Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#1691
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Wed, 22 Oct 03 10:51:14 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <FAllb.10282$W16.1400@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>"global warming is as established fact"
>
>Yes.
>
>>Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
>>fact from the other (correct) side...
>
>No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA, look at
>NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.
>
>As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution, etc.
Yes, but the *why* is pure conjecture.
I suppose that you teach that when something happens, that has
happened before, the latest instance must be for a different reason?
Is that how you teach?
wrote:
>In article <FAllb.10282$W16.1400@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>"global warming is as established fact"
>
>Yes.
>
>>Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
>>fact from the other (correct) side...
>
>No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA, look at
>NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.
>
>As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution, etc.
Yes, but the *why* is pure conjecture.
I suppose that you teach that when something happens, that has
happened before, the latest instance must be for a different reason?
Is that how you teach?
#1692
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Wed, 22 Oct 03 10:51:14 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <FAllb.10282$W16.1400@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>"global warming is as established fact"
>
>Yes.
>
>>Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
>>fact from the other (correct) side...
>
>No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA, look at
>NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.
>
>As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution, etc.
Yes, but the *why* is pure conjecture.
I suppose that you teach that when something happens, that has
happened before, the latest instance must be for a different reason?
Is that how you teach?
wrote:
>In article <FAllb.10282$W16.1400@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>"global warming is as established fact"
>
>Yes.
>
>>Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
>>fact from the other (correct) side...
>
>No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA, look at
>NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.
>
>As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution, etc.
Yes, but the *why* is pure conjecture.
I suppose that you teach that when something happens, that has
happened before, the latest instance must be for a different reason?
Is that how you teach?
#1693
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Wed, 22 Oct 03 10:51:14 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <FAllb.10282$W16.1400@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>"global warming is as established fact"
>
>Yes.
>
>>Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
>>fact from the other (correct) side...
>
>No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA, look at
>NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.
>
>As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution, etc.
Yes, but the *why* is pure conjecture.
I suppose that you teach that when something happens, that has
happened before, the latest instance must be for a different reason?
Is that how you teach?
wrote:
>In article <FAllb.10282$W16.1400@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>"global warming is as established fact"
>
>Yes.
>
>>Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
>>fact from the other (correct) side...
>
>No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA, look at
>NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.
>
>As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution, etc.
Yes, but the *why* is pure conjecture.
I suppose that you teach that when something happens, that has
happened before, the latest instance must be for a different reason?
Is that how you teach?
#1694
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Wed, 22 Oct 03 10:52:00 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <3F95ED02.300F7ABD@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>> A 68 Charger puts out over 100X the emissions of a new car, so it's foolish
>to
>>> claim it's "indistinguishable" from one.
>>
>>_Virtually_ indistinguishable--when both are _also_ compared to a gross
>polluter,
>>which puts out, by definition, far, far more than either.
>>
>>--Aardwolf.
>>
>>
>Like cutting off a finger is "virtually indistinguishable" from not, compared
>to getting your head cut off, I guess.
Oops, I was wrong. I apologize.
It's not your reading comprehension.
It's your ability think through an analogy.
wrote:
>In article <3F95ED02.300F7ABD@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>> A 68 Charger puts out over 100X the emissions of a new car, so it's foolish
>to
>>> claim it's "indistinguishable" from one.
>>
>>_Virtually_ indistinguishable--when both are _also_ compared to a gross
>polluter,
>>which puts out, by definition, far, far more than either.
>>
>>--Aardwolf.
>>
>>
>Like cutting off a finger is "virtually indistinguishable" from not, compared
>to getting your head cut off, I guess.
Oops, I was wrong. I apologize.
It's not your reading comprehension.
It's your ability think through an analogy.
#1695
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Wed, 22 Oct 03 10:52:00 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <3F95ED02.300F7ABD@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>> A 68 Charger puts out over 100X the emissions of a new car, so it's foolish
>to
>>> claim it's "indistinguishable" from one.
>>
>>_Virtually_ indistinguishable--when both are _also_ compared to a gross
>polluter,
>>which puts out, by definition, far, far more than either.
>>
>>--Aardwolf.
>>
>>
>Like cutting off a finger is "virtually indistinguishable" from not, compared
>to getting your head cut off, I guess.
Oops, I was wrong. I apologize.
It's not your reading comprehension.
It's your ability think through an analogy.
wrote:
>In article <3F95ED02.300F7ABD@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>> A 68 Charger puts out over 100X the emissions of a new car, so it's foolish
>to
>>> claim it's "indistinguishable" from one.
>>
>>_Virtually_ indistinguishable--when both are _also_ compared to a gross
>polluter,
>>which puts out, by definition, far, far more than either.
>>
>>--Aardwolf.
>>
>>
>Like cutting off a finger is "virtually indistinguishable" from not, compared
>to getting your head cut off, I guess.
Oops, I was wrong. I apologize.
It's not your reading comprehension.
It's your ability think through an analogy.
#1696
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Wed, 22 Oct 03 10:52:00 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <3F95ED02.300F7ABD@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>> A 68 Charger puts out over 100X the emissions of a new car, so it's foolish
>to
>>> claim it's "indistinguishable" from one.
>>
>>_Virtually_ indistinguishable--when both are _also_ compared to a gross
>polluter,
>>which puts out, by definition, far, far more than either.
>>
>>--Aardwolf.
>>
>>
>Like cutting off a finger is "virtually indistinguishable" from not, compared
>to getting your head cut off, I guess.
Oops, I was wrong. I apologize.
It's not your reading comprehension.
It's your ability think through an analogy.
wrote:
>In article <3F95ED02.300F7ABD@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>> A 68 Charger puts out over 100X the emissions of a new car, so it's foolish
>to
>>> claim it's "indistinguishable" from one.
>>
>>_Virtually_ indistinguishable--when both are _also_ compared to a gross
>polluter,
>>which puts out, by definition, far, far more than either.
>>
>>--Aardwolf.
>>
>>
>Like cutting off a finger is "virtually indistinguishable" from not, compared
>to getting your head cut off, I guess.
Oops, I was wrong. I apologize.
It's not your reading comprehension.
It's your ability think through an analogy.
#1697
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 01:54:12 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt"
<tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote:
>Shhh - don't give the SUV owners nightmares. :-)
>
>Using oil as a motor vehicle fuel is totally unsupportable in the long run.
>What is
>ultimately going to happen is the price of gas will be driven so high that
>it will
>eclipse the cost of going electric, and that will be the end of the internal
>combusion
>engine in passenger cars. Alcohol is not an answer, there's not enough
>biomass
>production in the country to produce the fuel needed. The choices are going
>to
>be electric generation plants powered by coal, or nuclear, both of which the
>greens hate, powering the majority of passenger cars, probably with a few
>hardy souls running off natural gas.
>
>But of course you can't tell the SUV owners this, they think that we are all
>going
>to be burning hydrogen in our cars. Just wait until they find out that no
>city of
>any appreciable population density is going to permit a gas station that
>contains
>10,000 gallons of compressed hydrogen stored in tanks anywhere in the city
>limits,
>where an exploson will remove about 10 blocks from the tax rolls.
>
>Ted
>
Most of understand that using oil isn't a good long-term solution.
However, it's the *only* solution for *now*.
Thinking ahead is a good thing, obviously.
Let's think ahead on the lines of electric cars...
*For now*, there's not enough storage (batteries) available for any
but the most mundane, urban commuter cars. And there's no problem with
that, per se. Using such cars would solve several problems.
This would also bring on other problems, though.
Chief among tham would be the inadequacy of the present power grid to
handle the load.
Can you imaging an appreciable percentage of commuters plugging in
their electric cars to recharge at the same time? The load would
immediately shut down entire cities.
Power load centers are the cheapest practical solution, as these would
------ the load over a longer time. But, as more people switched to
these cars, the problem gets worse.
The long-term solution would be to re0build the infradtructure.
However, if you want to see an urban planner tremble with panic, just
mention this need in a public meeting.
Electric cars for uses other than short hop commuting, though, remains
always "just a few years away."
How about hybrids?
Now there's a solution that could actually seem to work, even for
non-short-hop commuting.
Except that those batteries don't do much on a long trip.
Hybrids are great for urban driving, because the batteries can supply
the power needed for accelleration, letting the car use a smaller
engine, reducing the fuel needs.
But for longer trips, accelleration isn't as great a factor, and the
engine is pretty luch loafing at a reasonable cruising speed. The
weight of the batteries in such a car actually *reduces* efficiency.
Current technology doesn't really offer much in the way of a
*workable* solution right now, or in the 10-year near future.
While there are possibilities (fuel cells are looking good for 5-10+
years out), none are workable for the immediate future.
Whatever replaces the internal combustion, gas-fueled car, it will be
much more expensive than we're currently using.
<tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote:
>Shhh - don't give the SUV owners nightmares. :-)
>
>Using oil as a motor vehicle fuel is totally unsupportable in the long run.
>What is
>ultimately going to happen is the price of gas will be driven so high that
>it will
>eclipse the cost of going electric, and that will be the end of the internal
>combusion
>engine in passenger cars. Alcohol is not an answer, there's not enough
>biomass
>production in the country to produce the fuel needed. The choices are going
>to
>be electric generation plants powered by coal, or nuclear, both of which the
>greens hate, powering the majority of passenger cars, probably with a few
>hardy souls running off natural gas.
>
>But of course you can't tell the SUV owners this, they think that we are all
>going
>to be burning hydrogen in our cars. Just wait until they find out that no
>city of
>any appreciable population density is going to permit a gas station that
>contains
>10,000 gallons of compressed hydrogen stored in tanks anywhere in the city
>limits,
>where an exploson will remove about 10 blocks from the tax rolls.
>
>Ted
>
Most of understand that using oil isn't a good long-term solution.
However, it's the *only* solution for *now*.
Thinking ahead is a good thing, obviously.
Let's think ahead on the lines of electric cars...
*For now*, there's not enough storage (batteries) available for any
but the most mundane, urban commuter cars. And there's no problem with
that, per se. Using such cars would solve several problems.
This would also bring on other problems, though.
Chief among tham would be the inadequacy of the present power grid to
handle the load.
Can you imaging an appreciable percentage of commuters plugging in
their electric cars to recharge at the same time? The load would
immediately shut down entire cities.
Power load centers are the cheapest practical solution, as these would
------ the load over a longer time. But, as more people switched to
these cars, the problem gets worse.
The long-term solution would be to re0build the infradtructure.
However, if you want to see an urban planner tremble with panic, just
mention this need in a public meeting.
Electric cars for uses other than short hop commuting, though, remains
always "just a few years away."
How about hybrids?
Now there's a solution that could actually seem to work, even for
non-short-hop commuting.
Except that those batteries don't do much on a long trip.
Hybrids are great for urban driving, because the batteries can supply
the power needed for accelleration, letting the car use a smaller
engine, reducing the fuel needs.
But for longer trips, accelleration isn't as great a factor, and the
engine is pretty luch loafing at a reasonable cruising speed. The
weight of the batteries in such a car actually *reduces* efficiency.
Current technology doesn't really offer much in the way of a
*workable* solution right now, or in the 10-year near future.
While there are possibilities (fuel cells are looking good for 5-10+
years out), none are workable for the immediate future.
Whatever replaces the internal combustion, gas-fueled car, it will be
much more expensive than we're currently using.
#1698
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 01:54:12 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt"
<tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote:
>Shhh - don't give the SUV owners nightmares. :-)
>
>Using oil as a motor vehicle fuel is totally unsupportable in the long run.
>What is
>ultimately going to happen is the price of gas will be driven so high that
>it will
>eclipse the cost of going electric, and that will be the end of the internal
>combusion
>engine in passenger cars. Alcohol is not an answer, there's not enough
>biomass
>production in the country to produce the fuel needed. The choices are going
>to
>be electric generation plants powered by coal, or nuclear, both of which the
>greens hate, powering the majority of passenger cars, probably with a few
>hardy souls running off natural gas.
>
>But of course you can't tell the SUV owners this, they think that we are all
>going
>to be burning hydrogen in our cars. Just wait until they find out that no
>city of
>any appreciable population density is going to permit a gas station that
>contains
>10,000 gallons of compressed hydrogen stored in tanks anywhere in the city
>limits,
>where an exploson will remove about 10 blocks from the tax rolls.
>
>Ted
>
Most of understand that using oil isn't a good long-term solution.
However, it's the *only* solution for *now*.
Thinking ahead is a good thing, obviously.
Let's think ahead on the lines of electric cars...
*For now*, there's not enough storage (batteries) available for any
but the most mundane, urban commuter cars. And there's no problem with
that, per se. Using such cars would solve several problems.
This would also bring on other problems, though.
Chief among tham would be the inadequacy of the present power grid to
handle the load.
Can you imaging an appreciable percentage of commuters plugging in
their electric cars to recharge at the same time? The load would
immediately shut down entire cities.
Power load centers are the cheapest practical solution, as these would
------ the load over a longer time. But, as more people switched to
these cars, the problem gets worse.
The long-term solution would be to re0build the infradtructure.
However, if you want to see an urban planner tremble with panic, just
mention this need in a public meeting.
Electric cars for uses other than short hop commuting, though, remains
always "just a few years away."
How about hybrids?
Now there's a solution that could actually seem to work, even for
non-short-hop commuting.
Except that those batteries don't do much on a long trip.
Hybrids are great for urban driving, because the batteries can supply
the power needed for accelleration, letting the car use a smaller
engine, reducing the fuel needs.
But for longer trips, accelleration isn't as great a factor, and the
engine is pretty luch loafing at a reasonable cruising speed. The
weight of the batteries in such a car actually *reduces* efficiency.
Current technology doesn't really offer much in the way of a
*workable* solution right now, or in the 10-year near future.
While there are possibilities (fuel cells are looking good for 5-10+
years out), none are workable for the immediate future.
Whatever replaces the internal combustion, gas-fueled car, it will be
much more expensive than we're currently using.
<tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote:
>Shhh - don't give the SUV owners nightmares. :-)
>
>Using oil as a motor vehicle fuel is totally unsupportable in the long run.
>What is
>ultimately going to happen is the price of gas will be driven so high that
>it will
>eclipse the cost of going electric, and that will be the end of the internal
>combusion
>engine in passenger cars. Alcohol is not an answer, there's not enough
>biomass
>production in the country to produce the fuel needed. The choices are going
>to
>be electric generation plants powered by coal, or nuclear, both of which the
>greens hate, powering the majority of passenger cars, probably with a few
>hardy souls running off natural gas.
>
>But of course you can't tell the SUV owners this, they think that we are all
>going
>to be burning hydrogen in our cars. Just wait until they find out that no
>city of
>any appreciable population density is going to permit a gas station that
>contains
>10,000 gallons of compressed hydrogen stored in tanks anywhere in the city
>limits,
>where an exploson will remove about 10 blocks from the tax rolls.
>
>Ted
>
Most of understand that using oil isn't a good long-term solution.
However, it's the *only* solution for *now*.
Thinking ahead is a good thing, obviously.
Let's think ahead on the lines of electric cars...
*For now*, there's not enough storage (batteries) available for any
but the most mundane, urban commuter cars. And there's no problem with
that, per se. Using such cars would solve several problems.
This would also bring on other problems, though.
Chief among tham would be the inadequacy of the present power grid to
handle the load.
Can you imaging an appreciable percentage of commuters plugging in
their electric cars to recharge at the same time? The load would
immediately shut down entire cities.
Power load centers are the cheapest practical solution, as these would
------ the load over a longer time. But, as more people switched to
these cars, the problem gets worse.
The long-term solution would be to re0build the infradtructure.
However, if you want to see an urban planner tremble with panic, just
mention this need in a public meeting.
Electric cars for uses other than short hop commuting, though, remains
always "just a few years away."
How about hybrids?
Now there's a solution that could actually seem to work, even for
non-short-hop commuting.
Except that those batteries don't do much on a long trip.
Hybrids are great for urban driving, because the batteries can supply
the power needed for accelleration, letting the car use a smaller
engine, reducing the fuel needs.
But for longer trips, accelleration isn't as great a factor, and the
engine is pretty luch loafing at a reasonable cruising speed. The
weight of the batteries in such a car actually *reduces* efficiency.
Current technology doesn't really offer much in the way of a
*workable* solution right now, or in the 10-year near future.
While there are possibilities (fuel cells are looking good for 5-10+
years out), none are workable for the immediate future.
Whatever replaces the internal combustion, gas-fueled car, it will be
much more expensive than we're currently using.
#1699
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 01:54:12 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt"
<tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote:
>Shhh - don't give the SUV owners nightmares. :-)
>
>Using oil as a motor vehicle fuel is totally unsupportable in the long run.
>What is
>ultimately going to happen is the price of gas will be driven so high that
>it will
>eclipse the cost of going electric, and that will be the end of the internal
>combusion
>engine in passenger cars. Alcohol is not an answer, there's not enough
>biomass
>production in the country to produce the fuel needed. The choices are going
>to
>be electric generation plants powered by coal, or nuclear, both of which the
>greens hate, powering the majority of passenger cars, probably with a few
>hardy souls running off natural gas.
>
>But of course you can't tell the SUV owners this, they think that we are all
>going
>to be burning hydrogen in our cars. Just wait until they find out that no
>city of
>any appreciable population density is going to permit a gas station that
>contains
>10,000 gallons of compressed hydrogen stored in tanks anywhere in the city
>limits,
>where an exploson will remove about 10 blocks from the tax rolls.
>
>Ted
>
Most of understand that using oil isn't a good long-term solution.
However, it's the *only* solution for *now*.
Thinking ahead is a good thing, obviously.
Let's think ahead on the lines of electric cars...
*For now*, there's not enough storage (batteries) available for any
but the most mundane, urban commuter cars. And there's no problem with
that, per se. Using such cars would solve several problems.
This would also bring on other problems, though.
Chief among tham would be the inadequacy of the present power grid to
handle the load.
Can you imaging an appreciable percentage of commuters plugging in
their electric cars to recharge at the same time? The load would
immediately shut down entire cities.
Power load centers are the cheapest practical solution, as these would
------ the load over a longer time. But, as more people switched to
these cars, the problem gets worse.
The long-term solution would be to re0build the infradtructure.
However, if you want to see an urban planner tremble with panic, just
mention this need in a public meeting.
Electric cars for uses other than short hop commuting, though, remains
always "just a few years away."
How about hybrids?
Now there's a solution that could actually seem to work, even for
non-short-hop commuting.
Except that those batteries don't do much on a long trip.
Hybrids are great for urban driving, because the batteries can supply
the power needed for accelleration, letting the car use a smaller
engine, reducing the fuel needs.
But for longer trips, accelleration isn't as great a factor, and the
engine is pretty luch loafing at a reasonable cruising speed. The
weight of the batteries in such a car actually *reduces* efficiency.
Current technology doesn't really offer much in the way of a
*workable* solution right now, or in the 10-year near future.
While there are possibilities (fuel cells are looking good for 5-10+
years out), none are workable for the immediate future.
Whatever replaces the internal combustion, gas-fueled car, it will be
much more expensive than we're currently using.
<tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote:
>Shhh - don't give the SUV owners nightmares. :-)
>
>Using oil as a motor vehicle fuel is totally unsupportable in the long run.
>What is
>ultimately going to happen is the price of gas will be driven so high that
>it will
>eclipse the cost of going electric, and that will be the end of the internal
>combusion
>engine in passenger cars. Alcohol is not an answer, there's not enough
>biomass
>production in the country to produce the fuel needed. The choices are going
>to
>be electric generation plants powered by coal, or nuclear, both of which the
>greens hate, powering the majority of passenger cars, probably with a few
>hardy souls running off natural gas.
>
>But of course you can't tell the SUV owners this, they think that we are all
>going
>to be burning hydrogen in our cars. Just wait until they find out that no
>city of
>any appreciable population density is going to permit a gas station that
>contains
>10,000 gallons of compressed hydrogen stored in tanks anywhere in the city
>limits,
>where an exploson will remove about 10 blocks from the tax rolls.
>
>Ted
>
Most of understand that using oil isn't a good long-term solution.
However, it's the *only* solution for *now*.
Thinking ahead is a good thing, obviously.
Let's think ahead on the lines of electric cars...
*For now*, there's not enough storage (batteries) available for any
but the most mundane, urban commuter cars. And there's no problem with
that, per se. Using such cars would solve several problems.
This would also bring on other problems, though.
Chief among tham would be the inadequacy of the present power grid to
handle the load.
Can you imaging an appreciable percentage of commuters plugging in
their electric cars to recharge at the same time? The load would
immediately shut down entire cities.
Power load centers are the cheapest practical solution, as these would
------ the load over a longer time. But, as more people switched to
these cars, the problem gets worse.
The long-term solution would be to re0build the infradtructure.
However, if you want to see an urban planner tremble with panic, just
mention this need in a public meeting.
Electric cars for uses other than short hop commuting, though, remains
always "just a few years away."
How about hybrids?
Now there's a solution that could actually seem to work, even for
non-short-hop commuting.
Except that those batteries don't do much on a long trip.
Hybrids are great for urban driving, because the batteries can supply
the power needed for accelleration, letting the car use a smaller
engine, reducing the fuel needs.
But for longer trips, accelleration isn't as great a factor, and the
engine is pretty luch loafing at a reasonable cruising speed. The
weight of the batteries in such a car actually *reduces* efficiency.
Current technology doesn't really offer much in the way of a
*workable* solution right now, or in the 10-year near future.
While there are possibilities (fuel cells are looking good for 5-10+
years out), none are workable for the immediate future.
Whatever replaces the internal combustion, gas-fueled car, it will be
much more expensive than we're currently using.