Who wants an ALL electric car?

[Purplegrasshopper]

Originally Posted by kotsedriver

And Purplegrasshopper is a GENIUS!!!

Mikey

How about trying to argue your position instead of making sarcastic personal attacks?

Originally Posted by kotsedriver

Yes, there are evidences of global warming. It's pretty much present, but you just can't see the big picture here. They may be theoretical models, but they can still be achieved, and yes the Earth does have natural swings in temperature, but not this extreme.

This post has no basis in fact. Statements such as "It's pretty much present" mean nothing in a logical debate.

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by Purplegrasshopper

Let me rephrase: There is no evidence the rise in the Earth's surface temperature is being caused by humans.

Originally Posted by xtop

i'm not suggesting global warming isn't real and i'm not saying its completely a cyclical thing. i think we're helping a LITTLE (and what you call "little" is up for grabs i suppose) but its not all us like it seems some people suggest

I'm glad to see we have a few people around here who aren't lemmings blindly following all of the BS being spewed Al Gore, Obamalamadingdong and the rest of the gloom-and-doomers. Guess what folks, the earth's temperature has fluctuated for billions of years. One decade the morons claim we're heading for the next ice age, the next we're all going to burn. That should really make anyone with an ounce of common sense sit back and seriously question these claims.

Sorry, I'll put my money on the thousands of REAL scientists, climatologists and meteorologists who all agree that there is NO climate change going on other that the natural temperature swings of the earth.

[Trogdor2010]

Electricity is a very mature source of energy in cars. They have used electricity since the introduction of cars, and they were heavily preferred over the gas cars of that time, but the production at the time was not mature and gasoline for cars was pretty easy to mature quickly. The introduction of electric cars in the 1990's were never a technical failure, but rather consumer misunderstanding and discouragment from commrecialism. Did you know that GM in 2005 taken electric cars from their existing consumers without notice and other manufacturers did the same, and for this reason, electricity can be a renewed source that can be so by the consumer with solar panels. all they need to do is get good quality solar panels and wire it to their car battery. It wasn't that users are trying to "save the environment", car companies could care less, but if their consumers couldn't notice they could put solar panels on their cars to power them, and still charge them for the electricity, electricity would be just as encouraged, if not more than as they would used gasoline as a source, except for Oil companies and OPEC. And please, to some of the conservative users, don't try to spit in my face with arrogance, but just give me a decent argument on this.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by xtop

i'm not suggesting global warming isn't real and i'm not saying its completely a cyclical thing. i think we're helping a LITTLE (and what you call "little" is up for grabs i suppose) but its not all us like it seems some people suggest

you did not, Purplegrasshopper did, and to him I pointed out that there is evidence that we are one of the causes. Either way, it is unimportant, if global climate change (I prefer it to Global warming since most people don't understand what global warming means) is happening (and it is) and it is negative (which it is) even if we are not the cause we should try and stabilize it so that we can continue to exist as we do now.

You said "ever recorded before you mean. we have no idea how its been in the past"
and if what you said was true then we would not know, for instance that there where ice ages in the past. We would not know that earth (naturally) goes through cooling and heating periods and the global temp is not fixed. The reality is that we have a good idea going back millennia how the world has cooled and heated, not just the last few recorded years.

Your comment had nothing to do with believing it is man made or not, that is Why I did not respond to that. Or to put an other way your comment could be used either way

Guy A: look we started recording temps in XXXX and now hotter look how much we heated up the world has become due to pollution.

Guy B: the world is millions of years old we only have records since XXXX how can we know we are the cause, it could be 100% natural, we don’t know what was the temperature the year before XXXX, maybe it is normal for it to fluctuate like that (after all it fluctuates every day), maybe we/something changed it before XXXX and now it is going back to the warmer normal, maybe the world has always gotten hotter…..

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Ricshoe

Sorry, I'll put my money on the thousands of REAL scientists, climatologists and meteorologists who all agree that there is NO climate change going on other that the natural temperature swings of the earth.

name me 100.

[xtop]

well i made that comment for the fact that in the 70s everyone was worried it was too cold. now we're worried its too warm. i didn't mean to say we don't know about the past, because obviously we do. but we don't have enough detailed information decade to decade. i mean..if within 40 years we go from too cold to too warm, something tells me we're looking at a pretty small picture

how much too warm will it get is the question. and will we be able to change it. or will we be having a too cold discussion in 20 years

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by xtop

well i made that comment for the fact that in the 70s everyone was worried it was too cold. now we're worried its too warm. i didn't mean to say we don't know about the past, because obviously we do. but we don't have enough detailed information decade to decade. i mean..if within 40 years we go from too cold to too warm, something tells me we're looking at a pretty small picture

how much too warm will it get is the question. and will we be able to change it. or will we be having a too cold discussion in 20 years

I agree that there is still a lot to learn But the arguments you make is why I like climate change instead of Global warming, in the 870’s no one looked at the global scale. Even though GW is right at the global level and it has been happening since the industrial revolution (long before the 70's) the issue is that Global warming does not mean warming for everyone, as the temperature rises wind and ocean currents will change and that means some places will get hotter while others get colder, some will get wetter while others become drier.

My guess with GW/CC places like UK/France will most likely get colder (due to the gulf stream deviating and missing them).

Let me put it this way


Now I am not using a map of Canada just because I live here, but because it is useful for this discussion.

The eastern part of Canada (Ontario->) got born through war and so the boundary to the US is very bumpy. The boundary in the west was born through treaty and except for a small mistake (Victoria island) Canada is above the 49 parallel out west. Vancouver (out west) is warm all year round (with the average for every month none freezing), usually no snow even though it is a bit more north then the 49’th (which demarks the border. On the other hand Montreal which is 4 degrees more south sees a lot of snow and cold weather (~6 months average in the freezing) . I find the border makes it easier to see on the map the difference. If I went with London UK it is ~2 degrees more North the Vancouver.

[tron3]

Originally Posted by SlmShdy1

...
I would like an electric car if they weren't so damn ugly. I don't get it. Just because it's electric, why do they all have to look so retarded?

GM is in bed with the oil people. They don't want to make them appealing. The EV1 wasn't a bad looking car, nor did it have the style of a Tesla.

Originally Posted by Trogdor2010

Electricity is a very mature source of energy in cars. ... all they need to do is get good quality solar panels and wire it to their car battery. ....

The problem is the best photovoltaics are very expensive and still not very efficient. I read some work is being done on Iron Pyrite cells which could cheaply yield 50% sun to energy conversion rates. Not holding my breath just yet.

Let's assume for a moment the Pyrite cells (or some other cell) can be cheaply manufactured on a large scale and is 50% efficient or more. Some cells create electricity at night using the spectrum of light which is invisible to the human eye. Yes, light exisits at night, we just can't see it. This is how nocturnal animals can see. If there was zero spectrum of light even the animals could not see. However, such cells are used for space applications and probably cost as much as the car.

While everyone keeps engineering batteries to fix the electric car problem, few people are meeting it half way with solar research. Inexpensive high capacity cells could more easily "solar assist" an electric car in motion and charge the battery at rest.

If such cells come into being more people could afford solar cells on the roofs of their homes, thus offsetting the supposed increased carbon emmisions needed to charge an e-car. Between the panels on the car and the house, a positive environmental impact finally occurs.

Suppose for a moment you had an e-car and the entire roof was comprised of high capacity photovoltaics. Some of that energy could be used for climate control while the car is parked. The rest charges the battery array.I estimate an average of 8 hours a day of free energy from the sun year round. It is the only energy resource which doesn't have to be mined, regulated, or controlled and is abundent. Why aren't more people doing work on solar energy?

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

name me 100.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...5-3DCE4095C360

Over 100 Prominent Scientists Warn UN Against 'Futile' Climate Control Efforts

"Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming."

BALI, Indonesia - The UN climate conference met strong opposition Thursday from a team of over 100 prominent international scientists, who warned the UN, that attempting to control the Earth's climate was "ultimately futile."

The scientists, many of whom are current and former UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) scientists, sent an open letter to the UN Secretary-General questioning the scientific basis for climate fears and the UN's so-called "solutions."

"Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems," the letter signed by the scientists read. The December 13 letter was released to the public late Thursday. (LINK)

The letter was signed by renowned scientists such as Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists; Dr. Reid Bryson, dubbed the "Father of Meteorology"; Atmospheric pioneer Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, formerly of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; Award winning physicist Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu of the International Arctic Research Center, who has twice named one of the "1000 Most Cited Scientists"; Award winning MIT atmospheric scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen; UN IPCC scientist Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand; French climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux of the University Jean Moulin; World authority on sea level Dr. Nils-Axel Morner of Stockholm University; Physicist Dr. Freeman Dyson of Princeton University; Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Poland; Paleoclimatologist Dr. Robert M. Carter of Australia; Former UN IPCC reviewer Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum in Norway; and Dr. Edward J. Wegman, of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.

"It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables," the scientists wrote.

"In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is ‘settled,' significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming," the open letter added.

Contents of letter and all signatories listed later in the article.

As for an electric car; give me one that I can operate cheaper than my current car while still mantaining safety and reliability and I will consider it (for work commute only).

[GLaDOS]

Originally Posted by Ricshoe

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...5-3DCE4095C360



Contents of letter and all signatories listed later in the article.

As for an electric car; give me one that I can operate cheaper than my current car while still mantaining safety and reliability and I will consider it (for work commute only).

Getting a cheap electric car won't pretty much happen for this time around; it's still about fossil fuels here, but car companies like GM, Ford, etc are expanding their library with hybrid cars, for that forthcoming year. Plus, we'll pretty much be independent from fossil fuels by about, say 10-20 years tops.

[mikejet]

Originally Posted by Ricshoe

As for an electric car; give me one that I can operate cheaper than my current car while still mantaining safety and reliability and I will consider it (for work commute only).

So you wouldn't drive an electric vehicle even though they have the capability to have better acceleration, torque, and would be quieter?

The acceleration and torque for an electric motor is an instant on that requires no ramping up like in a normal combustion engine. You don't have to switch through gears to get to the speed you want.

The all electric dragster Current Eliminator V ran the 1/4 mile in 7.956 seconds at 159.85 miles per hour.

If that doesn't get your attention I don't know what will.

[GLaDOS]

Originally Posted by mikejet

So you wouldn't drive an electric vehicle even though they have the capability to have better acceleration, torque, and would be quieter?

The acceleration and torque for an electric motor is an instant on that requires no ramping up like in a normal combustion engine. You don't have to switch through gears to get to the speed you want.

The all electric dragster Current Eliminator V ran the 1/4 mile in 7.956 seconds at 159.85 miles per hour.

If that doesn't get your attention I don't know what will.

http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/s...-ev-2009-01-22

Sorry if this was mentioned earlier, but this seems interesting for an electric car...

[tron3]

Originally Posted by mikejet

So you wouldn't drive an electric vehicle even though they have the capability to have better acceleration, torque, and would be quieter? ....

Many car enthusiasts still have the "Harley" mentality. If it doesn't go VROOM VROOM VROOOOOOOOM, it isn't a car.

Someone said they would like to see an e-truck haul 50 tons of stuff. Firstly, I don't know if a standard tractor trailer can haul that much load. Albeit, my point is some electric trucks do exist and are pretty much for lighter loads. An electric tractor trailer could easily be used for the shipping of lighterweight materials. Plus you have the entire top of the trailer to equip with a solar array. That is tons of free energy.

Youtube has a video of an e-car which is used as a taxi cab. He hauls around a long solar array during the day to keep the car running and removes it at night.

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by mikejet

So you wouldn't drive an electric vehicle even though they have the capability to have better acceleration, torque, and would be quieter?

The acceleration and torque for an electric motor is an instant on that requires no ramping up like in a normal combustion engine. You don't have to switch through gears to get to the speed you want.

The all electric dragster Current Eliminator V ran the 1/4 mile in 7.956 seconds at 159.85 miles per hour.

If that doesn't get your attention I don't know what will.

Of course I would, but if it's going to cost me $40K to buy a mid-size sedan and twice as much to operate once our electric costs are doubled due to the power-grab cap-and-tax garbage being proposed, then I'm personally much better off keeping my current car that is paid for and will last me another 100K+ miles minimum. Performance numbers look 'cool', and I had to have muscle cars when I was younger, but in reality where are you going to utilize speed like that? Ticket costs and insurance premium increases are just not worth the few seconds of 'thrills'.

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by mikejet

The all electric dragster Current Eliminator V ran the 1/4 mile in 7.956 seconds at 159.85 miles per hour.

If that doesn't get your attention I don't know what will.

Yeah, but will I be able to get leather seats, a cup holder that fits a 2 gallon jug of soda from 7-Eleven, larger seats for my expanding butt due to said soda, 7 speaker sound system with navigation, and dual climate controls with heated seats?????

These are deal breakers my friend.

[mikejet]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

Yeah, but will I be able to get leather seats, a cup holder that fits a 2 gallon jug of soda from 7-Eleven, larger seats for my expanding butt due to said soda, 7 speaker sound system with navigation, and dual climate controls with heated seats?????

These are deal breakers my friend.

Let me call Mercedez and have them start on the eMaybach.

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by mikejet

Let me call Mercedez and have them start on the eMaybach.

yeah, but for $4,500 I only get a PS2 in it.... I'm holding out for the PS3 model....

http://www.automotive.com/2009/101/m...ing/index.html

[Deadset]

Originally Posted by Ricshoe

Of course I would, but if it's going to cost me $40K to buy a mid-size sedan and twice as much to operate once our electric costs are doubled due to the power-grab cap-and-tax garbage being proposed, then I'm personally much better off keeping my current car that is paid for and will last me another 100K+ miles minimum. Performance numbers look 'cool', and I had to have muscle cars when I was younger, but in reality where are you going to utilize speed like that? Ticket costs and insurance premium increases are just not worth the few seconds of 'thrills'.

Great link from the .gov site. I've run the numbers on my car and I'm sure you have too. Of course this happens when you reach 30 and above, you start thinking of supplemental costs and not just the singular fact of owning a 'cool' car.

[brettallica]

Originally Posted by xtop

get rid of the hippies and go nuclear i say

But then you'd lose valuable members of this forum, such as this guy. :Points_thumbs_toward_self:

[GLaDOS]

Originally Posted by brettallica

But then you'd lose valuable members of this forum, such as this guy. :Points_thumbs_toward_self:

And of course, tron3.