Electric Car Conversion Companies: Alternatives To Gas Powered Cars

[[email protected]]

Electric cars are not an unrealistic space age creation. Electric
cars were created way back in the 1900s when gasoline was so expensive
that consumers could not afford to fill their vehicles. Sound
familiar? During this time period there were more electric cars on
the road than gas powered cars. Unfortunately, research into creating
electric cars as the mainstream vehicle was pushed aside when cheaper
ways to produce oil were found. So where can a consumer go to create
their own electric car? There are electric car conversion companies
willing to assist in this pursuit. Discount Auto Parts http://www.behot.us

[BobR]

On Nov 25, 4:34 pm, wrote:
> Electric cars are not an unrealistic space age creation. Electric
> cars were created way back in the 1900s when gasoline was so expensive
> that consumers could not afford to fill their vehicles. Sound
> familiar? During this time period there were more electric cars on
> the road than gas powered cars. Unfortunately, research into creating
> electric cars as the mainstream vehicle was pushed aside when cheaper
> ways to produce oil were found. So where can a consumer go to create
> their own electric car? There are electric car conversion companies
> willing to assist in this pursuit. Discount Auto Partshttp://www.behot.us

Before we jump from the frying pan into the fire how about some
analysis on rather an electric car is really efficient. Somehow I
can't believe it is more efficient and less poluting to generate the
electricity, transmit it long distances, store it and convert it back
to energy to drive a car than use direct conversion of gasoline to
energy. That doesn't even consider the long term enviromental impact
of dealing with the chemicals and heavy metals used in batteries.

[IO-540]

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 14:34:48 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

>Electric cars are not an unrealistic space age creation. Electric
>cars were created way back in the 1900s when gasoline was so expensive
>that consumers could not afford to fill their vehicles. Sound
>familiar? During this time period there were more electric cars on
>the road than gas powered cars. Unfortunately, research into creating
>electric cars as the mainstream vehicle was pushed aside when cheaper
>ways to produce oil were found. So where can a consumer go to create
>their own electric car? There are electric car conversion companies
>willing to assist in this pursuit. Discount Auto Parts http://www.behot.us


I saw something on TV about that, they showed this guy who took older
small cars like Triumph Spitfires, and converted them to electric. And
they were nothing fancy, just glorified golf carts with more speed and
batteries. I'd love one for just getting around my area, especially
since I don't have to travel that far. I wonder how much it would cost
to charge one up after the batteries were depleted? I'll bet it's
cheaper than the gas would cost. It would doubt take a large bank of
deep cycle marine type batteries, which aren't cheap, but not all that
expensive either. They have them at Walmart for about the same as
start batteries for cars.

[Bill Daniels]

"IO-540" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 14:34:48 -0800 (PST),
> wrote:
>
>>Electric cars are not an unrealistic space age creation. Electric
>>cars were created way back in the 1900s when gasoline was so expensive
>>that consumers could not afford to fill their vehicles. Sound
>>familiar? During this time period there were more electric cars on
>>the road than gas powered cars. Unfortunately, research into creating
>>electric cars as the mainstream vehicle was pushed aside when cheaper
>>ways to produce oil were found. So where can a consumer go to create
>>their own electric car? There are electric car conversion companies
>>willing to assist in this pursuit. Discount Auto Parts http://www.behot.us
>
>
> I saw something on TV about that, they showed this guy who took older
> small cars like Triumph Spitfires, and converted them to electric. And
> they were nothing fancy, just glorified golf carts with more speed and
> batteries. I'd love one for just getting around my area, especially
> since I don't have to travel that far. I wonder how much it would cost
> to charge one up after the batteries were depleted? I'll bet it's
> cheaper than the gas would cost. It would doubt take a large bank of
> deep cycle marine type batteries, which aren't cheap, but not all that
> expensive either. They have them at Walmart for about the same as
> start batteries for cars.

Before trying a DIY car conversion, try a motorcycle. Converting a
motorcycle to electric is much easier, cheaper and generally more
successful.

Bill D

[Harry K]

On Nov 26, 7:43 am, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
> "IO-540" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 14:34:48 -0800 (PST),
> > wrote:
>
> >>Electric cars are not an unrealistic space age creation. Electric
> >>cars were created way back in the 1900s when gasoline was so expensive
> >>that consumers could not afford to fill their vehicles. Sound
> >>familiar? During this time period there were more electric cars on
> >>the road than gas powered cars. Unfortunately, research into creating
> >>electric cars as the mainstream vehicle was pushed aside when cheaper
> >>ways to produce oil were found. So where can a consumer go to create
> >>their own electric car? There are electric car conversion companies
> >>willing to assist in this pursuit. Discount Auto Partshttp://www.behot.us
>
> > I saw something on TV about that, they showed this guy who took older
> > small cars like Triumph Spitfires, and converted them to electric. And
> > they were nothing fancy, just glorified golf carts with more speed and
> > batteries. I'd love one for just getting around my area, especially
> > since I don't have to travel that far. I wonder how much it would cost
> > to charge one up after the batteries were depleted? I'll bet it's
> > cheaper than the gas would cost. It would doubt take a large bank of
> > deep cycle marine type batteries, which aren't cheap, but not all that
> > expensive either. They have them at Walmart for about the same as
> > start batteries for cars.
>
> Before trying a DIY car conversion, try a motorcycle. Converting a
> motorcycle to electric is much easier, cheaper and generally more
> successful.
>
> Bill D- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

When it comes to practical transporation, a motorcycle, scooter, etc.
ranks only slightly better than a bike. Maybe in the south where year-
round use is possible (although not comfortable in the winter) and if
you don't want to carry anything sizeable.

Harry K

[Bill Daniels]

"Harry K" > wrote in message
...
> On Nov 26, 7:43 am, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
>> "IO-540" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 14:34:48 -0800 (PST),
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >>Electric cars are not an unrealistic space age creation. Electric
>> >>cars were created way back in the 1900s when gasoline was so expensive
>> >>that consumers could not afford to fill their vehicles. Sound
>> >>familiar? During this time period there were more electric cars on
>> >>the road than gas powered cars. Unfortunately, research into creating
>> >>electric cars as the mainstream vehicle was pushed aside when cheaper
>> >>ways to produce oil were found. So where can a consumer go to create
>> >>their own electric car? There are electric car conversion companies
>> >>willing to assist in this pursuit. Discount Auto
>> >>Partshttp://www.behot.us
>>
>> > I saw something on TV about that, they showed this guy who took older
>> > small cars like Triumph Spitfires, and converted them to electric. And
>> > they were nothing fancy, just glorified golf carts with more speed and
>> > batteries. I'd love one for just getting around my area, especially
>> > since I don't have to travel that far. I wonder how much it would cost
>> > to charge one up after the batteries were depleted? I'll bet it's
>> > cheaper than the gas would cost. It would doubt take a large bank of
>> > deep cycle marine type batteries, which aren't cheap, but not all that
>> > expensive either. They have them at Walmart for about the same as
>> > start batteries for cars.
>>
>> Before trying a DIY car conversion, try a motorcycle. Converting a
>> motorcycle to electric is much easier, cheaper and generally more
>> successful.
>>
>> Bill D- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> When it comes to practical transporation, a motorcycle, scooter, etc.
> ranks only slightly better than a bike. Maybe in the south where year-
> round use is possible (although not comfortable in the winter) and if
> you don't want to carry anything sizeable.
>
> Harry K

Somewhat overstated, Harry.

I ride a 1000cc Kawasaki Concours sport touring bike in Colorado. It's 28
degrees outside right now and I plan to ride it to lunch adding only a
flight jacket and helmet.

Any temperature above freezing is comfortable once the engine warms up since
the engine heat is captured in a bubble behind the fairing. My feet stay
downright toasty. It's actually less comfortable in mid summer.

The two huge hardside luggage boxes easily hold a weeks clothing. I do 99%
of my shopping with the bike. My SUV rarely gets used.

My average is 60 MPG and with 7.5 gallons in the tank, that's a long ways
between fillups. Of course at 80 mph on the interstates, it's more like
47MPG.

I'd buy an electric motorcycle like the Vectrix Thrust in a heartbeat.
See:Http://www.bsmotoring.com/bsm/wcms/en/home/events/shows/milanshow2007-071123.html
(scroll down near the bottom of the page)

Bill D

[Robert Bonomi]

In article >,
BobR > wrote:
>On Nov 25, 4:34 pm, wrote:
>> Electric cars are not an unrealistic space age creation. Electric
>> cars were created way back in the 1900s when gasoline was so expensive
>> that consumers could not afford to fill their vehicles. Sound
>> familiar? During this time period there were more electric cars on
>> the road than gas powered cars. Unfortunately, research into creating
>> electric cars as the mainstream vehicle was pushed aside when cheaper
>> ways to produce oil were found. So where can a consumer go to create
>> their own electric car? There are electric car conversion companies
>> willing to assist in this pursuit. Discount Auto Partshttp://www.behot.us
>
>Before we jump from the frying pan into the fire how about some
>analysis on rather an electric car is really efficient. Somehow I
>can't believe it is more efficient and less poluting to generate the
>electricity, transmit it long distances, store it and convert it back
>to energy to drive a car than use direct conversion of gasoline to
>energy. That doesn't even consider the long term enviromental impact
>of dealing with the chemicals and heavy metals used in batteries.
>

To start with, an internal combustion engine is dreadfully inefficient
in and of itself. _Theoretical_ best for a gasoline engine is around 45%.
(real-world practical is 5-10% lower) Diesels do somewhat better with a
theoretical max at 56% (real-world in the high 40s)

'external' combustion, as used at large generating facilities hits over
90%, to the drive-shaft. 90-95% efficiency in the generator, plus 10-20%
losses in distribution. call it 85% in battery charging and 90% for the
drive motor. Taking all that into consideration, you're getting 50+% of
the energy of the generator plant fuel _to_the_wheels_ of the electric car.

This compares very favorably with auto gas engines, and is on a par with
the *best* diesels running at optimum -- which, in automotive applications
is -not- anywhere near 100% of the time.

Thus, electric gives a _relative_ 25-50% more power to the wheels than
internal combustion from the same amount of fuel.

This is somewhat offset by the greater weight of the batteries/motor(s)
vs the engine and gas tank of the IC vehicle.

All that said 20-33% more "system" efficiency for 'electric' -is- not an
unreasonable claim.`

There are major 'practical' issues of getting enough battery capacity to
have decent 'range', the length of time it takes to recharge, and the
power levels needed to recharge in a relatively short time.

There's an electric "sports car" on the market at the moment that needs
70A @240V for a quick-charge (a few hours) of it's batteries.

With typical house service being 100A @240v, that means you can't run
an electric stove, _or_ the air-conditioning while the car is charging.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Robert Bonomi" <> wrote

> With typical house service being 100A @240v, that means you can't run
> an electric stove, _or_ the air-conditioning while the car is charging.

Where do you live?

Around here, a 200 amp service is minimum, by code, and has been for years.

That leaves plenty of power for the house.
--
Jim in NC

[Charles Vincent]

Morgans wrote:
> "Robert Bonomi" <> wrote
>
>> With typical house service being 100A @240v, that means you can't run
>> an electric stove, _or_ the air-conditioning while the car is charging.
>
> Where do you live?
>
> Around here, a 200 amp service is minimum, by code, and has been for years.
>
> That leaves plenty of power for the house.

I think 200 amp has been common since the 70's, 100amp since the 50's
and 60 amp before that. You would be surprised at how many homes are
out there with the old A-base style meters and sub 100amp service.....

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 16:40:15 -0800 (PST), BobR
> wrote:

>On Nov 25, 4:34 pm, wrote:
>> Electric cars are not an unrealistic space age creation. Electric
>> cars were created way back in the 1900s when gasoline was so expensive
>> that consumers could not afford to fill their vehicles. Sound
>> familiar? During this time period there were more electric cars on
>> the road than gas powered cars. Unfortunately, research into creating
>> electric cars as the mainstream vehicle was pushed aside when cheaper
>> ways to produce oil were found. So where can a consumer go to create
>> their own electric car? There are electric car conversion companies
>> willing to assist in this pursuit. Discount Auto Partshttp://www.behot.us
>
>Before we jump from the frying pan into the fire how about some
>analysis on rather an electric car is really efficient. Somehow I
>can't believe it is more efficient and less poluting to generate the
>electricity, transmit it long distances, store it and convert it back
>to energy to drive a car than use direct conversion of gasoline to
>energy. That doesn't even consider the long term enviromental impact
>of dealing with the chemicals and heavy metals used in batteries.

Electric cars are more efficient than the regular variety, but... and
it's a big but. The all electrics are short range and not practical
for most of us, but for those with short drives they do have
sufficient range. So far, they are Expensive compared to regular cars.
Very expensive. Although they are efficient. The motors are more
like 95% which is great and even taking into account all the losses in
power generation and transmission they are more efficient than the gas
powered car, BUT (there's another one of those buts) even with that
increased efficiency they probably create considerably more pollution
than gas powered cars as most electricity is generated by coal fired
plants. Those plants release a lot of particulates, sulphur, CO2, and
Mercury through tall stacks that send the results to cities and states
down wind. In the end that power to power the electric car is more
polluting than the gas powered cars, or more so than most of them.
OTOH if most of the cars in our major cities were electric we'd see a
marked increase of air quality in those cities. OTOH if those cars
were small hybrids we'd also see an increase in the air quality.

Then there is the problem of getting electricity to the end user as
well as cost. Simply stated; we currently do not have the grid
capacity even in off hours to handle a substantial number of all
electric cars. So what happens if a lot of people go for the electric
car and we are short on grid capacity. Distributed power generation
using solar, wind, or what ever can help in many geographic areas, but
without more grid capacity those too are limited. Real time metering
and control of demand is on its way. Some areas already have it, but
with a continuing high demand you can expect to see rates get much
higher. Her in Michigan they run about 10 cents per KWh with all
charges while in California they peak around 38 cents. At 38 cents
per KWh it would be difficult to save money over the cost of running
an efficient hybrid.

On top of this are the batteries needed. Enough lead acid batteries to
give a reasonable range (just from the suburbs into town to shop)
would be expensive, very heavy, take up a lot of space, and are a
hazard on the roads due to transporting sulphuric acid. How long will
one heavy duty, deep cycle marine battery run a starter? Now kick
that up to moving the car and it's going to take a lot of batteries.

Even good high capacity battery packs such as Nickel Metal Hydride
(which also makes a good Hydrogen sponge) is expensive and no light
weight. Typical MiMH packs used in hybrids today run on the order of
$4,000 plus and they are sufficient only when used in conjunction with
a small gas engine. It's possible, but doubtful two packs ($8,000)
would manage 40 miles even in city driving.

Then there is the new Lithium family of batteries. They are powerful,
compact and lighter weight with reasonable life, but they are *really*
expensive.

BUT (had to say it again) the new technology batteries present a
disposal and/or recycling problem in addition to all the pollution
from the coal fired power plants.. They are not environmental friendly
but they haven't been around long enough to really see how this is
going to fly.

Also as soon as the technology becomes widespread the price of
electricity will raise enough for the all electric car to lose any
cost advantage. First in and First out (FIFO to borrow a computer
term) could save a lot if they weren't so expensive to implement.
Unfortunately when they drive up the price it will be a higher price
we all have to pay just to turn on the lights.

The side effects of many going to all electric would probably have a
greater effect on the cost of living then using a lot of corn to make
alcohol will on the food chain.

Hydrogen takes even more energy to produce.

All-in-all there is no one technology that can have much more than a
small effect as far as helping the economy and environment. Like the
energy efficient home that uses a mix of active and passive solar
energy along with the power mains/natural gas and even uses the gray
water instead of dumping it down the sewer, we are going to have to
combine technologies along with learning how to conserve. Currently
the best answer by far is the hybrid and learning how to conserve.

Roger (K8RI)

[Ted Striker[_2_]]

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 22:12:51 -0500, "Roger (K8RI)" > wrote:

Blah blah blah, now why is it your entire dissertation is all about the negatives of
driving an electric car. The obvious is that you worry if electric car use becomes more
widespread, you might have to pay more for your electricity. Too bad. I live in an area
where the cost is 7cents a kwh, and is generated by a nuke plant. So goes your coal
fired worries. And why do you think anyone else is so concerned about which fuel makes a
certian amount of polution. You think whether or not it makes you happy or not is going
to have any bearing on the decision to use an electric car? I'm going to get one anyway,
strain the power grid charging it up, don't care how much the power company polutes
making the juice to charge it up either. Not everyone is so big picture minded about the
whole affair as you are. I would love to be able to get around my local area and never
pull into the gas station and pay the current price of gas.

>>
>>Before we jump from the frying pan into the fire how about some
>>analysis on rather an electric car is really efficient. Somehow I
>>can't believe it is more efficient and less poluting to generate the
>>electricity, transmit it long distances, store it and convert it back
>>to energy to drive a car than use direct conversion of gasoline to
>>energy. That doesn't even consider the long term enviromental impact
>>of dealing with the chemicals and heavy metals used in batteries.
>
>Electric cars are more efficient than the regular variety, but... and
>it's a big but. The all electrics are short range and not practical
>for most of us, but for those with short drives they do have
>sufficient range. So far, they are Expensive compared to regular cars.
>Very expensive. Although they are efficient. The motors are more
>like 95% which is great and even taking into account all the losses in
>power generation and transmission they are more efficient than the gas
>powered car, BUT (there's another one of those buts) even with that
>increased efficiency they probably create considerably more pollution
>than gas powered cars as most electricity is generated by coal fired
>plants. Those plants release a lot of particulates, sulphur, CO2, and
>Mercury through tall stacks that send the results to cities and states
>down wind. In the end that power to power the electric car is more
>polluting than the gas powered cars, or more so than most of them.
>OTOH if most of the cars in our major cities were electric we'd see a
>marked increase of air quality in those cities. OTOH if those cars
>were small hybrids we'd also see an increase in the air quality.
>
>Then there is the problem of getting electricity to the end user as
>well as cost. Simply stated; we currently do not have the grid
>capacity even in off hours to handle a substantial number of all
>electric cars. So what happens if a lot of people go for the electric
>car and we are short on grid capacity. Distributed power generation
>using solar, wind, or what ever can help in many geographic areas, but
>without more grid capacity those too are limited. Real time metering
>and control of demand is on its way. Some areas already have it, but
>with a continuing high demand you can expect to see rates get much
>higher. Her in Michigan they run about 10 cents per KWh with all
>charges while in California they peak around 38 cents. At 38 cents
>per KWh it would be difficult to save money over the cost of running
>an efficient hybrid.
>
>On top of this are the batteries needed. Enough lead acid batteries to
>give a reasonable range (just from the suburbs into town to shop)
>would be expensive, very heavy, take up a lot of space, and are a
>hazard on the roads due to transporting sulphuric acid. How long will
>one heavy duty, deep cycle marine battery run a starter? Now kick
>that up to moving the car and it's going to take a lot of batteries.
>
>Even good high capacity battery packs such as Nickel Metal Hydride
>(which also makes a good Hydrogen sponge) is expensive and no light
>weight. Typical MiMH packs used in hybrids today run on the order of
>$4,000 plus and they are sufficient only when used in conjunction with
>a small gas engine. It's possible, but doubtful two packs ($8,000)
>would manage 40 miles even in city driving.
>
>Then there is the new Lithium family of batteries. They are powerful,
>compact and lighter weight with reasonable life, but they are *really*
>expensive.
>
>BUT (had to say it again) the new technology batteries present a
>disposal and/or recycling problem in addition to all the pollution
>from the coal fired power plants.. They are not environmental friendly
>but they haven't been around long enough to really see how this is
>going to fly.
>
>Also as soon as the technology becomes widespread the price of
>electricity will raise enough for the all electric car to lose any
>cost advantage. First in and First out (FIFO to borrow a computer
>term) could save a lot if they weren't so expensive to implement.
>Unfortunately when they drive up the price it will be a higher price
>we all have to pay just to turn on the lights.
>
>The side effects of many going to all electric would probably have a
>greater effect on the cost of living then using a lot of corn to make
>alcohol will on the food chain.
>
>Hydrogen takes even more energy to produce.
>
>All-in-all there is no one technology that can have much more than a
>small effect as far as helping the economy and environment. Like the
>energy efficient home that uses a mix of active and passive solar
>energy along with the power mains/natural gas and even uses the gray
>water instead of dumping it down the sewer, we are going to have to
>combine technologies along with learning how to conserve. Currently
>the best answer by far is the hybrid and learning how to conserve.
>
>Roger (K8RI)

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Peter Dohm]

"Ted Striker" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 22:12:51 -0500, "Roger (K8RI)" >
> wrote:
>
> Blah blah blah, now why is it your entire dissertation is all about the
> negatives of
> driving an electric car. The obvious is that you worry if electric car use
> becomes more
> widespread, you might have to pay more for your electricity. Too bad. I
> live in an area
> where the cost is 7cents a kwh, and is generated by a nuke plant. So goes
> your coal
> fired worries. And why do you think anyone else is so concerned about
> which fuel makes a
> certian amount of polution. You think whether or not it makes you happy or
> not is going
> to have any bearing on the decision to use an electric car? I'm going to
> get one anyway,
> strain the power grid charging it up, don't care how much the power
> company polutes
> making the juice to charge it up either. Not everyone is so big picture
> minded about the
> whole affair as you are. I would love to be able to get around my local
> area and never
> pull into the gas station and pay the current price of gas.
>
IMHO, Roger's points were well taken. Most of the "solutions" we see
bandied about are scams.

OTOH, this is a great time to play around with both electrics and
hybrids--before the limitations and problems become well known and also
before both money and permits are required to turn the batteries back in.

BTW, there is another form of hybrid that works quite well--using an
internal combustion engine and an electric drive system. The railroads have
been using them quite successfully for the past half of a century. They have
tremendous pulling power at low speeds, but don't have the high speed
acceleration and hill climbing power that we currently demand from our cars.
So, some infrastructure changes would be needed--mostly in the form of
longer acceleration ramps on the expressways.

Peter

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
Ted Striker > wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 22:12:51 -0500, "Roger (K8RI)" >
> wrote:
>
> Blah blah blah, now why is it your entire dissertation is all about the
> negatives of driving an electric car.

Perhaps because they affect actual users *right now*?

Someday, great...

But this is now.

[stol]

On Nov 26, 10:00 am, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
> "Harry K" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 26, 7:43 am, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
> >> "IO-540" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >> > On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 14:34:48 -0800 (PST),
> >> > wrote:
>
> >> >>Electric cars are not an unrealistic space age creation. Electric
> >> >>cars were created way back in the 1900s when gasoline was so expensive
> >> >>that consumers could not afford to fill their vehicles. Sound
> >> >>familiar? During this time period there were more electric cars on
> >> >>the road than gas powered cars. Unfortunately, research into creating
> >> >>electric cars as the mainstream vehicle was pushed aside when cheaper
> >> >>ways to produce oil were found. So where can a consumer go to create
> >> >>their own electric car? There are electric car conversion companies
> >> >>willing to assist in this pursuit. Discount Auto
> >> >>Partshttp://www.behot.us
>
> >> > I saw something on TV about that, they showed this guy who took older
> >> > small cars like Triumph Spitfires, and converted them to electric. And
> >> > they were nothing fancy, just glorified golf carts with more speed and
> >> > batteries. I'd love one for just getting around my area, especially
> >> > since I don't have to travel that far. I wonder how much it would cost
> >> > to charge one up after the batteries were depleted? I'll bet it's
> >> > cheaper than the gas would cost. It would doubt take a large bank of
> >> > deep cycle marine type batteries, which aren't cheap, but not all that
> >> > expensive either. They have them at Walmart for about the same as
> >> > start batteries for cars.
>
> >> Before trying a DIY car conversion, try a motorcycle. Converting a
> >> motorcycle to electric is much easier, cheaper and generally more
> >> successful.
>
> >> Bill D- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > When it comes to practical transporation, a motorcycle, scooter, etc.
> > ranks only slightly better than a bike. Maybe in the south where year-
> > round use is possible (although not comfortable in the winter) and if
> > you don't want to carry anything sizeable.
>
> > Harry K
>
> Somewhat overstated, Harry.
>
> I ride a 1000cc Kawasaki Concours sport touring bike in Colorado. It's 28
> degrees outside right now and I plan to ride it to lunch adding only a
> flight jacket and helmet.
>
> Any temperature above freezing is comfortable once the engine warms up since
> the engine heat is captured in a bubble behind the fairing. My feet stay
> downright toasty. It's actually less comfortable in mid summer.
>
> The two huge hardside luggage boxes easily hold a weeks clothing. I do 99%
> of my shopping with the bike. My SUV rarely gets used.
>
> My average is 60 MPG and with 7.5 gallons in the tank, that's a long ways
> between fillups. Of course at 80 mph on the interstates, it's more like
> 47MPG.
>
> I'd buy an electric motorcycle like the Vectrix Thrust in a heartbeat.
> See:Http://www.bsmotoring.com/bsm/wcms/en/home/events/shows/milanshow2007-071123...
> (scroll down near the bottom of the page)
>
> Bill D- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I agree with ya in the efficiency of a motorcycle. I live in Jackson
Hole and cool weather is a treat over hot summers. One thing you
didn't mention is you hit one patch of ice on that bike and you will
be sporting some extensive road rash, or worse...

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 23:42:25 -0800 (PST), stol >
wrote:

<snip>
>I agree with ya in the efficiency of a motorcycle. I live in Jackson
>Hole and cool weather is a treat over hot summers. One thing you
>didn't mention is you hit one patch of ice on that bike and you will
>be sporting some extensive road rash, or worse...

I once laid my old Harley down right in front of a school buss. The
tires on that old (I did say old) Harley were about as smooth as the
top of my head is now. I hit the rear brake and the motorcycle sorta
turned and rolled to the left. (Those old roll bars really did work
<g>) and left me sitting on top right side of the frame as it slide
down the pavement tires first. It was just that looking at the grill
of that school buss about 6 feet from my nose made me a bit nervous.
Fortunately the roll bars didn't slow me as fast as the brakes slowed
the school buss. We all came to a stop, I stood it back up and headed
for home. No injuries other than a bit of chrome off the left roll
bar...and my nerves. <:-))

Roger (K8RI)

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 23:54:41 -0500, "Peter Dohm"
> wrote:

>
>"Ted Striker" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 22:12:51 -0500, "Roger (K8RI)" >
>> wrote:
>>
Hmmm...That message does not come up on the server I'm using.

At any rate and in order.

>> Blah blah blah, now why is it your entire dissertation is all about the
>> negatives of

All about the negatives of the electric car? It wasn't. It addressed
both positives and negatives for now and the future. Unfortunately
when looked at as a whole with the impact on society, the negatives
outweigh the positives by a wide margin.

>> driving an electric car. The obvious is that you worry if electric car use
>> becomes more
>> widespread, you might have to pay more for your electricity. Too bad. I
>> live in an area

I'm trying to figure if this is for real of just trolling<:-)) it
comes on just a bit heavy to be real, but??

You are taking what I see over all as being a personal impact
statement and it's not. My statement was as to how "in general" it
would affect our society, not me as an individual. I happen to be in
an area with relatively cheap electricity and tend to be an "early
adopter" of technology.

>> where the cost is 7cents a kwh, and is generated by a nuke plant. So goes
>> your coal

Isn't this kinda centrist thinking?
I'm talking about the general population and you are talking about ...
you.

>> fired worries. And why do you think anyone else is so concerned about
>> which fuel makes a

Stop and read the papers. The general population is up in arms about
the price of gas. Wait until their electric bills are scaled up
proportionally. I still pay (per month) for electricity about what I
paid in 1976. Actually for a while I had an all electric home heated
with ceiling cable where the bills were about $290 a month and that
was somewhere in the 77-78 range. It's also several times what I pay
now. Remember too, that all alternative energy sources come with some
side effects. Alcohol/corn/food supply. Electric car/cost of
electricity/overall cost of living "nation wide"


>> certian amount of polution. You think whether or not it makes you happy or
>> not is going

Again, I'm talking about the general population and what they consider
acceptable. Unless you believe conspiracy stories about the press and
news in general, the population in general appears to be unhappy about
the cost of energy and pollution. At least there are a lot of stories
on the news about some one complaining.

>> to have any bearing on the decision to use an electric car? I'm going to
>> get one anyway,

Go for it. I'm not trying to influence any ones car buying.

>> strain the power grid charging it up, don't care how much the power
>> company polutes

Which is unfortunate as the bigger the mess we make now the more
expensive it'll be to clean up and the bigger the impact on the
overall economy when it's done. Sooner or later the clean up will have
to be done. Resistance to conventional, coal powered plants has been
high nation wide. Just in the last year plans for a big expansion of
new plants was abandoned down in Texas. Resistance to running new
transmission lines has been even higher. Even the governors of some
Eastern states are fighting the planed "Eastern Transmission Corridor"
>> making the juice to charge it up either. Not everyone is so big
picture
>> minded about the

Not everyone, but it's a substantial number and growing. It's also
this kind of thinking that has gas prices where they are now and what
in a few years may be considered "the good old days. It's also more
than likely to affect those who are now isolated and feel protected.
Centrist thinking is why gas costs as much as it does.

I do happen to believe in Nuke power as one of the alternatives, but
it takes about 20 years to get any new plants on line and there are
none proposed that I know of. So you could probably add about another
5 to 10 years of paper work to get one started to that 20 year build
time.

>> whole affair as you are. I would love to be able to get around my local
>> area and never
>> pull into the gas station and pay the current price of gas.

So would I, but you are unlikely to do that very far into the future
as other areas start pulling more power from your area and prices
reflect supply and demand. Also, like a good hybrid you will probably
pay enough more for a good all electric car that even if power remains
cheap for you the over all cost of driving that car will likely be
higher than it would have been using the expensive gas.
However as demand goes up the power grid will start drawing power from
your area into other areas. They did that to us in Michigan with
natural gas a couple years back when California screwed up. They sent
our reserves of cheap gas to California where they could make much
more money which resulted in higher prices here. When the power
companies can make more money by shipping your electricity to other
areas you will be seeing new, high voltage transmission lines running
out of the plant.

>>
>IMHO, Roger's points were well taken. Most of the "solutions" we see
>bandied about are scams.

And the ones that aren't come with "side effects",don't scale well, or
are regionally dependent. Many of those side effects are unlikely to
be anticipated. Rarely does anything come with less side effects than
expected.

>
>OTOH, this is a great time to play around with both electrics and
>hybrids--before the limitations and problems become well known and also
>before both money and permits are required to turn the batteries back in.

Even now the cheapest way to get rid of a big battery pack it to take
it to an auto dealer. Notice how auto parts dealers now also serve as
used oil collection places.

>
>BTW, there is another form of hybrid that works quite well--using an
>internal combustion engine and an electric drive system. The railroads have
>been using them quite successfully for the past half of a century. They have
>tremendous pulling power at low speeds, but don't have the high speed
>acceleration and hill climbing power that we currently demand from our cars.
>So, some infrastructure changes would be needed--mostly in the form of
>longer acceleration ramps on the expressways.
>
>Peter
>
Roger (K8RI)

[Bill Daniels]

"Ernest Christley" > wrote in message
...
> Roger (K8RI) wrote:
>
>> Even good high capacity battery packs such as Nickel Metal Hydride
>> (which also makes a good Hydrogen sponge) is expensive and no light
>> weight. Typical MiMH packs used in hybrids today run on the order of
>> $4,000 plus and they are sufficient only when used in conjunction with
>> a small gas engine. It's possible, but doubtful two packs ($8,000)
>> would manage 40 miles even in city driving.
>>
>
> My favorite answer to the range problem of batteries is to not try to do
> it. Sort of like the way you ended your post, don't rely on one
> technology.
>
> Combine the battery vehicles with mass-transit railways. Just flatbed
> trailers, really. Drive your electric a few miles to the local station,
> and drive it up onto the train for the commute or to the next town. Drive
> it off at (or near) the destination, and go where you want.
>
> Electrics have problems with range. Mass-transit has the same problem
> that airplanes do...once you arrive at the station/airport, how do you go
> the last 5 miles. Combine the two, and there are some interesting
> possibilities.

It's called a "Land Ferry" and it makes a lot of sense. Amtrack runs a
service from the Northeast to Florida. If I could get my motorcycle on a
train for California this winter, I'd do it.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Bill Daniels" <> wrote

> It's called a "Land Ferry" and it makes a lot of sense. Amtrack runs a
> service from the Northeast to Florida. If I could get my motorcycle on a
> train for California this winter, I'd do it.

Do some serious checking, and I'll bet you could find a way.

If there is not a regular dedicated vehicle transport system available, you
could make a shipping crate and strap you bike securely in it, and have a
local transporter ship it. If you shipped it by something like Roadway, it
would still probably end up in a Land/Sea type pod, then loaded on a double
stack container train.

Making your own transport crate would probably be the best way for your bike
to arrive in perfect condition, too. ;-)
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote

> (Those old roll bars really did work
> <g>) and left me sitting on top right side of the frame as it slide
> down the pavement tires first. No injuries other than a bit of chrome off
> the left roll
> bar...and my nerves. <:-))

Been there, done that!

As I recall, I needed a new clutch lever, too. Amazing how much aluminum
can be ground off, during a 5 second slide along the asphalt! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Maxwell]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bill Daniels" <> wrote
>
>> It's called a "Land Ferry" and it makes a lot of sense. Amtrack runs a
>> service from the Northeast to Florida. If I could get my motorcycle on a
>> train for California this winter, I'd do it.
>
> Do some serious checking, and I'll bet you could find a way.
>
> If there is not a regular dedicated vehicle transport system available,
> you could make a shipping crate and strap you bike securely in it, and
> have a local transporter ship it. If you shipped it by something like
> Roadway, it would still probably end up in a Land/Sea type pod, then
> loaded on a double stack container train.
>
> Making your own transport crate would probably be the best way for your
> bike to arrive in perfect condition, too. ;-)
> --

Say what!!!

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Maxwell wrote:
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Bill Daniels" <> wrote
>>
>>
>>>It's called a "Land Ferry" and it makes a lot of sense. Amtrack runs a
>>>service from the Northeast to Florida. If I could get my motorcycle on a
>>>train for California this winter, I'd do it.
>>
>>Do some serious checking, and I'll bet you could find a way.
>>
>>If there is not a regular dedicated vehicle transport system available,
>>you could make a shipping crate and strap you bike securely in it, and
>>have a local transporter ship it. If you shipped it by something like
>>Roadway, it would still probably end up in a Land/Sea type pod, then
>>loaded on a double stack container train.
>>
>>Making your own transport crate would probably be the best way for your
>>bike to arrive in perfect condition, too. ;-)
>>--
>
>
> Say what!!!
>
>


Reminds me of "World's Fastest Indian"

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Morgans wrote:

> "Roger (K8RI)" > wrote
>
>
>> (Those old roll bars really did work
>><g>) and left me sitting on top right side of the frame as it slide
>>down the pavement tires first. No injuries other than a bit of chrome off
>>the left roll
>>bar...and my nerves. <:-))
>
>
> Been there, done that!
>
> As I recall, I needed a new clutch lever, too. Amazing how much aluminum
> can be ground off, during a 5 second slide along the asphalt! <g>

Or skin...

[Maxwell]

"cavelamb himself" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell wrote:
>> "Morgans" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>"Bill Daniels" <> wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>It's called a "Land Ferry" and it makes a lot of sense. Amtrack runs a
>>>>service from the Northeast to Florida. If I could get my motorcycle on
>>>>a train for California this winter, I'd do it.
>>>
>>>Do some serious checking, and I'll bet you could find a way.
>>>
>>>If there is not a regular dedicated vehicle transport system available,
>>>you could make a shipping crate and strap you bike securely in it, and
>>>have a local transporter ship it. If you shipped it by something like
>>>Roadway, it would still probably end up in a Land/Sea type pod, then
>>>loaded on a double stack container train.
>>>
>>>Making your own transport crate would probably be the best way for your
>>>bike to arrive in perfect condition, too. ;-)
>>>--
>>
>>
>> Say what!!!
>>
>>
>
>
> Reminds me of "World's Fastest Indian"

No doubt.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"cavelamb himself" > wrote
>
> Or skin...

Oh, I did forget to mention that, didn't I? <g>

Yes, there was some skin lost. I think I picked up the equivalent weight of
gravel, ect., in exchange, so I *think* I ended up about even. ;-)

It was the only time I ever dropped a bike, in a big way.

First ride of the spring, in the first spring owning a bike, in the first
year I lived in Southern Ohio.

I took off down my favorite curving, fun, winding back-road.

I lined up, and picked the perfect line around the first major curve. About
half way through it, I realized I was about to be in big trouble. You see,
in Northern Ohio, where I grew up, they used straight salt on the roads.
After the snow melted, and it rained a couple times, there was nothing left
on the road but some white stains. In Southern Ohio, they use mainly slag
(burnt coal crunched up a bit larger than sand) with a little salt mixed in
when needed, and there was still a lot on the road, between where the tires
hit the road in the lanes.

My perfect line was about to take me through that pile of slag in the middle
of the lane, and I quickly calculated how the reduced coefficient of
friction would impact my ability to track the corner. The result of the
calculation said I was going to be *significantly* short of successfully
navigating the corner.

I decided the best thing to do was reducing my speed as much as possible
before I hit the road. (so it would hurt less) I straightened up, and
grabbed a boot full of rear brake, and a hand full of front brake, as much
as I thought I could, then backed off at the edge of the road, and tried to
turn. The important word in that sentence was "tried."

I dropped it at probably 35 or 40 MPH when I went down, and slid over the
right side of the lane, and through the shoulder, and into the grass beside
the road. After muttering a few choice words and looking around to see if
anyone saw me, (that is the first thing that all bike riders do when they
drop it, isn't it?) I picked it up, and rode back home to pick the gravel
and slag out of my knee, elbow and shoulder.

I decided to avoid doing that in the future. <g>

I think many people that fly also like to ride, because of the feeling of
banking through the corners, and the challenge of doing something that not
everyone does, and doing it with as much precision as possible while pushing
the limits a little bit.

I have not owned a bide for about 20 years, although I do get to ride my
son's crotch rocket a few times a year. It isn't the same as a cruiser,
though. I think I like the cruiser better, all things considered. With the
crunch of gas prices now, I may have to think about picking up an older
cruiser that would get me a better mileage per gallon than the 20 my mini
van gets, or the 13 my 3/4 ton van gets.

I had always said that it was a fool's chase, trying to come out money ahead
by driving a motorcycle, once you consider the cost of the bike and
insurance, ect, but I think gas at 3 bucks a gallon may make that equation
come out a little more favorably.

I think the electric car chase may be a fool's chase, too, at least for a
lot of people, after purchase cost and depreciation are figured in, and
especially so if it is necessary to keep another large vehicle for working.
--
Jim in NC

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 00:25:55 -0500, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote
>
>> (Those old roll bars really did work
>> <g>) and left me sitting on top right side of the frame as it slide
>> down the pavement tires first. No injuries other than a bit of chrome off
>> the left roll
>> bar...and my nerves. <:-))
>
> Been there, done that!
>
>As I recall, I needed a new clutch lever, too. Amazing how much aluminum
>can be ground off, during a 5 second slide along the asphalt! <g>


Clutch lever? I said that Harley was "Old"<:-)) Not one of those
modern ones.

Roger (K8RI)

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Roger (K8RI)" <> wrote

> Clutch lever? I said that Harley was "Old"<:-)) Not one of those
> modern ones.

OK, I give up.

So old that it didn't have a transmission? <g>

How did you work the clutch? I'm not familiar with "old as dirt" Harleys.
--
Jim in NC

[Charles Vincent]

Morgans wrote:
> "Roger (K8RI)" <> wrote
>
>> Clutch lever? I said that Harley was "Old"<:-)) Not one of those
>> modern ones.
>
> OK, I give up.
>
> So old that it didn't have a transmission? <g>
>
> How did you work the clutch? I'm not familiar with "old as dirt" Harleys.

Foot operated clutch and a tank shifter. I never had a tank shifter,
but did ride a panhead with a jockey shift (hand shift behind the seat).

Charles

[BobR]

On Nov 26, 10:19 pm, Ted Striker > wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 22:12:51 -0500, "Roger (K8RI)" > wrote:
>
> Blah blah blah, now why is it your entire dissertation is all about the negatives of
> driving an electric car. The obvious is that you worry if electric car use becomes more
> widespread, you might have to pay more for your electricity. Too bad. I live in an area
> where the cost is 7cents a kwh, and is generated by a nuke plant. So goes your coal
> fired worries. And why do you think anyone else is so concerned about which fuel makes a
> certian amount of polution. You think whether or not it makes you happy or not is going
> to have any bearing on the decision to use an electric car? I'm going to get one anyway,
> strain the power grid charging it up, don't care how much the power company polutes
> making the juice to charge it up either. Not everyone is so big picture minded about the
> whole affair as you are. I would love to be able to get around my local area and never
> pull into the gas station and pay the current price of gas.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>Before we jump from the frying pan into the fire how about some
> >>analysis on rather an electric car is really efficient. Somehow I
> >>can't believe it is more efficient and less poluting to generate the
> >>electricity, transmit it long distances, store it and convert it back
> >>to energy to drive a car than use direct conversion of gasoline to
> >>energy. That doesn't even consider the long term enviromental impact
> >>of dealing with the chemicals and heavy metals used in batteries.
>
> >Electric cars are more efficient than the regular variety, but... and
> >it's a big but. The all electrics are short range and not practical
> >for most of us, but for those with short drives they do have
> >sufficient range. So far, they are Expensive compared to regular cars.
> >Very expensive. Although they are efficient. The motors are more
> >like 95% which is great and even taking into account all the losses in
> >power generation and transmission they are more efficient than the gas
> >powered car, BUT (there's another one of those buts) even with that
> >increased efficiency they probably create considerably more pollution
> >than gas powered cars as most electricity is generated by coal fired
> >plants. Those plants release a lot of particulates, sulphur, CO2, and
> >Mercury through tall stacks that send the results to cities and states
> >down wind. In the end that power to power the electric car is more
> >polluting than the gas powered cars, or more so than most of them.
> >OTOH if most of the cars in our major cities were electric we'd see a
> >marked increase of air quality in those cities. OTOH if those cars
> >were small hybrids we'd also see an increase in the air quality.
>
> >Then there is the problem of getting electricity to the end user as
> >well as cost. Simply stated; we currently do not have the grid
> >capacity even in off hours to handle a substantial number of all
> >electric cars. So what happens if a lot of people go for the electric
> >car and we are short on grid capacity. Distributed power generation
> >using solar, wind, or what ever can help in many geographic areas, but
> >without more grid capacity those too are limited. Real time metering
> >and control of demand is on its way. Some areas already have it, but
> >with a continuing high demand you can expect to see rates get much
> >higher. Her in Michigan they run about 10 cents per KWh with all
> >charges while in California they peak around 38 cents. At 38 cents
> >per KWh it would be difficult to save money over the cost of running
> >an efficient hybrid.
>
> >On top of this are the batteries needed. Enough lead acid batteries to
> >give a reasonable range (just from the suburbs into town to shop)
> >would be expensive, very heavy, take up a lot of space, and are a
> >hazard on the roads due to transporting sulphuric acid. How long will
> >one heavy duty, deep cycle marine battery run a starter? Now kick
> >that up to moving the car and it's going to take a lot of batteries.
>
> >Even good high capacity battery packs such as Nickel Metal Hydride
> >(which also makes a good Hydrogen sponge) is expensive and no light
> >weight. Typical MiMH packs used in hybrids today run on the order of
> >$4,000 plus and they are sufficient only when used in conjunction with
> >a small gas engine. It's possible, but doubtful two packs ($8,000)
> >would manage 40 miles even in city driving.
>
> >Then there is the new Lithium family of batteries. They are powerful,
> >compact and lighter weight with reasonable life, but they are *really*
> >expensive.
>
> >BUT (had to say it again) the new technology batteries present a
> >disposal and/or recycling problem in addition to all the pollution
> >from the coal fired power plants.. They are not environmental friendly
> >but they haven't been around long enough to really see how this is
> >going to fly.
>
> >Also as soon as the technology becomes widespread the price of
> >electricity will raise enough for the all electric car to lose any
> >cost advantage. First in and First out (FIFO to borrow a computer
> >term) could save a lot if they weren't so expensive to implement.
> >Unfortunately when they drive up the price it will be a higher price
> >we all have to pay just to turn on the lights.
>
> >The side effects of many going to all electric would probably have a
> >greater effect on the cost of living then using a lot of corn to make
> >alcohol will on the food chain.
>
> >Hydrogen takes even more energy to produce.
>
> >All-in-all there is no one technology that can have much more than a
> >small effect as far as helping the economy and environment. Like the
> >energy efficient home that uses a mix of active and passive solar
> >energy along with the power mains/natural gas and even uses the gray
> >water instead of dumping it down the sewer, we are going to have to
> >combine technologies along with learning how to conserve. Currently
> >the best answer by far is the hybrid and learning how to conserve.
>
> >Roger (K8RI)
>
> Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.usenet.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

How lucky you are to have that .07 cent a kwh price but that is not
the case for everyone nor is the generation by nuclear power.
Instead, I pay a bit over .13 cents per kwh plus a distribution charge
that brings the cost to well over double yours. (And it could be
worse) The plant that generate that power are largely coal fired and
polute out the kazoo. On the other hand, your nuclear power plant us
generating polution that will last thousands of years and we have yet
to come up with an effective means of dealing with it. Instead, the
polution is building up in "temporary" storage with nowhere to put it
once the limits of that storage are reached. So by all means, get
your electric car and enjoy the hell out of it but don't be so foolish
as to believe it is the answer for everyone or that it comes without
its own set of problems that will have future consequences.

[Peter Dohm]

"BobR" > wrote in message
...
> On Nov 26, 10:19 pm, Ted Striker > wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 22:12:51 -0500, "Roger (K8RI)" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> Blah blah blah, now why is it your entire dissertation is all about the
>> negatives of
>> driving an electric car. The obvious is that you worry if electric car
>> use becomes more
>> widespread, you might have to pay more for your electricity. Too bad. I
>> live in an area
>> where the cost is 7cents a kwh, and is generated by a nuke plant. So goes
>> your coal
>> fired worries. And why do you think anyone else is so concerned about
>> which fuel makes a
>> certian amount of polution. You think whether or not it makes you happy
>> or not is going
>> to have any bearing on the decision to use an electric car? I'm going to
>> get one anyway,
>> strain the power grid charging it up, don't care how much the power
>> company polutes
>> making the juice to charge it up either. Not everyone is so big picture
>> minded about the
>> whole affair as you are. I would love to be able to get around my local
>> area and never
>> pull into the gas station and pay the current price of gas.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >>Before we jump from the frying pan into the fire how about some
>> >>analysis on rather an electric car is really efficient. Somehow I
>> >>can't believe it is more efficient and less poluting to generate the
>> >>electricity, transmit it long distances, store it and convert it back
>> >>to energy to drive a car than use direct conversion of gasoline to
>> >>energy. That doesn't even consider the long term enviromental impact
>> >>of dealing with the chemicals and heavy metals used in batteries.
>>
>> >Electric cars are more efficient than the regular variety, but... and
>> >it's a big but. The all electrics are short range and not practical
>> >for most of us, but for those with short drives they do have
>> >sufficient range. So far, they are Expensive compared to regular cars.
>> >Very expensive. Although they are efficient. The motors are more
>> >like 95% which is great and even taking into account all the losses in
>> >power generation and transmission they are more efficient than the gas
>> >powered car, BUT (there's another one of those buts) even with that
>> >increased efficiency they probably create considerably more pollution
>> >than gas powered cars as most electricity is generated by coal fired
>> >plants. Those plants release a lot of particulates, sulphur, CO2, and
>> >Mercury through tall stacks that send the results to cities and states
>> >down wind. In the end that power to power the electric car is more
>> >polluting than the gas powered cars, or more so than most of them.
>> >OTOH if most of the cars in our major cities were electric we'd see a
>> >marked increase of air quality in those cities. OTOH if those cars
>> >were small hybrids we'd also see an increase in the air quality.
>>
>> >Then there is the problem of getting electricity to the end user as
>> >well as cost. Simply stated; we currently do not have the grid
>> >capacity even in off hours to handle a substantial number of all
>> >electric cars. So what happens if a lot of people go for the electric
>> >car and we are short on grid capacity. Distributed power generation
>> >using solar, wind, or what ever can help in many geographic areas, but
>> >without more grid capacity those too are limited. Real time metering
>> >and control of demand is on its way. Some areas already have it, but
>> >with a continuing high demand you can expect to see rates get much
>> >higher. Her in Michigan they run about 10 cents per KWh with all
>> >charges while in California they peak around 38 cents. At 38 cents
>> >per KWh it would be difficult to save money over the cost of running
>> >an efficient hybrid.
>>
>> >On top of this are the batteries needed. Enough lead acid batteries to
>> >give a reasonable range (just from the suburbs into town to shop)
>> >would be expensive, very heavy, take up a lot of space, and are a
>> >hazard on the roads due to transporting sulphuric acid. How long will
>> >one heavy duty, deep cycle marine battery run a starter? Now kick
>> >that up to moving the car and it's going to take a lot of batteries.
>>
>> >Even good high capacity battery packs such as Nickel Metal Hydride
>> >(which also makes a good Hydrogen sponge) is expensive and no light
>> >weight. Typical MiMH packs used in hybrids today run on the order of
>> >$4,000 plus and they are sufficient only when used in conjunction with
>> >a small gas engine. It's possible, but doubtful two packs ($8,000)
>> >would manage 40 miles even in city driving.
>>
>> >Then there is the new Lithium family of batteries. They are powerful,
>> >compact and lighter weight with reasonable life, but they are *really*
>> >expensive.
>>
>> >BUT (had to say it again) the new technology batteries present a
>> >disposal and/or recycling problem in addition to all the pollution
>> >from the coal fired power plants.. They are not environmental friendly
>> >but they haven't been around long enough to really see how this is
>> >going to fly.
>>
>> >Also as soon as the technology becomes widespread the price of
>> >electricity will raise enough for the all electric car to lose any
>> >cost advantage. First in and First out (FIFO to borrow a computer
>> >term) could save a lot if they weren't so expensive to implement.
>> >Unfortunately when they drive up the price it will be a higher price
>> >we all have to pay just to turn on the lights.
>>
>> >The side effects of many going to all electric would probably have a
>> >greater effect on the cost of living then using a lot of corn to make
>> >alcohol will on the food chain.
>>
>> >Hydrogen takes even more energy to produce.
>>
>> >All-in-all there is no one technology that can have much more than a
>> >small effect as far as helping the economy and environment. Like the
>> >energy efficient home that uses a mix of active and passive solar
>> >energy along with the power mains/natural gas and even uses the gray
>> >water instead of dumping it down the sewer, we are going to have to
>> >combine technologies along with learning how to conserve. Currently
>> >the best answer by far is the hybrid and learning how to conserve.
>>
>> >Roger (K8RI)
>>
>> Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> http://www.usenet.com- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> How lucky you are to have that .07 cent a kwh price but that is not
> the case for everyone nor is the generation by nuclear power.
> Instead, I pay a bit over .13 cents per kwh plus a distribution charge
> that brings the cost to well over double yours. (And it could be
> worse) The plant that generate that power are largely coal fired and
> polute out the kazoo. On the other hand, your nuclear power plant us
> generating polution that will last thousands of years and we have yet
> to come up with an effective means of dealing with it. Instead, the
> polution is building up in "temporary" storage with nowhere to put it
> once the limits of that storage are reached. So by all means, get
> your electric car and enjoy the hell out of it but don't be so foolish
> as to believe it is the answer for everyone or that it comes without
> its own set of problems that will have future consequences.
>
Everything has unintended consequences.

However, in the case of nuclear power, there is a strong possibility that
much of the "waste" could be used to very good use--producing less intense
heat for many purposes other than superheated steam. At least in theory,
that could drastically reduce the need for other fuels for a lot of simple
heating purposes and could also reduce the need for electricity for many
simple heating purposes. In other words, some of those future consequences
could be beneficial. There would still be waste and it would still need to
be safeguarded; but there could be less of it and there could be far less
waste of other resources.

Peter

[Morgans[_2_]]

>> How did you work the clutch? I'm not familiar with "old as dirt"
>> Harleys.
>
> Foot operated clutch and a tank shifter. I never had a tank shifter, but
> did ride a panhead with a jockey shift (hand shift behind the seat).

I suspected that, but didn't know that Harleys had done that in the past.
--
Jim in NC

[Maxwell]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>>> How did you work the clutch? I'm not familiar with "old as dirt"
>>> Harleys.
>>
>> Foot operated clutch and a tank shifter. I never had a tank shifter, but
>> did ride a panhead with a jockey shift (hand shift behind the seat).
>
> I suspected that, but didn't know that Harleys had done that in the past.
> --

Oh you bet. Three speed on the tank and a rocker pedal clutch. I think
that's what a lot of folks used to call the "suicide clutch". Wasn't too bad
on the three wheeler and side car models, but the early two wheel (including
police) bikes had them too. Can't imagine trying to operate a three speed
hand shift, foot clutch motorcycle - with a conventional hand held
microphone Motorola police radio, during a chase. Keep a guy busier than a
one armed paper hanger.

[Ted Striker[_2_]]

This is no troll, I've been on and off this group for years, building a Glasair 3 since
'91, but I can get frustrated when a good idea like electric cars crops up, and others
just can't wait to publish their long laundry list of reasons not to do it. Your view is
too large, quit tyring to solve the worlds problems. The fact is, for many years to
come, electric cars will only be bought in very small numbers, and never create enough
demand on "the grid" like your doom and gloom prospects paint the picture. So tinkerers
like homebuilders will probably be the select few that will mess with them. Being
retired from the airlines, I rarely travel far from home, and my car sits for days
sometimes and doesn't move. I'd love to have an electric car for short trips. And I'm
not going for some new expensive new one either. A converted conventional car is what
I'm looking into.My local dump takes batteries, so their disposal isn't a problem. Plus,
batteries are recycled, so your fear of disposal is groundless. Ideas never get off the
ground by people that suffer from analysis paralysis. Now, if you had ever owned an
electric car, and then posted some first hand knowlege of it's use, I'd be inclined to
listen. But that doesn't seem to be the case at all. I'm sure an electric car could be
made that could make trips a maximum of 10 miles and back. Which is about as far as I
need to go. Now it would be interesting to see if they can be air conditioned for the
summer. But I'd be happy to just use it the rest of the year.

>I'm trying to figure if this is for real of just trolling<:-)) it
>comes on just a bit heavy to be real, but??
>
>You are taking what I see over all as being a personal impact
>statement and it's not. My statement was as to how "in general" it
>would affect our society, not me as an individual. I happen to be in
>an area with relatively cheap electricity and tend to be an "early
>adopter" of technology.
>
>>> where the cost is 7cents a kwh, and is generated by a nuke plant. So goes
>>> your coal
>
>Isn't this kinda centrist thinking?
>I'm talking about the general population and you are talking about ...
>you.
>
>>> fired worries. And why do you think anyone else is so concerned about
>>> which fuel makes a
>
>Stop and read the papers. The general population is up in arms about
>the price of gas. Wait until their electric bills are scaled up
>proportionally. I still pay (per month) for electricity about what I
>paid in 1976. Actually for a while I had an all electric home heated
>with ceiling cable where the bills were about $290 a month and that
>was somewhere in the 77-78 range. It's also several times what I pay
>now. Remember too, that all alternative energy sources come with some
>side effects. Alcohol/corn/food supply. Electric car/cost of
>electricity/overall cost of living "nation wide"
>
>
>>> certian amount of polution. You think whether or not it makes you happy or
>>> not is going
>
>Again, I'm talking about the general population and what they consider
>acceptable. Unless you believe conspiracy stories about the press and
>news in general, the population in general appears to be unhappy about
>the cost of energy and pollution. At least there are a lot of stories
>on the news about some one complaining.
>
>>> to have any bearing on the decision to use an electric car? I'm going to
>>> get one anyway,
>
>Go for it. I'm not trying to influence any ones car buying.
>
>>> strain the power grid charging it up, don't care how much the power
>>> company polutes
>
>Which is unfortunate as the bigger the mess we make now the more
>expensive it'll be to clean up and the bigger the impact on the
>overall economy when it's done. Sooner or later the clean up will have
>to be done. Resistance to conventional, coal powered plants has been
>high nation wide. Just in the last year plans for a big expansion of
>new plants was abandoned down in Texas. Resistance to running new
>transmission lines has been even higher. Even the governors of some
>Eastern states are fighting the planed "Eastern Transmission Corridor"
>>> making the juice to charge it up either. Not everyone is so big
>picture
>>> minded about the
>
>Not everyone, but it's a substantial number and growing. It's also
>this kind of thinking that has gas prices where they are now and what
>in a few years may be considered "the good old days. It's also more
>than likely to affect those who are now isolated and feel protected.
>Centrist thinking is why gas costs as much as it does.
>
>I do happen to believe in Nuke power as one of the alternatives, but
>it takes about 20 years to get any new plants on line and there are
>none proposed that I know of. So you could probably add about another
>5 to 10 years of paper work to get one started to that 20 year build
>time.
>
>>> whole affair as you are. I would love to be able to get around my local
>>> area and never
>>> pull into the gas station and pay the current price of gas.
>
>So would I, but you are unlikely to do that very far into the future
>as other areas start pulling more power from your area and prices
>reflect supply and demand. Also, like a good hybrid you will probably
>pay enough more for a good all electric car that even if power remains
>cheap for you the over all cost of driving that car will likely be
>higher than it would have been using the expensive gas.
>However as demand goes up the power grid will start drawing power from
>your area into other areas. They did that to us in Michigan with
>natural gas a couple years back when California screwed up. They sent
>our reserves of cheap gas to California where they could make much
>more money which resulted in higher prices here. When the power
>companies can make more money by shipping your electricity to other
>areas you will be seeing new, high voltage transmission lines running
>out of the plant.
>
>>>
>>IMHO, Roger's points were well taken. Most of the "solutions" we see
>>bandied about are scams.
>
>And the ones that aren't come with "side effects",don't scale well, or
>are regionally dependent. Many of those side effects are unlikely to
>be anticipated. Rarely does anything come with less side effects than
>expected.
>
>>
>>OTOH, this is a great time to play around with both electrics and
>>hybrids--before the limitations and problems become well known and also
>>before both money and permits are required to turn the batteries back in.
>
>Even now the cheapest way to get rid of a big battery pack it to take
>it to an auto dealer. Notice how auto parts dealers now also serve as
>used oil collection places.
>
>>
>>BTW, there is another form of hybrid that works quite well--using an
>>internal combustion engine and an electric drive system. The railroads have
>>been using them quite successfully for the past half of a century. They have
>>tremendous pulling power at low speeds, but don't have the high speed
>>acceleration and hill climbing power that we currently demand from our cars.
>>So, some infrastructure changes would be needed--mostly in the form of
>>longer acceleration ramps on the expressways.
>>
>>Peter
>>
>Roger (K8RI)

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Ted Striker[_2_]]

On another note, and back to this groups subject, did you notice the electric Sonex in
Kitplanes? That thing looked neat, and for local flights around the pattern, it would be
fun to use. But the owner would have to strain "the grid" to charge it up. Probably hard
to find a plug at the airport with the capacity to do that. My house has a 400 watt
service, so even with both A/C units running, and the stove on, I can charge up an
electric car just fine. Plus my shop has a 200W service added to the houses. So charging
problems may be a problem for those in those old houses with 100W service, or even 60
watt if they still exist. But just about any modern house has 200 watts available.
Actually, all houses should be wired for 400 watts, it cost nothing if you don't use it,
but is nice to have if you need it.

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:51:14 -0500, Ted Striker > wrote:

>This is no troll, I've been on and off this group for years, building a Glasair 3 since
>'91, but I can get frustrated when a good idea like electric cars crops up, and others
>just can't wait to publish their long laundry list of reasons not to do it. Your view is
>too large, quit tyring to solve the worlds problems. The fact is, for many years to
>come, electric cars will only be bought in very small numbers, and never create enough
>demand on "the grid" like your doom and gloom prospects paint the picture. So tinkerers
>like homebuilders will probably be the select few that will mess with them. Being
>retired from the airlines, I rarely travel far from home, and my car sits for days
>sometimes and doesn't move. I'd love to have an electric car for short trips. And I'm
>not going for some new expensive new one either. A converted conventional car is what
>I'm looking into.My local dump takes batteries, so their disposal isn't a problem. Plus,
>batteries are recycled, so your fear of disposal is groundless. Ideas never get off the
>ground by people that suffer from analysis paralysis. Now, if you had ever owned an
>electric car, and then posted some first hand knowlege of it's use, I'd be inclined to
>listen. But that doesn't seem to be the case at all. I'm sure an electric car could be
>made that could make trips a maximum of 10 miles and back. Which is about as far as I
>need to go. Now it would be interesting to see if they can be air conditioned for the
>summer. But I'd be happy to just use it the rest of the year.
>
>>I'm trying to figure if this is for real of just trolling<:-)) it
>>comes on just a bit heavy to be real, but??
>>
>>You are taking what I see over all as being a personal impact
>>statement and it's not. My statement was as to how "in general" it
>>would affect our society, not me as an individual. I happen to be in
>>an area with relatively cheap electricity and tend to be an "early
>>adopter" of technology.
>>
>>>> where the cost is 7cents a kwh, and is generated by a nuke plant. So goes
>>>> your coal
>>
>>Isn't this kinda centrist thinking?
>>I'm talking about the general population and you are talking about ...
>>you.
>>
>>>> fired worries. And why do you think anyone else is so concerned about
>>>> which fuel makes a
>>
>>Stop and read the papers. The general population is up in arms about
>>the price of gas. Wait until their electric bills are scaled up
>>proportionally. I still pay (per month) for electricity about what I
>>paid in 1976. Actually for a while I had an all electric home heated
>>with ceiling cable where the bills were about $290 a month and that
>>was somewhere in the 77-78 range. It's also several times what I pay
>>now. Remember too, that all alternative energy sources come with some
>>side effects. Alcohol/corn/food supply. Electric car/cost of
>>electricity/overall cost of living "nation wide"
>>
>>
>>>> certian amount of polution. You think whether or not it makes you happy or
>>>> not is going
>>
>>Again, I'm talking about the general population and what they consider
>>acceptable. Unless you believe conspiracy stories about the press and
>>news in general, the population in general appears to be unhappy about
>>the cost of energy and pollution. At least there are a lot of stories
>>on the news about some one complaining.
>>
>>>> to have any bearing on the decision to use an electric car? I'm going to
>>>> get one anyway,
>>
>>Go for it. I'm not trying to influence any ones car buying.
>>
>>>> strain the power grid charging it up, don't care how much the power
>>>> company polutes
>>
>>Which is unfortunate as the bigger the mess we make now the more
>>expensive it'll be to clean up and the bigger the impact on the
>>overall economy when it's done. Sooner or later the clean up will have
>>to be done. Resistance to conventional, coal powered plants has been
>>high nation wide. Just in the last year plans for a big expansion of
>>new plants was abandoned down in Texas. Resistance to running new
>>transmission lines has been even higher. Even the governors of some
>>Eastern states are fighting the planed "Eastern Transmission Corridor"
>>>> making the juice to charge it up either. Not everyone is so big
>>picture
>>>> minded about the
>>
>>Not everyone, but it's a substantial number and growing. It's also
>>this kind of thinking that has gas prices where they are now and what
>>in a few years may be considered "the good old days. It's also more
>>than likely to affect those who are now isolated and feel protected.
>>Centrist thinking is why gas costs as much as it does.
>>
>>I do happen to believe in Nuke power as one of the alternatives, but
>>it takes about 20 years to get any new plants on line and there are
>>none proposed that I know of. So you could probably add about another
>>5 to 10 years of paper work to get one started to that 20 year build
>>time.
>>
>>>> whole affair as you are. I would love to be able to get around my local
>>>> area and never
>>>> pull into the gas station and pay the current price of gas.
>>
>>So would I, but you are unlikely to do that very far into the future
>>as other areas start pulling more power from your area and prices
>>reflect supply and demand. Also, like a good hybrid you will probably
>>pay enough more for a good all electric car that even if power remains
>>cheap for you the over all cost of driving that car will likely be
>>higher than it would have been using the expensive gas.
>>However as demand goes up the power grid will start drawing power from
>>your area into other areas. They did that to us in Michigan with
>>natural gas a couple years back when California screwed up. They sent
>>our reserves of cheap gas to California where they could make much
>>more money which resulted in higher prices here. When the power
>>companies can make more money by shipping your electricity to other
>>areas you will be seeing new, high voltage transmission lines running
>>out of the plant.
>>
>>>>
>>>IMHO, Roger's points were well taken. Most of the "solutions" we see
>>>bandied about are scams.
>>
>>And the ones that aren't come with "side effects",don't scale well, or
>>are regionally dependent. Many of those side effects are unlikely to
>>be anticipated. Rarely does anything come with less side effects than
>>expected.
>>
>>>
>>>OTOH, this is a great time to play around with both electrics and
>>>hybrids--before the limitations and problems become well known and also
>>>before both money and permits are required to turn the batteries back in.
>>
>>Even now the cheapest way to get rid of a big battery pack it to take
>>it to an auto dealer. Notice how auto parts dealers now also serve as
>>used oil collection places.
>>
>>>
>>>BTW, there is another form of hybrid that works quite well--using an
>>>internal combustion engine and an electric drive system. The railroads have
>>>been using them quite successfully for the past half of a century. They have
>>>tremendous pulling power at low speeds, but don't have the high speed
>>>acceleration and hill climbing power that we currently demand from our cars.
>>>So, some infrastructure changes would be needed--mostly in the form of
>>>longer acceleration ramps on the expressways.
>>>
>>>Peter
>>>
>>Roger (K8RI)
>
> Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
>----------------------------------------------------------
> ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
>----------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.usenet.com

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Barnyard BOb]

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:01:49 -0500, Ted Striker >
wrote:

>On another note, and back to this groups subject, did you notice the electric Sonex in
>Kitplanes? That thing looked neat, and for local flights around the pattern, it would be
>fun to use. But the owner would have to strain "the grid" to charge it up. Probably hard
>to find a plug at the airport with the capacity to do that.

>My house has a 400 watt service, so even with both A/C units running, and the stove on,
>I can charge up an electric car just fine.

400 watt service, eh Ted?

Interesting.

That's FOUR light bulbs worth @100 watt ea.

Wanna' correct yourself?


- Barnyard BOb -
The more people I meet,
the more I like my dog...
and George Carlin humor.

[Ted Striker[_2_]]

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:53:06 -0600, Barnyard BOb > wrote:

Typo, 400 amps.. But there are always those that catch every typo. Do you read every
last word in the newspaper also?


>400 watt service, eh Ted?
>
>Interesting.
>
>That's FOUR light bulbs worth @100 watt ea.
>
>Wanna' correct yourself?
>
>
> - Barnyard BOb -
>The more people I meet,
>the more I like my dog...
>and George Carlin humor.
>
>
>
>
>
>

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[BobR]

On Nov 28, 10:15 am, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> "BobR" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > On Nov 26, 10:19 pm, Ted Striker > wrote:
> >> On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 22:12:51 -0500, "Roger (K8RI)" >
> >> wrote:
>
> >> Blah blah blah, now why is it your entire dissertation is all about the
> >> negatives of
> >> driving an electric car. The obvious is that you worry if electric car
> >> use becomes more
> >> widespread, you might have to pay more for your electricity. Too bad. I
> >> live in an area
> >> where the cost is 7cents a kwh, and is generated by a nuke plant. So goes
> >> your coal
> >> fired worries. And why do you think anyone else is so concerned about
> >> which fuel makes a
> >> certian amount of polution. You think whether or not it makes you happy
> >> or not is going
> >> to have any bearing on the decision to use an electric car? I'm going to
> >> get one anyway,
> >> strain the power grid charging it up, don't care how much the power
> >> company polutes
> >> making the juice to charge it up either. Not everyone is so big picture
> >> minded about the
> >> whole affair as you are. I would love to be able to get around my local
> >> area and never
> >> pull into the gas station and pay the current price of gas.
>
> >> >>Before we jump from the frying pan into the fire how about some
> >> >>analysis on rather an electric car is really efficient. Somehow I
> >> >>can't believe it is more efficient and less poluting to generate the
> >> >>electricity, transmit it long distances, store it and convert it back
> >> >>to energy to drive a car than use direct conversion of gasoline to
> >> >>energy. That doesn't even consider the long term enviromental impact
> >> >>of dealing with the chemicals and heavy metals used in batteries.
>
> >> >Electric cars are more efficient than the regular variety, but... and
> >> >it's a big but. The all electrics are short range and not practical
> >> >for most of us, but for those with short drives they do have
> >> >sufficient range. So far, they are Expensive compared to regular cars.
> >> >Very expensive. Although they are efficient. The motors are more
> >> >like 95% which is great and even taking into account all the losses in
> >> >power generation and transmission they are more efficient than the gas
> >> >powered car, BUT (there's another one of those buts) even with that
> >> >increased efficiency they probably create considerably more pollution
> >> >than gas powered cars as most electricity is generated by coal fired
> >> >plants. Those plants release a lot of particulates, sulphur, CO2, and
> >> >Mercury through tall stacks that send the results to cities and states
> >> >down wind. In the end that power to power the electric car is more
> >> >polluting than the gas powered cars, or more so than most of them.
> >> >OTOH if most of the cars in our major cities were electric we'd see a
> >> >marked increase of air quality in those cities. OTOH if those cars
> >> >were small hybrids we'd also see an increase in the air quality.
>
> >> >Then there is the problem of getting electricity to the end user as
> >> >well as cost. Simply stated; we currently do not have the grid
> >> >capacity even in off hours to handle a substantial number of all
> >> >electric cars. So what happens if a lot of people go for the electric
> >> >car and we are short on grid capacity. Distributed power generation
> >> >using solar, wind, or what ever can help in many geographic areas, but
> >> >without more grid capacity those too are limited. Real time metering
> >> >and control of demand is on its way. Some areas already have it, but
> >> >with a continuing high demand you can expect to see rates get much
> >> >higher. Her in Michigan they run about 10 cents per KWh with all
> >> >charges while in California they peak around 38 cents. At 38 cents
> >> >per KWh it would be difficult to save money over the cost of running
> >> >an efficient hybrid.
>
> >> >On top of this are the batteries needed. Enough lead acid batteries to
> >> >give a reasonable range (just from the suburbs into town to shop)
> >> >would be expensive, very heavy, take up a lot of space, and are a
> >> >hazard on the roads due to transporting sulphuric acid. How long will
> >> >one heavy duty, deep cycle marine battery run a starter? Now kick
> >> >that up to moving the car and it's going to take a lot of batteries.
>
> >> >Even good high capacity battery packs such as Nickel Metal Hydride
> >> >(which also makes a good Hydrogen sponge) is expensive and no light
> >> >weight. Typical MiMH packs used in hybrids today run on the order of
> >> >$4,000 plus and they are sufficient only when used in conjunction with
> >> >a small gas engine. It's possible, but doubtful two packs ($8,000)
> >> >would manage 40 miles even in city driving.
>
> >> >Then there is the new Lithium family of batteries. They are powerful,
> >> >compact and lighter weight with reasonable life, but they are *really*
> >> >expensive.
>
> >> >BUT (had to say it again) the new technology batteries present a
> >> >disposal and/or recycling problem in addition to all the pollution
> >> >from the coal fired power plants.. They are not environmental friendly
> >> >but they haven't been around long enough to really see how this is
> >> >going to fly.
>
> >> >Also as soon as the technology becomes widespread the price of
> >> >electricity will raise enough for the all electric car to lose any
> >> >cost advantage. First in and First out (FIFO to borrow a computer
> >> >term) could save a lot if they weren't so expensive to implement.
> >> >Unfortunately when they drive up the price it will be a higher price
> >> >we all have to pay just to turn on the lights.
>
> >> >The side effects of many going to all electric would probably have a
> >> >greater effect on the cost of living then using a lot of corn to make
> >> >alcohol will on the food chain.
>
> >> >Hydrogen takes even more energy to produce.
>
> >> >All-in-all there is no one technology that can have much more than a
> >> >small effect as far as helping the economy and environment. Like the
> >> >energy efficient home that uses a mix of active and passive solar
> >> >energy along with the power mains/natural gas and even uses the gray
> >> >water instead of dumping it down the sewer, we are going to have to
> >> >combine technologies along with learning how to conserve. Currently
> >> >the best answer by far is the hybrid and learning how to conserve.
>
> >> >Roger (K8RI)
>
> >> Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------
> >> ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------
> >> http://www.usenet.com-Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > How lucky you are to have that .07 cent a kwh price but that is not
> > the case for everyone nor is the generation by nuclear power.
> > Instead, I pay a bit over .13 cents per kwh plus a distribution charge
> > that brings the cost to well over double yours. (And it could be
> > worse) The plant that generate that power are largely coal fired and
> > polute out the kazoo. On the other hand, your nuclear power plant us
> > generating polution that will last thousands of years and we have yet
> > to come up with an effective means of dealing with it. Instead, the
> > polution is building up in "temporary" storage with nowhere to put it
> > once the limits of that storage are reached. So by all means, get
> > your electric car and enjoy the hell out of it but don't be so foolish
> > as to believe it is the answer for everyone or that it comes without
> > its own set of problems that will have future consequences.
>
> Everything has unintended consequences.
>
> However, in the case of nuclear power, there is a strong possibility that
> much of the "waste" could be used to very good use--producing less intense
> heat for many purposes other than superheated steam. At least in theory,
> that could drastically reduce the need for other fuels for a lot of simple
> heating purposes and could also reduce the need for electricity for many
> simple heating purposes. In other words, some of those future consequences
> could be beneficial. There would still be waste and it would still need to
> be safeguarded; but there could be less of it and there could be far less
> waste of other resources.
>
> Peter- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

All that sounds great but it still remains in the "Could Be" category
of wishful thinking.

[Vaughn Simon]

"BobR" > wrote in message
...
> On the other hand, your nuclear power plant us
> generating polution that will last thousands of years and we have yet
> to come up with an effective means of dealing with it.

I'm sorry, but that is just wrong. The "waste problem" is the mantra the
anti-nukes fall back on when they run out of logical arguments. From a science
and engineering standpoint, the "problem" of nuclear storage has been solved for
decades, the remaining problems are 99% political. Not the least of political
problems is the crazy policy that we should not recycle our nuclear fuel
modules. Recycling would greatly reduce the volume of the radioactive waste and
recover an amazing amount of fuel for reuse.

Also, remember that fossil power plants have their own waste storage problem;
they are spewing megatons of gasses and chemicals into our atmosphere that will
last for thousands of years, and we have yet to come up with an effective means
of dealing with it...

Vaughn

[Bill Daniels]

"Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
...
>
> "BobR" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On the other hand, your nuclear power plant us
>> generating polution that will last thousands of years and we have yet
>> to come up with an effective means of dealing with it.
>
> I'm sorry, but that is just wrong. The "waste problem" is the mantra
> the anti-nukes fall back on when they run out of logical arguments. From
> a science and engineering standpoint, the "problem" of nuclear storage has
> been solved for decades, the remaining problems are 99% political. Not
> the least of political problems is the crazy policy that we should not
> recycle our nuclear fuel modules. Recycling would greatly reduce the
> volume of the radioactive waste and recover an amazing amount of fuel for
> reuse.
>
> Also, remember that fossil power plants have their own waste storage
> problem; they are spewing megatons of gasses and chemicals into our
> atmosphere that will last for thousands of years, and we have yet to come
> up with an effective means of dealing with it...
>
> Vaughn
Exactly true, Vaughn. Spent fuel management is an opportunity not a
'problem'.

I wish I could remember who said that the 'greenies' were political
"watermelons" - i.e. green on the outside and red on the inside. They just
want to stop or slow progress in the capitalist system so the socialists can
catch up. Opposing nukes is just one of their strategies.

Nuclear power is the best and quickest solution available and the least
disruptive of the environment. Even wind and solar are more disruptive. If
the US produced 80% of it's energy from nuclear like France does, we could
get all the oil we need from North America.

BTW did anybody see the report from Germany where researchers had reviewed
the health effect of all radioactive releases since 1945 and found that the
hazards had been overstated by at least 100 times and maybe 1000 times the
actual effects?

Finally, airplanes will need petroleum based fuels for the foreseable
future. To keep the price of avgas and Jet-A down it would help if
everybody else used electricity from nukes.

Bill Daniels

[BobR]

On Nov 28, 5:03 pm, "Vaughn Simon" >
wrote:
> "BobR" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On the other hand, your nuclear power plant us
> > generating polution that will last thousands of years and we have yet
> > to come up with an effective means of dealing with it.
>
> I'm sorry, but that is just wrong. The "waste problem" is the mantra the
> anti-nukes fall back on when they run out of logical arguments. From a science
> and engineering standpoint, the "problem" of nuclear storage has been solved for
> decades, the remaining problems are 99% political. Not the least of political
> problems is the crazy policy that we should not recycle our nuclear fuel
> modules. Recycling would greatly reduce the volume of the radioactive waste and
> recover an amazing amount of fuel for reuse.
>
> Also, remember that fossil power plants have their own waste storage problem;
> they are spewing megatons of gasses and chemicals into our atmosphere that will
> last for thousands of years, and we have yet to come up with an effective means
> of dealing with it...
>
> Vaughn

I am NOT anti-nuclear but I am a realist and rather you wish to admit
it or not, rather it is political or scientific, nuclear presents many
unsolved issues that must be answered before nuclear will be anykind
of long term solution. I have long believed that nuclear could
provide long term solutions to power needs but only if we quit all the
bull**** political infighting and find real solutions. The first step
in that direction is to admit that you really do have problems that
must be solved. We have had our heads up our ass for years and failed
to admit the problems with fossil fuels, lets NOT repeat the same
mistake in finding replacements.

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:14:40 GMT, Charles Vincent >
wrote:

>Morgans wrote:
>> "Roger (K8RI)" <> wrote
>>
>>> Clutch lever? I said that Harley was "Old"<:-)) Not one of those
>>> modern ones.
>>
>> OK, I give up.
>>
>> So old that it didn't have a transmission? <g>
>>
>> How did you work the clutch? I'm not familiar with "old as dirt" Harleys.
>
>Foot operated clutch and a tank shifter. I never had a tank shifter,

Yup, Rocker clutch and tank shift 3-speed, with both on the left side.
Not exactly a bike for letting it all hang out while shifting through
the turns<:-)) Hand clutch and foot shift was one whale of an
improvement for both convenience and safety.

>but did ride a panhead with a jockey shift (hand shift behind the seat).

That I've not seen.

>
>Charles

Roger (K8RI)

[Maxwell]

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:14:40 GMT, Charles Vincent >
> wrote:
>
>>Morgans wrote:
>>> "Roger (K8RI)" <> wrote
>>>
>>>> Clutch lever? I said that Harley was "Old"<:-)) Not one of those
>>>> modern ones.
>>>
>>> OK, I give up.
>>>
>>> So old that it didn't have a transmission? <g>
>>>
>>> How did you work the clutch? I'm not familiar with "old as dirt"
>>> Harleys.
>>
>>Foot operated clutch and a tank shifter. I never had a tank shifter,
>
> Yup, Rocker clutch and tank shift 3-speed, with both on the left side.
> Not exactly a bike for letting it all hang out while shifting through
> the turns<:-)) Hand clutch and foot shift was one whale of an
> improvement for both convenience and safety.
>
>>but did ride a panhead with a jockey shift (hand shift behind the seat).
>
> That I've not seen.
>

That sounds familuar but I can't recall for sure either.

There was also something like the Cushman or Mustang, that we use to full
throttle with the right twist grip. But after you got in to top gear, you
could reach under the tank with your free left hand and override the
governer on the big end.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Maxwell wrote:
>...ride the governer on the big end.

That's what countless Arkansan females said about Bill wasn't it?

[Maxwell]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Maxwell wrote:
>>...ride the governer on the big end.
>
> That's what countless Arkansan females said about Bill wasn't it?

Yeah, and little did they realize at the time, the capacity of their mouths
was (1) US leader.

[Vaughn Simon]

"BobR" > wrote in message
...
> I have long believed that nuclear could
> provide long term solutions to power needs but only if we quit all the
> bull**** political infighting and find real solutions.

We agree!

> The first step
> in that direction is to admit that you really do have problems that
> must be solved.

What basic problems are there? We have been operating commercial power
reactors in the US for what? 50 years? What unsolved (scientific &
engineering) problems do you see? In half a century, I can't point to a case
where any member of the public has died (or even been injured) as a result of
nuclear energy. You can't say the same about fossil power.

> We have had our heads up our ass for years and failed
> to admit the problems with fossil fuels, lets NOT repeat the same
> mistake in finding replacements.

I can't argue with that.

Vaughn

[BobR]

On Nov 29, 5:26 pm, "Vaughn Simon" >
wrote:
> "BobR" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > I have long believed that nuclear could
> > provide long term solutions to power needs but only if we quit all the
> > bull**** political infighting and find real solutions.
>
> We agree!
>
> > The first step
> > in that direction is to admit that you really do have problems that
> > must be solved.
>
> What basic problems are there? We have been operating commercial power
> reactors in the US for what? 50 years? What unsolved (scientific &
> engineering) problems do you see? In half a century, I can't point to a case
> where any member of the public has died (or even been injured) as a result of
> nuclear energy. You can't say the same about fossil power.
>
> > We have had our heads up our ass for years and failed
> > to admit the problems with fossil fuels, lets NOT repeat the same
> > mistake in finding replacements.
>
> I can't argue with that.
>
> Vaughn

As I mentioned earlier, the main problem I see in the nuclear industry
at this point in time and I am talking about more than just nuclear
energy is the issue of dealing with the waste materials. It is not
just a problem for the power plants but all other uses as well. With
the power generation plants, it is how to dispose of (or recycle) the
spent fuel and all other contaminated byproducts. The spent fuel
could, as someone pointed out, possibly be recycled for other uses if
some way can be found to do so safely which is the current delima.
The bigger issue though might be the other contaminated byproducts
including the cooling liquids, and the facilities themselves as they
reach their useful life and are decommisioned.

All of the contaminates must ultimately be disposed of in a manner
that does not contaminate the environment or pose health hazards to
anyone who might come in contact with them. I know, the same issues
are there with fossil fuels but that does not excuse us from proactive
decisions on nuclear issues.

Most of the contaminates from fossil fuel generation can be scrubbed
from the environment within a few years to few decades by natural
processes. Thas assumes that we don't continue to add to the
polutants. Not so for nuclear waste. The contaminates from nuclear
waste and / or nuclear accidents will take nature thousands of years
to scrub. The potiential effects are far worse. All that being said,
I would much rather live next door to a nuclear plant than a coal
plant.

[Bill Daniels]

This irrational fear of anything nuclear is getting to me.

I grew up in Alamogordo, NM 60 miles from the first atomic bomb test at
Trinity. The radiation was supposed to kill everybody and/or mothers were
supposed to birth two headed babies. I still have a little vial of
radioactive green glass created when the intense heat of the Trinity test
melted desert sand. I picked it up at ground zero in 1952. Nothing
happened to anyone except the area today is noted for healthy people and its
population of centenarians.

The era of atmospheric nuclear weapons testing saw more than 3000 explosions
some as large as 50 megatons. That's way more nuclear explosions than was
expected in a hypothetical WWIII. It's as if the USSR and the US agreed to
bomb themselves instead of each other. We all carry radioactive caesium 60,
strontium 90 and a little plutonium in our bodies as a result. Where are
the mutated monsters or the piles of corpses? Why has the cancer death rate
actually decreased since the mid 1940's? Where was 'nuclear winter'?

Radiation is a natural part of the environment. Granite rock is
radioactive. So is a cathode ray tube (CRT) that we all spent a lifetime in
front of. I live a mile above sea level in Colorado where cosmic radiation
is intense. Colorado is the healthiest state. We all, especialy we pilots,
spend out entire lives bathed in radioactivity but where are the cases of
radiation poisoning?

The Chernobyl reactor disaster is the worst possible scenario for a civil
power reactor. It was supposed to have killed 250,000 in Europe. Nobody
can find them. Death rates haven't changed. The best guess now is that
less than 30 were killed and those were workers at the plant or rescuers
without protective gear.

I thought it was hilarious when DHS stopped a freighter from Central America
because it set off their radiation detectors - it was full of banana's.
Banana trees concentrate naturally occurring radioactive potassium in the
fruit. Anybody plan to quit eating bananas?

Like almost anything, if you get too much of it, it will hurt you. Current
safety measures are quite enough - in fact they are probably mega-overkill.

What IS an ongoing disaster is the burning of coal and oil because we are
afraid of nuclear power. Since the nuclear age began millions have
verifiably been killed by the production, transport and burnig of fossil
fuels. We may also have ruined our planet.

Bill Daniels

[Vaughn Simon]

"BobR" > wrote in message
...
>
> As I mentioned earlier, the main problem I see in the nuclear industry
> at this point in time and I am talking about more than just nuclear
> energy is the issue of dealing with the waste materials.

And I pointed out that those "problems" have been solved for decades (except
for the politics) and furthermore, fossil plants have horrendous unsolved waste
problems. Problems that sicken people, kill people, and even threaton the
future viability of our planet. Why is this so hard to see?

> It is not
> just a problem for the power plants but all other uses as well. With
> the power generation plants, it is how to dispose of (or recycle) the
> spent fuel and all other contaminated byproducts.

Fuel recycling is a solved problem. We don't recycle fuel because the
process makes potentially bomb-grade fisionable material which must be
safeguarded to ensure that is is used for fuel modules, not blowing things up.
Of course, we spend (or at least have spent) billions to operate special
reactors for the express purpose of making bomb-grade material while we argue
about how to store our used (recycleable) fuel modules.

> The spent fuel
> could, as someone pointed out, possibly be recycled for other uses if
> some way can be found to do so safely which is the current delima.
> The bigger issue though might be the other contaminated byproducts
> including the cooling liquids, and the facilities themselves as they
> reach their useful life and are decommisioned.

We have been decommissioning plants for decades, we know how to do it. The
Navy has decommissioned hundreds of nuclear reactors, including my old
submarine.

> I know, the same issues
> are there with fossil fuels but that does not excuse us from proactive
> decisions on nuclear issues.

Again, the storage "problem" is long solved, except for the politics. ****,
even the Egyptians knew how to build buildings that could last thousands of
years, and they did it thousands of years ago. What makes you think that we
can't do it today?

> Most of the contaminates from fossil fuel generation can be scrubbed
> from the environment within a few years to few decades by natural
> processes.

Proof?

> Thas assumes that we don't continue to add to the
> polutants.

And the chances of that are? Let's deal with reality here please, and
seriously consider what we are doing to our environment.

>Not so for nuclear waste. The contaminates from nuclear
> waste and / or nuclear accidents will take nature thousands of years
> to scrub.

We don't have to "scrub" nuclear waste from the environment" because, unlike
with fossil plants, the deadly waste is not allowed to enter the environment.

> The potiential effects are far worse.

Agreed, at least in the near term. Unfortunately, we are not sure yet what
the environmental results of thousands of fossil plants to our planet, but we
are running the grand experiment today! That said, nuclear plants need to be
designed & operated under very strict supervision. Operating them is serious
business.

> All that being said,
> I would much rather live next door to a nuclear plant than a coal
> plant.

Agreed again. I have literally lived in the same vehicle with a nuclear
power plant for months at a time. Unlike the anti-nukes, I have taken the
trouble to learn about nuclear power. (OK, actually I am an ex-Navy nuclear
reactor operator.) I have personally met the dragon and it is not as fearsome a
creature as some folks would lead you to believe. I just can't believe the
damage we are doing to the environment and to ourselves by continuing to eshue
nuclear energy in favor fossil power.

Can we get back to airplanes now?

Vaughn

[BobR]

On Nov 29, 8:30 pm, "Vaughn Simon" >
wrote:
> "BobR" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > As I mentioned earlier, the main problem I see in the nuclear industry
> > at this point in time and I am talking about more than just nuclear
> > energy is the issue of dealing with the waste materials.
>
> And I pointed out that those "problems" have been solved for decades (except
> for the politics) and furthermore, fossil plants have horrendous unsolved waste
> problems. Problems that sicken people, kill people, and even threaton the
> future viability of our planet. Why is this so hard to see?
>
> > It is not
> > just a problem for the power plants but all other uses as well. With
> > the power generation plants, it is how to dispose of (or recycle) the
> > spent fuel and all other contaminated byproducts.
>
> Fuel recycling is a solved problem. We don't recycle fuel because the
> process makes potentially bomb-grade fisionable material which must be
> safeguarded to ensure that is is used for fuel modules, not blowing things up.
> Of course, we spend (or at least have spent) billions to operate special
> reactors for the express purpose of making bomb-grade material while we argue
> about how to store our used (recycleable) fuel modules.
>
> > The spent fuel
> > could, as someone pointed out, possibly be recycled for other uses if
> > some way can be found to do so safely which is the current delima.
> > The bigger issue though might be the other contaminated byproducts
> > including the cooling liquids, and the facilities themselves as they
> > reach their useful life and are decommisioned.
>
> We have been decommissioning plants for decades, we know how to do it. The
> Navy has decommissioned hundreds of nuclear reactors, including my old
> submarine.
>
> > I know, the same issues
> > are there with fossil fuels but that does not excuse us from proactive
> > decisions on nuclear issues.
>
> Again, the storage "problem" is long solved, except for the politics. ****,
> even the Egyptians knew how to build buildings that could last thousands of
> years, and they did it thousands of years ago. What makes you think that we
> can't do it today?
>
> > Most of the contaminates from fossil fuel generation can be scrubbed
> > from the environment within a few years to few decades by natural
> > processes.
>
> Proof?
>
> > Thas assumes that we don't continue to add to the
> > polutants.
>
> And the chances of that are? Let's deal with reality here please, and
> seriously consider what we are doing to our environment.
>
> >Not so for nuclear waste. The contaminates from nuclear
> > waste and / or nuclear accidents will take nature thousands of years
> > to scrub.
>
> We don't have to "scrub" nuclear waste from the environment" because, unlike
> with fossil plants, the deadly waste is not allowed to enter the environment.
>
> > The potiential effects are far worse.
>
> Agreed, at least in the near term. Unfortunately, we are not sure yet what
> the environmental results of thousands of fossil plants to our planet, but we
> are running the grand experiment today! That said, nuclear plants need to be
> designed & operated under very strict supervision. Operating them is serious
> business.
>
> > All that being said,
> > I would much rather live next door to a nuclear plant than a coal
> > plant.
>
> Agreed again. I have literally lived in the same vehicle with a nuclear
> power plant for months at a time. Unlike the anti-nukes, I have taken the
> trouble to learn about nuclear power. (OK, actually I am an ex-Navy nuclear
> reactor operator.) I have personally met the dragon and it is not as fearsome a
> creature as some folks would lead you to believe. I just can't believe the
> damage we are doing to the environment and to ourselves by continuing to eshue
> nuclear energy in favor fossil power.
>
> Can we get back to airplanes now?
>
> Vaughn

Sure we can get back to planes...do you have a nuclear powered plane?
<BG>

The point that you seem to miss is that an issue is not solved until
all issues are resolved including the most important one which is the
political will to solve them. We have the technology to solve the
vast majority of our current polution issues with fossil fuels but we
refuse to invest the monies to implement them. The same holds true
for the nuclear industry. The difference is that the general public
isn't going to and should accept that same attitude toward nuclear.

[Al G[_1_]]

"Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote in message
. ..
> This irrational fear of anything nuclear is getting to me.
>
> I grew up in Alamogordo, NM 60 miles from the first atomic bomb test at
> Trinity. The radiation was supposed to kill everybody and/or mothers were
> supposed to birth two headed babies. I still have a little vial of
> radioactive green glass created when the intense heat of the Trinity test
> melted desert sand. I picked it up at ground zero in 1952. Nothing
> happened to anyone except the area today is noted for healthy people and
> its population of centenarians.
>
> The era of atmospheric nuclear weapons testing saw more than 3000
> explosions some as large as 50 megatons. That's way more nuclear
> explosions than was expected in a hypothetical WWIII. It's as if the USSR
> and the US agreed to bomb themselves instead of each other. We all carry
> radioactive caesium 60, strontium 90 and a little plutonium in our bodies
> as a result. Where are the mutated monsters or the piles of corpses? Why
> has the cancer death rate actually decreased since the mid 1940's? Where
> was 'nuclear winter'?
>
> Radiation is a natural part of the environment. Granite rock is
> radioactive. So is a cathode ray tube (CRT) that we all spent a lifetime
> in front of. I live a mile above sea level in Colorado where cosmic
> radiation is intense. Colorado is the healthiest state. We all,
> especialy we pilots, spend out entire lives bathed in radioactivity but
> where are the cases of radiation poisoning?
>
> The Chernobyl reactor disaster is the worst possible scenario for a civil
> power reactor. It was supposed to have killed 250,000 in Europe. Nobody
> can find them. Death rates haven't changed. The best guess now is that
> less than 30 were killed and those were workers at the plant or rescuers
> without protective gear.
>
> I thought it was hilarious when DHS stopped a freighter from Central
> America because it set off their radiation detectors - it was full of
> banana's. Banana trees concentrate naturally occurring radioactive
> potassium in the fruit. Anybody plan to quit eating bananas?
>
> Like almost anything, if you get too much of it, it will hurt you.
> Current safety measures are quite enough - in fact they are probably
> mega-overkill.
>
> What IS an ongoing disaster is the burning of coal and oil because we are
> afraid of nuclear power. Since the nuclear age began millions have
> verifiably been killed by the production, transport and burnig of fossil
> fuels. We may also have ruined our planet.
>
> Bill Daniels
>
>
My sentiments exactly.

Al G