Electric locomotion will replace internal combustion

[Mark]

In the year 2055, you will be arrested and prosecuted
for operating an internal combustion engine in the
United States of America. (Chimerica)
----

"Lion is actually an abbreviation for lithium ion."

CARS:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEK-bKF0aHg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUaXGEeKiu4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHs-l4W2e8w&feature=channel

"I’ve run the numbers, and based on the information that is in the
datasheets, its entirely possible to use these batteries in a PHEV –
they satisfy just about all the basic requirements for use. I
estimated 100 50Ah cells, which would provide a total energy storage
of 11.6kWh, which at an 80% depth of discharge would allow for 9.28kWh
usable energy. The batteries have a high enough charge/discharge rate
to support propelling a vehicle and recharge in a reasonable time,..."

http://www.sequence-omega.net/2009/04/19/looking-in-depth-at-altairnanos-lithium-titanate-battery/


AIRPLANES:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/index.html?curid=6358896
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwyyQ1BckK0
www.skyspark.eu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqEKSAmiv68&feature=related

---
Mark

[Mark]

On Sep 17, 9:22*am, Mark > wrote:
> In the year 2055, you will be arrested and prosecuted
> for operating an internal combustion engine in the
> United States of America. (Chimerica)
> ----
>
> "Lion is actually an abbreviation for lithium ion."
>
> CARS:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEK-bKF0aHghttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUaXGEeKiu4&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHs-l4W2e8w&feature=channel
>
> "I’ve run the numbers, and based on the information that is in the
> datasheets, its entirely possible to use these batteries in a PHEV –
> they satisfy just about all the basic requirements for use. *I
> estimated 100 50Ah cells, which would provide a total energy storage
> of 11.6kWh, which at an 80% depth of discharge would allow for 9.28kWh
> usable energy. The batteries have a high enough charge/discharge rate
> to support propelling a vehicle and recharge in a reasonable time,..."
>
> http://www.sequence-omega.net/2009/04/19/looking-in-depth-at-altairna...
>
> AIRPLANES:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/index.html?curid=6358896http://www.youtube..com/watch?v=TwyyQ1BckK0www.skyspark.euhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqEKSAmiv68&feature=related
>
> ---
> Mark

This is sharp!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boeing_Fuel_Cell_Demonstrator_AB1.JPG

---
Mark

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> In the year 2055, you will be arrested and prosecuted
> for operating an internal combustion engine in the
> United States of America. (Chimerica)

Then everyone starves when the big rig trucks stop food distribution.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Edward A. Falk > wrote:
> In article >,
> > wrote:
>>Mark > wrote:
>>> In the year 2055, you will be arrested and prosecuted
>>> for operating an internal combustion engine in the
>>> United States of America. (Chimerica)
>>
>>Then everyone starves when the big rig trucks stop food distribution.
>
> Presumably, by then electric vehicles will be practical. I think that's
> OP's original point.
>
> And a good point it is -- if we achieve a) cheap, clean electricity
> (e.g. fusion, solar) and b) practical batteries, then we'll see incredible
> changes in air quality, the economy, and even world politics.
>
> I would guess that the use of internal combusion engines will not actually
> be outlawed. More likely, people who want to operate them (e.g. antiques
> collectors) will simply pay a pollution tax when they buy the fuel.
>
> Bear in mind that if 99% of the vehicles switch to electric, then the
> few ICEs that remain won't be generating enough pollution to actually
> worry about. We might even see a relaxation of pollution laws rather
> than a tightening of them.
>
> I'm not holding my breath though. Batteries suck and they're not getting
> much better. It will be exciting to see what the next 50 years brings.
>

Batteries have been around for 210 years and there is nothing on horizon
that will provide anywhere near the energy density required to power
something like a big rig truck, a farm tractor, construction machinery,
airplanes, a train, or a boat of any size.

Even pure electric cars are not practical as a replacement for an ICE car
in other than very limited conditions.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Ari Silverstein]

On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 15:48:09 +0000 (UTC), Edward A. Falk wrote:

> In article >,
> > wrote:
>>Mark > wrote:
>>> In the year 2055, you will be arrested and prosecuted
>>> for operating an internal combustion engine in the
>>> United States of America. (Chimerica)
>>
>>Then everyone starves when the big rig trucks stop food distribution.
>
> Presumably, by then electric vehicles will be practical. I think that's
> OP's original point.

Point? The only point this delusiona, bipolare menace is on his gay
head.
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[Mark]

On Sep 17, 12:30*pm, wrote:
> Edward A. Falk > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article >,
> > > wrote:
> >>Mark > wrote:
> >>> In the year 2055, you will be arrested and prosecuted
> >>> for operating an internal combustion engine in the
> >>> United States of America. (Chimerica)
>
> >>Then everyone starves when the big rig trucks stop food distribution.
>
> > Presumably, by then electric vehicles will be practical. *I think that's
> > OP's original point.
>
> > And a good point it is -- if we achieve a) cheap, clean electricity
> > (e.g. fusion, solar) and b) practical batteries, then we'll see incredible
> > changes in air quality, the economy, and even world politics.
>
> > I would guess that the use of internal combusion engines will not actually
> > be outlawed. *More likely, people who want to operate them (e.g. antiques
> > collectors) will simply pay a pollution tax when they buy the fuel.
>
> > Bear in mind that if 99% of the vehicles switch to electric, then the
> > few ICEs that remain won't be generating enough pollution to actually
> > worry about. *We might even see a relaxation of pollution laws rather
> > than a tightening of them.
>
> > I'm not holding my breath though. *Batteries suck and they're not getting
> > much better. *It will be exciting to see what the next 50 years brings.
>
> Batteries have been around for 210 years and there is nothing on horizon
> that will provide anywhere near the energy density required to power
> something like a big rig truck, a farm tractor, construction machinery,
> airplanes, a train, or a boat of any size.
>
> Even pure electric cars are not practical as a replacement for an ICE car
> in other than very limited conditions.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Wrong.

---
Mark

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 17, 12:30Â*pm, wrote:
>> Edward A. Falk > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > In article >,
>> > > wrote:
>> >>Mark > wrote:
>> >>> In the year 2055, you will be arrested and prosecuted
>> >>> for operating an internal combustion engine in the
>> >>> United States of America. (Chimerica)
>>
>> >>Then everyone starves when the big rig trucks stop food distribution.
>>
>> > Presumably, by then electric vehicles will be practical. Â*I think that's
>> > OP's original point.
>>
>> > And a good point it is -- if we achieve a) cheap, clean electricity
>> > (e.g. fusion, solar) and b) practical batteries, then we'll see incredible
>> > changes in air quality, the economy, and even world politics.
>>
>> > I would guess that the use of internal combusion engines will not actually
>> > be outlawed. Â*More likely, people who want to operate them (e.g. antiques
>> > collectors) will simply pay a pollution tax when they buy the fuel.
>>
>> > Bear in mind that if 99% of the vehicles switch to electric, then the
>> > few ICEs that remain won't be generating enough pollution to actually
>> > worry about. Â*We might even see a relaxation of pollution laws rather
>> > than a tightening of them.
>>
>> > I'm not holding my breath though. Â*Batteries suck and they're not getting
>> > much better. Â*It will be exciting to see what the next 50 years brings.
>>
>> Batteries have been around for 210 years and there is nothing on horizon
>> that will provide anywhere near the energy density required to power
>> something like a big rig truck, a farm tractor, construction machinery,
>> airplanes, a train, or a boat of any size.
>>
>> Even pure electric cars are not practical as a replacement for an ICE car
>> in other than very limited conditions.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>>
>> Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Wrong.

Yes, you usually are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Energy_density.svg

Conventional gasoline: 34.8 MJ/L 43 MJ/kg

100LL: 44 MJ/kg 32 MJ/L

Jet A 43 MJ/kg 33 MJ/L

Lithium ion nanowire battery: 2.54 MJ/kg (experimental, bleeding edge)

Supercapacitor: .01 MJ/kg (experimental, bleeding edge)


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mark]

On Sep 17, 12:30*pm, wrote:

> Even pure electric cars are not practical as a replacement for an ICE car
> in other than very limited conditions.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino

1. I suggest you educate yourself as to what the driving
habits and requirements are of 90% of all Americans,
including the distances and durations and then maybe
peruse a list of electric car dealerships available now
along with the soon-to-open ones, and look at the fit
that is there before you babble on about "not practical"
replacement, or else you may soon find your other foot
in your mouth along with the one that got in there as
you dispensed mistaken information about LSAs,
economics, grammar, and FAR definitions.

2. Other than that...no problem. <smile>

--
Mark

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 17, 12:30Â*pm, wrote:
>
>> Even pure electric cars are not practical as a replacement for an ICE car
>> in other than very limited conditions.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>
> 1. I suggest you educate yourself as to what the driving
> habits and requirements are of 90% of all Americans,
> including the distances and durations and then maybe
> peruse a list of electric car dealerships available now
> along with the soon-to-open ones, and look at the fit
> that is there before you babble on about "not practical"

Yeah, sure, pure electric car sales are just booming.

Like the Chevy Volt at $41,000 after government subsidies.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[george]

On Sep 18, 3:28*am, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > In the year 2055, you will be arrested and prosecuted
> > for operating an internal combustion engine in the
> > United States of America. (Chimerica)
>
> Then everyone starves when the big rig trucks stop food distribution.
>
One of those 'unfortunate facts' that the dreamers cannot get their
heads around

[Mark]

On Sep 17, 3:51*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 17, 12:30*pm, wrote:
>
> >> Even pure electric cars are not practical as a replacement for an ICE car
> >> in other than very limited conditions.
>
> >> --
> >> Jim Pennino
>
> > 1. I suggest you educate yourself as to what the driving
> > * *habits and requirements are of 90% of all Americans,
> > * *including the distances and durations and then maybe
> > * *peruse a list of electric car dealerships available now
> > * *along with the soon-to-open ones, and look at the fit
> > * *that is there before you babble on about "not practical"
>
> Yeah, sure, pure electric car sales are just booming.

Wrong. The supply isn't meeting demand.

> Like the Chevy Volt at $41,000 after government subsidies.

The number one reason for a poor showing in Chevy Volt
sales is...Time Travel. This is 2010. They come out in
2011.

---
Mark



> --
> Jim Pennino

[Mark]

On Sep 17, 4:44*pm, george > wrote:
> On Sep 18, 3:28*am, wrote:> Mark > wrote:
> > > In the year 2055, you will be arrested and prosecuted
> > > for operating an internal combustion engine in the
> > > United States of America. (Chimerica)
>
> > Then everyone starves when the big rig trucks stop food distribution.
>
> One of those 'unfortunate facts' that the dreamers cannot get their
> heads around

Precluding the law of diminishing returns, just off-hand
I'd think a truck-sized electric motor would fix that.
(along with a commensurate power source) Ever seen
electric drag-strip cars? The IC powered cars cannot
even come close. The tork is just too great.

What do truckers rely on? Tork.

---
Mark

[Mark]

spelled torque.

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 17, 3:51Â*pm, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > On Sep 17, 12:30Â*pm, wrote:
>>
>> >> Even pure electric cars are not practical as a replacement for an ICE car
>> >> in other than very limited conditions.
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Jim Pennino
>>
>> > 1. I suggest you educate yourself as to what the driving
>> > Â* Â*habits and requirements are of 90% of all Americans,
>> > Â* Â*including the distances and durations and then maybe
>> > Â* Â*peruse a list of electric car dealerships available now
>> > Â* Â*along with the soon-to-open ones, and look at the fit
>> > Â* Â*that is there before you babble on about "not practical"
>>
>> Yeah, sure, pure electric car sales are just booming.
>
> Wrong. The supply isn't meeting demand.

Yeah, the two digit demand.

They tried this in Spain complete with the government subsidies expecting
2,000 on the road by the end of the year.

So far they have 16.

No one other than a rich enviro-whinner is going to buy a $41,000 car that
can only go 40 miles.

> > Like the Chevy Volt at $41,000 after government subsidies.
>
> The number one reason for a poor showing in Chevy Volt
> sales is...Time Travel. This is 2010. They come out in
> 2011.

I guess you missed the fact that the next year's car models come out at the
end of the year and have done so since at least the end of WWII.

The 2011 Volt goes on sale in November 2010.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 17, 5:37Â*pm, (Edward A. Falk) wrote:
>> In article >,
>>
>> Mark > wrote:
>>
>> > 1. I suggest you educate yourself as to what the driving
>> > Â* Â*habits and requirements are of 90% of all Americans,
>>
>> My understanding is that 90-95% of all uses of cars are very
>> short-range trips (such as driving to work and back), which
>> an electric car would be very well suited for.
>
> Exactly.
>
>> The problem is that remaining 5%. Â*What if I want to go on a
>> trip to someplace 300 miles away. Â*All of a sudden, my electric
>> car is useless to me.
>
> This is being rectified.

Not without magic battery techonology that isn't even in the research stage.

>> Maybe it makes sense to buy the electric car with the knowledge
>> that you'll be renting an ICE from time to time, but most
>> consumers just say "screw it, I'll just get a car that I can
>> use all the time."
>
> Yes. That would make sense today. Although, you're still
> funding pollution and Islam.
>
>> Of course, economics rules. Â*If electric cars became
>> significantly cheaper than ICE, then consumers might decide
>> they can live with renting a car for long-haul trips from time
>> to time.
>
> It's a supply/demand thing right now. It took a while
> for the model-t to catch on too.

The Model T was affordable and usefull to the average family.

Pure electric cars are not.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 17, 4:44Â*pm, george > wrote:
>> On Sep 18, 3:28Â*am, wrote:> Mark > wrote:
>> > > In the year 2055, you will be arrested and prosecuted
>> > > for operating an internal combustion engine in the
>> > > United States of America. (Chimerica)
>>
>> > Then everyone starves when the big rig trucks stop food distribution.
>>
>> One of those 'unfortunate facts' that the dreamers cannot get their
>> heads around
>
> Precluding the law of diminishing returns, just off-hand
> I'd think a truck-sized electric motor would fix that.
> (along with a commensurate power source) Ever seen
> electric drag-strip cars? The IC powered cars cannot
> even come close. The tork is just too great.
>
> What do truckers rely on? Tork.

Distance, as in LA to Chicago.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mark]

On Sep 17, 2:04*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 17, 12:30*pm, wrote:
> >> Edward A. Falk > wrote:
>
> >> > In article >,
> >> > > wrote:
> >> >>Mark > wrote:
> >> >>> In the year 2055, you will be arrested and prosecuted
> >> >>> for operating an internal combustion engine in the
> >> >>> United States of America. (Chimerica)
>
> >> >>Then everyone starves when the big rig trucks stop food distribution..
>
> >> > Presumably, by then electric vehicles will be practical. *I think that's
> >> > OP's original point.
>
> >> > And a good point it is -- if we achieve a) cheap, clean electricity
> >> > (e.g. fusion, solar) and b) practical batteries, then we'll see incredible
> >> > changes in air quality, the economy, and even world politics.
>
> >> > I would guess that the use of internal combusion engines will not actually
> >> > be outlawed. *More likely, people who want to operate them (e.g. antiques
> >> > collectors) will simply pay a pollution tax when they buy the fuel.
>
> >> > Bear in mind that if 99% of the vehicles switch to electric, then the
> >> > few ICEs that remain won't be generating enough pollution to actually
> >> > worry about. *We might even see a relaxation of pollution laws rather
> >> > than a tightening of them.
>
> >> > I'm not holding my breath though. *Batteries suck and they're not getting
> >> > much better. *It will be exciting to see what the next 50 years brings.
>
> >> Batteries have been around for 210 years and there is nothing on horizon
> >> that will provide anywhere near the energy density required to power
> >> something like a big rig truck, a farm tractor, construction machinery,
> >> airplanes, a train, or a boat of any size.
>
> >> Even pure electric cars are not practical as a replacement for an ICE car
> >> in other than very limited conditions.
>
> >> --
> >> Jim Pennino
>
> >> Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Wrong.
>
> Yes, you usually are.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Energy_density.svg
>
> Conventional gasoline: 34.8 MJ/L 43 MJ/kg
>
> 100LL: 44 MJ/kg 32 MJ/L
>
> Jet A 43 MJ/kg 33 MJ/L
>
> Lithium ion nanowire battery: 2.54 MJ/kg (experimental, bleeding edge)
>
> Supercapacitor: .01 MJ/kg *(experimental, bleeding edge)
>
> --
> Jim Pennino

Ok, and let's examine the source of this data.

LOL! Some kid named Scott on Wikipedia. Ya gotta stop
believing everything you read on Wikipedia. On top of that,
this is outdated technology.

---
Mark

[Mark]

On Sep 17, 6:00*pm, wrote:

> No one other than a rich enviro-whinner is going to buy a $41,000 car that
> can only go 40 miles.

Wrong. Technology has them going nearly 200 miles.

> > > Like the Chevy Volt at $41,000 after government subsidies.
>
> > The number one reason for a poor showing in Chevy Volt
> > sales is...Time Travel. *This is 2010. *They come out in
> > 2011.
>
> I guess you missed the fact that the next year's car models come out at the
> end of the year and have done so since at least the end of WWII.
>
> The 2011 Volt goes on sale in November 2010.

So you're asserting that a car which hasn't been available to the
public, and has never been for sale anywhere in the world,
has poor sales numbers and this proves that there is no
market demand for electric cars. <grin>

> --
> Jim Pennino

[Mark]

On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 14:32:58 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:
i meant I'm borked

[Mark]

On Sep 17, 7:01*pm, Mark <blueriver...@Use-Author-Supplied-
Address.invalid> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 14:32:58 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:
>
> i meant I'm borked

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 17, 2:04Â*pm, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > On Sep 17, 12:30Â*pm, wrote:
>> >> Edward A. Falk > wrote:
>>
>> >> > In article >,
>> >> > > wrote:
>> >> >>Mark > wrote:
>> >> >>> In the year 2055, you will be arrested and prosecuted
>> >> >>> for operating an internal combustion engine in the
>> >> >>> United States of America. (Chimerica)
>>
>> >> >>Then everyone starves when the big rig trucks stop food distribution.
>>
>> >> > Presumably, by then electric vehicles will be practical. Â*I think that's
>> >> > OP's original point.
>>
>> >> > And a good point it is -- if we achieve a) cheap, clean electricity
>> >> > (e.g. fusion, solar) and b) practical batteries, then we'll see incredible
>> >> > changes in air quality, the economy, and even world politics.
>>
>> >> > I would guess that the use of internal combusion engines will not actually
>> >> > be outlawed. Â*More likely, people who want to operate them (e.g. antiques
>> >> > collectors) will simply pay a pollution tax when they buy the fuel.
>>
>> >> > Bear in mind that if 99% of the vehicles switch to electric, then the
>> >> > few ICEs that remain won't be generating enough pollution to actually
>> >> > worry about. Â*We might even see a relaxation of pollution laws rather
>> >> > than a tightening of them.
>>
>> >> > I'm not holding my breath though. Â*Batteries suck and they're not getting
>> >> > much better. Â*It will be exciting to see what the next 50 years brings.
>>
>> >> Batteries have been around for 210 years and there is nothing on horizon
>> >> that will provide anywhere near the energy density required to power
>> >> something like a big rig truck, a farm tractor, construction machinery,
>> >> airplanes, a train, or a boat of any size.
>>
>> >> Even pure electric cars are not practical as a replacement for an ICE car
>> >> in other than very limited conditions.
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Jim Pennino
>>
>> >> Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > Wrong.
>>
>> Yes, you usually are.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Energy_density.svg
>>
>> Conventional gasoline: 34.8 MJ/L 43 MJ/kg
>>
>> 100LL: 44 MJ/kg 32 MJ/L
>>
>> Jet A 43 MJ/kg 33 MJ/L
>>
>> Lithium ion nanowire battery: 2.54 MJ/kg (experimental, bleeding edge)
>>
>> Supercapacitor: .01 MJ/kg Â*(experimental, bleeding edge)
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>
> Ok, and let's examine the source of this data.
>
> LOL! Some kid named Scott on Wikipedia. Ya gotta stop
> believing everything you read on Wikipedia. On top of that,
> this is outdated technology.

Pick any site you want and you will find the numbers are essentially the
same.

The energy density numbers will vary around a couple of percent depending
on the method used to get them, but they will not change by an order of
magnitude, which is what is needed for batteries, or three orders of
magnitude which you would need for supercapacitors.

And no, lithium ion nanowire batteries are bleeding edge technology and
don't exist outside of a lab.

Supercapacitors powering automobiles is a joke.

If you have some real source, i.e. a real company or university, of better
battery technology, let's see it.

Pie in the sky press releases don't count, only lab results.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mark]

On Sep 17, 6:00*pm, wrote:

> No one other than a rich enviro-whinner is going to buy a $41,000 car that
> can only go 40 miles.

"They’ve outfitted a Saturn Sky with electronic components that allows
the car to travel 150 miles on one battery charge that costs as much
as a single gallon of gasoline."

http://www.wlwt.com/r/17226175/detail.html

---
Mark

[Mark]

On Sep 17, 7:24*pm, wrote:

> Pie in the sky press releases don't count, only lab results.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino

Ok, I can respect that. It'll take a little digging to determine
why everyone now seems to be hitting the 150mile range.

If you're interested in reading
more in depth about Graphene, the one molecule thick wafer
of honey-combed carbon, somewhere there's an explanation
of it's ultracapacitor applications that would antiquate anything
we've see thus far.

---
Mark

[Mark]

On Sep 17, 11:28*am, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > In the year 2055, you will be arrested and prosecuted
> > for operating an internal combustion engine in the
> > United States of America. (Chimerica)
>
> Then everyone starves when the big rig trucks stop food distribution.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino

"It boosts the electrification of larger heavy-duty vehicles."

http://www.calcars.org/calcars-news/1067.html

---
Mark

[george]

On Sep 18, 9:30*am, Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 17, 4:44*pm, george > wrote:
>
> > On Sep 18, 3:28*am, wrote:> Mark > wrote:
> > > > In the year 2055, you will be arrested and prosecuted
> > > > for operating an internal combustion engine in the
> > > > United States of America. (Chimerica)
>
> > > Then everyone starves when the big rig trucks stop food distribution.
>
> > One of those 'unfortunate facts' that the dreamers cannot get their
> > heads around
>
> Precluding the law of diminishing returns, just off-hand
> I'd think a truck-sized electric motor would fix that.
> (along with a commensurate power source) *Ever seen
> electric drag-strip cars? *The IC powered cars cannot
> even come close. The tork is just too great.
>
> What do truckers rely on? *Tork.
>
The word is torque and a 40 ton load that has to be delivered a
thousand mile away is going to require the internal combustion engine

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article >,
(Edward A. Falk) wrote:

> In article >,
> > wrote:
> >Mark > wrote:
> >> In the year 2055, you will be arrested and prosecuted
> >> for operating an internal combustion engine in the
> >> United States of America. (Chimerica)
> >
> >Then everyone starves when the big rig trucks stop food distribution.
>
> Presumably, by then electric vehicles will be practical. I think that's
> OP's original point.

Presumably, those people are smoking something other than tobacco!


>
> And a good point it is -- if we achieve a) cheap, clean electricity
> (e.g. fusion, solar) and b) practical batteries, then we'll see incredible
> changes in air quality, the economy, and even world politics.
>
> I would guess that the use of internal combusion engines will not actually
> be outlawed. More likely, people who want to operate them (e.g. antiques
> collectors) will simply pay a pollution tax when they buy the fuel.

Electric vehicles are simply not practical, except for specialized uses,
where short range and duration are not problems.

This excludes aircraft, meaningful automobile use, for starters.

>
> Bear in mind that if 99% of the vehicles switch to electric, then the
> few ICEs that remain won't be generating enough pollution to actually
> worry about. We might even see a relaxation of pollution laws rather
> than a tightening of them.

'tain't going to happen!

>
> I'm not holding my breath though. Batteries suck and they're not getting
> much better. It will be exciting to see what the next 50 years brings.

Batteries have to carry both fuel and oxidizer, like a rocket system
does. If an ICE vehicle had to carry its own air supply, its propellant
weight would expand by 15 times!

[Mark]

On Sep 17, 8:37*pm, george > wrote:
> On Sep 18, 9:30*am, Mark > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 17, 4:44*pm, george > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 18, 3:28*am, wrote:> Mark > wrote:
> > > > > In the year 2055, you will be arrested and prosecuted
> > > > > for operating an internal combustion engine in the
> > > > > United States of America. (Chimerica)
>
> > > > Then everyone starves when the big rig trucks stop food distribution.

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article
>,
Mark > wrote:

> On Sep 17, 7:24*pm, wrote:
>
> > Pie in the sky press releases don't count, only lab results.
> >
> > --
> > Jim Pennino
>
> Ok, I can respect that. It'll take a little digging to determine
> why everyone now seems to be hitting the 150mile range.
>
> If you're interested in reading
> more in depth about Graphene, the one molecule thick wafer
> of honey-combed carbon, somewhere there's an explanation
> of it's ultracapacitor applications that would antiquate anything
> we've see thus far.
>
> ---
> Mark

How about the balonium/unobtaium ion battery that recharges in five
minutes? That's the one that electric vehicle advocates are counting on!

[Mark]

On Sep 17, 9:31*pm, Orval Fairbairn >
wrote:
> In article >,
> (Edward A. Falk) wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > > wrote:
> > >Mark > wrote:
> > >> In the year 2055, you will be arrested and prosecuted
> > >> for operating an internal combustion engine in the
> > >> United States of America. (Chimerica)
>
> > >Then everyone starves when the big rig trucks stop food distribution.
>
> > Presumably, by then electric vehicles will be practical. *I think that's
> > OP's original point.
>
> Presumably, those people are smoking something other than tobacco!

Within 24 months, you're going to see more electric cars come
out of the woodwork than you can shake a stick at. There are
many, many aviators excited and working on this too. Grants
are being handed out. Endowments are being granted. 2.4 Billion
dollars, that's with a B...last year alone!

> > And a good point it is -- if we achieve a) cheap, clean electricity
> > (e.g. fusion, solar) and b) practical batteries, then we'll see incredible
> > changes in air quality, the economy, and even world politics.
>
> > I would guess that the use of internal combusion engines will not actually
> > be outlawed. *More likely, people who want to operate them (e.g. antiques
> > collectors) will simply pay a pollution tax when they buy the fuel.
>
> Electric vehicles are simply not practical, except for specialized uses,
> where short range and duration are not problems.

We're already up to 150miles on a charge, and this whole
thing is just getting ramped up. Give it 2 years and you'll
change your mind.

> This excludes aircraft, meaningful automobile use, for starters.

Electric planes are flying and we've just scratched the surface
of this new technology. Cars are coming on the market this
year. Next year in quantity, and are being mass produced
right now in the United States by Korean parent companies.

> > Bear in mind that if 99% of the vehicles switch to electric, then the
> > few ICEs that remain won't be generating enough pollution to actually
> > worry about. *We might even see a relaxation of pollution laws rather
> > than a tightening of them.
>
> 'tain't going to happen!

<smile>

>
> > I'm not holding my breath though. *Batteries suck and they're not getting
> > much better. *It will be exciting to see what the next 50 years brings.
>
> Batteries have to carry both fuel and oxidizer, like a rocket system
> does. If an ICE vehicle had to carry its own air supply, its propellant
> weight would expand by 15 times!

Apples and oranges. We're talking ion transfer only.

I realistically see batteries of the future shrinking down to the
size and weight of cigarette packs, with more voltage and storage
than what we have now. Just like cell phones and computers did.

---
Mark

[Mark]

On Sep 17, 9:36*pm, Orval Fairbairn >
wrote:

> How about the balonium/unobtaium ion battery that recharges in five
> minutes? That's the one that electric vehicle advocates are counting on!

Having a little nip this evening are we Orval? (not that there's
anything wrong with that) Anyhoo...forget about advocates.
They were the first wave. Now it's progressed on to actual
manufacturers and distributors.

I can see these things man. ( I'm sober)

Dateline 2016:

"Cessna has announced that after trial tests and FAA
final certification, they are proud to announce their new
line of electric airplanes. With their elimination of a need
for either an intake or exhaust system, the performance
numbers are quite impressive, extending the Skyhawk
service ceiling to 20 thousand ft."

---
Mark

[Ari Silverstein]

On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 18:32:22 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

> Sorry but I'm not feeling well today and got sloppy.
______________
/ \
| WHAAAAAAAAAAA! |
\__ _________/
/ ,'
_.~._ /,'
,~'.~@~.`~.
/ : _..._ : \
{ :,"''\\`".: }
`C) 0 _ 0 (--.._,-"""-.__
( ) @ ( ) `.
`-.-_-.-' \
,' \ / ,` ;`-._,-.
,' ,'/ ,' `---t.,-. \_
,--.,',' ,'----.__\ _( \----'
'///,`,--.,' `-.__.--' `. )
'///,' `-`

[Mark]

On Sep 17, 7:24*pm, wrote:

> If you have some real source, i.e. a real company or university, of better
> battery technology, let's see it.
>
> Pie in the sky press releases don't count, only lab results.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino

http://www.sequence-omega.net/2009/11/29/nissan-forging-ahead-on-batteries/

"Nissan's Leaf is planning to bring pure electric driving to
consumers sometime in late 2010 or early 2011. However work
is almost complete on more advanced batteries, ones that can
double the amount of energy storage capacity of current batteries."

---
Mark

[Ari Silverstein]

On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 07:36:16 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

> Just from memory...my recall

Uh and where else does memory come from?
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[Ted Sherman]

On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 07:36:16 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

> Now...the downside is that over 50%, probably 70% maybe 110% of the
> recharging current is derived from coal. Mountains are being blown
> apart and leveled as we speak. Dogs and cats are living together.

> Sulphur, acid, mercury, my farts and other nasty things are filling
> the skys. "The world's largest conveyor belt" is how scientists
> describe the coal trains that never stop. They are connected
> boxcars...300 miles long...spaced 45 days apart...and they run 24
> hours a day, 8 days a week.

> I loooooooove you. 8 days a week.

> My **** has to stop. I have been the only fukknutzoid to diarrhea
> like this for the last 20 years. Now China is copying my stupidity.
> We must look to Europe as a role model for the world. The Frogs of
> France and the Potheads Of Denmark.
>
> So recharging stations must be fed by renewable power
> that doesn't kill the earth. If this doesn't change, there will
> be no such thing as great grandchildren for anyone under
> the age of 30 today. I could care less, I pack turds.
>
> ---
> Mark The Turd Packing Fukknutzoid

ooooooooooK

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 17, 7:24Â*pm, wrote:
>
>> If you have some real source, i.e. a real company or university, of better
>> battery technology, let's see it.
>>
>> Pie in the sky press releases don't count, only lab results.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>
> http://www.sequence-omega.net/2009/11/29/nissan-forging-ahead-on-batteries/
>
> "Nissan's Leaf is planning to bring pure electric driving to
> consumers sometime in late 2010 or early 2011. However work
> is almost complete on more advanced batteries, ones that can
> double the amount of energy storage capacity of current batteries."

Pie in the sky press release.

"If we were to ... in a hypothetical generation two LEAF ... we could ..."

If you don't have numbers for MJ/L or MJ/kg, don't bother.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 17, 6:00Â*pm, wrote:
>
>> No one other than a rich enviro-whinner is going to buy a $41,000 car that
>> can only go 40 miles.
>
> "They’ve outfitted a Saturn Sky with electronic components that allows
> the car to travel 150 miles on one battery charge that costs as much
> as a single gallon of gasoline."
>
> http://www.wlwt.com/r/17226175/detail.html
>
> ---
> Mark

One off prototypes and research vehicles don't count.

Make, model, range, price, and a real sales date or don't bother.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 17, 6:00Â*pm, wrote:
>
>> No one other than a rich enviro-whinner is going to buy a $41,000 car that
>> can only go 40 miles.
>
> Wrong. Technology has them going nearly 200 miles.

Model, price, public sales date, and specifications?

We are talking about pure electric cars, not hybrids.

>> > > Like the Chevy Volt at $41,000 after government subsidies.
>>
>> > The number one reason for a poor showing in Chevy Volt
>> > sales is...Time Travel. Â*This is 2010. Â*They come out in
>> > 2011.
>>
>> I guess you missed the fact that the next year's car models come out at the
>> end of the year and have done so since at least the end of WWII.
>>
>> The 2011 Volt goes on sale in November 2010.
>
> So you're asserting that a car which hasn't been available to the
> public, and has never been for sale anywhere in the world,
> has poor sales numbers and this proves that there is no
> market demand for electric cars. <grin>

Nope, the experience in Spain proves that there is no market for pure
electric cars.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Edward A. Falk > wrote:
> In article >,
> george > wrote:
>>The word is torque and a 40 ton load that has to be delivered a
>>thousand mile away is going to require the internal combustion engine
>>
> Or a train. Which could be electric.
>
> Again, it's all about economics. If electric vehicles for short-haul and
> electric trains became sufficiently cheap, the transportation industry
> would switch back to using trains for long haul and trucks for local
> delivery almost overnight.

Nope, trains are already cheap for bulk cargo.

The issue is trains don't go everywhere, or even anywhere close to everywhere
in a country the size of the US.

Trains work great in small European nations which aren't much larger than
some of our counties.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mark]

On Sep 18, 1:21*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 17, 6:00*pm, wrote:
>
> >> No one other than a rich enviro-whinner is going to buy a $41,000 car that
> >> can only go 40 miles.
>
> > "They’ve outfitted a Saturn Sky with electronic components that allows
> > the car to travel 150 miles on one battery charge that costs as much
> > as a single gallon of gasoline."
>
> >http://www.wlwt.com/r/17226175/detail.html
>
> > ---
> > Mark
>
> One off prototypes and research vehicles don't count.
>
> Make, model, range, price, and a real sales date or don't bother.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

I'm not gonna play this game again with you where you
pretend like I've not already given you this information.

This is why I walked away from our discussion about
LSAs and other topics. Either that, or you just flat out
look at the data and say the source knows less than
you.

----
Mark

[Mark]

On Sep 18, 1:44*pm, wrote:
> Edward A. Falk > wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > george > wrote:
> >>The word is torque and a 40 ton load that has to be delivered a
> >>thousand mile away is going to require the internal combustion engine
>
> > Or a train. *Which could be electric.
>
> > Again, it's all about economics. *If electric vehicles for short-haul and
> > electric trains became sufficiently cheap, the transportation industry
> > would switch back to using trains for long haul and trucks for local
> > delivery almost overnight.
>
> Nope, trains are already cheap for bulk cargo.

They are antiques which are being under-utilized.

> The issue is trains don't go everywhere, or even anywhere close to everywhere
> in a country the size of the US.

No. The issue is that they aren't electric, and our crumbling
infrastructure
and ignorant, city-sprawl, urban planners are going to have to:

1. Go back to the drawing board to accomodate
efficiency

2. Create jobs to implement and maintain this

3. Entice corporate America to think outside of the
box and learn how to integrate their transportation
needs to mesh with the new system by taking
advantage of new corridors built for this.

> Trains work great in small European nations which aren't much larger than
> some of our counties.

Yes, and they also work great in America if there are 21st
century depot accomodations.

---
Mark

> --
> Jim Pennino

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 18, 1:21Â*pm, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > On Sep 17, 6:00Â*pm, wrote:
>>
>> >> No one other than a rich enviro-whinner is going to buy a $41,000 car that
>> >> can only go 40 miles.
>>
>> > "They’ve outfitted a Saturn Sky with electronic components that allows
>> > the car to travel 150 miles on one battery charge that costs as much
>> > as a single gallon of gasoline."
>>
>> >http://www.wlwt.com/r/17226175/detail.html
>>
>> > ---
>> > Mark
>>
>> One off prototypes and research vehicles don't count.
>>
>> Make, model, range, price, and a real sales date or don't bother.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>>
>> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
> I'm not gonna play this game again with you where you
> pretend like I've not already given you this information.

All you've posted is breathless press releases about stuff that maybe,
someday, might work.

There are no pure electric, production cars that go much more than 40 miles
on a charge and all of them cost several times what even hybrids cost, let
alone a pure ICE car.

You are just arm waving.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 18, 1:44Â*pm, wrote:
>> Edward A. Falk > wrote:
>>
>> > In article >,
>> > george > wrote:
>> >>The word is torque and a 40 ton load that has to be delivered a
>> >>thousand mile away is going to require the internal combustion engine
>>
>> > Or a train. Â*Which could be electric.
>>
>> > Again, it's all about economics. Â*If electric vehicles for short-haul and
>> > electric trains became sufficiently cheap, the transportation industry
>> > would switch back to using trains for long haul and trucks for local
>> > delivery almost overnight.
>>
>> Nope, trains are already cheap for bulk cargo.
>
> They are antiques which are being under-utilized.

Though it has nothing to do with the subject under discussion, most trains
in the US are state of the art and they are utilized as much as they can
be given where the tracks take them.

>
>> The issue is trains don't go everywhere, or even anywhere close to everywhere
>> in a country the size of the US.
>
> No. The issue is that they aren't electric, and our crumbling
> infrastructure
> and ignorant, city-sprawl, urban planners are going to have to:
>
> 1. Go back to the drawing board to accomodate
> efficiency
>
> 2. Create jobs to implement and maintain this
>
> 3. Entice corporate America to think outside of the
> box and learn how to integrate their transportation
> needs to mesh with the new system by taking
> advantage of new corridors built for this.

Babbling gibberish.

>> Trains work great in small European nations which aren't much larger than
>> some of our counties.
>
> Yes, and they also work great in America if there are 21st
> century depot accomodations.

Along with untold thousands of miles of track (and right of way) that don't
exist in a country as large as the US.

Or maybe you don't know that trains only run on tracks?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mark]

On Sep 18, 5:06*pm, wrote:

> Or maybe you don't know that trains only run on tracks?
>
> --
> Jim Pennino

Wow! Is that right? Well, that changes everything.

[Mark]

On Sep 18, 5:01*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 18, 1:21*pm, wrote:
> >> Mark > wrote:
> >> > On Sep 17, 6:00*pm, wrote:
>
> >> >> No one other than a rich enviro-whinner is going to buy a $41,000 car that
> >> >> can only go 40 miles.
>
> >> > "They’ve outfitted a Saturn Sky with electronic components that allows
> >> > the car to travel 150 miles on one battery charge that costs as much
> >> > as a single gallon of gasoline."
>
> >> >http://www.wlwt.com/r/17226175/detail.html
>
> >> > ---
> >> > Mark
>
> >> One off prototypes and research vehicles don't count.
>
> >> Make, model, range, price, and a real sales date or don't bother.
>
> >> --
> >> Jim Pennino
>
> >> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
> > I'm not gonna play this game again with you where you
> > pretend like I've not already given you this information.
>
> All you've posted is breathless press releases about stuff that maybe,
> someday, might work.
>
> There are no pure electric, production cars that go much more than 40 miles
> on a charge and all of them cost several times what even hybrids cost, let
> alone a pure ICE car.
>
> You are just arm waving.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino

All ya gotta do is look at the new models coming
out.

Arm waving? No. I'd checked this group a few times lately
and didn't see anything happening so decided to stimulate
a little dialogue.

All righty now.

Fly safe, if you really are a pilot. I don't hate you and I'm
not mad at you. Expect to see my identity forged by that
poor sick fellow that does so.

Bye.

---
Mark
Mark

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 18, 5:06Â*pm, wrote:
>
>> Or maybe you don't know that trains only run on tracks?
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>
> Wow! Is that right? Well, that changes everything.

Yep, it means your wet dream of replacing trucks with trains in the US
is just that, a wet dream.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 18, 5:01Â*pm, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > On Sep 18, 1:21Â*pm, wrote:
>> >> Mark > wrote:
>> >> > On Sep 17, 6:00Â*pm, wrote:
>>
>> >> >> No one other than a rich enviro-whinner is going to buy a $41,000 car that
>> >> >> can only go 40 miles.
>>
>> >> > "They’ve outfitted a Saturn Sky with electronic components that allows
>> >> > the car to travel 150 miles on one battery charge that costs as much
>> >> > as a single gallon of gasoline."
>>
>> >> >http://www.wlwt.com/r/17226175/detail.html
>>
>> >> > ---
>> >> > Mark
>>
>> >> One off prototypes and research vehicles don't count.
>>
>> >> Make, model, range, price, and a real sales date or don't bother.
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Jim Pennino
>>
>> >> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>>
>> > I'm not gonna play this game again with you where you
>> > pretend like I've not already given you this information.
>>
>> All you've posted is breathless press releases about stuff that maybe,
>> someday, might work.
>>
>> There are no pure electric, production cars that go much more than 40 miles
>> on a charge and all of them cost several times what even hybrids cost, let
>> alone a pure ICE car.
>>
>> You are just arm waving.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>
> All ya gotta do is look at the new models coming
> out.

Name one.

Make, model, range, price, and a real sales date or don't bother.

So far we have the Chevy Volt, which goes 40 miles, costs $41,000 after
subsidies, and goes on sale November, 2010.

Where are all these pure electric cars that are in production and go 120 miles
or better on a charge you keep arm waving about?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mark]

On Sep 18, 6:25*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 18, 5:06*pm, wrote:
>
> >> Or maybe you don't know that trains only run on tracks?
>
> >> --
> >> Jim Pennino
>
> > Wow! *Is that right? *Well, that changes everything.
>
> Yep, it means your wet dream of replacing trucks with trains in the US
> is just that, a wet dream.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

You cannot replace trucks with trains.

You can create a modern infrastructure that promotes
electric trains to take over a percentage of the total annual
freight being moved. You can cater to the trucking industry
such that this is an attractive option.

I haven't checked into it, but it seems reasonable that
if cars can go electric, so can trucks. Give them larger
motors.

Then send them to the train station. <g>

---
Mark

[Mark]

On Sep 18, 6:48*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 18, 5:01*pm, wrote:
> >> Mark > wrote:
> >> > On Sep 18, 1:21*pm, wrote:
> >> >> Mark > wrote:
> >> >> > On Sep 17, 6:00*pm, wrote:
>
> >> >> >> No one other than a rich enviro-whinner is going to buy a $41,000 car that
> >> >> >> can only go 40 miles.
>
> >> >> > "They’ve outfitted a Saturn Sky with electronic components that allows
> >> >> > the car to travel 150 miles on one battery charge that costs as much
> >> >> > as a single gallon of gasoline."
>
> >> >> >http://www.wlwt.com/r/17226175/detail.html
>
> >> >> > ---
> >> >> > Mark
>
> >> >> One off prototypes and research vehicles don't count.
>
> >> >> Make, model, range, price, and a real sales date or don't bother.
>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Jim Pennino
>
> >> >> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
> >> > I'm not gonna play this game again with you where you
> >> > pretend like I've not already given you this information.
>
> >> All you've posted is breathless press releases about stuff that maybe,
> >> someday, might work.
>
> >> There are no pure electric, production cars that go much more than 40 miles
> >> on a charge and all of them cost several times what even hybrids cost, let
> >> alone a pure ICE car.
>
> >> You are just arm waving.
>
> >> --
> >> Jim Pennino
>
> > All ya gotta do is look at the new models coming
> > out.
>
> Name one.
>
> Make, model, range, price, and a real sales date or don't bother.

> So far we have the Chevy Volt, which goes 40 miles, costs $41,000 after
> subsidies, and goes on sale November, 2010.
>
> Where are all these pure electric cars that are in production and go 120 miles
> or better on a charge you keep arm waving about?
>
> --
> Jim Pennino

Ok, for starters, here's 2 that beat your
40mile...$41,000 dollars. I think there's a least a dozen
more.

Nissan leaf, 100miles, $25,280.00
http://www.nissanusa.com/leaf-electric-car/index?dcp=ppn.39666952.&dcc=0.216879795#/leaf-electric-car/

Wheego whip, 100miles, $26,495
http://wheego.net/more/

I may add to this as time allows, but everyone knows
they're all over the place. This is the first wave, using
the first generation, and emerging technology. And...
anyone with extra money can get a fancy, fast one too.

---
Mark

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:

> Ok, for starters, here's 2 that beat your
> 40mile...$41,000 dollars. I think there's a least a dozen
> more.
>
> Nissan leaf, 100miles, $25,280.00
> http://www.nissanusa.com/leaf-electric-car/index?dcp=ppn.39666952.&dcc=0.216879795#/leaf-electric-car/
>
> Wheego whip, 100miles, $26,495
> http://wheego.net/more/

OK, you found a couple that make 100 miles that will be on the market
any day now.

Where's all the cars you claimed where out there that get 120 miles on a
charge?



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 18, 6:25Â*pm, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > On Sep 18, 5:06Â*pm, wrote:
>>
>> >> Or maybe you don't know that trains only run on tracks?
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Jim Pennino
>>
>> > Wow! Â*Is that right? Â*Well, that changes everything.
>>
>> Yep, it means your wet dream of replacing trucks with trains in the US
>> is just that, a wet dream.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>>
>> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
> You cannot replace trucks with trains.

Correct, as I have been saying all along.

Good to see the light bulb finally come on.


> You can create a modern infrastructure that promotes
> electric trains to take over a percentage of the total annual
> freight being moved.

That means electifying thousands and thousands of miles of track to accomplish
nothing more than to replace diesel electric locomotives with pure electric
locomotive.

Never going to happen.

> You can cater to the trucking industry
> such that this is an attractive option.

You are decades behind the times.

Have you ever seen the cargo containers that go from ships to trains to
trucks?

> I haven't checked into it, but it seems reasonable that
> if cars can go electric, so can trucks. Give them larger
> motors.

A battery powered produce truck would never make it from Fresno to LA, let
alone Fresno to Chicago, and produce travels by truck, not train for a lot
of very good reasons.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mark]

On Sep 19, 12:04*am, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 18, 6:25*pm, wrote:
> >> Mark > wrote:
> >> > On Sep 18, 5:06*pm, wrote:
>
> >> >> Or maybe you don't know that trains only run on tracks?
>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Jim Pennino
>
> >> > Wow! *Is that right? *Well, that changes everything.
>
> >> Yep, it means your wet dream of replacing trucks with trains in the US
> >> is just that, a wet dream.
>
> >> --
> >> Jim Pennino
>
> >> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
> > You cannot replace trucks with trains.
>
> Correct, as I have been saying all along.
>
> Good to see the light bulb finally come on.

Who ever said that trains could replace trucks? I
certainly didn't. You said it was my..."wet dream" as
I recall, but that's just another example of your
revisionistic debating style.

> > You can create a modern infrastructure that promotes
> > electric trains to take over a percentage of the total annual
> > freight being moved.
>
> That means electifying thousands and thousands of miles of track to accomplish
> nothing more than to replace diesel electric locomotives with pure electric
> locomotive.

Good to see the light bulb finally come on.

Yes, electro-magnetic.

> Never going to happen.

A lot of things aren't going to happen that should.

<snip trucker talk>

---
Mark
> --
> Jim Pennino

[Mark]

On Sep 18, 11:55*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > Ok, for starters, here's 2 that beat your
> > 40mile...$41,000 dollars. I think there's a least a dozen
> > more.
>
> > Nissan leaf, 100miles, $25,280.00
> >http://www.nissanusa.com/leaf-electric-car/index?dcp=ppn.39666952.&dc....
>
> > Wheego whip, 100miles, $26,495
> >http://wheego.net/more/
>
> OK, you found a couple that make 100 miles that will be on the market
> any day now.

Wrong. I *posted* a couple. There are quite a few.

So I guess all that crap about Spain, and 40 miles, and
"rich ecowhiner" was just that...a pile of crap. That's ok,
a lot of people are still unfamiliar with all this new stuff.

> Where's all the cars you claimed where out there that get 120 miles on a
> charge?

Remember? You won't let me post them because it's against
your rules which narrow the debate down to: price after rebates,
current dealers that have websites, cars that were advertised last
spring, and vehicles that smell like lemon pledge.

Kinda turns a blind eye to all the others. Therefore we're not
really getting a true picture of what's emerging both in
technology and demographics of interest.

---
Mark


> --
> Jim Pennino

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 18, 11:55Â*pm, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > Ok, for starters, here's 2 that beat your
>> > 40mile...$41,000 dollars. I think there's a least a dozen
>> > more.
>>
>> > Nissan leaf, 100miles, $25,280.00
>> >http://www.nissanusa.com/leaf-electric-car/index?dcp=ppn.39666952.&dc...
>>
>> > Wheego whip, 100miles, $26,495
>> >http://wheego.net/more/
>>
>> OK, you found a couple that make 100 miles that will be on the market
>> any day now.
>
> Wrong. I *posted* a couple. There are quite a few.

You have posted none that make your 120 mile claim.

> So I guess all that crap about Spain, and 40 miles, and
> "rich ecowhiner" was just that...a pile of crap.

Show me the sales figures for the pure electric cars.

In Spain, it was all of 16 for the year for all models.

Put up or shut up.

>> Where's all the cars you claimed where out there that get 120 miles on a
>> charge?
>
> Remember? You won't let me post them because it's against
> your rules which narrow the debate down to: price after rebates,
> current dealers that have websites, cars that were advertised last
> spring, and vehicles that smell like lemon pledge.

Utter nonsense.

The basic criteria is 120 miles on a charge like you claimed, then I want
to know when it goes to market if it isn't already available and how much
it costs.

So far the only thing you've been able to come up with is a one off prototype
that isn't for sale.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 19, 12:04Â*am, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > On Sep 18, 6:25Â*pm, wrote:
>> >> Mark > wrote:
>> >> > On Sep 18, 5:06Â*pm, wrote:
>>
>> >> >> Or maybe you don't know that trains only run on tracks?
>>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Jim Pennino
>>
>> >> > Wow! Â*Is that right? Â*Well, that changes everything.
>>
>> >> Yep, it means your wet dream of replacing trucks with trains in the US
>> >> is just that, a wet dream.
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Jim Pennino
>>
>> >> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>>
>> > You cannot replace trucks with trains.
>>
>> Correct, as I have been saying all along.
>>
>> Good to see the light bulb finally come on.
>
> Who ever said that trains could replace trucks? I
> certainly didn't. You said it was my..."wet dream" as
> I recall, but that's just another example of your
> revisionistic debating style.
>
>> > You can create a modern infrastructure that promotes
>> > electric trains to take over a percentage of the total annual
>> > freight being moved.
>>
>> That means electifying thousands and thousands of miles of track to accomplish
>> nothing more than to replace diesel electric locomotives with pure electric
>> locomotive.
>
> Good to see the light bulb finally come on.
>
> Yes, electro-magnetic.

Electromagnetic what?

You are babbling again.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mark]

On Sep 19, 10:35*am, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 19, 12:04*am, wrote:
> >> Mark > wrote:
> >> > On Sep 18, 6:25*pm, wrote:
> >> >> Mark > wrote:
> >> >> > On Sep 18, 5:06*pm, wrote:
>
> >> >> >> Or maybe you don't know that trains only run on tracks?
>
> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> Jim Pennino
>
> >> >> > Wow! *Is that right? *Well, that changes everything.
>
> >> >> Yep, it means your wet dream of replacing trucks with trains in the US
> >> >> is just that, a wet dream.
>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Jim Pennino
>
> >> >> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
> >> > You cannot replace trucks with trains.
>
> >> Correct, as I have been saying all along.
>
> >> Good to see the light bulb finally come on.
>
> > Who ever said that trains could replace trucks? I
> > certainly didn't. You said it was my..."wet dream" as
> > I recall, but that's just another example of your
> > revisionistic debating style.
>
> >> > You can create a modern infrastructure that promotes
> >> > electric trains to take over a percentage of the total annual
> >> > freight being moved.
>
> >> That means electifying thousands and thousands of miles of track to accomplish
> >> nothing more than to replace diesel electric locomotives with pure electric
> >> locomotive.
>
> > Good to see the light bulb finally come on.
>
> > Yes, electro-magnetic.
>
> Electromagnetic what?

Rail system. Did I really need to explain?

> You are babbling again.

Oh I think you're just playing stupid.

---
Mark

> --
> Jim Pennino

[Mark]

On Sep 19, 10:34*am, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 18, 11:55*pm, wrote:
> >> Mark > wrote:
> >> > Ok, for starters, here's 2 that beat your
> >> > 40mile...$41,000 dollars. I think there's a least a dozen
> >> > more.
>
> >> > Nissan leaf, 100miles, $25,280.00
> >> >http://www.nissanusa.com/leaf-electric-car/index?dcp=ppn.39666952.&dc...
>
> >> > Wheego whip, 100miles, $26,495
> >> >http://wheego.net/more/
>
> >> OK, you found a couple that make 100 miles that will be on the market
> >> any day now.
>
> > Wrong. I *posted* a couple. There are quite a few.
>
> You have posted none that make your 120 mile claim.

Not on the market till next year.

> > So I guess all that crap about Spain, and 40 miles, and
> > "rich ecowhiner" was just that...a pile of crap.
>
> Show me the sales figures for the pure electric cars.

My Time machine is in the shop.

> In Spain, it was all of 16 for the year for all models.

> Put up or shut up.

Your claims don't match the reality which is
occuring in the automotive industry.


> >> Where's all the cars you claimed where out there that get 120 miles on a
> >> charge?
>
> > Remember? *You won't let me post them because it's against
> > your rules which narrow the debate down to: price after rebates,
> > current dealers that have websites, cars that were advertised last
> > spring, and vehicles that smell like lemon pledge.
>
> Utter nonsense.

Ok, you never mentioned lemon pledge.

The rest is true, and limits evaluation.

> The basic criteria is 120 miles on a charge like you claimed, then
I want
> to know when it goes to market if it isn't already available and how much
> it costs.

I just haven't supplied you with this info. You
can find it I'm sure.

> So far the only thing you've been able to come up with is a one off
prototype
> that isn't for sale.

True. That is the total sum of my effort to supply you with
this data.

> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Ari Silverstein]

On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 08:34:11 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

> Not on the market till next year.
>
>>> So I guess all that crap about Spain, and 40 miles, and
>>> "rich ecowhiner" was just that...a pile of crap.
>>
>> Show me the sales figures for the pure electric cars.
>
> My Time machine is in the shop.

Run on an electric motor?

*ROFL*
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[Ari Silverstein]

On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 08:26:08 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

> Rail system. Did I really need to explain?
>
> > You are babbling again.
>
> Oh I think you're just playing stupid.
>
> ---
> Mark

Which is the difference between you and us. You *aren't* playing. LOL
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[george]

On Sep 20, 4:47*am, Ari Silverstein > wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 08:34:11 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:
> > Not on the market till next year.
>
> >>> So I guess all that crap about Spain, and 40 miles, and
> >>> "rich ecowhiner" was just that...a pile of crap.
>
> >> Show me the sales figures for the pure electric cars.
>
> > My Time machine is in the shop.
>
> Run on an electric motor?
>
> *ROFL*

The flatteries bat

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 19, 10:34Â*am, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > On Sep 18, 11:55Â*pm, wrote:
>> >> Mark > wrote:
>> >> > Ok, for starters, here's 2 that beat your
>> >> > 40mile...$41,000 dollars. I think there's a least a dozen
>> >> > more.
>>
>> >> > Nissan leaf, 100miles, $25,280.00
>> >> >http://www.nissanusa.com/leaf-electric-car/index?dcp=ppn.39666952.&dc...
>>
>> >> > Wheego whip, 100miles, $26,495
>> >> >http://wheego.net/more/
>>
>> >> OK, you found a couple that make 100 miles that will be on the market
>> >> any day now.
>>
>> > Wrong. I *posted* a couple. There are quite a few.
>>
>> You have posted none that make your 120 mile claim.
>
> Not on the market till next year.

So all your arm waving about production not being able to keep up with
demand was just that, arm waving?


>> > So I guess all that crap about Spain, and 40 miles, and
>> > "rich ecowhiner" was just that...a pile of crap.
>>
>> Show me the sales figures for the pure electric cars.
>
> My Time machine is in the shop.

So all your arm waving about production not being able to keep up with
demand was just that, arm waving?

> > In Spain, it was all of 16 for the year for all models.
>
>> Put up or shut up.
>
> Your claims don't match the reality which is
> occuring in the automotive industry.

"Spain's electric car sales off target"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10931064

Oh, and I made a slight error, it wasn't 16 sold this year, it was 15 with
one sold last year.

Yessiree, people are just clamoring to buy those things.


>> >> Where's all the cars you claimed where out there that get 120 miles on a
>> >> charge?
>>
>> > Remember? Â*You won't let me post them because it's against
>> > your rules which narrow the debate down to: price after rebates,
>> > current dealers that have websites, cars that were advertised last
>> > spring, and vehicles that smell like lemon pledge.
>>
>> Utter nonsense.
>
> Ok, you never mentioned lemon pledge.

More nonsense.

> The rest is true, and limits evaluation.

Bull****, learn to read.

> > The basic criteria is 120 miles on a charge like you claimed, then
> I want
>> to know when it goes to market if it isn't already available and how much
>> it costs.
>
> I just haven't supplied you with this info. You
> can find it I'm sure.

Nope, because it doesn't exist and all your claims of lots of pure electric
cars that go 120 miles on a charge were pulled out of your ass.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 19, 10:35Â*am, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > On Sep 19, 12:04Â*am, wrote:
>> >> Mark > wrote:
>> >> > On Sep 18, 6:25Â*pm, wrote:
>> >> >> Mark > wrote:
>> >> >> > On Sep 18, 5:06Â*pm, wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> Or maybe you don't know that trains only run on tracks?
>>
>> >> >> >> --
>> >> >> >> Jim Pennino
>>
>> >> >> > Wow! Â*Is that right? Â*Well, that changes everything.
>>
>> >> >> Yep, it means your wet dream of replacing trucks with trains in the US
>> >> >> is just that, a wet dream.
>>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Jim Pennino
>>
>> >> >> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>>
>> >> > You cannot replace trucks with trains.
>>
>> >> Correct, as I have been saying all along.
>>
>> >> Good to see the light bulb finally come on.
>>
>> > Who ever said that trains could replace trucks? I
>> > certainly didn't. You said it was my..."wet dream" as
>> > I recall, but that's just another example of your
>> > revisionistic debating style.
>>
>> >> > You can create a modern infrastructure that promotes
>> >> > electric trains to take over a percentage of the total annual
>> >> > freight being moved.
>>
>> >> That means electifying thousands and thousands of miles of track to accomplish
>> >> nothing more than to replace diesel electric locomotives with pure electric
>> >> locomotive.
>>
>> > Good to see the light bulb finally come on.
>>
>> > Yes, electro-magnetic.
>>
>> Electromagnetic what?
>
> Rail system. Did I really need to explain?

Oh, you mean maglev trains, the one's whose one advantage is high speed,
which isn't particularly usefull for cargo, and which cost a fortune to
build?

You mean the ones where the longest operating segment built to date is all
of about 20 miles long?

You mean the ones that have big problems with going up and down hills?

Those elecromagetic trains?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mark]

On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 22:24:05 -0000, wrote:

> Mark > wrote:
>> On Sep 19, 10:35*am, wrote:
>>> Mark > wrote:
>>> > On Sep 19, 12:04*am, wrote:
>>> >> Mark > wrote:
>>> >> > On Sep 18, 6:25*pm, wrote:
>>> >> >> Mark > wrote:
>>> >> >> > On Sep 18, 5:06*pm, wrote:
>>>
>>> >> >> >> Or maybe you don't know that trains only run on tracks?
>>>
>>> >> >> >> --
>>> >> >> >> Jim Pennino
>>>
>>> >> >> > Wow! *Is that right? *Well, that changes everything.
>>>
>>> >> >> Yep, it means your wet dream of replacing trucks with trains in the US
>>> >> >> is just that, a wet dream.
>>>
>>> >> >> --
>>> >> >> Jim Pennino
>>>
>>> >> >> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>>>
>>> >> > You cannot replace trucks with trains.
>>>
>>> >> Correct, as I have been saying all along.
>>>
>>> >> Good to see the light bulb finally come on.
>>>
>>> > Who ever said that trains could replace trucks? I
>>> > certainly didn't. You said it was my..."wet dream" as
>>> > I recall, but that's just another example of your
>>> > revisionistic debating style.
>>>
>>> >> > You can create a modern infrastructure that promotes
>>> >> > electric trains to take over a percentage of the total annual
>>> >> > freight being moved.
>>>
>>> >> That means electifying thousands and thousands of miles of track to accomplish
>>> >> nothing more than to replace diesel electric locomotives with pure electric
>>> >> locomotive.
>>>
>>> > Good to see the light bulb finally come on.
>>>
>>> > Yes, electro-magnetic.
>>>
>>> Electromagnetic what?
>>
>> Rail system. Did I really need to explain?
>
> Oh, you mean maglev trains, the one's whose one advantage is high speed,
> which isn't particularly usefull for cargo, and which cost a fortune to
> build?
>
> You mean the ones where the longest operating segment built to date is all
> of about 20 miles long?
>
> You mean the ones that have big problems with going up and down hills?
>
> Those elecromagetic trains?

I built one in my garage, HO, don't tell me they don't work.

Mark The Choo Choo Engineer

[Mark]

On Sep 19, 6:16*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:

<snip>

Jim Perrino,

I think you're a fine person and find you to be quite
intelligent. You make many good points and are fairly
familiar on several topics. While I disagree on several
of your opinions, the one thing I regret the most is that
I insulted your good name here on the internet. For this
I whole-heartedly apologize. It was uncalled for.

I love airplanes and flying. I also am interested in new
technology that improves life. Most of all I like new
technology that we can actually put our hands on!
It will be interesting to see cars begin to appear on
lots across the world...cars that never have to go to
the gas station. This could improve the world in several
ways that need improving. The future of electric
locomotion remains to be seen.

The world of 1940 doesn't even resemble the world of
1990. In 50 short years the transformation that took
place was beyond the imagination of anything people
could dream of. Now, within 20 more years, it has
continued to change at an accelerated pace in many
areas. From time to time I catch wind of some of
these trends and it's quite compelling.

I'd like to envision a better world and think this rate
of unimaginable change will take us places that no
one today dreams of. The earth's ecology and it's
inhabitants are in trouble today, but people a lot
smarter than me are working on solutions. Only
time will tell if they succeed.

---
Mark

[Mark]

On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 22:16:13 -0000, wrote:

> Mark > wrote:

Jim Perrino,

I think you're a fine person and find you to be quite
intelligent. You make many good points and are fairly
familiar on several topics. While I disagree on several
of your opinions, the one thing I regret the most is that
I insulted your good name here on the internet. For this
I whole-heartedly apologize. It was uncalled for.

If you could see it in your heart, I would like to
buy you a drink and ask you out on a date.

Mark Not As Manly As I Might Seem

[Dylan Smith[_2_]]

On 2010-09-17, > wrote:
> Batteries have been around for 210 years and there is nothing on horizon
> that will provide anywhere near the energy density required to power
> something like a big rig truck, a farm tractor, construction machinery,
> airplanes, a train, or a boat of any size.

On a point of pedantry, you don't really need batteries for a train.
Given that trains run on routes fixed by their rails, you can put in
overhead high voltage cables. It works remarkably well. You have trains
like the Renfe series 102 in Spain that travels at 200 mph (330 km/h)
in commercial service.

[Dylan Smith[_2_]]

On 2010-09-18, > wrote:
> There are no pure electric, production cars that go much more than 40 miles
> on a charge and all of them cost several times what even hybrids cost, let
> alone a pure ICE car.

Citroen have a model that's about 70% more expensive than the petrol
(gasoline) version of the same car, and does 80 miles on a charge. They
are for sale where I live, and several public car parks have been
fitted with charging stations.

We are a slightly special case, though, in an island only 35 miles long,
80 miles on a charge can be sufficient. (Indeed, as a commuter vehicle,
it'd probably work most places).

[[email protected]]

Dylan Smith > wrote:
> On 2010-09-18, > wrote:
>> There are no pure electric, production cars that go much more than 40 miles
>> on a charge and all of them cost several times what even hybrids cost, let
>> alone a pure ICE car.
>
> Citroen have a model that's about 70% more expensive than the petrol
> (gasoline) version of the same car, and does 80 miles on a charge. They
> are for sale where I live, and several public car parks have been
> fitted with charging stations.
>
> We are a slightly special case, though, in an island only 35 miles long,
> 80 miles on a charge can be sufficient. (Indeed, as a commuter vehicle,
> it'd probably work most places).

Is that the thing that is essentially the Mitsubishi i-MiEV?

Mitsubishi claims 100 miles under "ideal" conditions and indepedant testers
report about 60 is the realistic expectation.

Due to go on sale in the US in late 2011 for an estimated $30,000.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Dylan Smith > wrote:
> On 2010-09-17, > wrote:
>> Batteries have been around for 210 years and there is nothing on horizon
>> that will provide anywhere near the energy density required to power
>> something like a big rig truck, a farm tractor, construction machinery,
>> airplanes, a train, or a boat of any size.
>
> On a point of pedantry, you don't really need batteries for a train.
> Given that trains run on routes fixed by their rails, you can put in
> overhead high voltage cables. It works remarkably well. You have trains
> like the Renfe series 102 in Spain that travels at 200 mph (330 km/h)
> in commercial service.

The cost of electrifying the thousands and thousands of miles of track in
the US says it isn't going to happen.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[george]

On Sep 21, 9:12*pm, Dylan Smith > wrote:

> On a point of pedantry, you don't really need batteries for a train.

We've had battery powered shunters here and several tram companies
used battery powered trams in the late 19th century but they were all
replaced by steam, diesel and overhead electrification

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 21, 5:18Â*am, Dylan Smith > wrote:
>> On 2010-09-18, > wrote:
>>
>> > There are no pure electric, production cars that go much more than 40 miles
>> > on a charge and all of them cost several times what even hybrids cost, let
>> > alone a pure ICE car.
>>
>> Citroen have a model that's about 70% more expensive than the petrol
>> (gasoline) version of the same car, and does 80 miles on a charge. They
>> are for sale where I live, and several public car parks have been
>> fitted with charging stations.
>>
>> We are a slightly special case, though, in an island only 35 miles long,
>> 80 miles on a charge can be sufficient. (Indeed, as a commuter vehicle,
>> it'd probably work most places).
>
> This just in 5 minutes ago!
>
> The man on TV said, "This is going to be the future of things", AND...
> "We already have more orders than we can produce!".
>
> Then they showed the film footage, taken today. These big-ass
> buses looked like giant luxury limo's.

A bus is not a car.

The electric buses are showing up because of government subsidies and tax
credits to the bus companies, not because they have any particular redeeming
quality.

If you weren't paying for bus service before, you will be now through your
taxes.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mark]

On Sep 21, 1:27*pm, wrote:
> Dylan Smith > wrote:
> > On 2010-09-18, > wrote:
> >> There are no pure electric, production cars that go much more than 40 miles
> >> on a charge and all of them cost several times what even hybrids cost, let
> >> alone a pure ICE car.
>
> > Citroen have a model that's about 70% more expensive than the petrol
> > (gasoline) version of the same car, and does 80 miles on a charge. They
> > are for sale where I live, and several public car parks have been
> > fitted with charging stations.
>
> > We are a slightly special case, though, in an island only 35 miles long,
> > 80 miles on a charge can be sufficient. (Indeed, as a commuter vehicle,
> > it'd probably work most places).
>
> Is that the thing that is essentially the Mitsubishi i-MiEV?
>
> Mitsubishi claims 100 miles under "ideal" conditions and indepedant testers
> report about 60 is the realistic expectation.
>
> Due to go on sale in the US in late 2011 for an estimated $30,000.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino

Electric Vehicle Plant, opens in South Carolina, trying to
keep up with giant demand.

http://www2.scnow.com/news/2010/jul/01/spartanburg_county_electric_vehicle_plant_creates_-ar-527047/

---
Mark

[Mark]

On Sep 21, 7:34*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 21, 5:18*am, Dylan Smith > wrote:
> >> On 2010-09-18, > wrote:
>
> >> > There are no pure electric, production cars that go much more than 40 miles
> >> > on a charge and all of them cost several times what even hybrids cost, let
> >> > alone a pure ICE car.
>
> >> Citroen have a model that's about 70% more expensive than the petrol
> >> (gasoline) version of the same car, and does 80 miles on a charge. They
> >> are for sale where I live, and several public car parks have been
> >> fitted with charging stations.
>
> >> We are a slightly special case, though, in an island only 35 miles long,
> >> 80 miles on a charge can be sufficient. (Indeed, as a commuter vehicle,
> >> it'd probably work most places).
>
> > This just in 5 minutes ago!
>
> > The man on TV said, "This is going to be the future of things", AND...
> > "We already have more orders than we can produce!".
>
> > Then they showed the film footage, taken today. *These big-ass
> > buses looked like giant luxury limo's.
>
> A bus is not a car.

Ok! you get little acorn.


> The electric buses are showing up because of government subsidies and tax
> credits to the bus companies, not because they have any particular redeeming
> quality.

Electric buses are showing up because people want them.

Give back acorn.


> If you weren't paying for bus service before, you will be now through your
> taxes.

Wrong. My CPA keeps me from paying taxes.

---
Mark


> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 21, 1:27Â*pm, wrote:
>> Dylan Smith > wrote:
>> > On 2010-09-18, > wrote:
>> >> There are no pure electric, production cars that go much more than 40 miles
>> >> on a charge and all of them cost several times what even hybrids cost, let
>> >> alone a pure ICE car.
>>
>> > Citroen have a model that's about 70% more expensive than the petrol
>> > (gasoline) version of the same car, and does 80 miles on a charge. They
>> > are for sale where I live, and several public car parks have been
>> > fitted with charging stations.
>>
>> > We are a slightly special case, though, in an island only 35 miles long,
>> > 80 miles on a charge can be sufficient. (Indeed, as a commuter vehicle,
>> > it'd probably work most places).
>>
>> Is that the thing that is essentially the Mitsubishi i-MiEV?
>>
>> Mitsubishi claims 100 miles under "ideal" conditions and indepedant testers
>> report about 60 is the realistic expectation.
>>
>> Due to go on sale in the US in late 2011 for an estimated $30,000.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>
> Electric Vehicle Plant, opens in South Carolina, trying to
> keep up with giant demand.
>
> http://www2.scnow.com/news/2010/jul/01/spartanburg_county_electric_vehicle_plant_creates_-ar-527047/
>

Those aren't cars, they are LSV's which aren't much more than a golf cart
and illegal to operate on roads with speed limits over 35 MPH.

The are also two seat and cost $14,000; for a golf cart you can't take
much of anywhere.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 21, 7:34Â*pm, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > On Sep 21, 5:18Â*am, Dylan Smith > wrote:
>> >> On 2010-09-18, > wrote:
>>
>> >> > There are no pure electric, production cars that go much more than 40 miles
>> >> > on a charge and all of them cost several times what even hybrids cost, let
>> >> > alone a pure ICE car.
>>
>> >> Citroen have a model that's about 70% more expensive than the petrol
>> >> (gasoline) version of the same car, and does 80 miles on a charge. They
>> >> are for sale where I live, and several public car parks have been
>> >> fitted with charging stations.
>>
>> >> We are a slightly special case, though, in an island only 35 miles long,
>> >> 80 miles on a charge can be sufficient. (Indeed, as a commuter vehicle,
>> >> it'd probably work most places).
>>
>> > This just in 5 minutes ago!
>>
>> > The man on TV said, "This is going to be the future of things", AND...
>> > "We already have more orders than we can produce!".
>>
>> > Then they showed the film footage, taken today. Â*These big-ass
>> > buses looked like giant luxury limo's.
>>
>> A bus is not a car.
>
> Ok! you get little acorn.

Gibberish.

>> The electric buses are showing up because of government subsidies and tax
>> credits to the bus companies, not because they have any particular redeeming
>> quality.
>
> Electric buses are showing up because people want them.

People don't want them, bus companies are essentially being forced to buy
them.

> Give back acorn.
>
>
>> If you weren't paying for bus service before, you will be now through your
>> taxes.
>
> Wrong. My CPA keeps me from paying taxes.

Like you even know what CPA means.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Edward A. Falk > wrote:
> In article >,
> > wrote:
>>
>>The cost of electrifying the thousands and thousands of miles of track in
>>the US says it isn't going to happen.
>
> It's a small fraction of the cost of laying the track in the
> first place. If the economics make it worth it, then it will
> happen.

Most of the track has been there and paid for since at least WWII, so
that's a red herring.

And electrifying track costs more than laying track since you not only have
to build complicated stuff (compared to 2 steel rails nailed to wood) along
the track, you have to build the stuff to get electricity to the track.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mark]

On Sep 21, 8:17*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 21, 7:34*pm, wrote:
> >> Mark > wrote:
> >> > On Sep 21, 5:18*am, Dylan Smith > wrote:
> >> >> On 2010-09-18, > wrote:
>
> >> >> > There are no pure electric, production cars that go much more than 40 miles
> >> >> > on a charge and all of them cost several times what even hybrids cost, let
> >> >> > alone a pure ICE car.
>
> >> >> Citroen have a model that's about 70% more expensive than the petrol
> >> >> (gasoline) version of the same car, and does 80 miles on a charge. They
> >> >> are for sale where I live, and several public car parks have been
> >> >> fitted with charging stations.
>
> >> >> We are a slightly special case, though, in an island only 35 miles long,
> >> >> 80 miles on a charge can be sufficient. (Indeed, as a commuter vehicle,
> >> >> it'd probably work most places).
>
> >> > This just in 5 minutes ago!
>
> >> > The man on TV said, "This is going to be the future of things", AND....
> >> > "We already have more orders than we can produce!".
>
> >> > Then they showed the film footage, taken today. *These big-ass
> >> > buses looked like giant luxury limo's.
>
> >> A bus is not a car.
>
> > Ok! *you get little acorn.
>
> Gibberish.

Oh? So a bus *is* a car?

> >> The electric buses are showing up because of government subsidies and tax
> >> credits to the bus companies, not because they have any particular redeeming
> >> quality.
>
> > Electric buses are showing up because people want them.
>
> People don't want them, bus companies are essentially being forced to buy
> them.

Isn't that against the U.S. Constitution? Don't these
bus companies have lawyers? Why has this cohersion
not been featured on the evening news?

> > Give back acorn.
>
> >> If you weren't paying for bus service before, you will be now through your
> >> taxes.
>
> > Wrong. My CPA keeps me from paying taxes.
>
> Like you even know what CPA means.

Is this now a "fact"? If I don't know what it means, what is
the mathematical probability that I would have picked those
three letters, and then put them in that order? Wouldn't
random chance have led me to picking ABC, or XYZ first,
due to sheer popularity?

---
Mark




> --
> Jim Pennino

[Mark]

On Sep 21, 8:23*pm, wrote:
> Edward A. Falk > wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > > wrote:
>
> >>The cost of electrifying the thousands and thousands of miles of track in
> >>the US says it isn't going to happen.
>
> > It's a small fraction of the cost of laying the track in the
> > first place. *If the economics make it worth it, then it will
> > happen.
>
> Most of the track has been there and paid for since at least WWII, so
> that's a red herring.

Why is it a red herring? Aren't those railroad right of ways,
improvements, depots and corridors exactly what the original
conversation was about, ie, enticing more commerce to go
to these exact areas which will not have to be constructed,
but only electrified?

> And electrifying track costs more than laying track since you not only have
> to build complicated stuff (compared to 2 steel rails nailed to wood) along
> the track, you have to build the stuff to get electricity to the track.

Cite.

I assert that it costs more to bulldoze thousands of acres
of land, grade it, pay for an infrastructure of access roads,
drainage, signal lights, and cross-ties, than it does to
electrify this existing infrastructure, which may or may
not be able to use the existing rails. The scrap metal
value alone of the rails would go considerably
towards offsetting the new development if indeed as
you say they cannot be applied in some way.

---
Mark



> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 21, 8:23Â*pm, wrote:
>> Edward A. Falk > wrote:
>>
>> > In article >,
>> > > wrote:
>>
>> >>The cost of electrifying the thousands and thousands of miles of track in
>> >>the US says it isn't going to happen.
>>
>> > It's a small fraction of the cost of laying the track in the
>> > first place. Â*If the economics make it worth it, then it will
>> > happen.
>>
>> Most of the track has been there and paid for since at least WWII, so
>> that's a red herring.
>
> Why is it a red herring? Aren't those railroad right of ways,
> improvements, depots and corridors exactly what the original
> conversation was about, ie, enticing more commerce to go
> to these exact areas which will not have to be constructed,
> but only electrified?

The cost of electrification has nothing to do with putting in the rails
more than half a century ago.

>> And electrifying track costs more than laying track since you not only have
>> to build complicated stuff (compared to 2 steel rails nailed to wood) along
>> the track, you have to build the stuff to get electricity to the track.
>
> Cite.
>
> I assert that it costs more to bulldoze thousands of acres
> of land, grade it, pay for an infrastructure of access roads,
> drainage, signal lights, and cross-ties, than it does to
> electrify this existing infrastructure,

Probably, but since that was already done over a half century ago at
land, labor and material rates much lower than now, what does that have
to do with anything in the future?

> which may or may
> not be able to use the existing rails. The scrap metal
> value alone of the rails would go considerably
> towards offsetting the new development if indeed as
> you say they cannot be applied in some way.

Babble.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mark]

On Sep 21, 10:59*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 21, 8:23*pm, wrote:
> >> Edward A. Falk > wrote:
>
> >> > In article >,
> >> > > wrote:
>
> >> >>The cost of electrifying the thousands and thousands of miles of track in
> >> >>the US says it isn't going to happen.
>
> >> > It's a small fraction of the cost of laying the track in the
> >> > first place. *If the economics make it worth it, then it will
> >> > happen.
>
> >> Most of the track has been there and paid for since at least WWII, so
> >> that's a red herring.
>
> > Why is it a red herring? *Aren't those railroad right of ways,
> > improvements, depots and corridors exactly what the original
> > conversation was about, ie, enticing more commerce to go
> > to these exact areas which will not have to be constructed,
> > but only electrified?
>
> The cost of electrification has nothing to do with putting in the rails
> more than half a century ago.

Jabber blather non sequitur.

That has nothing to do with my analysis of fossil fuel
replacement with clean technology today. Look at the
top of your screen and read the topic.

My position: Replace today the old and inefficient.

> >> And electrifying track costs more than laying track since you not only have
> >> to build complicated stuff (compared to 2 steel rails nailed to wood) along
> >> the track, you have to build the stuff to get electricity to the track..
>
> > Cite.
>
> > I assert that it costs more to bulldoze thousands of acres
> > of land, grade it, pay for an infrastructure of access roads,
> > drainage, signal lights, and cross-ties, than it does to
> > electrify this existing infrastructure,
>
> Probably, but since that was already done over a half century ago at
> land, labor and material rates much lower than now, what does that have
> to do with anything in the future?

Jabber blather. What is the topic of this post? My position
is that fossil fuel locomotion will be replaced with electric
locomotion within 50 years.

> > which may or may
> > not be able to use the existing rails. The scrap metal
> > value alone of the rails would go considerably
> > towards offsetting the new development if indeed as
> > you say they cannot be applied in some way.
>
> Babble.

Based on your use of the word babble as evidenced
in recent threads, the definition can only mean:

Babble: to inform, to describe scenerios and technologies,
or to accurately counterpoint assertions and opinions
said to be facts.

---
Mark

> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Mark]

On Sep 21, 5:18*am, Dylan Smith > wrote:
> On 2010-09-18, > wrote:
>
> > There are no pure electric, production cars that go much more than 40 miles
> > on a charge and all of them cost several times what even hybrids cost, let
> > alone a pure ICE car.
>
> Citroen have a model that's about 70% more expensive than the petrol
> (gasoline) version of the same car, and does 80 miles on a charge. They
> are for sale where I live, and several public car parks have been
> fitted with charging stations.

Electric cars can now go from 150 - 200 miles on a single charge.

"They’ve outfitted a Saturn Sky with electronic components that
allows
the car to travel 150 miles on one battery charge that costs as much
as a single gallon of gasoline."

http://www.wlwt.com/r/17226175/detail.html

These advanced models are currently going through
steps to secure mass production.


> We are a slightly special case, though, in an island only 35 miles long,
> 80 miles on a charge can be sufficient. (Indeed, as a commuter vehicle,
> it'd probably work most places).

On an island only 35 miles long, I guess one wouldn't
want to make many enemies.

---
Mark

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 21, 5:18Â*am, Dylan Smith > wrote:
>> On 2010-09-18, > wrote:
>>
>> > There are no pure electric, production cars that go much more than 40 miles
>> > on a charge and all of them cost several times what even hybrids cost, let
>> > alone a pure ICE car.
>>
>> Citroen have a model that's about 70% more expensive than the petrol
>> (gasoline) version of the same car, and does 80 miles on a charge. They
>> are for sale where I live, and several public car parks have been
>> fitted with charging stations.
>
> Electric cars can now go from 150 - 200 miles on a single charge.

In you imagination.

> "They’ve outfitted a Saturn Sky with electronic components that
> allows
> the car to travel 150 miles on one battery charge that costs as much
> as a single gallon of gasoline."
>
> http://www.wlwt.com/r/17226175/detail.html
>
> These advanced models are currently going through
> steps to secure mass production.

Or in other words, they are looking for investor money and the only car
that exists is a one off, hand made, prototype.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 21, 10:59Â*pm, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > On Sep 21, 8:23Â*pm, wrote:
>> >> Edward A. Falk > wrote:
>>
>> >> > In article >,
>> >> > > wrote:
>>
>> >> >>The cost of electrifying the thousands and thousands of miles of track in
>> >> >>the US says it isn't going to happen.
>>
>> >> > It's a small fraction of the cost of laying the track in the
>> >> > first place. Â*If the economics make it worth it, then it will
>> >> > happen.
>>
>> >> Most of the track has been there and paid for since at least WWII, so
>> >> that's a red herring.
>>
>> > Why is it a red herring? Â*Aren't those railroad right of ways,
>> > improvements, depots and corridors exactly what the original
>> > conversation was about, ie, enticing more commerce to go
>> > to these exact areas which will not have to be constructed,
>> > but only electrified?
>>
>> The cost of electrification has nothing to do with putting in the rails
>> more than half a century ago.
>
> Jabber blather non sequitur.
>
> That has nothing to do with my analysis of fossil fuel
> replacement with clean technology today. Look at the
> top of your screen and read the topic.
>
> My position: Replace today the old and inefficient.

And modern diesel electric trains are neither old nor inefficient.

And as for cost, it is cheaper to generate electricity with a diesel
generator, as diesel electric trains do, than any of the "renewable"
or "green" sources of electricity.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.