The shocking truth about electric cars

On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 10:24:55 -0700, jim beam > wrote:

>
>it's not at all unusual. for caucasians, it's up to 10%. something
>like 6% global males, depending on heritage. [it's a disadvantage for
>the individual, but a benefit overall for hunters in groups, hence it is
>a genetically stable trait.]
>
>how are you with orange? that's the hybrid h.v. color iirc.

No problem that I can tell. It's probably "mild" color blindness.
Only found out when I took the Navy dot test, forgot the name.
So I wasn't color blind my first 17 years (-:
Navy is unbending on the dot test.
When I got my Coast Guard merchant marine license they used a yarn
test.
A small box with different colored yarns.
The guy doing the test asked me to pull different colored yarns out of
the box, and I did so without hesitation.
When he finished he asked me if I ever failed a color test and I said
yes, why do you ask.
Said I went for some greens farther away than the one he would have
grabbed.
Still passed me though. Different standards.
Only thing I notice is I don't pick up greens at longer distances.
So I can come up on a traffic light at high speed and get surprised by
the yellow.
Of course the women in my life have always wanted to set my clothes
out for me when I tell them my color is off.
But that's a good thing.

--Vic

On 09/06/2011 11:13 AM, Vic Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 10:24:55 -0700, jim > wrote:
>
>>
>> it's not at all unusual. for caucasians, it's up to 10%. something
>> like 6% global males, depending on heritage. [it's a disadvantage for
>> the individual, but a benefit overall for hunters in groups, hence it is
>> a genetically stable trait.]
>>
>> how are you with orange? that's the hybrid h.v. color iirc.
>
> No problem that I can tell. It's probably "mild" color blindness.
> Only found out when I took the Navy dot test, forgot the name.
> So I wasn't color blind my first 17 years (-:
> Navy is unbending on the dot test.

there was a time when the navy used to screen /for/ color blindness -
ww2, before radar and friend or foe recognition systems.

the reason it's a genetically stable trait is because it's better for
seeing through camouflage, and thus advantages the hunting pack that is
able to have an individual identify prey or a predator better. but it's
a disadvantage to the individual that might pick the wrong colored
[toxic] berry if they're not with the pack.


> When I got my Coast Guard merchant marine license they used a yarn
> test.
> A small box with different colored yarns.
> The guy doing the test asked me to pull different colored yarns out of
> the box, and I did so without hesitation.
> When he finished he asked me if I ever failed a color test and I said
> yes, why do you ask.
> Said I went for some greens farther away than the one he would have
> grabbed.
> Still passed me though. Different standards.
> Only thing I notice is I don't pick up greens at longer distances.
> So I can come up on a traffic light at high speed and get surprised by
> the yellow.
> Of course the women in my life have always wanted to set my clothes
> out for me when I tell them my color is off.
> But that's a good thing.
>
> --Vic


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

ben91932 > wrote in news:97ff4159-dc85-472d-b5c4-
:

>>
>> Then it must be full of errors or lies.
>>
>> Please tell us what statements in that article are erroneous or false.
>>
>> --
>> Tegger
>
> I briefly read the "article" again.
> It's one mans opinion, nothing factual, and poor reporting at that.
> I hear the same fear about powerplant capacity from a number of
> sources and it's just not true, at least not until EV's number in the
> 10s of millions nationwide.
> (most ev's charge at night when powerplants are virtually idling
> anyway)
>
> What parts of the 'article' did you agree with?
>
> Ben



This has nothing to do with "agree", it has to do with truth and factual
accuracy.

You alleged, and I quote verbatim: "Like everything else on liberty post
its right wing hogwash. Not a bit of truth in it."

So, I ask again: Where are the lies and/or errors in that article?



--
Tegger

On Sep 6, 5:46*pm, Tegger > wrote:
> ben91932 > wrote in news:97ff4159-dc85-472d-b5c4-
> :
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Then it must be full of errors or lies.
>
> >> Please tell us what statements in that article are erroneous or false.
>
> >> --
> >> Tegger
>
> > I briefly read the "article" again.
> > It's one mans opinion, nothing factual, and poor reporting at that.
> > I hear the same fear about powerplant capacity from a number of
> > sources and it's just not true, at least not until EV's number in the
> > 10s of millions nationwide.
> > (most ev's charge at night when powerplants are virtually idling
> > anyway)
>
> > What parts of the 'article' did you agree with?
>
> > Ben
>
> This has nothing to do with "agree", it has to do with truth and factual
> accuracy.
>
> You alleged, and I quote verbatim: "Like everything else on liberty post
> its right wing hogwash. Not a bit of truth in it."
>
> So, I ask again: Where are the lies and/or errors in that article?
>
> --
> Tegger

I may have over-spoken...
The quotes about powerplant capacity are bogus... *absolutely*
Range goes down with A/C not completely away..
The one that ****es me off the most is the claim about increased CO2,
which is a flragrant lie..
IMHO it's nothing more than a hack piece by an under-informed EV
skeptic.

What is your opinion?
I'd really like to know so I can tell if you are truly interested in
the subject or just yanking my chain.
Ben

ben91932 > wrote in
:

> On Sep 6, 5:46*pm, Tegger > wrote:

>>
>> So, I ask again: Where are the lies and/or errors in that article?
>>
>> --
>> Tegger
>
> I may have over-spoken...
> The quotes about powerplant capacity are bogus... *absolutely*



So you know more about power generation than the head of an electric
utility?



> Range goes down with A/C not completely away..



How far does it go down? Enough to make the A/C impractical to use? If so,
then what the article says is substantially true.



> The one that ****es me off the most is the claim about increased CO2,
> which is a flragrant lie..



"...if the extra electricity isn’t generated by renewable energy, then
overall carbon dioxide emissions will go up, not down".

That sounds pretty plausible to me.




> IMHO it's nothing more than a hack piece by an under-informed EV
> skeptic.
>
> What is your opinion?


I think you're a greenie who's upset that somebody disagrees with his
religion.


--
Tegger

On 09/07/2011 11:06 AM, Tegger wrote:
> > wrote in
> :
>
>> On Sep 6, 5:46�pm, > wrote:
>
>>>
>>> So, I ask again: Where are the lies and/or errors in that article?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Tegger
>>
>> I may have over-spoken...
>> The quotes about powerplant capacity are bogus... *absolutely*
>
>
>
> So you know more about power generation than the head of an electric
> utility?

the thermodynamic efficiency of the power plant is decent. but the
combined losses after transmission aren't so. and by the time you've
charged a battery, with all the heat losses charging creates, and again
on discharge, you're starting to slip down to diesel levels. we should
drop all this electric car nonsense and go to diesel like they have in
europe.

[and don't buy this b.s. about "there's only so much diesel in a barrel
of crude". modern catalysis is so good, you can make almost all of that
barrel into diesel if you wanted.]

electric only makes sense if you're using non-fossil energy like hydro
or geothermal. or nuclear.


>
>
>
>> Range goes down with A/C not completely away..
>
>
>
> How far does it go down? Enough to make the A/C impractical to use? If so,
> then what the article says is substantially true.
>
>
>
>> The one that ****es me off the most is the claim about increased CO2,
>> which is a flragrant lie..
>
>
>
> "...if the extra electricity isn�t generated by renewable energy, then
> overall carbon dioxide emissions will go up, not down".
>
> That sounds pretty plausible to me.
>
>
>
>
>> IMHO it's nothing more than a hack piece by an under-informed EV
>> skeptic.
>>
>> What is your opinion?
>
>
> I think you're a greenie who's upset that somebody disagrees with his
> religion.
>
>


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

On Sep 7, 11:06*am, Tegger > wrote:
> ben91932 > wrote :
>
> > On Sep 6, 5:46 pm, Tegger > wrote:
>
> >> So, I ask again: Where are the lies and/or errors in that article?
>
> >> --
> >> Tegger
>
> > I may have over-spoken...
> > The quotes about powerplant capacity are bogus... *absolutely*
>
> So you know more about power generation than the head of an electric
> utility?
>
> > Range goes down with A/C not completely away..
>
> How far does it go down? Enough to make the A/C impractical to use? If so,
> then what the article says is substantially true.
>
> > The one that ****es me off the most is the claim about increased CO2,
> > which is a flragrant lie..
>
> "...if the extra electricity isn t generated by renewable energy, then
> overall carbon dioxide emissions will go up, not down".
>
> That sounds pretty plausible to me.
>
> > IMHO it's nothing more than a hack piece by an under-informed EV
> > skeptic.
>
> > What is your opinion?
>
> I think you're a greenie who's upset that somebody disagrees with his
> religion.
>
> --
> Tegger

See, I was under the impression that this was civil discourse....
To clarify, can I assume that you agree with everything in the
article, or were you just childishly and clumsily baiting a guy who
tends to lean a bit greener than you?
I dont have a ****ing religion, I'm just interested in promising new
technologies...

On 09/07/2011 03:20 PM, ben91932 wrote:
> On Sep 7, 11:06�am, > wrote:
>> > wrote :
>>
>>> On Sep 6, 5:46 pm, > wrote:
>>
>>>> So, I ask again: Where are the lies and/or errors in that article?
>>
>>>> --
>>>> Tegger
>>
>>> I may have over-spoken...
>>> The quotes about powerplant capacity are bogus... *absolutely*
>>
>> So you know more about power generation than the head of an electric
>> utility?
>>
>>> Range goes down with A/C not completely away..
>>
>> How far does it go down? Enough to make the A/C impractical to use? If so,
>> then what the article says is substantially true.
>>
>>> The one that ****es me off the most is the claim about increased CO2,
>>> which is a flragrant lie..
>>
>> "...if the extra electricity isn t generated by renewable energy, then
>> overall carbon dioxide emissions will go up, not down".
>>
>> That sounds pretty plausible to me.
>>
>>> IMHO it's nothing more than a hack piece by an under-informed EV
>>> skeptic.
>>
>>> What is your opinion?
>>
>> I think you're a greenie who's upset that somebody disagrees with his
>> religion.
>>
>> --
>> Tegger
>
> See, I was under the impression that this was civil discourse....
> To clarify, can I assume that you agree with everything in the
> article, or were you just childishly and clumsily baiting a guy who
> tends to lean a bit greener than you?
> I dont have a ****ing religion, I'm just interested in promising new
> technologies...

he's been in "go home and kick the dog" mode for a while now. guess
it's something at work getting to him.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

On 9/6/2011 12:41 PM, ben91932 wrote:
>
>> Electric cars will never be practical until the battery problem
>> is solved.
>
> Early adopters are ecstatic with their Nissan EV's.
> 90% of all trips are less than 50 miles anyway.
> But you are right, to achieve wide acceptance battery technology needs
> to improve alot.
> Ben

Thank heaven for all the rich folk early adopters. Without them, no new
technology would ever get cheap enough for us normal folk to buy new.
And I mean that sincerely.

Plus, it is kinda fun buying the less-than-successful orphan stuff for
pennies on the dollar several years later at garage sales, just to play
with and see what all the fuss was about.

--
aem sends...

Tegger > wrote:
>
>So you know more about power generation than the head of an electric
>utility?

I can't speak for him, but I know more about power generation than the head
of an electric utility.

In fact, looking at the board of directors of Dominion Resources (parent
company of Dominion Virginia Power), there's only one person with any actual
background in electricity. Everyone else has a background in banking,
accounting, or law.

This is why power companies get sucked into stupid ideas like BPL; they
really don't have anyone at the top tier who really have any clue about
electrical power.

Before the government takeover, the board of directors of GM was just as
bad. Nobody there who had ever worked on a car. In fact, half the people
on the board didn't even drive, they had chauffeurs to drive them. What
the hell did they know about cars?

This, in short, is what killed GM and is killing US industry on the whole,
I believe.

Personally, I am in favor of electric vehicles because they allow us to
put the noise and pollution someplace very distant from the car that is
being driven; that alone is worth something. They certainly aren't a panacea
but I think there's a valid use for them in more densely-populated areas.

But I don't think that anything practical is going to come of it until we
have more car companies that are run by people who know about cars and who
are willing to invest in research and development.

Ford is maybe an exception to the rule, but even Ford has an awful lot of
accountants and lawyers up there.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."