XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science   
   From: YourName@YourISP.com   
      
   In article , Robert Bannister   
    wrote:   
   > On 15/01/2014 4:22 am, Your Name wrote:   
   > > In article , Ryk E. Spoor   
   > >  wrote:   
   > >> On 1/14/14 9:29 AM, Leszek Karlik wrote:   
   > >>> On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 13:20:24 +0100, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)   
   > >>>  wrote:   
   > >>> [...]   
   > >>>>      However, that would not save you much if anything because you'd   
   > >>>> still have to maintain all those vehicles.   
   > >>>   
   > >>> Luckily, electric vehicles are significantly less maintenance-intensive   
   > >>> than internal combustion vehicles.   
   > >>   
   > >>   Unluckily, there aren't that many electric vehicles, their energy   
   > >> density is terrible (and thus their range sucks), and their refuelling   
   > >> time is generally ridiculous.   
   > >   
   > > Most of them are also pig-ugly.  :-)   
   > >   
   > > Then there's also the fact that they keep inventing all these new   
   > > electric-powered toys (including tablets, etc.), and yet they're   
   > > continually whining about not having enough electricity to cope with   
   > > demand now.   
   >   
   > At the same time, our power company keeps upping the price because, it   
   > claims, all those solar panels are causing problems.   
      
   There was some twit on TV here last night claiming that by building a   
   few square miles of solar panels in the deserts they could easily power   
   all the worlds needs.  :-\   
      
   Then there's the fools who want to put lots of solar panels on the moon.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)