NationStates Jolt Archive

Agreed.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=Bv-RMbtKjLU&feature=related

I always wonder where people intend to get the electricity to power their electric cars...

Wait, all electric cars? I can find you a bad regular car too.

I always wonder where people intend to get the electricity to power their electric cars...

That's just an incredibly inane thing to say.

That's just an incredibly inane thing to say.

So where do you intend to get it from?

So where do you intend to get it from?

Hydroelectricity? Wind? The sun? Noooo, it's GOT to come from oil, doesn't it?

I always wonder where people intend to get the electricity to power their electric cars...
Most of the electricity in my city comes from renewable resources, and people who advocate electric cars also tend to advocate renewable energy as well.
Agreed.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=Bv-RMbtKjLU&feature=related
Is this the truth about electric cars or just a little slam fest on a specific one?

Or have you not heard of cars like the Tesla Roadster (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=w1C44JQU7Pc). Or hell, even Cheverolet's upcoming Volt (http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar/). Or the TZero (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=pm6gD6r3-cw), or this rocket. (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=BqqtJpfZElQ&feature=related)

If you're going to whine about the electric car, you might as well be current. It'd be like insisting that the combustion engine sucks because the Model T is a hassle.

Yeah, but that's not the only electric car out there. Tesla Engines makes that high end electric car that's 0-60 in 4 seconds. It takes less electicity than a houselamp.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=fKUyZHTNOiY&feature=related

Most of the electricity in my city comes from renewable resources, and people who advocate electric cars also tend to advocate renewable energy as well.

Is this the truth about electric cars or just a little slam fest on a specific one?

Or have you not heard of cars like the Tesla Roadster (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=w1C44JQU7Pc). Or hell, even Cheverolet's upcoming Volt (http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar/). Or the TZero (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=pm6gD6r3-cw), or this rocket. (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=BqqtJpfZElQ&feature=related)

If you're going to whine about the electric car, you might as well be current. It'd be like insisting that the combustion engine sucks because the Model T is a hassle.

Awww... you beat me to it.:(

Agreed.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=Bv-RMbtKjLU&feature=related

Counter (http://laweekly.com/news/features/whos-resurrecting-the-electric-car/13975/)

0-to-60 in 3.6 seconds. How many internal combustion engines can do that?

And here (http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=124716)'s the Tesla Roadster

$92,000, but that will come down as batteries improve and carbon-fiber body parts get easier to mass produce.

snip

Beat me as well.

Hydroelectricity? Wind? The sun? Noooo, it's GOT to come from oil, doesn't it?

Well that depends greatly on your local grid's source, doesn't it? Can you predict the kind of strain and all-electric transportation system would put on a grid, especially an all-renewable resource powered grid?

More importantly, are you going to shell out the money required to change over other power grids to renewable resources?

Most of the electricity in my city comes from renewable resources, and people who advocate electric cars also tend to advocate renewable energy as well.

Is this the truth about electric cars or just a little slam fest on a specific one?

Or have you not heard of cars like the Tesla Roadster (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=w1C44JQU7Pc). Or hell, even Cheverolet's upcoming Volt (http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar/). Or the TZero (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=pm6gD6r3-cw), or this rocket. (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=BqqtJpfZElQ&feature=related)

If you're going to whine about the electric car, you might as well be current. It'd be like insisting that the combustion engine sucks because the Model T is a hassle.

Good luck going fast with any of those.

Counter (http://laweekly.com/news/features/whos-resurrecting-the-electric-car/13975/)

0-to-60 in 3.6 seconds. How many internal combustion engines can do that?

And here (http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=124716)'s the Tesla Roadster

$92,000, but that will come down as batteries improve and carbon-fiber body parts get easier to mass produce.

Don't forget, the Tesla Roadster isn't meant to be an economy car. It's for the folks that buy McLarens, Enzo's and Aston Martins. Nissan and GM will both have a full line of electric cars in an average person's budget by 2010.

Well that depends greatly on your local grid's source, doesn't it? Can you predict the kind of strain and all-electric transportation system would put on a grid, especially an all-renewable resource powered grid?

More importantly, are you going to shell out the money required to change over other power grids to renewable resources?

I am not an expert in the matter.

And I don't have the economical power of 260 millions people.

I am not an expert in the matter.

And I don't have the economical power of 260 millions people.

My point exactly.

Good luck going fast with any of those.

You didn't watch the videos where they went faster than some of the fastest production cars available, did you? I'm betting you didn't...the Tesla roadster is fast, and nimble (being built on the Elise's frame and all) and has a very functional range.

Counter (http://laweekly.com/news/features/whos-resurrecting-the-electric-car/13975/)

0-to-60 in 3.6 seconds. How many internal combustion engines can do that?

And here (http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=124716)'s the Tesla Roadster

$92,000, but that will come down as batteries improve and carbon-fiber body parts get easier to mass produce.

I can think of tons of cars that can do 0-60 in under that time.

Like my drag car :) :) :). 10 Seconds of fun.

Hehe, nice vid... :D

You didn't watch the videos where they went faster than some of the fastest production cars available, did you? I'm betting you didn't...the Tesla roadster is fast, and nimble (being built on the Elise's frame and all) and has a very functional range.

Pah! I can run faster than the Tesla. It only goes 130. I won't even get in a vehicle that does less than 900 mph.

Well that depends greatly on your local grid's source, doesn't it? Can you predict the kind of strain and all-electric transportation system would put on a grid, especially an all-renewable resource powered grid?
That would be the same strain. The electric car isn't going to go, "Hey, this is coming from solar! Drink up, boys!"

More importantly, are you going to shell out the money required to change over other power grids to renewable resources?
Sooner or later, one way or another. In my state and other states there is already money being invested in cleaner and more renewable resources for electricity.

Not to mention that this smug argument about the 'long tailpipe' ignores that even if it means the car is not truly 'zero emmission,' it is considerably more efficient to centralize that consumption and far far easier to control the emmissions of a plant than it is the emmissions of several small vehicles, so that you get 'equivilent' gas mileages in the hundreds and fractions of the carbon footprint. When you add things like algae traps on power plants that are impractical on individual producers like your car, the benefits really add up.

Is the electric car a magic wand? No. It's a tool in the box, there isn't going to be one magic solution that we do that and it's all better. Not everyone's needs are going to be met with an electric car. But many people's needs will. And that will have an impact.

I can think of tons of cars that can do 0-60 in under that time.

Like my drag car :) :) :). 10 Seconds of fun.

Well all those folks that ponies up 100k to be put on a 15th month waiting list seem to think it's very worthwhile. And it's lightyears away from the car in the video you posted.

<snip>

An intelligent response.

I just hate people that think electric cars will fix everything.




Nuclear power for the win.

I can think of tons of cars that can do 0-60 in under that time.

Like my drag car :) :) :). 10 Seconds of fun.

Drag racing is for racer wannabes who don't know what steering wheels are for.

Drag racing is for racer wannabes who don't know what steering wheels are for.

Drag racing is for people who know alot about cars, and dont feel like spending 100k on a rally car thats going to get wrecked anyway.

I always wonder where people intend to get the electricity to power their electric cars...

http://www.digitalunrestcomic.com/strips/2007-11-05.jpg

Well that depends greatly on your local grid's source, doesn't it? Can you predict the kind of strain and all-electric transportation system would put on a grid, especially an all-renewable resource powered grid?

More importantly, are you going to shell out the money required to change over other power grids to renewable resources?

Why not add solar panels to the car to charge the battery?

What about cloudy days you ask? That's why you have two or three spare batteries hooked up to . . . wait for it . . . a solar charger. This way you should always have at least one good battery available.

Drag racing is for people who know alot about cars, and dont feel like spending 100k on a rally car thats going to get wrecked anyway.

Or for people that have watched Fast and the Furious one too many times.

Why not add solar panels to the car to charge the battery?

What about cloudy days you ask? That's why you have two or three spare batteries hooked up to . . . wait for it . . . a solar charger. This way you should always have at least one good battery available.

Solar panels are 8% efficient, which means you'd have to leave your car out for a week to charge it.

And yay, three batteries! That's only 50 extra pounds you have to carry around, which shortens the battery life of the one you're using. And if you have them sitting in your garage, that's still a shyte ton of extra clutter laying around. These aren't a couple of AA batteries.

This is why I hate people who champion electric cars.

Drag racing is for people who know alot about cars, and dont feel like spending 100k on a rally car thats going to get wrecked anyway.

They know a lot about cars but don't know that there are more than just drag racers and rally racers? Or that there are different levels of rally racing including the club level (http://www.scca.com/contentpage.aspx?content=47) just like you do with your stunted runners that finish their race when they're just getting started?

Tesla Engines makes that high end electric car that's 0-60 in 4 seconds.
We'll see. I'm quite amazed that they actually managed to finish it now and its only the transmission that breaks, but it's still a long way from a real car. I'm still waiting to see credible driving reports, but what I heard so far is that this is a particularly expensive and gimicky Lotus for Hollywood stars and Silicon Valley entrepreneurs who want to be seen in public. So there we go: buy an Elise, not a Tesla.

Anyways, back in the real world, reality once again kicks conspiracy theorists in the nads:
http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11332425
When Nissan launches its new line of electrical vehicles in America in 2010, it will initially target fleet buyers, which can provide their own charging stations. “It will be a real business,” says Tom Lane, Nissan's global product-planning chief, “not just a way to sell 200 cars in California.” He expects sales to retail buyers to begin in 2012, at a price of around $25,000.

And can people stop talking about wrecking cars please? It hits too close to home right now. :(

An intelligent response.

I just hate people that think electric cars will fix everything.




Nuclear power for the win.

Eagerly awaiting nuclear powered cars. :D

Eagerly awaiting nuclear powered cars. :D

With graphite control rods.

Solar panels are 8% efficient, which means you'd have to leave your car out for a week to charge it.

And yay, three batteries! That's only 50 extra pounds you have to carry around, which shortens the battery life of the one you're using. And if you have them sitting in your garage, that's still a shyte ton of extra clutter laying around. These aren't a couple of AA batteries.

This is why I hate people who champion electric cars.

This is why I hate people who nay say crap without at least looking around. There are already solar roof cars (http://www.ubergizmo.com/15/archives/2008/05/solar_roof_for_the_prius.html) that don't take a week to charge-
The Prius is already one green vehicle, and here's another way to make it even more so with the SEV Solar Roof Module. Fitting snugly onto a stock Toyota Prius roofline, it offers 215 watts of energy that helps you drive without consuming a drop of fuel for an additional 20 miles per day. No plug-ins are required as regular sunlight would do. It takes approximately 2 to 3 hours to install and comes with a battery pack. The return on investment has been rated at around 2 to 3 years, so a simple mental calculation would mean the initial cost might be out of reach for some.
"Oh nozers, it isn't perfect out of the box! Trash it!" Yeah...with the first generation of commercial panels on the Prius already gives it a gasless 20 mile bump, the bulk of most peoples runs in a car.

As solar gets (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/12/23/2919/8613) cheaper (http://www.celsias.com/2007/11/23/nanosolars-breakthrough-technology-solar-now-cheaper-than-coal/) the option becomes more workable.

It amazes me that regardless of how much has developed in the last ten years alone, people would still think that a technology is stagnant.

We'll see. I'm quite amazed that they actually managed to finish it now and its only the transmission that breaks, but it's still a long way from a real car. I'm still waiting to see credible driving reports, but what I heard so far is that this is a particularly expensive and gimicky Lotus for Hollywood stars and Silicon Valley entrepreneurs who want to be seen in public. So there we go: buy an Elise, not a Tesla.

Anyways, back in the real world, reality once again kicks conspiracy theorists in the nads:
http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11332425


And can people stop talking about wrecking cars please? It hits too close to home right now. :(

Sorry about the wrecked car.:fluffle:

I don't think the Tesla is the coolest thing since sliced bread, or anything like that. I don't share your disdain for it, I do think it's rather nifty and will prove to be a decent high-end automobile. I am, however, eagely awaiting the Nissan (and hopefully GM) lines of cars that are going to be in the average person's price range.

This is why I hate people who nay say crap without at least looking around. There are already solar roof cars (http://www.ubergizmo.com/15/archives/2008/05/solar_roof_for_the_prius.html) that don't take a week to charge-

Hyperbole.

We'll see. I'm quite amazed that they actually managed to finish it now and its only the transmission that breaks, but it's still a long way from a real car. I'm still waiting to see credible driving reports, but what I heard so far is that this is a particularly expensive and gimicky Lotus for Hollywood stars and Silicon Valley entrepreneurs who want to be seen in public. So there we go: buy an Elise, not a Tesla.
Are you going to argue that specialty sports cars in general aren't essentially toys for the people with the coin to pay for them? The Roadster was, as they constantly admit and trumpet on their sight, a limited production car to prove concept and build the infrastructure and customer base to make a more affordable and flexible vehicle. Dude, you study economics, you know this model.

Anyways, back in the real world, reality once again kicks conspiracy theorists in the nads:
http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11332425
Once again, you know how this works. Electric cars are nothing without an infrastructure. You can build the best electric car in the world but if you can't plug it in what good is it? The best way to build that base is through fleet sales. This isn't a conspiracy or a slight against the feesibility of an electric car, it's just how you start to introduce a new way of doing things, much like how BMW is slowly introducing hydrogen cars here in California.


And can people stop talking about wrecking cars please? It hits too close to home right now. :(
Dude, did you crack up your Cleo? You gotta reel it in-only drive as fast as you can, not as fast as you want.

Solar panels are 8% efficient, which means you'd have to leave your car out for a week to charge it.

And yay, three batteries! That's only 50 extra pounds you have to carry around, which shortens the battery life of the one you're using. And if you have them sitting in your garage, that's still a shyte ton of extra clutter laying around. These aren't a couple of AA batteries.

This is why I hate people who champion electric cars.

This is why I hate people who nay say crap without at least looking around. There are already solar roof cars (http://www.ubergizmo.com/15/archives/2008/05/solar_roof_for_the_prius.html) that don't take a week to charge-

In addition, I said nothing about carrying the spare batteries IN THE CAR. If electric cars become common then why not a station (similar to, or added onto our current gas stations) where for a nominal charge you can drop off your nearly dead battery to recharge and replace it with a fully charged battery? The spares at home are so you don't need to go to station if you're just running the battery down tooling around town buying groceries and shit.

Hyperbole.

I don't think that word means what you think it means...

I don't think that word means what you think it means...

Actually, I'm fairly confident that it means significantly more than what you think it means.

Also:
INCONCEIVABLE!

Actually, I'm fairly confident that it means significantly more than what you think it means.

Also:
INCONCEIVABLE!
Nope, it doesn't. And since you didn't use a sentence we're left to figure out what you think. If you leave that up to internet debate, you're not going to get the benefit of the doubt. Now. While I was being snarky about, well, your snark, I wasn't taking your week-long estimate as 'actual' but rather pointing out that perfectly functional solar roofs are already added to hybrid cars and have a notable effect in normal daily use, contrary to snarky predictions.

Good luck going fast with any of those.

How fast do you need to go?

Nope, it doesn't. And since you didn't use a sentence we're left to figure out what you think. If you leave that up to internet debate, you're not going to get the benefit of the doubt. Now. While I was being snarky about, well, your snark, I wasn't taking your week-long estimate as 'actual' but rather pointing out that perfectly functional solar roofs are already added to hybrid cars and have a notable effect in normal daily use, contrary to snarky predictions.

Since we're not discussing mathematical functions, I would think that would narrow it down somewhat. Context.

Since we're not discussing mathematical functions, I would think that would narrow it down somewhat. Context.

The take away here is that one should use their words. For instance, how does identifying the obvious rhetorical device you use (by using a single word in response to something I said, leaving it open-are you calling what I said hyperbole? Are you asking for some hyperbole? Ohhh...you're identifying your hyperbole from two posts up the chain. But why? What does that reveal? Should I be pointing out two posts down when I use a simile or a preposition? Is there some sort of Pee Wee Herman game being played that I didn't know about? Obviously it was hyperbole, but the fact remains that effective solar roofing is already available in first generation-does calling 'hyperbole' give you a free round if you've actually used it once in a discussion? and so on...) change or challenge anything said?

I have a '95 Neon that will likely be turned into an electric as soon as I can buy another car to drive during the conversion. Imagine: Leave the thing in 3rd and expect a 0-60 that's better than the stock gas engine performance. I drive 5 miles each way for work, so a 50 mile range is more than ample for a commuter car. besides, I have a 400 CI V-8 awaiting a rebuild for long trips at freeway speeds :D

The take away here is that one should use their words. For instance, how does identifying the obvious rhetorical device you use (by using a single word in response to something I said, leaving it open-are you calling what I said hyperbole? Are you asking for some hyperbole? Ohhh...you're identifying your hyperbole from two posts up the chain. But why? What does that reveal? Should I be pointing out two posts down when I use a simile or a preposition? Is there some sort of Pee Wee Herman game being played that I didn't know about? Obviously it was hyperbole, but the fact remains that effective solar roofing is already available in first generation-does calling 'hyperbole' give you a free round if you've actually used it once in a discussion? and so on...) change or challenge anything said?

It's not my fault you took what I said literally. If you choose to deliberately misunderstand what I say, that's your fault, not mine.

It's not my fault you took what I said literally. If you choose to deliberately misunderstand what I say, that's your fault, not mine.

See champ, I didn't. I didn't even imply that I did in the post you just quoted. I just pointed out that functional solar roof cars already existed. And now we've wasted half a page. See why people should use complete sentences?

...The return on investment has been rated at around 2 to 3 years, so a simple mental calculation would mean the initial cost might be out of reach for some....

With Gas prices at $10 a gallon, that RoI will look a lot more appealing.

One of the reason why I argued for a doubling of gas prices in that gas thread a while ago where some were asking for taking away the gas tax due to the "because it is too expensive for me to sustain my current lifestyle" argument.

Btw, that "hyperbole" comment was more suited to the "it takes a week to charge" post. So perhaps that was what the poster was referring to. ;)

With Gas prices at $10 a gallon, that RoI will look a lot more appealing.

One of the reason why I argued for a doubling of gas prices in that gas thread a while ago where some were asking for taking away the gas tax due to the "because it is too expensive for me to sustain my current lifestyle" argument.

Btw, that "hyperbole" comment was more suited to the "it takes a week to charge" post. So perhaps that was what the poster was referring to. ;)
I know. I was trying to chide him on one word responses that didn't answer anything since I wasn't taking his 'week long' literally and identifying his rhetorical device wasn't productive. It went over swimmingly, as you can see.

I always wonder where people intend to get the electricity to power their electric cars...If you took the oil your car burned and burned it in one of the turbines used in a large power facility, you could power two and a half to three electric cars (provided you drove them similarly). There is a thing called fuel efficiency, and the internal combustion engine just does not have it.

That is of course assuming all places are stuck using oil plants to generate their electricity for them.

Well that depends greatly on your local grid's source, doesn't it? Can you predict the kind of strain and all-electric transportation system would put on a grid, especially an all-renewable resource powered grid?

More importantly, are you going to shell out the money required to change over other power grids to renewable resources?No one is saying it has to happen overnight. As power requirements increase you add a renewable resource facility to the grid. When an older oil/coal/whatever facility needs to be replaced, you replace it with a renewable facility. Renewable and non renewable facilities are not incompatible with each other and can be connected to the same grid (and if not, the engineers in your state should be round up and collectively shot).

So where do you intend to get it from?

Cats and amber rods. Where else?

Just wait until the Chevy Volt hits the market...you'll see a real boom in electric cars*, and I'd honestly say that product if they use it properly will push GM back to profitable global dominance in the automobile market.

Just wait until the Chevy Volt hits the market...you'll see a real boom in electric cars*, and I'd honestly say that product if they use it properly will push GM back to profitable global dominance in the automobile market.

Re: sig:

Don't forget that the street will find it's own uses for things.





<Ponders what nefarious purpose the street could have for electric cars . . .>

Re: sig:

Don't forget that the street will find it's own uses for things.





<Ponders what nefarious purpose the street could have for electric cars . . .>TERRORISM!! Electric cars should be banned for their potential use in terrorist attacks!

Hydroelectricity?
Not everyone has a river they can dam. And what about the fish?

Wind?
When windspeed drops by 1/2 the energy contained therein drops by 1/2*1/2*1/2. You can't fix the intermittent nature of wind or power loss with a better windmill.

The sun?
If we were talking about a Dyson Sphere I would agree but it doesn't work so well on Earth. That pesky atmosphere tends to get in the way and mass producing high efficiency cells is expensive.

Noooo, it's GOT to come from oil, doesn't it?
No one said that. Hydrocarbons just happen to be a still plentiful source of energy. Uranium and Plutonium are another current option that I don't think is used enough.

Get your head out of the clouds, there's plenty of real solutions yet to be tapped fully.

Not everyone has a river they can dam. And what about the fish?

Screw the fish. When we say jump (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_ladder), they'll jump.

Screw the fish. When we say jump (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_ladder), they'll jump.
There are better ways of getting power, methods that don't have as great an impact on the environment. A few fission reactors would provide the power needed without making fish jump through hoops to propagate their species.

If we were talking about a Dyson Sphere I would agree but it doesn't work so well on Earth. That pesky atmosphere tends to get in the way and mass producing high efficiency cells is expensive.
.

It's cheaper than coal. (http://www.celsias.com/2007/11/23/nanosolars-breakthrough-technology-solar-now-cheaper-than-coal/)

On a more serious note…

When windspeed drops by 1/2 the energy contained therein drops by 1/2*1/2*1/2. You can't fix the intermittent nature of wind or power loss with a better windmill.

High-altitude winds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_wind_turbine) are a plentiful and completely unharnessed source of energy. Still intermittent, of course, but less so.

If we were talking about a Dyson Sphere I would agree but it doesn't work so well on Earth. That pesky atmosphere tends to get in the way and mass producing high efficiency cells is expensive.

In the future™ titania nanotubes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cells#Nanoparticle_processing) could provide a cheap, efficient solar cell.

I forgot about tidal harnesses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_energy). Those are good too.

On a more serious note…

High-altitude winds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_wind_turbine) are a plentiful and completely unharnessed source of energy. Still intermittent, of course, but less so.

In the future™ titania nanotubes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cells#Nanoparticle_processing) could provide a cheap, efficient solar cell.

A guy over in biochem is working on some kind of organic molecule that will supposedly serve cost effective photovoltaics....I can't remember anything about his work, but his first name is Dong....

A guy over in biochem is working on some kind of organic molecule that will supposedly serve cost effective photovoltaics....I can't remember anything about his work, but his first name is Dong....

Another potentially great career felled by a funny name.
*sheds tear*

Another potentially great career felled by a funny name.
*sheds tear*

I think he uses his first two initials on grant requests...

Actually, a bunch of guys from Phys and Chem on a big umbrella grant from DOE are really pushing the nuclear solution.

Course, they're getting most of their cash from Yucca Mountain disbursements...

It's cheaper than coal. (http://www.celsias.com/2007/11/23/nanosolars-breakthrough-technology-solar-now-cheaper-than-coal/)

Guess where a sizeable chunk on my stock is invested? :cool:

Course, they're getting most of their cash from Yucca Mountain disbursements...

Well, hell, at least that money's going somewhere…

Guess where a sizeable chunk on my stock is invested? :cool:
Then why aren't you a gazillionare yet?

Then why aren't you a gazillionare yet?

Who's to say he isn't?

Everyone knows clowning (clownery?) is the hobby of a playboy.

Then why aren't you a gazillionare yet?

Because my chunks are still pretty small. But they're getting bigger. :p

Who's to say he isn't?

Everyone knows clowning (clownery?) is the hobby of a playboy.

Well let's just say that properly invested, my nestegg can keep my family living as we do now for the rest our lives. But I credit my wife with most of that. Believe it or not, I'm a bit too spontaneous to be good with money. *shrug*

Believe it or not, I'm a bit too spontaneous to be good with money. *shrug*

*withdraws investments from National Bank of Goofballs*

Guess where a sizeable chunk on my stock is invested? :cool:

I wish I had money I could invest myself...

*withdraws investments from National Bank of Goofballs*

Okay, but you'll miss out on the free taco bar for investors. :p

I wish I had money I could invest myself...

You will. Ten years ago, I used to gripe how older people had all the money. Now I've got a foot in that door.

You will. Ten years ago, I used to gripe how older people had all the money. Now I've got a foot in that door.

Except that I'm a year older than you...

Except that I'm a year older than you...

Right. He has his foot in your door now. How do you like it, pops?

I always wonder where people intend to get the electricity to power their electric cars...

Pedal powered generator of course.

Got three kids in the back? You can go faster!

Pedal powered generator of course.

Got three kids in the back? You can go faster!

Mormons will dominate NASCAR...

well oil still controls politics, batteries do not remain rechargable for ever, and they sill run and depend upon roads wider and straighter then you'd need to walk on or for my little trains, tearing up the countryside and destroying habitat all over the place.

but other then that, as cars go, if you absolutely insist on personal private transportation, they beat the hell out of anything that burns anything.

energy to propel transportation can be stored in even better environmental ways then batteries. though of course each are not without their own unique challanges.

compressed air, flywheels, and escarpments (clockworks) are all ways of doing this. and the power to recharge any of them, CAN come from a grid that would supplied by a combination of clean tecnologies, just as it is now by a combination of dirty ones (with slowly an implimentation here and there of cleaner ones).

electric cars COULD be one possible future if that's what people choose. and as oil becomes scarcer it will continue to become a more attractive option, which as long as oil controls politics it will likely continue to attempt to repress.

personally i'd rather see whatever replaces the current paradigm, on very narrow gauge rails and built to the smallest practical form factor, to make the most efficient, i.e. least environmentally detrimental, use of both energy and materials.

=^^=
.../\...

More importantly, are you going to shell out the money required to change over other power grids to renewable resources?

You know, the funny thing about that is, people do. Most of the alternative electricity production in Germany is in the hand of small to very small private cooperatives, usually villages that get together and invest in wind turbines or solar farms. And it does pay off for them, apparently.

I always wonder where people intend to get the electricity to power their electric cars...

Nuclear power is your friend.

Seriously, people should have the choice of electric cars if they wish to drive them.

I don't see the need to be anti-electric car.

Nuclear power is your friend.

Seriously, people should have the choice of electric cars if they wish to drive them.

I don't see the need to be anti-electric car.

nuclear power is the way to go.
maybe 10% solar and 10% wind. but nuclear is likely going to become the lion share producer of electricity.

What people don't realize is the more oil prices rise, the bigger the incentive to build nuclear.

Rising oil prices are the best friend of the environmentalist movement.

nuclear power is the way to go.
maybe 10% solar and 10% wind. but nuclear is likely going to become the lion share producer of electricity.

Why?
Nuclear power is relying heavily on government subsidies at the moment and will most likely never be cost-efficient (even if you facture out the cost of disposing of the waste in a way that won't come back to bite you in the arse in a few years).

What's wrong with solar, wind, water and tidal power? Energy to be harvested, rather than labourously produced...

Except that I'm a year older than you...

You're fucked. :(

but other then that, as cars go, if you absolutely insist on personal private transportation, they beat the hell out of anything that burns anything.

People do.

I use public transport and I'm happy with it. But some places and some times, I'd prefer not to be in the company of strangers while getting about. I'd feel even more strongly about that if I was a woman, lived in a more dangerous city, or had children.

It's a question of community. A local bus, or a bus in a country town, where most of the people riding know each other, is a quite different proposition from from a peak hour bus or train. Cities are crowded and chaotic, there is enough anonymity that people behave like assholes and get away with it.

The ideal transport system for cities would involve small private areas like the inside of a car, where you have privacy. You're safe from people touching you, talking to you, sharing their airborne diseases with you or taking the last seat. You can jack your sound-system up, burn incense, or have sex in the back seat (with curtains drawn I guess), and not bother anyone else.

But I imagine a better transport system as also being far more affordable than cars currently are. The motive power and the control systems are taken out of the private transport unit, and made part of the infrastructure, both for accessibility and safety reasons.

Trains might well be a part of this system, for trunk routes. The "car" remains a private space, but it's added to a 'colony' of similar cars pulled along a main line.

energy to propel transportation can be stored in even better environmental ways then batteries. though of course each are not without their own unique challanges.

compressed air, thermal waste in compression and decompression is an issue. With cheap clean energy, yes a real option. flywheels yes, in some situations, though gyrosopic effects are awkward. Bearings are getting into the necessary range of efficiency, with modern materials. and escarpments (clockworks) An "escapement" I think you mean, but that's merely a device of clock timing. Again, modern materials are getting into the range where "rubber band" motors, springs basically, are a viable for local transport. (You didn't mention hydrogen?) are all ways of doing this. and the power to recharge any of them, CAN come from a grid that would be supplied by a combination of clean technologies, just as it is now by a combination of dirty ones (with slowly an implementation here and there of cleaner ones).
Well, I see this as a good reason to resist the economic pressure to scrap our old-fashioned rail system. Electric trains and cars aren't obsoleted by new sources of electric power, and we should even keep diesel trains in case we can replace only the locomotives with non-combustion locos which don't require electrification of lines (expensive and wasteful on long routes.) Even nuclear-powered locos are practical, trains can be very safe though there reputation suffers because the infrastructure has been allowed to run down since the heyday of rail, and fallible humans (drivers and controllers) refuse to give up their vestiges of control over what should be a completely automated system.

personally i'd rather see whatever replaces the current paradigm, on very narrow gauge rails and built to the smallest practical form factor, to make the most efficient, i.e. least environmentally detrimental, use of both energy and materials

Rails might be a part of a better system than open roads, but to be safe and reliable I feel we need a system of tunnels to exclude either deliberate or accidental intrusion of non-transport objects and creatures into the thoroughfare. Possibly also to cut the inefficiency of pushing air out of the way. High speed rail, while a far sounder solution than jet transport, can't safely get up to the same speeds because of the danger of stuff getting in the way.

When considering a more optimal system, we must offer not only improvements but at least meet the current system on ALL ordinates: privacy during travel, safety, speed and cost per commuter. While a centrally powered and controlled system might sound very expensive to put in place, we need only consider that in a city situation it would serve a far greater proportion of the population than cars currently do. It is impossible for all car drivers to drive all the time, there just isn't enough road in any city. It is even more impossible for everyone to have a car, and drive all the time -- the current system depends on "haves and have-nots" and road taxes, fuel prices etc adjust to keep it that way unless we deliberately build a system which can transport everyone a low individual cost.

There is one aspect which cars provide which will have to go: the recreational aspect of controlling a car (on a public road). People enjoy driving, but that is inseperable from an unacceptable level of risk. Human error in driving kills and injures so many people (particularly young people) that the "fun" of it simply has to go. I don't think they'll miss it that badly, though, when they have the alternative of staying in bed for half an hour longer (in their 'car' on the way to work) or surfing the net while the 'car' drives.

I forgot to mention trolley-cars. Overhead wires are ugly, but there might be ways of carrying power to 'cars' through the road. That would be prohibitively expensive for ALL roads, but put into the 10% or so of main roads, it could allow for recharging electric cars on the go, which would then only need enough battery capacity to get down the capillary roads or from one electrified route to another.

But I would still prefer to take the engine out of the 'car' and leave only a comfortable private space as the individual investment a 'car' user is personally responsible for and has to buy.

Why?
Nuclear power is relying heavily on government subsidies at the moment and will most likely never be cost-efficient (even if you facture out the cost of disposing of the waste in a way that won't come back to bite you in the arse in a few years).

What's wrong with solar, wind, water and tidal power? Energy to be harvested, rather than labourously produced...

http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/costs.htm


Item Cost Element Nuclear Coal

$/Mw-hr

$/Mw-hr
1 Fuel 5.0 11.0
2 Operating & Maintenance - Labor & Materials 6.0 5.0
3 Pensions, Insurance, Taxes 1.0 1.0
4 Regulatory Fees 1.0 0.1
5 Property Taxes 2.0 2.0
6 Capital 9.0 9.0
7 Decommissioning & DOE waste costs 5.0 0.0
8 Administrative / overheads 1.0 1.0
Total 30.0 29.1

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html
some countries actually have nuclear fuel that is cheaper then coal.
nuclear in comparable to coal in cost per KW/hour.


Also nuclear has about the same to slightly less Carbon foot print then Solar Per Kilowatt hour. the high end are from the old American reactors, new europeons ones tend to be as good to slightly better then Solar.
http://motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/05/nuke-vs-solar-the-carbon-calculus.html


Wind and Solar are too unstable. during the Summer in the US a high pressure system normally sets in causing winds to die down right as we need electricity for AC. Storms can also set in for weeks imagine a solar power Dependant community losing the ability to heat their homes during a bad snow storm because the sun has been blocked by clouds and snow for too long.

http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/costs.htm


http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html
some countries actually have nuclear fuel that is cheaper then coal.
nuclear in comparable to coal in cost per KW/hour.


Also nuclear has about the same to slightly less Carbon foot print then Solar Per Kilowatt hour. the high end are from the old American reactors, new europeons ones tend to be as good to slightly better then Solar.
http://motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/05/nuke-vs-solar-the-carbon-calculus.html

I never said that coal would be more efficient than nuclear. Way to argue a strawman, there.


Wind and Solar are too unstable. during the Summer in the US a high pressure system normally sets in causing winds to die down right as we need electricity for AC. Storms can also set in for weeks imagine a solar power Dependant community losing the ability to heat their homes during a bad snow storm because the sun has been blocked by clouds and snow for too long.

Well, storms would be a good time for wind power and tidal power. High pressure weather systems would be great for solar. And water/tidal power is available year-round and independent of the weather.
Putting all your eggs in one basket is of course stupid, but in the situations you describe, a good mix of alternative energy sources would produce more than enough electricity.

Wind and Solar are too unstable. during the Summer in the US a high pressure system normally sets in causing winds to die down right as we need electricity for AC. Storms can also set in for weeks imagine a solar power Dependant community losing the ability to heat their homes during a bad snow storm because the sun has been blocked by clouds and snow for too long.

I don't dispute that both solar and wind can't provide baseload, but in the example you gave (storms) the wind is there just when the solar isn't.

And all power needs are not baseload. Charging electric cars is a good example -- the car is off the road most of the time (unless it's a taxi or delivery vehicle, or is used in shifts by different drivers, eg a truck) and if you have the option of charging it overnight or while it's parked in the office parking-lot, it can be charged when the power is available.

(Since I haven't given my view on electric cars: I hugely prefer them to petrol burners even if the power is coming from burning coal. Carbon emissions aren't the only factor, the politics of oil are terrible and will cause serious wars if we remain dependent on oil. Electric cars are somewhat practical now, and can be very good for the next decade or so if they have enough market share to drive R & D.)

I'm not keen on nuclear. I simply don't have enough faith in the future to believe that we will pay what it takes to safely decommission the plants and deal with the waste. Also, if industrialized nations go back into building nuclear plants, industrializing countries will follow and are far more likely to fuck it up.

Putting all your eggs in one basket is of course stupid, but in the situations you describe, a good mix of alternative energy sources would produce more than enough electricity.

think of the cost.
you would have to provide enough power Via wind for 100% of the grid. to cover when the weather is bad.
then you need to provide enough solar for 200% of the grid ( the 1st 100% covers night time usage). Not to mention the cost of storing said power until nighttime
I leave out tidal since that is mostly for the coast.
and forbid that stratus clouds come in. Little to no wind but they sit there covering the sky for days or weeks at a time. Not everything that blocks out the sun produces wind.

I never said that coal would be more efficient than nuclear. Way to argue a strawman, there.

Coal is cheap, but largely because not all the costs are counted. Solid waste, for instance, is passed off as "cinderblock" when really it's terribly toxic. If the same standards were applied to it as to nuclear waste, the price of coal power would be a lot higher.

I know you weren't arguing FOR COAL, but it's a good example of how we could fuck up with nuclear: simply deny that what we have built is not economical, and hide some of the costs.

[...]
Well, storms would be a good time for wind power and tidal power.

Yes. You don't get all the wind power available during a storm, the unit needs to be feathered to avoid damage unless it was built for gale-force winds (which would make it less effective in average winds) but there's more power available than when the air is still.

I'll get out of the way of you and GAD now. Enjoy your argument ;)

think of the cost.
you would have to provide enough power Via wind for 100% of the grid. to cover when the weather is bad.
then you need to provide enough solar for 200% of the grid ( the 1st 100% covers night time usage). Not to mention the cost of storing said power until nighttime

No, you wouldn't. The safest bet for basic supply is water power, and possibly geothermal engery (Germany and Austria are experimenting with that at the moment)


I leave out tidal since that is mostly for the coast.

Right. So electricity never gets transported anywhere round where you live, then?


and forbid that stratus clouds come in. Little to no wind but they sit there covering the sky for days or weeks at a time. Not everything that blocks out the sun produces wind.

What's wrong with clouds? They'll reduce the electricity produced somewhat, but they won't disable production altogether. Or does you pocket calculator stop working as soon as there's no direct sunlight on that little photo cell?

What people don't realize is the more oil prices rise, the bigger the incentive to build nuclear.

Rising oil prices are the best friend of the environmentalist movement.

The environmentalist movement is older than global warming. Most environmentalists correctly identify global warming as a medium-term issue and only one of many serious concerns.

There is, however, a strong correlation at present between carbon emissions and the over-use of all non-renewable resources. Any solution to the energy crisis (well, its a long slow crisis but it still qualifies -- growing need, limited means) ... any solution which claims that high emissions can continue without causing harm almost certainly involves running down some limited resource.

For instance, 'renewable' resources like crops for ethanol or tree planting to replace destroyed old forest involve depletion of under-recognized value like topsoil or biodiversity.

Environmentalists have won many victories, but just like feminism, once the mainstream has come around to what was once a "radical green policy" we tend to not see it as "environmentalism" any more but rational policy.

It would be almost funny the way conservatives take the side of whatever was hard-won by radicals ... if the stakes weren't so high. The world needs six billion environmentalists!

An intelligent response.

I just hate people that think electric cars will fix everything.




Nuclear power for the win.

Now that you mention nuclear power it brings up a point I heard on a talk show not to long ago. If the US were to turn to Nuclear power on a truly large scale we would have massive power during night time low usage. We would have to have an avenue to sell that power in the evening hours. Why? because Nuclear power plants cant be turned down very easily. They need to operate at peak capacity much of the time. What would solve the problem of the excess energy at night being sold for a pitance thus making Nuclear power unprofitable on a large scale in the US? Electric cars.....

http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/costs.htm


http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html
some countries actually have nuclear fuel that is cheaper then coal.
nuclear in comparable to coal in cost per KW/hour.


Also nuclear has about the same to slightly less Carbon foot print then Solar Per Kilowatt hour. the high end are from the old American reactors, new europeons ones tend to be as good to slightly better then Solar.
http://motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/05/nuke-vs-solar-the-carbon-calculus.html


Wind and Solar are too unstable. during the Summer in the US a high pressure system normally sets in causing winds to die down right as we need electricity for AC. Storms can also set in for weeks imagine a solar power Dependant community losing the ability to heat their homes during a bad snow storm because the sun has been blocked by clouds and snow for too long.


You can't have a fully Nuclear power grid in the US. You could only produce enough Nuclear power to satisfy the lowest usage. Because Nuclear power has to run at full capacity all the time. You need another source of power to fill in the peak demands. Thus nuclear power is only efficient to a point. If we did have a market at night for power such as electric cars or something else then we could use Nuclear power to it's fullest. As we stand we have to many peaks and valleys to make a true transition. With that said a fully Nuclear power grid vs a Coal power grid the Coal power grid would win every time.

No, you wouldn't. The safest bet for basic supply is water power, and possibly geothermal engery (Germany and Austria are experimenting with that at the moment)

even Google does not produce a straight answer of what that is.
Please elaborate. If you mean hydro electric damn then i am all for it those damn hippies have pretty much stopped those from be developed.

Right. So electricity never gets transported anywhere round where you live, then?

in transporting electricity you lose electricity. to transport from California to Kansas with the current Grid you will likely lose 80% of the wattage. despite most of the grid being interconnected it is very unlikely for power to come from farther away then the 5 closest power stations due to electricity tending to take the path of least resistance. Also if consumption exceeded production instead of fairly random and rolling brown outs you would get black outs in the center of the nation(midwest) since users on the coast could more easily pull the energy then users away form the coast.

Also Tidal energy tends to disrupt coastal plant and animal life. To produce enough electricity via tidal energy we would likely disrupt life all along both the east and the west coast.


What's wrong with clouds? They'll reduce the electricity produced somewhat, but they won't disable production altogether. Or does you pocket calculator stop working as soon as there's no direct sunlight on that little photo cell?

Stratus clouds can be miles thick and can block upwards of 60% of solar energy. so willing to turn off half the homes in your town when a stratus cloud settles in ?

even Google does not produce a straight answer of what that is.
Please elaborate. If you mean hydro electric damn then i am all for it those damn hippies have pretty much stopped those from be developed.

How did you jump from geothermal to hydroelectricity???

It's this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power), although there's no mention of some recent studies and projects in Europe, as far as I can see. I'll go digging for those in a minute.


in transporting electricity you lose electricity. to transport from California to Kansas with the current Grid you will likely lose 80% of the wattage. despite most of the grid being interconnected it is very unlikely for power to come from farther away then the 5 closest power stations due to electricity tending to take the path of least resistance. Also if consumption exceeded production instead of fairly random and rolling brown outs you would get black outs in the center of the nation(midwest) since users on the coast could more easily pull the energy then users away form the coast.

Funny how you loose so much transporting it, yet it's still a major export from Europe to Russia...


Also Tidal energy tends to disrupt coastal plant and animal life. To produce enough electricity via tidal energy we would likely disrupt life all along both the east and the west coast.

It does not. That's a lovely urban myth.


Stratus clouds can be miles thick and can block upwards of 60% of solar energy. so willing to turn off half the homes in your town when a stratus cloud settles in ?

Yes, cause each town only supplies its own energy, right? Cause there's no grid that distributes from one place to another, from producer to user. So no one town can ever afford to produce less enegery from one source, as there is no backup in other areas, using the same or different sources.

No, you wouldn't. The safest bet for basic supply is water power, and possibly geothermal engery (Germany and Austria are experimenting with that at the moment)?

Don't forget Iceland and the US.

Is this the truth about electric cars or just a little slam fest on a specific one?

If you're going to whine about the electric car, you might as well be current. It'd be like insisting that the combustion engine sucks because the Model T is a hassle.

Exactly.

How fast do you need to go?

ABSOLUTELY!

The DEMAND for horsepower and speed when there are speed limits on every road you can drive on is just plain stupid. When some conservatives complain that "the government" wants to force us into "unsafe cars", my blood starts boiling. You don't need the 10 mpg behemoth to cart your kids around in safety. You need an automobile industry that reads the writing on the wall with regard to fuel efficiency. The only thing "unsafe" about cars are the people driving them. It's as if some commentators (okay, it's Rush and Hannity) are perfectly willing to accept as normal the number of people who are killed on roads every year. If even a fraction of that is because of the size discrepancy between a Chevy Suburban and a Scion xA, let's look at the actual need for a car like the Suburban and re-evaluate it. A station wagon fits as may passengers and gets much better mileage than an SUV.

I'm not proposing getting rid of big vehicles -- they're obviously needed in industry and farming/ranching (mostly pickup trucks), and the like. But plenty of people COMMUTE in these damned things, and it's irresponsible.

I have no idea how to get the majority of US drivers off the horsepower teat, but I've got a car (2002 Honda Civic Si) that has a 2.0L DOHC i-VTEC engine that delivers 32mpg at North Dakota freeway speeds (limit = 75mph), and it is a pleasure to drive without having a damned V8. Assholes doing 90 are wasting gas, period, and larger assholes with larger engines need to be pimp-slapped into the reality that the world, in many cases, does not revolve around them.

I realize this rant is likely full of holes, but I don't care. I'm sick of seeing and hearing about 500hp Mustangs and engines like that whose sole purpose is to distract from the bald spot and sagging penis of a man going through mid-life. And the women who consider this horsepower horseshit sexy? Unconscionable.

*dons flame-proof suit, waits*

People do.

I use public transport and I'm happy with it. But some places and some times, I'd prefer not to be in the company of strangers while getting about. I'd feel even more strongly about that if I was a woman, lived in a more dangerous city, or had children.

It's a question of community. A local bus, or a bus in a country town, where most of the people riding know each other, is a quite different proposition from from a peak hour bus or train. Cities are crowded and chaotic, there is enough anonymity that people behave like assholes and get away with it.

The ideal transport system for cities would involve small private areas like the inside of a car, where you have privacy. You're safe from people touching you, talking to you, sharing their airborne diseases with you or taking the last seat. You can jack your sound-system up, burn incense, or have sex in the back seat (with curtains drawn I guess), and not bother anyone else.

But I imagine a better transport system as also being far more affordable than cars currently are. The motive power and the control systems are taken out of the private transport unit, and made part of the infrastructure, both for accessibility and safety reasons.

Trains might well be a part of this system, for trunk routes. The "car" remains a private space, but it's added to a 'colony' of similar cars pulled along a main line.

thermal waste in compression and decompression is an issue. With cheap clean energy, yes a real option. yes, in some situations, though gyrosopic effects are awkward. Bearings are getting into the necessary range of efficiency, with modern materials. An "escapement" I think you mean, but that's merely a device of clock timing. Again, modern materials are getting into the range where "rubber band" motors, springs basically, are a viable for local transport. (You didn't mention hydrogen?)
Well, I see this as a good reason to resist the economic pressure to scrap our old-fashioned rail system. Electric trains and cars aren't obsoleted by new sources of electric power, and we should even keep diesel trains in case we can replace only the locomotives with non-combustion locos which don't require electrification of lines (expensive and wasteful on long routes.) Even nuclear-powered locos are practical, trains can be very safe though there reputation suffers because the infrastructure has been allowed to run down since the heyday of rail, and fallible humans (drivers and controllers) refuse to give up their vestiges of control over what should be a completely automated system.



Rails might be a part of a better system than open roads, but to be safe and reliable I feel we need a system of tunnels to exclude either deliberate or accidental intrusion of non-transport objects and creatures into the thoroughfare. Possibly also to cut the inefficiency of pushing air out of the way. High speed rail, while a far sounder solution than jet transport, can't safely get up to the same speeds because of the danger of stuff getting in the way.

When considering a more optimal system, we must offer not only improvements but at least meet the current system on ALL ordinates: privacy during travel, safety, speed and cost per commuter. While a centrally powered and controlled system might sound very expensive to put in place, we need only consider that in a city situation it would serve a far greater proportion of the population than cars currently do. It is impossible for all car drivers to drive all the time, there just isn't enough road in any city. It is even more impossible for everyone to have a car, and drive all the time -- the current system depends on "haves and have-nots" and road taxes, fuel prices etc adjust to keep it that way unless we deliberately build a system which can transport everyone a low individual cost.

There is one aspect which cars provide which will have to go: the recreational aspect of controlling a car (on a public road). People enjoy driving, but that is inseperable from an unacceptable level of risk. Human error in driving kills and injures so many people (particularly young people) that the "fun" of it simply has to go. I don't think they'll miss it that badly, though, when they have the alternative of staying in bed for half an hour longer (in their 'car' on the way to work) or surfing the net while the 'car' drives.

Excellent post. Completely agreed. But the average US driver is far to megalomaniacal to ever "surrender control" or "surrender power" to the overwhelmingly greater good.

Right. He has his foot in your door now. How do you like it, pops?

I think that depends on if he used lube or not.

Is there an electric car that can go 100 miles to the charge, with a maximum speed of 80 mph and rechargeable batteries?(I'm pretty sure the rechargeable batteries are standard...otherwise one would be constantly replacing batteries.)
Preferably in the range of $0-$30,000

(I'm pretty sure the rechargeable batteries are standard...otherwise one would be constantly replacing batteries.)

Rechargable? What are ya, some kind of greenie?

Disposable cars ftw. Why waste time finding a park? Just pull up, get out and set the sucker on fire.

Rechargable? What are ya, some kind of greenie?

Disposable cars ftw. Why waste time finding a park? Just pull up, get out and set the sucker on fire.

I*know you are joking, but the problem with that is you wouldn't have a car after you...set it on fire... So, unless the disposable cars are really compact and lightweight and you can fit them in your pocket, it is rather unfeasible.

*think

I have no idea how to get the majority of US drivers off the horsepower teat, but I've got a car (2002 Honda Civic Si) that has a 2.0L DOHC i-VTEC engine that delivers 32mpg at North Dakota freeway speeds (limit = 75mph), and it is a pleasure to drive without having a damned V8. Assholes doing 90 are wasting gas, period, and larger assholes with larger engines need to be pimp-slapped into the reality that the world, in many cases, does not revolve around them.

I realize this rant is likely full of holes, but I don't care. I'm sick of seeing and hearing about 500hp Mustangs and engines like that whose sole purpose is to distract from the bald spot and sagging penis of a man going through mid-life. And the women who consider this horsepower horseshit sexy? Unconscionable.
You'll never ever see me commute in a V8 super-car or anything like that, heck I'm a public transporter (I commute by train, back and foot every day). But damn, the feeling of a thundering V8, the vibrations through your spine, the acceleration pushing you into your seat...beautifull, absolutly amazing...WRAWR!!!
By the way, melikes this little baby:
http://www.fuel-efficient-vehicles.org/energy-news/wp-content/uploads/tesla-roadster-at-pacific.jpg
The Tesla Roadster is a fully electric sports car, and is the first car produced by electric car firm Tesla Motors. The car can travel 225 mi (362 km)[2] on a single charge of its lithium-ion battery pack and accelerate from 0-60 mph (97 km/h) in 3.9 seconds with the development transmission. The Roadster's efficiency is reported as 133 W·h/km (4.7 mi/kW·h), equivalent to 135 mpg–U.S. (1.74 L/100 km / 162.1 mpg–imp).[3][4][5][6][7]
I'de dig it, that thing is smokin'

I*know you are joking, but the problem with that is you wouldn't have a car after you...set it on fire... So, unless the disposable cars are really compact and lightweight and you can fit them in your pocket, it is rather unfeasible.

*think

You get a new one from a vending machine, of course.

Electric cars will be widely commerically viable only when they can match the range and quick refil capabilities of internal combustion.

Internal combustion engines can travel 600-1200 km without needing fuel, and can fill up again from empty in only a few minutes. When I can have an electric car that can reproduce that behaviour, I'll be interested.

ah, 100 years ago when the petrol powered internal combustion engine was still in its very early days, i'm fairly sure you wouldn't have gotten much better performance, and certainly less features (no cup holders :eek: )... and way less mpg as well.

as with any new tech, give it time. but, in my rather limited knowledge, hydrogen-fuel-cell seems to be a more suitable and viable replacement for oil fuelled cars.

ah, 100 years ago when the petrol powered internal combustion engine was still in its very early days, i'm fairly sure you wouldn't have gotten much better performance, and certainly less features (no cup holders :eek: )... and way less mpg as well.

as with any new tech, give it time. but, in my rather limited knowledge, hydrogen-fuel-cell seems to be a more suitable and viable replacement for oil fuelled cars.
If you can drive non-stop from Berlin to Barcelona in one, let me know.

Are you going to argue that specialty sports cars in general aren't essentially toys for the people with the coin to pay for them?
There's something particularly cynical about this one though.

This isn't a conspiracy or a slight against the feesibility of an electric car, it's just how you start to introduce a new way of doing things, much like how BMW is slowly introducing hydrogen cars here in California.
I meant the other conspiracy, the one where car companies had the technology for many years but were keeping it all down at the behest of evil oil companies. I don't actually mind electric cars for the people who want them, but I also know that as soon as they exist there'll be people asking quite seriously for combustion-engined cars to be banned outright. And politicians will listen.

Dude, did you crack up your Cleo? You gotta reel it in-only drive as fast as you can, not as fast as you want.
Shit happens. The problem is if the shit involves the tires digging into a gravel trap, flipping the car and rolling it twice...

If you can drive non-stop from Berlin to Barcelona in one, let me know.

That's a hell of a commute! :eek:

*dons flame-proof suit, waits*
Well done. The idea that people could like things you don't like is an affront and there should be a law against it.

Electric cars will be widely commerically viable only when they can match the range and quick refil capabilities of internal combustion.

Internal combustion engines can travel 600-1200 km without needing fuel, and can fill up again from empty in only a few minutes. When I can have an electric car that can reproduce that behaviour, I'll be interested.

It's "only a few minutes" which you spend standing on a paved concourse, in an environment which stinks of petrochemicals, and exposed to the public. Petrol stations have to be open long hours and accept cash. They are implicitly dangerous.

Whereas the slower electric recharging happens while you're fixing your after-work drink and relaxing in your own home. Or it happens at the other end of your journey. Car trips based around the private residence are the core purpose of having a car.

What is your next objection? Being deprived of that wonderful headspin of snorting hydrocarbons ?

That's a hell of a commute! :eek:

Spain offers free pie to all employees whilst Germany only gives out Sauerkraut. Personally I would commute too.

Shit happens. The problem is if the shit involves the tires digging into a gravel trap, flipping the car and rolling it twice...
:eek: So is it dead now? Clio no more? I hope not. :(

Spain offers free pie to all employees whilst Germany only gives out Sauerkraut. Personally I would commute too.

I'm sold. :)

Well done. The idea that people could like things you don't like is an affront and there should be a law against it.

Not a bit. Feel free to burn petrol and pollute the air, endanger everyone (driver or pedestrian) with the human fallibility of driving, and destroy your own property for fun.

But do it on private property, not on a public road.

The thoroughfare was there before the cars were ... even privately-built tollways depend on government power to compulsorily acquire land in the public interest.

:eek: So is it dead now? Clio no more? I hope not. :(
Well, insurance won't pay since it happened on the track. The drivetrain and steering survived intact, quite miraculously, and we were able to drive it home. But the roof is caved in, every panel is dented and scratched, the windows are gone (covering me in shards in the process :rolleyes:), the passenger side-airbag went off etc etc

Chances are I don't have the money to do the repairs (if they're even possible, I haven't had the time to get that checked yet) and will have to sell it as it is for whatever little sum I can get. Then I'll have to buy some little thing and start all over again.

That's racing, as they say, but that doesn't make it any better. It convinced me though that in the future I'll always race a designated track car. I might have to get together with some friends to build one.

Well, insurance won't pay since it happened on the track. The drivetrain and steering survived intact, quite miraculously, and we were able to drive it home. But the roof is caved in, every panel is dented and scratched, the windows are gone (covering me in shards in the process :rolleyes:), the passenger side-airbag went off etc etc

Chances are I don't have the money to do the repairs (if they're even possible, I haven't had the time to get that checked yet) and will have to sell it as it is for whatever little sum I can get. Then I'll have to buy some little thing and start all over again.

That's racing, as they say, but that doesn't make it any better. It convinced me though that in the future I'll always race a designated track car. I might have to get together with some friends to build one.

See, this is why I play rugby. If you get wrecked, you can heal. :)

Well, insurance won't pay since it happened on the track. The drivetrain and steering survived intact, quite miraculously, and we were able to drive it home. But the roof is caved in, every panel is dented and scratched, the windows are gone (covering me in shards in the process :rolleyes:), the passenger side-airbag went off etc etc

Chances are I don't have the money to do the repairs (if they're even possible, I haven't had the time to get that checked yet) and will have to sell it as it is for whatever little sum I can get. Then I'll have to buy some little thing and start all over again.

That's racing, as they say, but that doesn't make it any better. It convinced me though that in the future I'll always race a designated track car. I might have to get together with some friends to build one.

Aw, no, that really sucks. I'm sorry. It was still so new!
Well, at least you didn't get all dented and broken, too. :/

Not a bit. Feel free to burn petrol and pollute the air, endanger everyone (driver or pedestrian) with the human fallibility of driving, and destroy your own property for fun.
Here's an idea: we all wear special jackets without sleeves and lock ourselves in little rooms with nice, soft walls, floors and ceilings. Then we designate someone in charge of feeding us and making sure we don't get into contact with any bacteria or something and just stay there, safe and sound. :)

Here's an idea: we all wear special jackets without sleeves and lock ourselves in little rooms with nice, soft walls, floors and ceilings. Then we designate someone in charge of feeding us and making sure we don't get into contact with any bacteria or something and just stay there, safe and sound. :)

I do. It's called "home."

Being on private property, I don't recognize anybody's right to tell me not to.

On a public road, or on public transport, I claim the right not to have my life endangered by some thrill-seeker. I'll stay nice and snug if I want to (on private property) and you can risk your life for kicks if you want to (on private property.)

What happens on a public road is the business of all of us. Safety trumps convenience (eg getting somewhere quickly) and it most certainly trumps fun.

... and now there is a break in play, as the umpire calls for a replacement ball.

Where were we?

Electric motors should actually make four-wheel traction far more subtle. I'd have thought sports drivers would actually welcome having control over the power to each of the four wheels ... though that would take practice and should probably only be done on the track.

Here's an idea: we all wear special jackets without sleeves and lock ourselves in little rooms with nice, soft walls, floors and ceilings. Then we designate someone in charge of feeding us and making sure we don't get into contact with any bacteria or something and just stay there, safe and sound. :)

Usually you have to die to get there.

"Why do you bother with electric cars when petrol is so superior etc. etc!"

Because I guarantee you, developing the infrastructure to support widespread production of this technology (despite how simple it may appear, alterations to the industry and manufacturing process is very pricey) when petrol runs dry and everyone suddenly wants/needs it will be far more expensive than it is now. Supply/demand isn't as straightforward as you think it is, and surprisingly enough, not all of us want to be responsible for the destruction of Earth's eco-systems and the beginning of the next ice-age.

"Why do you bother with electric cars when petrol is so superior etc. etc!"

Because I guarantee you, developing the infrastructure to support widespread production of this technology (despite how simple it may appear, alterations to the industry and manufacturing process is very pricey) when petrol runs dry and everyone suddenly wants/needs it will be far more expensive than it is now.

I agree. And it isn't just a question of the overhead of doing things in a hurry -- technology evolves, it benefits from being tested ... failing or succeeding case by case, with unexpected breakthroughs ('mutations') more likely if it is taken slowly and not in dire need.

Picking winners is for command economies. Fair enough when the barbarians are at the gate, but a losing strategy in the long term.

"Why do you bother with electric cars when petrol is so superior etc. etc!"

Because I guarantee you, developing the infrastructure to support widespread production of this technology (despite how simple it may appear, alterations to the industry and manufacturing process is very pricey) when petrol runs dry and everyone suddenly wants/needs it will be far more expensive than it is now. Supply/demand isn't as straightforward as you think it is, and surprisingly enough, not all of us want to be responsible for the destruction of Earth's eco-systems and the beginning of the next ice-age.

On second thoughts, I don't agree with you at all.

Since you are a noob and roughly on the pro-electric side, I took your post sympathetically. Now that I have met you in some other thread and you have treated me haughtily, I have looked at the above more critically.


Characterize opposing arguments without addressing any specifically? Weak.
You "guarantee" ... so what?
Alterations to manufacturing infrastructure IS pricey, but at the natural rate of obsolescence that is factored into prices.
"Everyone suddenly " -- nonsense. Oil is becoming scarcer NOW (as evidenced by the price) and the demand for electric cars is there NOW.
"Supply/demand isn't as straightforward as" ... but your entire post up 'til this point has been an argument about price!
"not all of us want to be responsible for the destruction" -- strawman, or proof by double-negative. Sure, you may take actions to avoid responsibility for that destruction, but you have no basis to say that someone who does not intends the destruction. By double-negativity you have simply disregarded any other reason they may have -- for instance, tuning up their big V8 to make it gruntier might make their dick feel bigger.
"the beginning of the next ice-age" ... I have no idea where you got that from.

<snip>
When windspeed drops by 1/2 the energy contained therein drops by 1/2*1/2*1/2. You can't fix the intermittent nature of wind or power loss with a better windmill.

No, but what you can do is note that overall wind levels are generally fairly constant. So you build plenty of wind farms, and spread them out. Wind in any one location isn't guaranteed, but over a bunch of locations you can get fairly reliable power.


If we were talking about a Dyson Sphere I would agree but it doesn't work so well on Earth. That pesky atmosphere tends to get in the way and mass producing high efficiency cells is expensive.
<snip>

Then don't use cells. Use thermal instead. It's a model that's suited to large-scale central generation, very efficient, and quite simple to design and produce. So these take the place of the big coal and oil fired plants, and we then back it up with wind farms spread across the US, and encourage people to get a bit of extra power generation of their own to help either feed back into the grid, or use as needed. Solar cells or small windmills.

You could even use hydroelectric as that's appropriate as well.

Anyway, it's perfectly simple to design a new set of power sources, that could be basically plugged into the current grid, and rerun it into renewable fuels. Encourage local generation at the same time, and you can easily get off oil without having to move to nuclear.

Exactly.



I have no idea how to get the majority of US drivers off the horsepower teat, but I've got a car (2002 Honda Civic Si) that has a 2.0L DOHC i-VTEC engine that delivers 32mpg at North Dakota freeway speeds (limit = 75mph), and it is a pleasure to drive without having a damned V8. Assholes doing 90 are wasting gas, period, and larger assholes with larger engines need to be pimp-slapped into the reality that the world, in many cases, does not revolve around them.


Excellent post. Completely agreed. But the average US driver is far to megalomaniacal to ever "surrender control" or "surrender power" to the overwhelmingly greater good.

Nice car, I have an 07 SI, its a blast to drive. But I sure as hell have never gotten mine over 30mpg. And your right, they're fun to drive, but NOTHING compared to my drag drag car, which is putting about 680 horsepower to the wheels.

What happens on a public road is the business of all of us. Safety trumps convenience (eg getting somewhere quickly) and it most certainly trumps fun.
For you. For me, and the majority of drivers on the road, sometimes it doesn't. That's why everyone breaks speed limits.

So is your right to feel that additional safety superior to everyone else's right to use their cars as they want to? To what degree is this the case? If granny is really scared by all these large chunks of metal and prefers everyone to be going no faster than she can walk, ideally being accompanied by someone on foot warning everyone of the impending arrival of the car, does her desire trump everyone else's?

There is a trade-off between safety, externalities and so on and personal freedom not to have what you do controlled. That is the case both on private and public property. There is no in principle reason why your opinion is more worthy of violent enforcement than mine.

For you. For me, and the majority of drivers on the road, sometimes it doesn't. That's why everyone breaks speed limits.

So is your right to feel that additional safety superior to everyone else's right to use their cars as they want to? To what degree is this the case? If granny is really scared by all these large chunks of metal and prefers everyone to be going no faster than she can walk, ideally being accompanied by someone on foot warning everyone of the impending arrival of the car, does her desire trump everyone else's?

There is a trade-off between safety, externalities and so on and personal freedom not to have what you do controlled. That is the case both on private and public property. There is no in principle reason why your opinion is more worthy of violent enforcement than mine.

I think right to life, in the non-abortion sense, trumps most of the others. Of course, if this were absolute cars and most movement would be banned. (It could kill someone, potentially.) But I think when trying to decide where speed limits will exist, how cars have to be designed, etc., the biggest goal should be killing the fewest people, with plenty of gray area around what that actually entails.

But I think when trying to decide where speed limits will exist, how cars have to be designed, etc., the biggest goal should be killing the fewest people, with plenty of gray area around what that actually entails.
What if I ban all SUVs from the US with the expectation of only saving one person's life? I'd be causing some sort of harm to many millions, but it would be perfectly consistent with your rule.

What if I ban all SUVs from the US with the expectation of only saving one person's life? I'd be causing some sort of harm to many millions, but it would be perfectly consistent with your rule.

Refer back to the post:

I think right to life, in the non-abortion sense, trumps most of the others. Of course, if this were absolute cars and most movement would be banned. (It could kill someone, potentially.) But I think when trying to decide where speed limits will exist, how cars have to be designed, etc., the biggest goal should be killing the fewest people, with plenty of gray area around what that actually entails.

If the death of one person is worse than the pain caused by removing all SUVs, then ban them, by all means. I don't know if that's true, but I don't claim to. I just think that life should by the most (not only) important goal of planning speed limits. If I had to choose between one person dying and one person driving slower, I'd unthinkingly choose the latter. If it were between one person dying and 200 million people driving slower? I'd have to think about it a little longer.

For you. For me, and the majority of drivers on the road, sometimes it doesn't. That's why everyone breaks speed limits.

So is your right to feel that additional safety superior to everyone else's right to use their cars as they want to? To what degree is this the case? If granny is really scared by all these large chunks of metal and prefers everyone to be going no faster than she can walk, ideally being accompanied by someone on foot warning everyone of the impending arrival of the car, does her desire trump everyone else's?

There is a trade-off between safety, externalities and so on and personal freedom not to have what you do controlled. That is the case both on private and public property. There is no in principle reason why your opinion is more worthy of violent enforcement than mine.

You always create these cartoon scenarios to justify rippin' down the road. In the same way you can't disqualify performance cars because someone trees a Veyron, you don't get to do away with speed limits because granny can't drive faster than 15 mph. I don't know about Australia, but roads here are metered on a regular basis (if they're not you can get out of a ticket on them) to determine traffic, plus reasonable safe reaction time for the average driver/car considered safe for the road with the available hazards to determine a maximum speed. It's not arbitrary and it's not some giant conspiracy against your freedom. I like to drive fast, too, but when I'm on the road with a bunch of other yay-hoos I'd rather we were all on the same page.

If I had to choose between one person dying and one person driving slower, I'd unthinkingly choose the latter. If it were between one person dying and 200 million people driving slower? I'd have to think about it a little longer.
Precisely. It's still a trade-off, you're just assigning a higher value to safety than freedom, as it were.

We can argue for a bit about that, then despair given the lack of measurements, then maybe argue a bit longer about whether or not we can somehow measure it afterall (cue Soheran and Laerod complaining :p), and in the end agree to disagree.

None of that takes from my initial point that safety does not always trump liberty. It very often doesn't, and the question is whether the government can legislate on this sort of thing properly using such blunt instruments as bans and limits.

It's not arbitrary and it's not some giant conspiracy against your freedom.
I'm assuming that the administering is actually done properly here. It's a pretty generous assumption, but there we go.

Even if that is the case, the point doesn't change. There is always a trade-off, and neither side is a priori superior, as far as I can see. If we should, for example, outlaw SUVs, then I ask for a proper argument in favour. Then the other side can bring forward a proper argument against. It must always be the banning side that has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt though.

I'm assuming that the administering is actually done properly here. It's a pretty generous assumption, but there we go.

Even if that is the case, the point doesn't change. There is always a trade-off, and neither side is a priori superior, as far as I can see. If we should, for example, outlaw SUVs, then I ask for a proper argument in favour. Then the other side can bring forward a proper argument against. It must always be the banning side that has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt though.

I'm not arguing your boogeymen, I'm arguing what actually is.

I know you have all these nightmares that the greens are going to come in the night and take your car away, but hysterical reaction to hysterical reactions just means there are two screaming weirdos. You're bright enough to join the actual discussion.

Well done. The idea that people could like things you don't like is an affront and there should be a law against it.

Uh...what now? I donned the "flame-proof suit" because the usual reaction to even suggesting that America relinquish its childish grasp of horsepower and size is something along the lines of being tarred a socialist for wanting to curtail freedom or force them into "unsafe" cars. Thing is, the infrastructure belongs to everyone, and that means we can all decide how it gets used. I don't think it's very likely that the US will collectively decide that we've had enough horsepower and do something like big tax breaks for 4-cylinder engines (or whatever would take the V8/V6 out of passenger vehicles that didn't need it).

You'll never ever see me commute in a V8 super-car or anything like that, heck I'm a public transporter (I commute by train, back and foot every day). But damn, the feeling of a thundering V8, the vibrations through your spine, the acceleration pushing you into your seat...beautifull, absolutly amazing...WRAWR!!!
By the way, melikes this little baby:
http://www.fuel-efficient-vehicles.org/energy-news/wp-content/uploads/tesla-roadster-at-pacific.jpg

I'd dig it, that thing is smokin'

The Tesla wouldn't give you the V8 noise/throb.

Seriously, though, what's the big deal with the noise in the first place? I say fine, buy a V8, but slap a gas guzzler tax on them. You can get one if you can afford to pay the premium for it. And yes, that's one person's opinion -- but something serious must be done on the demand side for a change.

Electric cars will be widely commerically viable only when they can match the range and quick refil capabilities of internal combustion.

Internal combustion engines can travel 600-1200 km without needing fuel, and can fill up again from empty in only a few minutes. When I can have an electric car that can reproduce that behaviour, I'll be interested.

745 miles on one tank? What the hell are YOU driving? I average about 11 gallons per fill-up (on a tank listed at 13 gallons), and a range of 350-380 miles depending on headwind, terrain and other factors.

ah, 100 years ago when the petrol powered internal combustion engine was still in its very early days, i'm fairly sure you wouldn't have gotten much better performance, and certainly less features (no cup holders :eek: )... and way less mpg as well.

as with any new tech, give it time. but, in my rather limited knowledge, hydrogen-fuel-cell seems to be a more suitable and viable replacement for oil fuelled cars.

Except (http://www.phy.duke.edu/~hartley/rightwatch/hydrogen.html)...like ethanol, it takes more energy to make/extract hydrogen than you get out of the result.

Here's an idea: we all wear special jackets without sleeves and lock ourselves in little rooms with nice, soft walls, floors and ceilings. Then we designate someone in charge of feeding us and making sure we don't get into contact with any bacteria or something and just stay there, safe and sound. :)

Hyperbole much?

I do. It's called "home."

Being on private property, I don't recognize anybody's right to tell me not to.

On a public road, or on public transport, I claim the right not to have my life endangered by some thrill-seeker. I'll stay nice and snug if I want to (on private property) and you can risk your life for kicks if you want to (on private property.)

What happens on a public road is the business of all of us. Safety trumps convenience (eg getting somewhere quickly) and it most certainly trumps fun.

^ This.

People shouldn't be on cell phones or watching DVDs while driving. If we can regulate the behavior that distracts drivers, what is wrong with regulating how fast they can drive? Oh wait...

Nice car, I have an 07 SI, its a blast to drive. But I sure as hell have never gotten mine over 30mpg. And your right, they're fun to drive, but NOTHING compared to my drag drag car, which is putting about 680 horsepower to the wheels.

And as a drag racer, that's it's place. But that kind of torque doesn't need to be on the freeway. Or it does if you've got the $$ to pay the premium for it in some kind of gasoline waste tax.

Ebil liberal activists r comin for mah carz!

Ebil liberal activists r comin for mah carz!
Not liberals, euro-communazis.

The fact is that Europe has a very good mass-transit system, better than what is available in the United States. It goes more places and it's been in place a while. The US was built on the car. We have roads, not rails. We rely on independent transportation much more. Mass transit just doesn't work in the US like it does in Europe and it wouldn't without getting rid of cars and dramatically expanding the rail and bus systems. That would mean taking cars by force from a lot of people or artificially driving up the price an assload so that only the wealthy could afford them. The former would be an infringement of our liberties and the latter would unfairly target the poor and people like me would start branding the people who'd want to get rid of cars "class warrirors" as a sort of ironic zinger because a lot of the people who hate cars with a passion also claim to cherish the poor (no secret why, as long as they stay poor you can make them promises and get votes).

Not liberals, euro-communazis.

The fact is that Europe has a very good mass-transit system, better than what is available in the United States. It goes more places and it's been in place a while. The US was built on the car. We have roads, not rails. We rely on independent transportation much more. Mass transit just doesn't work in the US like it does in Europe and it wouldn't without getting rid of cars and dramatically expanding the rail and bus systems. That would mean taking cars by force from a lot of people or artificially driving up the price an assload so that only the wealthy could afford them. The former would be an infringement of our liberties and the latter would unfairly target the poor and people like me would start branding the people who'd want to get rid of cars "class warrirors" as a sort of ironic zinger because a lot of the people who hate cars with a passion also claim to cherish the poor (no secret why, as long as they stay poor you can make them promises and get votes).

Swill.

Put the name of the author (Ayn Rand) after the quote in your sig. Unattributed quotes are a cancer on dialogue -- if tolerated, they leave the "author" of any opinion the option of renouncing it at any time as "just a quote."

Not liberals, euro-communazis.

The fact is that Europe has a very good mass-transit system, better than what is available in the United States. It goes more places and it's been in place a while. The US was built on the car. We have roads, not rails.
I'm going to have to call you on that one. The federal highway system wasn't developed until Eisenhower, and industry was built on rail in the US. Towns developed along rail lines.
We rely on independent transportation much more. Mass transit just doesn't work in the US like it does in Europe and it wouldn't without getting rid of cars and dramatically expanding the rail and bus systems.
I'm going to also have to call you on that, too. In spite of the disproportionate (and very expensive) public investment in road systems (highways are expensive and publicly funded, folks) many regions have fully functional mass transit systems that are heavily used.
That would mean taking cars by force from a lot of people or artificially driving up the price an assload so that only the wealthy could afford them.
Would you care to consider the public cost of cars for others? 33 cents per mile (http://www.commutesolutions.org/calc.htm) is quite a cost for the public to pay.

I'm hoping that by the time I get around to getting my own car, an economical alternative to conventional cars is around. An electric car would fit the bill.

The only truth about electric cars is that market forces will dictate their success and failure. Not evil conspiracies involving Big Oil(!) and Big Auto(!).

It's "only a few minutes" which you spend standing on a paved concourse, in an environment which stinks of petrochemicals, and exposed to the public. Petrol stations have to be open long hours and accept cash. They are implicitly dangerous.
In British Columbia they're actually required to have fully automated payment machines that accept credit and debit cards only. No cash required.

Plus, I don't need to stand on a paved concourse if I'm at a full-service station where someone will pump my gas for me (this is a legal requirement in Oregon, where drivers are not permitted to pump their own fuel).
Whereas the slower electric recharging happens while you're fixing your after-work drink and relaxing in your own home. Or it happens at the other end of your journey. Car trips based around the private residence are the core purpose of having a car.
I use a car primarily for long drives. Specifically, I routinely drive from Vancouver to Edmonton (roughly 1200 km, through a mountain pass, with limited available fuel stops), and I make that drive in one day. If I have to stop after 400 km and recharge for 4 hours, that's suddenly a 3 day trip.

745 miles on one tank? What the hell are YOU driving? I average about 11 gallons per fill-up (on a tank listed at 13 gallons), and a range of 350-380 miles depending on headwind, terrain and other factors.
Diesels.

I've made that trip a couple of times without having to stop. The first time I was driving a Dodge Ram 2500 pickup, and the second a Volkswagen Jetta.

And I have to say, I once almost ran out of fuel because the car I was drivign (it was a rental) could only drive about 510 km on one tank of fuel, and that caught me completely off-guard. Never before had I seen such short range.

It's "only a few minutes" which you spend standing on a paved concourse, in an environment which stinks of petrochemicals, and exposed to the public. Petrol stations have to be open long hours and accept cash. They are implicitly dangerous.
What? Only the most decrepit gas stations don't take plastic around here.

Windmill & solar farms 4tw! Take the pumps out of the gas stations, replace them with cranes. Replace the battery with a charged one (charged at a farm) each time or charge it at home if you have the time. This way the struggling farmers can replace the greedy oil barrons & shieks!

The Tesla wouldn't give you the V8 noise/throb.

Seriously, though, what's the big deal with the noise in the first place? I say fine, buy a V8, but slap a gas guzzler tax on them. You can get one if you can afford to pay the premium for it. And yes, that's one person's opinion -- but something serious must be done on the demand side for a change.
I know, but the acceleration and speed still is awesome. It's just an example of the fact that electric cars cán be cool.
Anyway, I don't really know what's with the sound of those roaring V8's and V10's or V16's, the deep thunder wich you can feel rumbling through your body while you're being pushed in your seat because of the acceleration...it's magnificent. I'de never commute in such a car, completly unnecesary, but they're awesome toys :p (boys will be boys)

I know, but the acceleration and speed still is awesome. It's just an example of the fact that electric cars cán be cool.
Anyway, I don't really know what's with the sound of those roaring V8's and V10's or V16's, the deep thunder wich you can feel rumbling through your body while you're being pushed in your seat because of the acceleration...it's magnificent. I'de never commute in such a car, completly unnecesary, but they're awesome toys :p (boys will be boys)

Personally, I find the idea of silence except for the wind to be far sexier than a dull roar.

Personally, I find the idea of silence except for the wind to be far sexier than a dull roar.
Ooo it's not just a dull roar, nooo it's much more. Normal cars have dull roars, supercars are the one's with the cool noise ;) You can just héar and féél all that power pushing you back in your seat, lovin' it.

I'm in a country where more than half our electricity comes from reneweable sources, and if you go to Iceland, it's pretty much a 100%.