrids are lot more practical for that purpose, which is why they are starting to sell.



52 kwh in 280 lbs, 5 minute recharge time.


EEStor receives patent for revolutionary electric energy storage device

Could a box full of electrons change the energy industry?

Texas-based stealth energy storage company EEStor is making news again on the blogosphere now that it has received a patent for its ground breaking capacitor that might find use in electric vehicles, utility grids or high performance portable devices. 

Why is this important for the auto industry? 
The key to accelerating the adoption of electric vehicles is to advance energy storage devices. Batteries and fuel cells hold electricity using chemical storage, while capacitors store energy as a charge between two plates.

Designing a low cost, high performance capacitor has been a challenge for energy innovators. But EEStor believes its material platform of barium-titanate ceramic powder (94%) mixed with PET plastic could be the right combination.

The EEStor patent reveals a 281 pound storage device with more than 30,000 plates that can hold 52 kWh of electrical energy.

The company has an agreement with electric vehicle maker Zenn and Lockheed for military applications, but has intentionally kept a low profile.  Its effort to remain under the radar of media attention, has in turn created a lot of energy blogger hype.


----------



## Old Rocks

Single Dad said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with electric cars isn't the effiency of the motor, its keeping the batteries charged.  Having to recharge for hours after just a couple of hours driving isn't going to work for most people, especially for people that can only afford or want one car.  It would make driving long distances infeasible.  Simply put if electric cars were more effient, more practical, and competitively priced, they already would of replaced IC vehicles.
> 
> Hybrids are lot more practical for that purpose, which is why they are starting to sell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Radical liberal environmentalists don't care if you can't get where you need to go. They want to control your life and you will just shut up and take it! You will drive your electric car and like it mister!
Click to expand...


Knownothing red neck ignoramous Conservatives only want to protect the multi-billionaires incomes.

See, two can play that stupid game, imparting zero information, and saying nothing at all.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

DiveCon said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said if you replace just ONE of your houshold cars with plug in electric we could eliminate our dependency on oil. You can keep your truck AND your boat I don't much give a shit if you do but if you replace your COMMUTER car with a plug in electric you can save money AND oil. Fully 80% of dialy commuters can use a plug in electric for their daily commute so what is your problem with that.
> 
> 
> 
> what if you only have one?
Click to expand...





If you have only ONE car then FINE but MOST households have more than ONE car.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

I just don't see the HYSTERIA of not having a car that you can drive across the country. MOST people never drive more than 300 miles from home. EVER!


----------



## Cold Fusion38

I mean come on people these are ALL very weak reasons to not wnat to go PLUG IN electric.


----------



## BaronVonBigmeat

Cold Fusion38 said:


> I just don't see the HYSTERIA of not having a car that you can drive across the country. MOST people never drive more than 300 miles from home. EVER!



Tell that to someone who escaped from hurricane Katrina in their car. I rarely use my spare tire, but when I need to use it...boy am I ever glad it's there. People can see that electrics let you get a per-mile cost that is equivalent to 70 cent per gallon gasoline, but stick with gassers (for now) because they are willing to pay an extra couple dollars per gallon for the range/fillup time abilities. If the extra cost hurts their pocketbook too much, they buy a used car.

Here is how I think things will play out, if EEStor can actually deliver on their claims (including price).

Car companies will quickly switch to pure electric drive. Meaning, 100% of the driving force is from an electric motor, like the Chevy Volt. Currently, your average car or truck has 2 or 3 optional drivetrains: V6 or V8, 4-cylinder or V6, or for pickups you can get V6/V8/diesel.

So for future cars, the drive motor is electric. For people with range anxiety (they want to go travel hundreds and hundreds of miles), they will buy their car with a gas or diesel generator onboard. (This is exactly what the Volt is. It can only go 40 miles @ city driving speeds, but it's a start.) For people without range anxiety, they save money and maintenance issues by buying a full electric with no generator. They charge up at night in their garage.

After a while, all the cars on the road will then be either full electric or hybrid. People save money by plugging in at night either way. 70 cents per gallon is always preferable to $2.50+. Pretty soon, gas station owners notice a market, and decide to exploit it. They offer fast-charge stations--more expensive than home charging, but still cheaper than gasoline. Over time, these installations become more and more common. Eventually, they are widespread enough that you can drive hundreds of miles. At this point, people begin to realize that they hardly ever use the onboard generator, and hybrid sales trail off.

Needless to say, this will take a while. The better the price/performance of supercaps/batteries, the faster it will go. The more expensive gas gets, the faster it will go. If we ever have 70's style gas shortages, with people waiting in the hot sun for hours...it will go faster still. People can dodge high gas prices by driving a cheap used car or by postponing other purchases, but there is no way to dodge a gas line.


----------



## BaronVonBigmeat

Here is a summary of the Popular Mechanics cost-per-mile comparison, if anyone is interested. 

Does anyone remember all the hype for a "hydrogen highway" just a few years ago? Like, as recently as 2003? That would have been the biggest boondoggle of all time, a colossal waste of not just money but energy. Lots of knowledgeable EV enthusiasts regard the hydrogen hype as a giant oil/gas company scam to sell more natural gas (H2 is mainly made from CNG these days). 

You would have to build a whole new pipeline infrastructure, and it would have to hold hydrogen at 40,000 PSI (!) to equal the energy density of gasoline. Hydrogen is also a real bitch to stop leaking, being the smallest molecule and all. It can leak through microscopic cracks in a pipe so small you can scarcely see them with a microscope. 



> TOO often, discussions of alternative energy take place in an alternative universe where prices do not matter," Popular Mechanics reports.
> 
> To remedy that, the magazine set out to figure out what it would cost to drive from New York to California using seven types of fuel.
> 
> It was not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison. Because there was not one automobile that could handle all types of fuel, the magazine tried to match the cars as closely as possible in size and weight. And the price it used for gasoline - $2.34 a gallon - is about 20 percent less than most people are now paying at the pump.
> 
> Still, the results in the cover article by Mike Allen are intriguing and surprising. The cheapest fuel was electricity. About one ton of coal would be needed to produce the requisite energy. Cost to drive coast to coast: $60. Using compressed natural gas would set a driver back $110. And biodiesel, made of used vegetable oil in the magazine's example, would cost $231.
> 
> Gasoline, as it turns out, figured in the middle of the pack. It would take 4.5 barrels of crude oil to produce the 91 gallons of gasoline necessary to get a Honda Civic coast to coast. The cost would be $213.
> 
> On the high end were E85/ethanol, a mixture of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline, at $425, and M85/methanol, 85 percent methanol and 15 percent gasoline, at $619. And then there was hydrogen. It would require 16,000 cubic feet of hydrogen to power General Motors' Hy-wire concept car: $804.



In Popular Mechanics fuel-type comparison, electricity wins
Crunching the Numbers on Alternative Fuels - Popular Mechanics

Also, another source (naturally they are a bit biased, being an electric car company)

Tesla Motors - well-to-wheel

It sounds counterintuitive, but it is actually more efficient to burn fuels in a powerplant. Yeah, you have efficiency losses with transmitting the power, when charging a battery, and then running the motor. But the power companies run turbines that are more efficient than piston engines, and you don't need a fleet of tanker trucks to make fuel deliveries.


----------



## Old Rocks

If the Q-dots deliver on the promise of super cheaply manufactured solar cells at about 40% efficiency, putting 5 kw of these on the roof of one's home would not only fuel and electric car, but also power the home, and deliver extra on the grid at the time of highest power use. 

Combine that with what you have pointed out concerning the efficiencies of the power plants versus ICEs, and the electric vehicle looks like a winner as soon as we have adaquete electrical storage systems.

Another point. The present SUVs, pickups, and vans are prime candidates for retrofittining to batteries or super caps. I have a stretch 350 Ford van. It has acres of room underneath between the frame for storage of the batteries. Remove the engine, drive line, and the entrails of the third member, and the vehicle has shed over a thousand pounds. For that amount of weight, I could put in about seven of the Eestor units which would give me a range of about 700 miles.


----------



## Charles Stucker

Midnight Marauder said:


> Coming back to this for a second: You seem to equate heat with ineffeciency. Nothing could be further from the truth.


Actually Heat does represent lost energy. A Carnot cycle engine, the standard for IC, depends on a temperature difference. Unfortunately the input temperature for automobiles is moderately high, on an absolute scale, even when water freezes. This places a theoretical limit on the possible efficiency of a Carnot cycle combustion. Generally in any energy balance equation the "heat" term is used for lost energy, such that with
PE meaning chemical potential energy available
Q meaning energy lost to "heat"
ME meaning mechanical output energy
the standard form for an energy balance equation looks like
PE = ME + Q
Naturally this is a simplification, particularly for an automobile where s light loss occurs in transmitting the energy from the pistons to the wheels, but it does show where "heat" might bethought to equate with inefficiency, as a highly efficient engine would perforce have Q approach 0.


----------



## mdn2000

Old Rocks said:


> If the Q-dots deliver on the promise of super cheaply manufactured solar cells at about 40% efficiency, putting 5 kw of these on the roof of one's home would not only fuel and electric car, but also power the home, and deliver extra on the grid at the time of highest power use.
> 
> Combine that with what you have pointed out concerning the efficiencies of the power plants versus ICEs, and the electric vehicle looks like a winner as soon as we have adaquete electrical storage systems.
> 
> Another point. The present SUVs, pickups, and vans are prime candidates for retrofittining to batteries or super caps. I have a stretch 350 Ford van. It has acres of room underneath between the frame for storage of the batteries. Remove the engine, drive line, and the entrails of the third member, and the vehicle has shed over a thousand pounds. For that amount of weight, I could put in about seven of the Eestor units which would give me a range of about 700 miles.




As soon as Scotty travels back in time with the secret of unlocking the energy in Dilithium Cyrstals.......

Yep, cant wait to start throwing away car batteries with all those triple AAAs and D cells.

How big of a land fill will we need?


----------



## Old Rocks

Good lord, Mdn2000, are you intent on removing all doubt that you are an idiot? 


Toyota RAV4 EV - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The RAV4 EV is an all-electric version of the popular RAV4 SUV produced by Toyota. It was sold from 1997 to 2003.

The first fleet version of the RAV4 EV became available on a limited basis in 1997. In 2001 it was possible for businesses, cities or utilities to lease one or two of these cars. Toyota then actually sold or leased 328 RAV4 EVs to the general public in 2003, at which time the program was terminated despite waiting lists of prospective customers.

The RAV4 EV closely resembles the regular internal combustion engine (ICE) version - without a tailpipe - and has a governed top speed of 78 mph (~126 km/h) with a range of 100 to 120 miles (160 to 190 km). The 95 amp-hour NiMH battery pack has a capacity of 27 kWh, charges inductively and has proven to be surprisingly durable. Some RAV4 EVs have achieved over 150,000 miles (240,000 km) on the original battery pack. It was also one of the few vehicles with a single speed automatic transmission at that time.


----------



## DiveCon

Old Rocks said:


> Good lord, Mdn2000, are you intent on removing all doubt that you are an idiot?
> 
> 
> Toyota RAV4 EV - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> The RAV4 EV is an all-electric version of the popular RAV4 SUV produced by Toyota. It was sold from 1997 to 2003.
> 
> The first fleet version of the RAV4 EV became available on a limited basis in 1997. In 2001 it was possible for businesses, cities or utilities to lease one or two of these cars. Toyota then actually sold or leased 328 RAV4 EVs to the general public in 2003, at which time the program was terminated despite waiting lists of prospective customers.
> 
> The RAV4 EV closely resembles the regular internal combustion engine (ICE) version - without a tailpipe - and has a governed top speed of 78 mph (~126 km/h) with a range of 100 to 120 miles (160 to 190 km). The 95 amp-hour NiMH battery pack has a capacity of 27 kWh, charges inductively and has proven to be surprisingly durable. Some RAV4 EVs have achieved over 150,000 miles (240,000 km) on the original battery pack. It was also one of the few vehicles with a single speed automatic transmission at that time.


why did they stop making it?


----------



## KittenKoder

DiveCon said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good lord, Mdn2000, are you intent on removing all doubt that you are an idiot?
> 
> 
> Toyota RAV4 EV - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> The RAV4 EV is an all-electric version of the popular RAV4 SUV produced by Toyota. It was sold from 1997 to 2003.
> 
> The first fleet version of the RAV4 EV became available on a limited basis in 1997. In 2001 it was possible for businesses, cities or utilities to lease one or two of these cars. Toyota then actually sold or leased 328 RAV4 EVs to the general public in 2003, at which time the program was terminated despite waiting lists of prospective customers.
> 
> The RAV4 EV closely resembles the regular internal combustion engine (ICE) version - without a tailpipe - and has a governed top speed of 78 mph (~126 km/h) with a range of 100 to 120 miles (160 to 190 km). The 95 amp-hour NiMH battery pack has a capacity of 27 kWh, charges inductively and has proven to be surprisingly durable. Some RAV4 EVs have achieved over 150,000 miles (240,000 km) on the original battery pack. It was also one of the few vehicles with a single speed automatic transmission at that time.
> 
> 
> 
> why did they stop making it?
Click to expand...


Because of the other dangers and problems it had ...  Like all the others.


----------

