Honda Car Forum

On 9 Apr 2009 13:58:52 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:

>8A x 220V= 1760 watts,for only 3/4 of an hour,= 1320 watt-hours.
>That's a mighty weak battery pack,or one HELL of an efficient electric
>motor.
>>

Rather than guessing we could check information on the intenet:

Model S will have a range of 160 miles (260 km), 230 miles (370 km) or
300 miles (480 km) when fully charged, depending on the chosen battery
option, and feature a 45 minute QuickCharge when connected to a 480V
outlet. In addition, a battery swap will be possible in less than five
minutes. [4]

• 42 kWh battery storage system standard
• 70 kWh and greater battery storage systems optional

They say a full charge costs "as little as $4" whatever that means.
Would be nice if they told us how many kWh for a full charge.

The battery swap is an interesting proposal, especially if you could
trade up or down in storage capacity. However, you have to whether
the infrastructure for on-the-road quick charging or battery swaps
will ever be installed during the life of your 2012 model.

If you assume that gas costs $4, and a Prius gets 40 mpg, it will cost
you ten cents a mile to fuel it. As little as $4 sounds like at least
$6 to go 160 miles in your S. That is four cents a mile or a savings
of 6 cents over the Prius. Driven 12,000 miles per year, that is $720
in fuel savings. That won't even come close to paying the interest on
the extra $25K cost of the S. Of course the S would be a lot more fun
to own, but most people cant afford $25K for fun. If they could, BMW
would be selling a lot more cars.

On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 23:08:21 -0500, Joe
<joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com> wrote:

>On 2009-04-08, Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 23:26:49 -0500, Joe
>><joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2009-04-06, Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>> On 4 Apr 2009 21:20:00 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>We're not going to replace fossil fuels for autos;the alternatives simply
>>>>>don't have the same energy density of petro fuels.We need to open up our
>>>>>DOMESTIC oil production and refining,screw the environuts.
>>>>
>>>> Maxing out domestic oil wouldn't even keep up with demand if it
>>>> increased at the pace of the last few decades. And it is a finite
>>>> resource - the faster we use it, the sooner it runs out.
>>>>
>>>> The economics of a pure electric vehicle pretty much limits it to the
>>>> golf-cart city cars for the foreseeable future. No one I know is
>>>> going to pay the cost for a highway capable electric car with a range
>>>> of 100 miles between charges. (Although I did see a Tesla on the
>>>> expressway the other day.) Hybrids are practical now and will only
>>>> become more so as the price of oil increases.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I'll disagree with this. While I am no huge fan of Chevy these days,
>>>the Volt has a very good chance of being successful.
>>>
>>>40 Miles per charge on pure electric, and a small motor to charge the
>>>battery and extend the range to ~ 300 miles. The 40 miles is more
>>>than enough for most people. Of course, we'll have to see how it
>>>actually performs once released, but it's a nice looking car, and the
>>>pricetag will be affordable.
>>
>> I am judiciously skeptical of the Volt, but I suspect there will be a
>> number of vehicles with similar performance in 2 - 4 years. But these
>> vehicles are hybrids. Not that there is anything wrong with hybrids -
>> I would certainly consider one if I was in the market. However, a
>> pure electric vehicle is a lot shakier proposition from a marketplace
>> standpoint.
>
>A Volt is a 100% plug-in electric car. It is not a hybrid. Chevy
>included the small engine as an afterthought, and it does not drive
>the car, it only charges the battery. For standard commuting of under
>40 miles per day, the engine never even gets turned on.

I appreciate the difference from current hybrids, but the fact is that
this is a plug-in series hybrid. Afterthought or not, the engine is
critical to making it viable in the marketplace. And remember, this
car is totally unproven at this point. Last I heard GM doesn't even
have a battery supplier yet. At best this thing will go 40 miles
under optimum conditions. Without the engine, no one would trust the
car for more than 30 miles and even that much trust might not be
justified.

>> I would not be in a hurry to buy either a volt-like hybrid or a pure
>> electric because I am concerned that the batteries will be stressed
>> much more severely than current hybrids.
>>
>
>The batteries operate better under such stress. Lithium Ion batteries
>are ideal for electric vehicles.

Perhaps we don't mean the same thing by stress. What I mean is
draining the batteries down low and then fully charging them back up.

"A lithium-ion battery provides 300-500 discharge/charge cycles. The
battery prefers a partial rather than a full discharge. Frequent full
discharges should be avoided when possible. Instead, charge the
battery more often or use a larger battery."

http://batteryuniversity.com/parttwo-34.htm

"Fully discharging your Lithium battery frequently can actually be
quite harmful to your battery’s health, possibly rendering it
completely unusable if energy levels go too low."

http://spicygadget.com/2006/12/24/gu...thium-battery/

Li-ion batteries are not as durable as nickel metal hydride or
nickel-cadmium designs, and can be extremely dangerous if mistreated.
They may explode if overheated or if charged to an excessively high
voltage. Furthermore, they may be irreversibly damaged if discharged
below a certain voltage. To reduce these risks, li-ion batteries
generally contain a small circuit that shuts down the battery when
discharged below a certain threshold (typically 3 V) or charged above
a certain limit (typically 4.2 V).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_ion_battery


>
>>>Tesla is working on releasing the model S, a 4-door that does a 45
>>>minute charge for a 300 mile trip. The price is 50 Grand after the
>>>Federal tax credit, and the car is good looking, fast and efficient.
>>
>> The price is $50K for the 160 mile model and it isn't clear whether 45
>> minute charging will be on that model. The range would be OK if it
>> didn't cost $50. That price insures that this will fill only a tiny
>> niche. The market isn't that big for $50K cars and most buyers will
>> not want to make the compromises. And if you think the long term
>> plans at GM are suspect, you have to think that long term Tesla
>> anything is like a lottery ticket.
>>
>
>Tesla isn't going to be some big success. I don't even think they
>expect to be. They are a vehicle for change. They are developing
>high-end technology. After a few years, that technology then filters
>down to the rest of the market. That's how innovation works.

I understand the principle, I just don't think that pure electric cars
will have any measurable impact on our energy needs for at lest 10 -
15 years. That will only come when they are economically viable and
they aren't even close now.

>>>>>For fixed electric power generation,nuclear is the way to go;Best energy
>>>>>density of all,reliable,clean. I note solar proponents are not mentioning
>>>>>that solar panels only have a 30 yr life before they degrade,and also need
>>>>>WATER to keep them clean.
>>>>
>>>> Nuclear reactors only have a 30-50 year life and they are a lot bigger
>>>> problem to dispose of. They also require water to cool them.
>>>
>>>So what? Water is fine. And nuclear waste is much smaller than it
>>>used to be (ie: efficiency is growing). The disposal of said waste
>>>CAN be done in a clean, efficient manner. It is cleaner than the
>>>exhaust that is thrown up by coal plants...
>>
>> The previous poster cited the need to wash solar panels with "WATER"
>> as a serious flaw. I am actually pretty ambivalent regarding nuclear
>> energy. I don't think it is as bad as the vocal opponents but I also
>> don't think that it is as benign as its vocal supporters claim.
>> Hopefully, they will never kill as many people as coal fired plants
>> have.
>
>Nuclear energy is completely benign, so long as it is treated with
>respect.

The first step to treating it with respect is to never consider it
benign.

> Using France's model (never thought I'd say such a thing),
>Nuclear reactors are safer and cleaner than coal or oil plants.

They are until they aren't. And then they are very bad.

Nuclear energy and military force should both be treated with great
respect. That could explain why we have had a major nuclear accident
and France hasn't (yet).

>And Solar panels will not replace the grid, nor will they eliminate a
>person's need for external supply of electricity. But, if each
>household had a 1500 Watt Panel or two, the stress on the grid would
>be reduced by orders of magnatude. There is likely not one single
>answer to our energy problems. The answer will come from a variety of
>technologies that will work together to clean up the mess.

I agree.

In message <9lhtt4psmibqp58a3citpbg56qbski54p5@4ax.com>, Gordon McGrew
<RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> writes
>I appreciate the difference from current hybrids, but the fact is that
>this is a plug-in series hybrid. Afterthought or not, the engine is
>critical to making it viable in the marketplace. And remember, this
>car is totally unproven at this point. Last I heard GM doesn't even
>have a battery supplier yet. At best this thing will go 40 miles
>under optimum conditions. Without the engine, no one would trust the
>car for more than 30 miles and even that much trust might not be
>justified.
I know you've only been independent for about 200 years, but a child
learns to spell in primary school (4to11 to you), when will you learn to
spell and then not talk rubbish about "Processing" against dry storage?
You've a lovely country, it's a shame that your brains don't match up.
--
Clive

On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 16:20:42 +0100, Clive <Clive@yewbank.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <9lhtt4psmibqp58a3citpbg56qbski54p5@4ax.com>, Gordon McGrew
><RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> writes
>>I appreciate the difference from current hybrids, but the fact is that
>>this is a plug-in series hybrid. Afterthought or not, the engine is
>>critical to making it viable in the marketplace. And remember, this
>>car is totally unproven at this point. Last I heard GM doesn't even
>>have a battery supplier yet. At best this thing will go 40 miles
>>under optimum conditions. Without the engine, no one would trust the
>>car for more than 30 miles and even that much trust might not be
>>justified.
>I know you've only been independent for about 200 years, but a child
>learns to spell in primary school (4to11 to you), when will you learn to
>spell and then not talk rubbish about "Processing" against dry storage?
>You've a lovely country, it's a shame that your brains don't match up.

Um, is this supposed to be a reply to anything I wrote?

Thus spake Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> :

>Joe <joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com> wrote in
>news:slrngtllg9.3cu.joe@barada.griffincs.local:
>
>> On 2009-04-06, Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>> On 4 Apr 2009 21:20:00 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
>>>
>>>>We're not going to replace fossil fuels for autos;the alternatives
>>>>simply don't have the same energy density of petro fuels.We need to
>>>>open up our DOMESTIC oil production and refining,screw the
>>>>environuts.
>>>
>>> Maxing out domestic oil wouldn't even keep up with demand if it
>>> increased at the pace of the last few decades. And it is a finite
>>> resource - the faster we use it, the sooner it runs out.
>
>Oil is NOT a "finite resource";we continue to discover new fields.

Oh, oil is finite. Many geologists believe we will soon reach "peak
oil", if we haven't already. Saudi Arabia has never disclosed their
reserve numbers. The consensus is that we probably have 30 to 40
years left at current use.

And, ask yourself what else we use petro for. You know those computer
chips? They are in epoxy cases. A petro product. You know that
keyboard I'm hammering on? Yup. How about that poyester suit? Okay,
there are some things we won't miss.

>And I agree that we need to reduce oil consumption,and we achieve that by
>going to smaller,lighter vehicles with better mileage.
>Reserve lt.trucks and SUVs for where they are truly necessary.

With a few exceptions, SUVs really aren't needed. I hear
protestations about needing the space for the "team", but how often
does that really happen? Do the parents of all of the kids "need"
one? The number of times I see a solo driver on my way to work
(guilty of solo, not guilty of SUV) is outrageous.

>
--

- dillon I am not invalid

Hi, I'm Michael Phelps and Olympic Gold isn't the only
Gold I'm thinking of.

Hi, I'm Michael Phelps and when I'm on Maui, Wowwie.

Dillon Pyron wrote:
> Thus spake Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> :
>
>
>>Joe <joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com> wrote in
>>news:slrngtllg9.3cu.joe@barada.griffincs.local :
>>
>>
>>>On 2009-04-06, Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 4 Apr 2009 21:20:00 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>We're not going to replace fossil fuels for autos;the alternatives
>>>>>simply don't have the same energy density of petro fuels.We need to
>>>>>open up our DOMESTIC oil production and refining,screw the
>>>>>environuts.
>>>>
>>>>Maxing out domestic oil wouldn't even keep up with demand if it
>>>>increased at the pace of the last few decades. And it is a finite
>>>>resource - the faster we use it, the sooner it runs out.
>>
>>Oil is NOT a "finite resource";we continue to discover new fields.
>
>
> Oh, oil is finite. Many geologists believe we will soon reach "peak
> oil", if we haven't already. Saudi Arabia has never disclosed their
> reserve numbers. The consensus is that we probably have 30 to 40
> years left at current use.

Which allows plenty of time to develop alternatives. All it takes is
leadership.


> And, ask yourself what else we use petro for. You know those computer
> chips? They are in epoxy cases. A petro product. You know that
> keyboard I'm hammering on? Yup. How about that poyester suit? Okay,
> there are some things we won't miss.

True, but as an aside, plastic products can be recycled which minimizes
the impact.


>>And I agree that we need to reduce oil consumption,and we achieve that by
>>going to smaller,lighter vehicles with better mileage.
>>Reserve lt.trucks and SUVs for where they are truly necessary.
>
>
> With a few exceptions, SUVs really aren't needed. I hear
> protestations about needing the space for the "team", but how often
> does that really happen? Do the parents of all of the kids "need"
> one? The number of times I see a solo driver on my way to work
> (guilty of solo, not guilty of SUV) is outrageous.

Well, SUV(s) replaced the venerable station wagon which was being held
to passenger car requirements regarding both, fuel efficiency and
safety. Leave it to Detroit to find a way around such...

JT

Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in
news:JYPEl.558051$Mh5.492332@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

>
>
> Dillon Pyron wrote:
>> Thus spake Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> :
>>
>>
>>>Joe <joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com> wrote in
>>>news:slrngtllg9.3cu.joe@barada.griffincs.loca l:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 2009-04-06, Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 4 Apr 2009 21:20:00 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>We're not going to replace fossil fuels for autos;the alternatives
>>>>>>simply don't have the same energy density of petro fuels.We need
>>>>>>to open up our DOMESTIC oil production and refining,screw the
>>>>>>environuts.
>>>>>
>>>>>Maxing out domestic oil wouldn't even keep up with demand if it
>>>>>increased at the pace of the last few decades. And it is a finite
>>>>>resource - the faster we use it, the sooner it runs out.
>>>
>>>Oil is NOT a "finite resource";we continue to discover new fields.
>>
>>
>> Oh, oil is finite. Many geologists believe we will soon reach "peak
>> oil", if we haven't already. Saudi Arabia has never disclosed their
>> reserve numbers. The consensus is that we probably have 30 to 40
>> years left at current use.

HOW can any "expert" make estimates when new fields ARE being discovered?
Oil may be "finite",but we certainly haven't found ALL the drillable oil
fields yet,or began producing from them.

>
> Which allows plenty of time to develop alternatives. All it takes is
> leadership.

All the leadership in the world is not going to bring about a battery
capable of holding enough energy to equal a tankfull of gas or diesel.
That requires a scientific breakthrough.
>
>
>> And, ask yourself what else we use petro for. You know those
>> computer chips? They are in epoxy cases. A petro product. You know
>> that keyboard I'm hammering on? Yup. How about that poyester suit?
>> Okay, there are some things we won't miss.
>
> True, but as an aside, plastic products can be recycled which
> minimizes the impact.

Used oil can be used for making plastics.
Perhaps vegetable oils and coal (perhaps together)can be used to make them.
>
>
>>>And I agree that we need to reduce oil consumption,and we achieve
>>>that by going to smaller,lighter vehicles with better mileage.
>>>Reserve lt.trucks and SUVs for where they are truly necessary.
>>
>>
>> With a few exceptions, SUVs really aren't needed. I hear
>> protestations about needing the space for the "team", but how often
>> does that really happen? Do the parents of all of the kids "need"
>> one? The number of times I see a solo driver on my way to work
>> (guilty of solo, not guilty of SUV) is outrageous.
>
> Well, SUV(s) replaced the venerable station wagon which was being held
> to passenger car requirements regarding both, fuel efficiency and
> safety. Leave it to Detroit to find a way around such...
>
> JT
>

"Detroit" could have made good smaller cars,but instead chose to fight the
trend and continue making the same stuff.
AND in the process fostered the import of foreign oil that gave 3rd world
nations incredible wealth that they used for evil instead of bettering
their people's lives,and cost US more in security.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

On 14 Apr 2009 00:03:00 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:

>Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in
>news:JYPEl.558051$Mh5.492332@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>
>>
>>
>> Dillon Pyron wrote:
>>> Thus spake Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> :
>>>
>>>
>>>>Joe <joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com> wrote in
>>>>news:slrngtllg9.3cu.joe@barada.griffincs.local :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On 2009-04-06, Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 4 Apr 2009 21:20:00 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>We're not going to replace fossil fuels for autos;the alternatives
>>>>>>>simply don't have the same energy density of petro fuels.We need
>>>>>>>to open up our DOMESTIC oil production and refining,screw the
>>>>>>>environuts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Maxing out domestic oil wouldn't even keep up with demand if it
>>>>>>increased at the pace of the last few decades. And it is a finite
>>>>>>resource - the faster we use it, the sooner it runs out.
>>>>
>>>>Oil is NOT a "finite resource";we continue to discover new fields.
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh, oil is finite. Many geologists believe we will soon reach "peak
>>> oil", if we haven't already. Saudi Arabia has never disclosed their
>>> reserve numbers. The consensus is that we probably have 30 to 40
>>> years left at current use.
>
>HOW can any "expert" make estimates when new fields ARE being discovered?
>Oil may be "finite",but we certainly haven't found ALL the drillable oil
>fields yet,or began producing from them.

Most oil producing countries have already peaked. The US peaked
almost 40 years ago. Yes, they find new oil fields every year but
they aren't enough to replace what we suck out in a year. And the
fields they develop are getting harder and harder to extract.

>>
>> Which allows plenty of time to develop alternatives. All it takes is
>> leadership.
>
>All the leadership in the world is not going to bring about a battery
>capable of holding enough energy to equal a tankfull of gas or diesel.
>That requires a scientific breakthrough.

Leadership can help us stretch what oil we have. The best thing we
have right now is conservation. Building mass transit and replacing
SUVs with subcompacts do not require scientific breakthroughs.

>>
>>
>>> And, ask yourself what else we use petro for. You know those
>>> computer chips? They are in epoxy cases. A petro product. You know
>>> that keyboard I'm hammering on? Yup. How about that poyester suit?
>>> Okay, there are some things we won't miss.
>>
>> True, but as an aside, plastic products can be recycled which
>> minimizes the impact.
>
>Used oil can be used for making plastics.

Most "used oil" is CO2 in the atmosphere. And most plastic products
(unlike packaging) can't be recycled as a practical matter.

>Perhaps vegetable oils and coal (perhaps together)can be used to make them.

Only at a far higher price than petroleum.

>>>>And I agree that we need to reduce oil consumption,and we achieve
>>>>that by going to smaller,lighter vehicles with better mileage.
>>>>Reserve lt.trucks and SUVs for where they are truly necessary.
>>>
>>>
>>> With a few exceptions, SUVs really aren't needed. I hear
>>> protestations about needing the space for the "team", but how often
>>> does that really happen? Do the parents of all of the kids "need"
>>> one? The number of times I see a solo driver on my way to work
>>> (guilty of solo, not guilty of SUV) is outrageous.
>>
>> Well, SUV(s) replaced the venerable station wagon which was being held
>> to passenger car requirements regarding both, fuel efficiency and
>> safety. Leave it to Detroit to find a way around such...
>>
>> JT
>>
>
>"Detroit" could have made good smaller cars,but instead chose to fight the
>trend and continue making the same stuff.
>AND in the process fostered the import of foreign oil that gave 3rd world
>nations incredible wealth that they used for evil instead of bettering
>their people's lives,and cost US more in security.

If we had just paid for Iraq with increased gas tax, we would be
driving Priuses and bicycles now.

Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote in
news:Xns9BECCC067D387jyanikkuanet@74.209.136.87:


> "Detroit" could have made good smaller cars,but instead chose to fight
> the trend and continue making the same stuff.
> AND in the process fostered the import of foreign oil that gave 3rd
> world nations incredible wealth that they used for evil instead of
> bettering their people's lives,and cost US more in security.
>

Of course,the DemocRATs were the ones who stopped US domestic oil
production,and currently are holding up any new drilling and refinery
construction.
BTW,oil tankers are the biggest risk and have done the most damage to the
environment,from oil production.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim Yanik wrote:
> Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in
> news:JYPEl.558051$Mh5.492332@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>
>
>>
>>Dillon Pyron wrote:
>>
>>>Thus spake Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> :
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Joe <joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com> wrote in
>>>>news:slrngtllg9.3cu.joe@barada.griffincs.local :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On 2009-04-06, Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 4 Apr 2009 21:20:00 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>We're not going to replace fossil fuels for autos;the alternatives
>>>>>>>simply don't have the same energy density of petro fuels.We need
>>>>>>>to open up our DOMESTIC oil production and refining,screw the
>>>>>>>environuts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Maxing out domestic oil wouldn't even keep up with demand if it
>>>>>>increased at the pace of the last few decades. And it is a finite
>>>>>>resource - the faster we use it, the sooner it runs out.
>>>>
>>>>Oil is NOT a "finite resource";we continue to discover new fields.
>>>
>>>
>>>Oh, oil is finite. Many geologists believe we will soon reach "peak
>>>oil", if we haven't already. Saudi Arabia has never disclosed their
>>>reserve numbers. The consensus is that we probably have 30 to 40
>>>years left at current use.
>
>
> HOW can any "expert" make estimates when new fields ARE being discovered?
> Oil may be "finite",but we certainly haven't found ALL the drillable oil
> fields yet,or began producing from them.

Peak oil like "human caused" climate change is a joke at best and giant
scam at the worst. There's plenty of fossil fuels left but the point is
the liquid form is controlled by unstable and often unfriendly nations.
It's akin to economic blackmail which in turn should provide the
incentive to replace what we don't have with alternative existing
technology, (nuclear power), and new technologies.

(BTW, your comment above was not to any of my statements)


>>Which allows plenty of time to develop alternatives. All it takes is
>>leadership.
>
>
> All the leadership in the world is not going to bring about a battery
> capable of holding enough energy to equal a tankfull of gas or diesel.
> That requires a scientific breakthrough.

And that's what leadership can bring about. Battery technology is
advancing very rapidly at the present time. My guess is that most urban
tasks could be done with plug-in cars within five years.


>>>And, ask yourself what else we use petro for. You know those
>>>computer chips? They are in epoxy cases. A petro product. You know
>>>that keyboard I'm hammering on? Yup. How about that poyester suit?
>>>Okay, there are some things we won't miss.
>>
>>True, but as an aside, plastic products can be recycled which
>>minimizes the impact.
>
>
> Used oil can be used for making plastics.
> Perhaps vegetable oils and coal (perhaps together)can be used to make them.

I don't think that vegetable oil should be considered unless you want to
see price spikes like the ones that occurred with ethanol from corn
products. Any cartel that can grab you by the short hairs will wring
your wallet dry if the guv'ment doesn't do so first.


>>>>And I agree that we need to reduce oil consumption,and we achieve
>>>>that by going to smaller,lighter vehicles with better mileage.
>>>>Reserve lt.trucks and SUVs for where they are truly necessary.
>>>
>>>
>>>With a few exceptions, SUVs really aren't needed. I hear
>>>protestations about needing the space for the "team", but how often
>>>does that really happen? Do the parents of all of the kids "need"
>>>one? The number of times I see a solo driver on my way to work
>>>(guilty of solo, not guilty of SUV) is outrageous.
>>
>>Well, SUV(s) replaced the venerable station wagon which was being held
>>to passenger car requirements regarding both, fuel efficiency and
>>safety. Leave it to Detroit to find a way around such...
>>
>>JT
>>
>
>
> "Detroit" could have made good smaller cars,but instead chose to fight the
> trend and continue making the same stuff.
> AND in the process fostered the import of foreign oil that gave 3rd world
> nations incredible wealth that they used for evil instead of bettering
> their people's lives,and cost US more in security.

And caused foreign manufacturers to also create mostrous SUVs. Ever
follow a CRV? It ain't the Honda that I fondly remember...

JT