XPost: can.politics, ont.politics, tor.general
XPost: bc.politics
From: e@t.me
"Peter White" wrote in message
news:RLAXg.4629$cz.65903@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
>
>
> Alan Baker wrote:
>> In article ,
>> ar231@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Karen Gordon) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>>"penny" wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Who killed the electric car -- a crime of mammoth proportions with
>>>>>>>consequences for our environment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Electric cars produce zero emissions and therefore don't contribute
>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>the global warming disaster. They were a key invention in dealing
>>>>>>>with global warming. Yet they have disappeared from the market
>>>>>>>place.
>>>
>>>>>"pcourterelle" (someone@ms.com) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>ABarlow and Chom have patiently explained why the electric car is
>>>>>>neither an environmentally friendly option for reducing green-house
>>>>>>gases as you claim
>>>
>>>
>>>>>(K): You're kidding. right? Usenet posters have become the definitive
>>>>>experts on the electric car and its viability? You must be a mighty
>>>>>confused little man if you're taking your direction from posters rather
>>>>>than
>>>>>the experts.
>>>>>Electric cars are one of the solutions to the problems of
>>>>>petrol-fuelled
>>>>>cars. Although they are only at a relatively embryonic stage in terms
>>>>>of
>>>>>market penetration, electric cars represent the most environmentally
>>>>>friendly vehicle fuel, as they have absolutely no emissions.
>>>
>>>Eric Schild (ericŪ@hardknocks.edu) writes:
>>>>Yes - you just plug 'em in and the electricity from the Big Electricity
>>>>Man in the sky fuels 'em up
>>>
>>>(K): Silly boy ..... you probably believe in the 'man in the moon' and
>>>fairies with pixie dust, too.
>>>
>>>You can fuel automobiles with poisonous emission-producing gasoline and
>>>oil,
>>>or you can fuel it with electricity from hydro power and solar power. If
>>>you think the first is superior to the latter, I recommend you shut
>>>yourself
>>>in a garage with the former - and your opponents in a garage with the
>>>latter.
>>
>>
>> You could, if hydro power and solar power were available in sufficient
>> quantity to provide the energy necessary to replace even a relatively
>> small fraction of our current motor vehicles with electrics.
>>
>> They're not. So, instead, you get marginal electrical generation having
>> to be increased: coal-fired plants, natural gas, etc.
>>
>> All you're doing is transferring the fossil fuel emissions from one
>> location to another.
>
>
>
> This Baker is one pretentious mouth isn't he?
> I wonder where he expects the increased fuel economy of the hybrids comes
> from?
> He has no notion of the increased efficiency of an electric motor
> as compared to a mechanical motor, in fact the only motor he has
> familiarity with is his own motor mouth.
> The Toyota Prius, comparable with a Camery 4, has a mileage of about 48 -
> 50 MPG.
> The only source of energy is the gasoline used to fire the Echo
> engine.
> Ah but I forget, he doesn't claim to be a technician, he claims to be an
> economist!
Sounds like you've been sold on the myth. I have yet to hear anyone who has
bought a hybrid that lived up to the manufacturer's hype. Lot of owners
have been complaining about huge discrepancies between the manufacturer's
mileage claims and reality. What Toyota did was throw a lot of technology
into their hybrid and they got a car with roughly the same efficiency as a
diesel... lol! The only real benefit to the design is the recovery of
kinetic energy during deceleration, which could also be achieved with a
flywheel inertial storage system for much less cost.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
