Electric locomotion will replace internal combustion

On Sep 21, 1:27*pm, wrote:
Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2010-09-18, wrote:
There are no pure electric, production cars that go much more than 40 miles
on a charge and all of them cost several times what even hybrids cost, let
alone a pure ICE car.

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

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

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

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

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

--
Jim Pennino

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

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

---
Mark

On Sep 21, 7:34*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Sep 21, 5:18*am, Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2010-09-18, wrote:

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

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

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

This just in 5 minutes ago!

The man on TV said, "This is going to be the future of things", AND...
"We already have more orders than we can produce!".

Then they showed the film footage, taken today. *These big-ass
buses looked like giant luxury limo's.

A bus is not a car.

Ok! you get little acorn.


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

Electric buses are showing up because people want them.

Give back acorn.


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

Wrong. My CPA keeps me from paying taxes.

---
Mark


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mark wrote:
On Sep 21, 1:27Â*pm, wrote:
Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2010-09-18, wrote:
There are no pure electric, production cars that go much more than 40 miles
on a charge and all of them cost several times what even hybrids cost, let
alone a pure ICE car.

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

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

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

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

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

--
Jim Pennino

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

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


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

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


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mark wrote:
On Sep 21, 7:34Â*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Sep 21, 5:18Â*am, Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2010-09-18, wrote:

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

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

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

This just in 5 minutes ago!

The man on TV said, "This is going to be the future of things", AND...
"We already have more orders than we can produce!".

Then they showed the film footage, taken today. Â*These big-ass
buses looked like giant luxury limo's.

A bus is not a car.

Ok! you get little acorn.

Gibberish.

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

Electric buses are showing up because people want them.

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

Give back acorn.


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

Wrong. My CPA keeps me from paying taxes.

Like you even know what CPA means.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Edward A. Falk wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

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

It's a small fraction of the cost of laying the track in the
first place. If the economics make it worth it, then it will
happen.

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

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


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Sep 21, 8:17*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Sep 21, 7:34*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Sep 21, 5:18*am, Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2010-09-18, wrote:

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

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

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

This just in 5 minutes ago!

The man on TV said, "This is going to be the future of things", AND....
"We already have more orders than we can produce!".

Then they showed the film footage, taken today. *These big-ass
buses looked like giant luxury limo's.

A bus is not a car.

Ok! *you get little acorn.

Gibberish.

Oh? So a bus *is* a car?

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

Electric buses are showing up because people want them.

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

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

Give back acorn.

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

Wrong. My CPA keeps me from paying taxes.

Like you even know what CPA means.

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

---
Mark




--
Jim Pennino

On Sep 21, 8:23*pm, wrote:
Edward A. Falk wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

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

It's a small fraction of the cost of laying the track in the
first place. *If the economics make it worth it, then it will
happen.

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

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

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

Cite.

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

---
Mark



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mark wrote:
On Sep 21, 8:23Â*pm, wrote:
Edward A. Falk wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

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

It's a small fraction of the cost of laying the track in the
first place. Â*If the economics make it worth it, then it will
happen.

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

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

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

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

Cite.

I assert that it costs more to bulldoze thousands of acres
of land, grade it, pay for an infrastructure of access roads,
drainage, signal lights, and cross-ties, than it does to
electrify this existing infrastructure,

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

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

Babble.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Sep 21, 10:59*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Sep 21, 8:23*pm, wrote:
Edward A. Falk wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

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

It's a small fraction of the cost of laying the track in the
first place. *If the economics make it worth it, then it will
happen.

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

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

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

Jabber blather non sequitur.

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

My position: Replace today the old and inefficient.

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

Cite.

I assert that it costs more to bulldoze thousands of acres
of land, grade it, pay for an infrastructure of access roads,
drainage, signal lights, and cross-ties, than it does to
electrify this existing infrastructure,

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

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

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

Babble.

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

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

---
Mark

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Sep 21, 5:18*am, Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2010-09-18, wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

---
Mark