Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#4891
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3F70FF3F.168B95B8@mindspring.com>, C. E. White wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> No. The preparations and fight-to-the-death willigness to defend the home
>> islands would have made invasion of japan would have made D-day look like
>> a walk in the park.
> This is the argument that has always been presented by the politicians
> who made the decision and most of the people who write the history
> books. I am not at all sure it is true
See the 'The rising Sun" by John Toland(sp?) he goes over the attempt
to overthrow the emperor and fight on.
>. Of course there is no way to
> what would have happened the atom bombs have not been used, or used in a
> demonstration on an uninhabited island.
How do you do this when you have *TWO* bombs if doesn't work?
> No doubt the destruction at
> Nagasaki and Hiroshima was spectacular, but it was not greater than the
> damage inflicted on Tokyo or other Japanese cities by conventional air
> raids and incendiary raids.
Exactly, conventional bombing by hundreds of B29s had the same effect.
The idea was to make it appear as if B29s would be droping atom bombs
by the 100s.
> Suppose the Japanese had called our bluff and not surrendered after
> Nagasaki? We didn't have another bomb readily available. And if we did,
> do you think Truman was prepared to obliterate all of Japan?
If any of German Uranium oxide made it through, San francesco would have
been hit by a dirty bomb.
> As I see it, the important thing was a clear admission of defeat by the
> Japanese Emperor. Now maybe the dropping of the atom bombs was the
> overwhelming event that he required in order to surrender with a clear
> conscious. I personally don't think this was the case, but I wasn't
> there at the time and the historical record is debatable. We (being
> American) tend to give credence to the evidence that supports the
> position that the dropping of the bombs was necessary to save lives.
> This may actually be the case, but I think it would be wise to consider
> the possibility that other less far reaching decisions would have
> achieved the same results.
I've been over this subject many times and have read articles saying
the bombs did not have to be dropped. But using the information those
authors use, it still comes out on the side of using the Abomb. Generally
all one needs to do is add up the estimations of japanese dead. Even
low invasion predictions are higher than the high A-bomb estimates.
> Brent P wrote:
>> No. The preparations and fight-to-the-death willigness to defend the home
>> islands would have made invasion of japan would have made D-day look like
>> a walk in the park.
> This is the argument that has always been presented by the politicians
> who made the decision and most of the people who write the history
> books. I am not at all sure it is true
See the 'The rising Sun" by John Toland(sp?) he goes over the attempt
to overthrow the emperor and fight on.
>. Of course there is no way to
> what would have happened the atom bombs have not been used, or used in a
> demonstration on an uninhabited island.
How do you do this when you have *TWO* bombs if doesn't work?
> No doubt the destruction at
> Nagasaki and Hiroshima was spectacular, but it was not greater than the
> damage inflicted on Tokyo or other Japanese cities by conventional air
> raids and incendiary raids.
Exactly, conventional bombing by hundreds of B29s had the same effect.
The idea was to make it appear as if B29s would be droping atom bombs
by the 100s.
> Suppose the Japanese had called our bluff and not surrendered after
> Nagasaki? We didn't have another bomb readily available. And if we did,
> do you think Truman was prepared to obliterate all of Japan?
If any of German Uranium oxide made it through, San francesco would have
been hit by a dirty bomb.
> As I see it, the important thing was a clear admission of defeat by the
> Japanese Emperor. Now maybe the dropping of the atom bombs was the
> overwhelming event that he required in order to surrender with a clear
> conscious. I personally don't think this was the case, but I wasn't
> there at the time and the historical record is debatable. We (being
> American) tend to give credence to the evidence that supports the
> position that the dropping of the bombs was necessary to save lives.
> This may actually be the case, but I think it would be wise to consider
> the possibility that other less far reaching decisions would have
> achieved the same results.
I've been over this subject many times and have read articles saying
the bombs did not have to be dropped. But using the information those
authors use, it still comes out on the side of using the Abomb. Generally
all one needs to do is add up the estimations of japanese dead. Even
low invasion predictions are higher than the high A-bomb estimates.
#4892
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:LVbwb.289013$Fm2.302454@attbi_s04...
> In article <vObwb.12341$Gj.11749@twister.socal.rr.com>, David J. Allen
wrote:
>
> > I'm sure the Japanese were quite willing for the war to end and everyone
> > just go home. It should be obvious, though, that that would have been
the
> > wrong thing to do. The bomb did what no other weapon or stategy had
done up
> > to that point.
>
> No. The preparations and fight-to-the-death willigness to defend the home
> islands would have made invasion of japan would have made D-day look like
> a walk in the park.
>
I agree. I don't think there was any doubt on either side of where they
were headed. The Japanese were not going to surrender without a fight and
the US were not going to settle for anything but total victory. What I
meant to suggest was had there been any flexibility or weakness on the side
of the US, I think the Japanese might have been happy to end the war.
That's speculative, of course. The only way it could have happened might
have been if Japan had been first to develop operational nukes... or there
was some disaster preventing the US from waging war... or the "peace
movement" from the 60's transported back in time and infected the population
with Limp Wrist disease :-)
#4893
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:LVbwb.289013$Fm2.302454@attbi_s04...
> In article <vObwb.12341$Gj.11749@twister.socal.rr.com>, David J. Allen
wrote:
>
> > I'm sure the Japanese were quite willing for the war to end and everyone
> > just go home. It should be obvious, though, that that would have been
the
> > wrong thing to do. The bomb did what no other weapon or stategy had
done up
> > to that point.
>
> No. The preparations and fight-to-the-death willigness to defend the home
> islands would have made invasion of japan would have made D-day look like
> a walk in the park.
>
I agree. I don't think there was any doubt on either side of where they
were headed. The Japanese were not going to surrender without a fight and
the US were not going to settle for anything but total victory. What I
meant to suggest was had there been any flexibility or weakness on the side
of the US, I think the Japanese might have been happy to end the war.
That's speculative, of course. The only way it could have happened might
have been if Japan had been first to develop operational nukes... or there
was some disaster preventing the US from waging war... or the "peace
movement" from the 60's transported back in time and infected the population
with Limp Wrist disease :-)
#4894
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:LVbwb.289013$Fm2.302454@attbi_s04...
> In article <vObwb.12341$Gj.11749@twister.socal.rr.com>, David J. Allen
wrote:
>
> > I'm sure the Japanese were quite willing for the war to end and everyone
> > just go home. It should be obvious, though, that that would have been
the
> > wrong thing to do. The bomb did what no other weapon or stategy had
done up
> > to that point.
>
> No. The preparations and fight-to-the-death willigness to defend the home
> islands would have made invasion of japan would have made D-day look like
> a walk in the park.
>
I agree. I don't think there was any doubt on either side of where they
were headed. The Japanese were not going to surrender without a fight and
the US were not going to settle for anything but total victory. What I
meant to suggest was had there been any flexibility or weakness on the side
of the US, I think the Japanese might have been happy to end the war.
That's speculative, of course. The only way it could have happened might
have been if Japan had been first to develop operational nukes... or there
was some disaster preventing the US from waging war... or the "peace
movement" from the 60's transported back in time and infected the population
with Limp Wrist disease :-)
#4895
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3F70FF3F.168B95B8@mindspring.com...
>
>
> Brent P wrote:
> >
> > In article <vObwb.12341$Gj.11749@twister.socal.rr.com>, David J. Allen
wrote:
> >
> > > I'm sure the Japanese were quite willing for the war to end and
everyone
> > > just go home. It should be obvious, though, that that would have been
the
> > > wrong thing to do. The bomb did what no other weapon or stategy had
done up
> > > to that point.
> >
> > No. The preparations and fight-to-the-death willigness to defend the
home
> > islands would have made invasion of japan would have made D-day look
like
> > a walk in the park.
>
> This is the argument that has always been presented by the politicians
> who made the decision and most of the people who write the history
> books. I am not at all sure it is true. Of course there is no way to
> what would have happened the atom bombs have not been used, or used in a
> demonstration on an uninhabited island. No doubt the destruction at
> Nagasaki and Hiroshima was spectacular, but it was not greater than the
> damage inflicted on Tokyo or other Japanese cities by conventional air
> raids and incendiary raids
Because of the utter destruction caused by the bombs, one is tempted to
suggest the demonstration on an uninhabited island might achieve the same
result. Perhaps that would have worked had we had more bombs and more
confidence they would work. Nuclear deterrence certainly worked during the
cold war and it still works (except in the world of terrorism). I don't
they had that luxury though. Two bombs and a hope they would work were what
they had. War had to be waged in the most forceful way possible. A waving
fist in the air earns less respect that a bloody nose.
#4896
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3F70FF3F.168B95B8@mindspring.com...
>
>
> Brent P wrote:
> >
> > In article <vObwb.12341$Gj.11749@twister.socal.rr.com>, David J. Allen
wrote:
> >
> > > I'm sure the Japanese were quite willing for the war to end and
everyone
> > > just go home. It should be obvious, though, that that would have been
the
> > > wrong thing to do. The bomb did what no other weapon or stategy had
done up
> > > to that point.
> >
> > No. The preparations and fight-to-the-death willigness to defend the
home
> > islands would have made invasion of japan would have made D-day look
like
> > a walk in the park.
>
> This is the argument that has always been presented by the politicians
> who made the decision and most of the people who write the history
> books. I am not at all sure it is true. Of course there is no way to
> what would have happened the atom bombs have not been used, or used in a
> demonstration on an uninhabited island. No doubt the destruction at
> Nagasaki and Hiroshima was spectacular, but it was not greater than the
> damage inflicted on Tokyo or other Japanese cities by conventional air
> raids and incendiary raids
Because of the utter destruction caused by the bombs, one is tempted to
suggest the demonstration on an uninhabited island might achieve the same
result. Perhaps that would have worked had we had more bombs and more
confidence they would work. Nuclear deterrence certainly worked during the
cold war and it still works (except in the world of terrorism). I don't
they had that luxury though. Two bombs and a hope they would work were what
they had. War had to be waged in the most forceful way possible. A waving
fist in the air earns less respect that a bloody nose.
#4897
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3F70FF3F.168B95B8@mindspring.com...
>
>
> Brent P wrote:
> >
> > In article <vObwb.12341$Gj.11749@twister.socal.rr.com>, David J. Allen
wrote:
> >
> > > I'm sure the Japanese were quite willing for the war to end and
everyone
> > > just go home. It should be obvious, though, that that would have been
the
> > > wrong thing to do. The bomb did what no other weapon or stategy had
done up
> > > to that point.
> >
> > No. The preparations and fight-to-the-death willigness to defend the
home
> > islands would have made invasion of japan would have made D-day look
like
> > a walk in the park.
>
> This is the argument that has always been presented by the politicians
> who made the decision and most of the people who write the history
> books. I am not at all sure it is true. Of course there is no way to
> what would have happened the atom bombs have not been used, or used in a
> demonstration on an uninhabited island. No doubt the destruction at
> Nagasaki and Hiroshima was spectacular, but it was not greater than the
> damage inflicted on Tokyo or other Japanese cities by conventional air
> raids and incendiary raids
Because of the utter destruction caused by the bombs, one is tempted to
suggest the demonstration on an uninhabited island might achieve the same
result. Perhaps that would have worked had we had more bombs and more
confidence they would work. Nuclear deterrence certainly worked during the
cold war and it still works (except in the world of terrorism). I don't
they had that luxury though. Two bombs and a hope they would work were what
they had. War had to be waged in the most forceful way possible. A waving
fist in the air earns less respect that a bloody nose.
#4898
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 22:15:25 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt"
<tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote:
>
>"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote in message
>news:26fdpvckl57mtsgh98lplhu2o2tddv47t8@4ax.com.. .
....
>> 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.
>
>No it wouldn't. Most electric cars would be recharged at night when
>power use is very low. And the power companies can easily enforce
>this, they have been ramping up for this as a matter of fact. A number
>have pilot programs that used computerized meters, that report usage
>back via cellular. Industry has got used to paying different rates for
>power consumed during peak periods, and if electric cars became widely
>used, the power companies would simply change tariffs to allow them to
>charge a lower rate for off-peak power, and a higher rate for peak power
>for residential users. It's unlikely the PUC's would object because the rate
>structure can be designed simply to make it more expensive to charge
>electric
>cars during the day, while otherwise the average rate paid would be little
>changed.
>Keep in mind that the power distribution grid has to be designed to supply
>enough power for everyone in the city to switch on their A/C unit
>in the middle of 100+ temperatures in the city. Most of the time it
>is loafing along.
California says dfferent. Quite often.
The distributiion grid in most cities simply can't handle the added
load of charging electric cars without some sort of system to
distribute the load differently than just turning on when the driver
gets home and plugs in.
Whether this is done with a box in the home, or a system in the car,
it's an added cost. And it's not being discussed to the consumer that
I can see.
>
>The big problem is generation capacity, espically in some areas (like
>California for example) The cost to bring new generation capacity
>online today is five times what it cost to bring it online 30 years ago.
>This is due to the requirement that the emissions requirements for
>new plants are more stringent than for old ones, also because now
>everyone and their dog can try to delay construction with environmental
>complaints and such during the environmental impact statement period.
>And unfortunately the only really available fuel we can use for power
>genration on a large scale is coal.
Hardly. Nuclear is a viable solution, except that it pisses the
tree-huggers off.
>
>> 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."
>>
>
>That is OK, though. We have a long, long time before the price of oil
>becomes impossible to use it for fuel. If the price of it doubles, then
>electric cars will become cheaper than gasoline for city people, even
>though gasoline still won't be too expensive to use for trucks and other
>shipping, as well as long-haul family vacations and road trips.
That was part of my point. Gas will work fine for some time yet. As
well, there is no technology to replace it in the near (10+ years) in
any case.
>
>After all consider the last time you took your boat up to the lake (or
>equivalent)
>It probably only cost about $30 in fuel. Now double that. While it
>hurts a bit, it's still not impossible to keep using gasoline for
>recreational
>use, hauling sheetrock, etc. But merely doubling it would be enough
>to get a lot of 2-car owner families in the city who own 2 gasoline cars to
>switch
>over to 1 gas burner, 1 electric, or to switch to 2 electrics, and 1 gas
>burner, assuming of course that electric power plants with their
>increased efficiencies of converting oil/coal into electricity are able to
>hold the line or just slightly increase electric power costs.
>
>Ultimately of course in the far future when the cost of oil really does
>go up ten times over today's costs, your going to see a lot of both
>short-hop and long-hop commuting switch over to electric rail
>lines. This already is cost-effective and very popular in cities like
>New York, and it is catching on as above-ground light rail in many
>other cities.
Phoenix is going ahead with a grade-level light rail system.
There have bene estimates (by the proponents) that no more than 2% of
*ALL* the city's drivers will use it, and they so far have not
addressed the fact that grade level rail will further tie up traffic
at intersections.
Ah, well, it's bound to make some people rich.
> And also people forget that once oil is pumped out
>of the world and the supply of it dimishes, the cost of aviation gas is
>going to skyrocket. And nobody has figured out how to power
>non-military airplanes from anything other than liquid fuel. Hence the
>interest in high-speed bullet trains.
They don't work well in the tunnel between LA and Hawaii.:-)
>
>When the choices are going to be electric cars and electric rail or nothing,
>people are going to take the electric cars and mass transit.
>
>> 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.
>>
>
>Your forgetting one thing and that is that it's possible to design a
>_constant_velocity_ engine to be more efficient than a
>variable speed engine.
Haven't forgotten it at all. I've been saying for years that hybrids
should be driven by diesels. Much more efficient than gas engines for
that use.
>You can tune the ports and a lot of
>other things. If the hybrid designs were a highly efficient engine
>coupled to a generator that fed motors in the wheels, with a
>battery for idling speeds, you might use even less fuel. The big
>problem here is that accelleration is ----, which is why the hybrid
>designers didn't go this way. Once again, though, if gasoline was
>$25 a gallon, people would suffer not being able to make
>jackrabbit starts off the light.
It's more than accelleration; the diesel just isn't sexy enough.
Hybrids could be advertised as actual economy cars, and the diesel
would fit that niche quite nicely, except for their image.
Advertising would be key here, since commuting cars just don't need
the accelleration today's hybrids offer.
>
>> 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.
>>
>
>There's a tradeoff you missing here, and that is convenience.
>The reason the personal automobile is so popular right now is
>that the cost of running it is pretty low and it is enormously
>convenient. As the oil runs out and
>the cost of running it starts to rise, people will be stuck with
>a choice between paying a lot of money for the convenience of
>running a personal car and paying less money and being more
>inconvenienced by using subway/light rail/walking/busses
Unfortunately, they won't be paying less for those solutions.
Busses, light rail and subways (except for those already in place)
will be very expensive. Only buses will use the infrastructure already
in place, and they are very slow, unless expresses are used.
Light rail/subways will have to be either built or expanded, a very
expensive proposition.
In many places, and for many people, the walk just isn't a viable
alternative.
Many cities in the SW and west are just too hot for many months for
walking more than a few blocks.
>
>Ultimately what is going to come out of this is a society where
>if people want to keep their cars they are just not going to be
>able to put 10,000 miles a year on them, or they are going to
>have to give them up and waste more hours of their life sitting
>around waiting for busses/rail/etc. My guess knowing the
>population of the United States, that people are going to hold
>on to their cars as long as possible, so your going to see a
>lot more people selling homes and moving close by when they
>take a new job, or they are going to be demanding their
>employers supply telecommuting options for jobs (clerical
>etc.) that can do it.
Some do those things now.
Unfortunately, moving closer to the workplace tends to lead to crowded
conditions which many hate.
Or, we *could* use the island system, with workplaces and housing
forming their own small integrated communities, but that doesn't seem
to be something that is done much here, even though the impetus for it
exists.
You're certainly right in much you say, but the solution will be more
of a shift in the way people do things, rather than a major shift in
just technology.
Liek I said, the solution will be very expensive.
>
>
>Ted
>
<tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote:
>
>"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote in message
>news:26fdpvckl57mtsgh98lplhu2o2tddv47t8@4ax.com.. .
....
>> 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.
>
>No it wouldn't. Most electric cars would be recharged at night when
>power use is very low. And the power companies can easily enforce
>this, they have been ramping up for this as a matter of fact. A number
>have pilot programs that used computerized meters, that report usage
>back via cellular. Industry has got used to paying different rates for
>power consumed during peak periods, and if electric cars became widely
>used, the power companies would simply change tariffs to allow them to
>charge a lower rate for off-peak power, and a higher rate for peak power
>for residential users. It's unlikely the PUC's would object because the rate
>structure can be designed simply to make it more expensive to charge
>electric
>cars during the day, while otherwise the average rate paid would be little
>changed.
>Keep in mind that the power distribution grid has to be designed to supply
>enough power for everyone in the city to switch on their A/C unit
>in the middle of 100+ temperatures in the city. Most of the time it
>is loafing along.
California says dfferent. Quite often.
The distributiion grid in most cities simply can't handle the added
load of charging electric cars without some sort of system to
distribute the load differently than just turning on when the driver
gets home and plugs in.
Whether this is done with a box in the home, or a system in the car,
it's an added cost. And it's not being discussed to the consumer that
I can see.
>
>The big problem is generation capacity, espically in some areas (like
>California for example) The cost to bring new generation capacity
>online today is five times what it cost to bring it online 30 years ago.
>This is due to the requirement that the emissions requirements for
>new plants are more stringent than for old ones, also because now
>everyone and their dog can try to delay construction with environmental
>complaints and such during the environmental impact statement period.
>And unfortunately the only really available fuel we can use for power
>genration on a large scale is coal.
Hardly. Nuclear is a viable solution, except that it pisses the
tree-huggers off.
>
>> 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."
>>
>
>That is OK, though. We have a long, long time before the price of oil
>becomes impossible to use it for fuel. If the price of it doubles, then
>electric cars will become cheaper than gasoline for city people, even
>though gasoline still won't be too expensive to use for trucks and other
>shipping, as well as long-haul family vacations and road trips.
That was part of my point. Gas will work fine for some time yet. As
well, there is no technology to replace it in the near (10+ years) in
any case.
>
>After all consider the last time you took your boat up to the lake (or
>equivalent)
>It probably only cost about $30 in fuel. Now double that. While it
>hurts a bit, it's still not impossible to keep using gasoline for
>recreational
>use, hauling sheetrock, etc. But merely doubling it would be enough
>to get a lot of 2-car owner families in the city who own 2 gasoline cars to
>switch
>over to 1 gas burner, 1 electric, or to switch to 2 electrics, and 1 gas
>burner, assuming of course that electric power plants with their
>increased efficiencies of converting oil/coal into electricity are able to
>hold the line or just slightly increase electric power costs.
>
>Ultimately of course in the far future when the cost of oil really does
>go up ten times over today's costs, your going to see a lot of both
>short-hop and long-hop commuting switch over to electric rail
>lines. This already is cost-effective and very popular in cities like
>New York, and it is catching on as above-ground light rail in many
>other cities.
Phoenix is going ahead with a grade-level light rail system.
There have bene estimates (by the proponents) that no more than 2% of
*ALL* the city's drivers will use it, and they so far have not
addressed the fact that grade level rail will further tie up traffic
at intersections.
Ah, well, it's bound to make some people rich.
> And also people forget that once oil is pumped out
>of the world and the supply of it dimishes, the cost of aviation gas is
>going to skyrocket. And nobody has figured out how to power
>non-military airplanes from anything other than liquid fuel. Hence the
>interest in high-speed bullet trains.
They don't work well in the tunnel between LA and Hawaii.:-)
>
>When the choices are going to be electric cars and electric rail or nothing,
>people are going to take the electric cars and mass transit.
>
>> 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.
>>
>
>Your forgetting one thing and that is that it's possible to design a
>_constant_velocity_ engine to be more efficient than a
>variable speed engine.
Haven't forgotten it at all. I've been saying for years that hybrids
should be driven by diesels. Much more efficient than gas engines for
that use.
>You can tune the ports and a lot of
>other things. If the hybrid designs were a highly efficient engine
>coupled to a generator that fed motors in the wheels, with a
>battery for idling speeds, you might use even less fuel. The big
>problem here is that accelleration is ----, which is why the hybrid
>designers didn't go this way. Once again, though, if gasoline was
>$25 a gallon, people would suffer not being able to make
>jackrabbit starts off the light.
It's more than accelleration; the diesel just isn't sexy enough.
Hybrids could be advertised as actual economy cars, and the diesel
would fit that niche quite nicely, except for their image.
Advertising would be key here, since commuting cars just don't need
the accelleration today's hybrids offer.
>
>> 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.
>>
>
>There's a tradeoff you missing here, and that is convenience.
>The reason the personal automobile is so popular right now is
>that the cost of running it is pretty low and it is enormously
>convenient. As the oil runs out and
>the cost of running it starts to rise, people will be stuck with
>a choice between paying a lot of money for the convenience of
>running a personal car and paying less money and being more
>inconvenienced by using subway/light rail/walking/busses
Unfortunately, they won't be paying less for those solutions.
Busses, light rail and subways (except for those already in place)
will be very expensive. Only buses will use the infrastructure already
in place, and they are very slow, unless expresses are used.
Light rail/subways will have to be either built or expanded, a very
expensive proposition.
In many places, and for many people, the walk just isn't a viable
alternative.
Many cities in the SW and west are just too hot for many months for
walking more than a few blocks.
>
>Ultimately what is going to come out of this is a society where
>if people want to keep their cars they are just not going to be
>able to put 10,000 miles a year on them, or they are going to
>have to give them up and waste more hours of their life sitting
>around waiting for busses/rail/etc. My guess knowing the
>population of the United States, that people are going to hold
>on to their cars as long as possible, so your going to see a
>lot more people selling homes and moving close by when they
>take a new job, or they are going to be demanding their
>employers supply telecommuting options for jobs (clerical
>etc.) that can do it.
Some do those things now.
Unfortunately, moving closer to the workplace tends to lead to crowded
conditions which many hate.
Or, we *could* use the island system, with workplaces and housing
forming their own small integrated communities, but that doesn't seem
to be something that is done much here, even though the impetus for it
exists.
You're certainly right in much you say, but the solution will be more
of a shift in the way people do things, rather than a major shift in
just technology.
Liek I said, the solution will be very expensive.
>
>
>Ted
>
#4899
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 22:15:25 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt"
<tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote:
>
>"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote in message
>news:26fdpvckl57mtsgh98lplhu2o2tddv47t8@4ax.com.. .
....
>> 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.
>
>No it wouldn't. Most electric cars would be recharged at night when
>power use is very low. And the power companies can easily enforce
>this, they have been ramping up for this as a matter of fact. A number
>have pilot programs that used computerized meters, that report usage
>back via cellular. Industry has got used to paying different rates for
>power consumed during peak periods, and if electric cars became widely
>used, the power companies would simply change tariffs to allow them to
>charge a lower rate for off-peak power, and a higher rate for peak power
>for residential users. It's unlikely the PUC's would object because the rate
>structure can be designed simply to make it more expensive to charge
>electric
>cars during the day, while otherwise the average rate paid would be little
>changed.
>Keep in mind that the power distribution grid has to be designed to supply
>enough power for everyone in the city to switch on their A/C unit
>in the middle of 100+ temperatures in the city. Most of the time it
>is loafing along.
California says dfferent. Quite often.
The distributiion grid in most cities simply can't handle the added
load of charging electric cars without some sort of system to
distribute the load differently than just turning on when the driver
gets home and plugs in.
Whether this is done with a box in the home, or a system in the car,
it's an added cost. And it's not being discussed to the consumer that
I can see.
>
>The big problem is generation capacity, espically in some areas (like
>California for example) The cost to bring new generation capacity
>online today is five times what it cost to bring it online 30 years ago.
>This is due to the requirement that the emissions requirements for
>new plants are more stringent than for old ones, also because now
>everyone and their dog can try to delay construction with environmental
>complaints and such during the environmental impact statement period.
>And unfortunately the only really available fuel we can use for power
>genration on a large scale is coal.
Hardly. Nuclear is a viable solution, except that it pisses the
tree-huggers off.
>
>> 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."
>>
>
>That is OK, though. We have a long, long time before the price of oil
>becomes impossible to use it for fuel. If the price of it doubles, then
>electric cars will become cheaper than gasoline for city people, even
>though gasoline still won't be too expensive to use for trucks and other
>shipping, as well as long-haul family vacations and road trips.
That was part of my point. Gas will work fine for some time yet. As
well, there is no technology to replace it in the near (10+ years) in
any case.
>
>After all consider the last time you took your boat up to the lake (or
>equivalent)
>It probably only cost about $30 in fuel. Now double that. While it
>hurts a bit, it's still not impossible to keep using gasoline for
>recreational
>use, hauling sheetrock, etc. But merely doubling it would be enough
>to get a lot of 2-car owner families in the city who own 2 gasoline cars to
>switch
>over to 1 gas burner, 1 electric, or to switch to 2 electrics, and 1 gas
>burner, assuming of course that electric power plants with their
>increased efficiencies of converting oil/coal into electricity are able to
>hold the line or just slightly increase electric power costs.
>
>Ultimately of course in the far future when the cost of oil really does
>go up ten times over today's costs, your going to see a lot of both
>short-hop and long-hop commuting switch over to electric rail
>lines. This already is cost-effective and very popular in cities like
>New York, and it is catching on as above-ground light rail in many
>other cities.
Phoenix is going ahead with a grade-level light rail system.
There have bene estimates (by the proponents) that no more than 2% of
*ALL* the city's drivers will use it, and they so far have not
addressed the fact that grade level rail will further tie up traffic
at intersections.
Ah, well, it's bound to make some people rich.
> And also people forget that once oil is pumped out
>of the world and the supply of it dimishes, the cost of aviation gas is
>going to skyrocket. And nobody has figured out how to power
>non-military airplanes from anything other than liquid fuel. Hence the
>interest in high-speed bullet trains.
They don't work well in the tunnel between LA and Hawaii.:-)
>
>When the choices are going to be electric cars and electric rail or nothing,
>people are going to take the electric cars and mass transit.
>
>> 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.
>>
>
>Your forgetting one thing and that is that it's possible to design a
>_constant_velocity_ engine to be more efficient than a
>variable speed engine.
Haven't forgotten it at all. I've been saying for years that hybrids
should be driven by diesels. Much more efficient than gas engines for
that use.
>You can tune the ports and a lot of
>other things. If the hybrid designs were a highly efficient engine
>coupled to a generator that fed motors in the wheels, with a
>battery for idling speeds, you might use even less fuel. The big
>problem here is that accelleration is ----, which is why the hybrid
>designers didn't go this way. Once again, though, if gasoline was
>$25 a gallon, people would suffer not being able to make
>jackrabbit starts off the light.
It's more than accelleration; the diesel just isn't sexy enough.
Hybrids could be advertised as actual economy cars, and the diesel
would fit that niche quite nicely, except for their image.
Advertising would be key here, since commuting cars just don't need
the accelleration today's hybrids offer.
>
>> 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.
>>
>
>There's a tradeoff you missing here, and that is convenience.
>The reason the personal automobile is so popular right now is
>that the cost of running it is pretty low and it is enormously
>convenient. As the oil runs out and
>the cost of running it starts to rise, people will be stuck with
>a choice between paying a lot of money for the convenience of
>running a personal car and paying less money and being more
>inconvenienced by using subway/light rail/walking/busses
Unfortunately, they won't be paying less for those solutions.
Busses, light rail and subways (except for those already in place)
will be very expensive. Only buses will use the infrastructure already
in place, and they are very slow, unless expresses are used.
Light rail/subways will have to be either built or expanded, a very
expensive proposition.
In many places, and for many people, the walk just isn't a viable
alternative.
Many cities in the SW and west are just too hot for many months for
walking more than a few blocks.
>
>Ultimately what is going to come out of this is a society where
>if people want to keep their cars they are just not going to be
>able to put 10,000 miles a year on them, or they are going to
>have to give them up and waste more hours of their life sitting
>around waiting for busses/rail/etc. My guess knowing the
>population of the United States, that people are going to hold
>on to their cars as long as possible, so your going to see a
>lot more people selling homes and moving close by when they
>take a new job, or they are going to be demanding their
>employers supply telecommuting options for jobs (clerical
>etc.) that can do it.
Some do those things now.
Unfortunately, moving closer to the workplace tends to lead to crowded
conditions which many hate.
Or, we *could* use the island system, with workplaces and housing
forming their own small integrated communities, but that doesn't seem
to be something that is done much here, even though the impetus for it
exists.
You're certainly right in much you say, but the solution will be more
of a shift in the way people do things, rather than a major shift in
just technology.
Liek I said, the solution will be very expensive.
>
>
>Ted
>
<tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote:
>
>"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote in message
>news:26fdpvckl57mtsgh98lplhu2o2tddv47t8@4ax.com.. .
....
>> 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.
>
>No it wouldn't. Most electric cars would be recharged at night when
>power use is very low. And the power companies can easily enforce
>this, they have been ramping up for this as a matter of fact. A number
>have pilot programs that used computerized meters, that report usage
>back via cellular. Industry has got used to paying different rates for
>power consumed during peak periods, and if electric cars became widely
>used, the power companies would simply change tariffs to allow them to
>charge a lower rate for off-peak power, and a higher rate for peak power
>for residential users. It's unlikely the PUC's would object because the rate
>structure can be designed simply to make it more expensive to charge
>electric
>cars during the day, while otherwise the average rate paid would be little
>changed.
>Keep in mind that the power distribution grid has to be designed to supply
>enough power for everyone in the city to switch on their A/C unit
>in the middle of 100+ temperatures in the city. Most of the time it
>is loafing along.
California says dfferent. Quite often.
The distributiion grid in most cities simply can't handle the added
load of charging electric cars without some sort of system to
distribute the load differently than just turning on when the driver
gets home and plugs in.
Whether this is done with a box in the home, or a system in the car,
it's an added cost. And it's not being discussed to the consumer that
I can see.
>
>The big problem is generation capacity, espically in some areas (like
>California for example) The cost to bring new generation capacity
>online today is five times what it cost to bring it online 30 years ago.
>This is due to the requirement that the emissions requirements for
>new plants are more stringent than for old ones, also because now
>everyone and their dog can try to delay construction with environmental
>complaints and such during the environmental impact statement period.
>And unfortunately the only really available fuel we can use for power
>genration on a large scale is coal.
Hardly. Nuclear is a viable solution, except that it pisses the
tree-huggers off.
>
>> 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."
>>
>
>That is OK, though. We have a long, long time before the price of oil
>becomes impossible to use it for fuel. If the price of it doubles, then
>electric cars will become cheaper than gasoline for city people, even
>though gasoline still won't be too expensive to use for trucks and other
>shipping, as well as long-haul family vacations and road trips.
That was part of my point. Gas will work fine for some time yet. As
well, there is no technology to replace it in the near (10+ years) in
any case.
>
>After all consider the last time you took your boat up to the lake (or
>equivalent)
>It probably only cost about $30 in fuel. Now double that. While it
>hurts a bit, it's still not impossible to keep using gasoline for
>recreational
>use, hauling sheetrock, etc. But merely doubling it would be enough
>to get a lot of 2-car owner families in the city who own 2 gasoline cars to
>switch
>over to 1 gas burner, 1 electric, or to switch to 2 electrics, and 1 gas
>burner, assuming of course that electric power plants with their
>increased efficiencies of converting oil/coal into electricity are able to
>hold the line or just slightly increase electric power costs.
>
>Ultimately of course in the far future when the cost of oil really does
>go up ten times over today's costs, your going to see a lot of both
>short-hop and long-hop commuting switch over to electric rail
>lines. This already is cost-effective and very popular in cities like
>New York, and it is catching on as above-ground light rail in many
>other cities.
Phoenix is going ahead with a grade-level light rail system.
There have bene estimates (by the proponents) that no more than 2% of
*ALL* the city's drivers will use it, and they so far have not
addressed the fact that grade level rail will further tie up traffic
at intersections.
Ah, well, it's bound to make some people rich.
> And also people forget that once oil is pumped out
>of the world and the supply of it dimishes, the cost of aviation gas is
>going to skyrocket. And nobody has figured out how to power
>non-military airplanes from anything other than liquid fuel. Hence the
>interest in high-speed bullet trains.
They don't work well in the tunnel between LA and Hawaii.:-)
>
>When the choices are going to be electric cars and electric rail or nothing,
>people are going to take the electric cars and mass transit.
>
>> 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.
>>
>
>Your forgetting one thing and that is that it's possible to design a
>_constant_velocity_ engine to be more efficient than a
>variable speed engine.
Haven't forgotten it at all. I've been saying for years that hybrids
should be driven by diesels. Much more efficient than gas engines for
that use.
>You can tune the ports and a lot of
>other things. If the hybrid designs were a highly efficient engine
>coupled to a generator that fed motors in the wheels, with a
>battery for idling speeds, you might use even less fuel. The big
>problem here is that accelleration is ----, which is why the hybrid
>designers didn't go this way. Once again, though, if gasoline was
>$25 a gallon, people would suffer not being able to make
>jackrabbit starts off the light.
It's more than accelleration; the diesel just isn't sexy enough.
Hybrids could be advertised as actual economy cars, and the diesel
would fit that niche quite nicely, except for their image.
Advertising would be key here, since commuting cars just don't need
the accelleration today's hybrids offer.
>
>> 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.
>>
>
>There's a tradeoff you missing here, and that is convenience.
>The reason the personal automobile is so popular right now is
>that the cost of running it is pretty low and it is enormously
>convenient. As the oil runs out and
>the cost of running it starts to rise, people will be stuck with
>a choice between paying a lot of money for the convenience of
>running a personal car and paying less money and being more
>inconvenienced by using subway/light rail/walking/busses
Unfortunately, they won't be paying less for those solutions.
Busses, light rail and subways (except for those already in place)
will be very expensive. Only buses will use the infrastructure already
in place, and they are very slow, unless expresses are used.
Light rail/subways will have to be either built or expanded, a very
expensive proposition.
In many places, and for many people, the walk just isn't a viable
alternative.
Many cities in the SW and west are just too hot for many months for
walking more than a few blocks.
>
>Ultimately what is going to come out of this is a society where
>if people want to keep their cars they are just not going to be
>able to put 10,000 miles a year on them, or they are going to
>have to give them up and waste more hours of their life sitting
>around waiting for busses/rail/etc. My guess knowing the
>population of the United States, that people are going to hold
>on to their cars as long as possible, so your going to see a
>lot more people selling homes and moving close by when they
>take a new job, or they are going to be demanding their
>employers supply telecommuting options for jobs (clerical
>etc.) that can do it.
Some do those things now.
Unfortunately, moving closer to the workplace tends to lead to crowded
conditions which many hate.
Or, we *could* use the island system, with workplaces and housing
forming their own small integrated communities, but that doesn't seem
to be something that is done much here, even though the impetus for it
exists.
You're certainly right in much you say, but the solution will be more
of a shift in the way people do things, rather than a major shift in
just technology.
Liek I said, the solution will be very expensive.
>
>
>Ted
>
#4900
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 22:15:25 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt"
<tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote:
>
>"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote in message
>news:26fdpvckl57mtsgh98lplhu2o2tddv47t8@4ax.com.. .
....
>> 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.
>
>No it wouldn't. Most electric cars would be recharged at night when
>power use is very low. And the power companies can easily enforce
>this, they have been ramping up for this as a matter of fact. A number
>have pilot programs that used computerized meters, that report usage
>back via cellular. Industry has got used to paying different rates for
>power consumed during peak periods, and if electric cars became widely
>used, the power companies would simply change tariffs to allow them to
>charge a lower rate for off-peak power, and a higher rate for peak power
>for residential users. It's unlikely the PUC's would object because the rate
>structure can be designed simply to make it more expensive to charge
>electric
>cars during the day, while otherwise the average rate paid would be little
>changed.
>Keep in mind that the power distribution grid has to be designed to supply
>enough power for everyone in the city to switch on their A/C unit
>in the middle of 100+ temperatures in the city. Most of the time it
>is loafing along.
California says dfferent. Quite often.
The distributiion grid in most cities simply can't handle the added
load of charging electric cars without some sort of system to
distribute the load differently than just turning on when the driver
gets home and plugs in.
Whether this is done with a box in the home, or a system in the car,
it's an added cost. And it's not being discussed to the consumer that
I can see.
>
>The big problem is generation capacity, espically in some areas (like
>California for example) The cost to bring new generation capacity
>online today is five times what it cost to bring it online 30 years ago.
>This is due to the requirement that the emissions requirements for
>new plants are more stringent than for old ones, also because now
>everyone and their dog can try to delay construction with environmental
>complaints and such during the environmental impact statement period.
>And unfortunately the only really available fuel we can use for power
>genration on a large scale is coal.
Hardly. Nuclear is a viable solution, except that it pisses the
tree-huggers off.
>
>> 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."
>>
>
>That is OK, though. We have a long, long time before the price of oil
>becomes impossible to use it for fuel. If the price of it doubles, then
>electric cars will become cheaper than gasoline for city people, even
>though gasoline still won't be too expensive to use for trucks and other
>shipping, as well as long-haul family vacations and road trips.
That was part of my point. Gas will work fine for some time yet. As
well, there is no technology to replace it in the near (10+ years) in
any case.
>
>After all consider the last time you took your boat up to the lake (or
>equivalent)
>It probably only cost about $30 in fuel. Now double that. While it
>hurts a bit, it's still not impossible to keep using gasoline for
>recreational
>use, hauling sheetrock, etc. But merely doubling it would be enough
>to get a lot of 2-car owner families in the city who own 2 gasoline cars to
>switch
>over to 1 gas burner, 1 electric, or to switch to 2 electrics, and 1 gas
>burner, assuming of course that electric power plants with their
>increased efficiencies of converting oil/coal into electricity are able to
>hold the line or just slightly increase electric power costs.
>
>Ultimately of course in the far future when the cost of oil really does
>go up ten times over today's costs, your going to see a lot of both
>short-hop and long-hop commuting switch over to electric rail
>lines. This already is cost-effective and very popular in cities like
>New York, and it is catching on as above-ground light rail in many
>other cities.
Phoenix is going ahead with a grade-level light rail system.
There have bene estimates (by the proponents) that no more than 2% of
*ALL* the city's drivers will use it, and they so far have not
addressed the fact that grade level rail will further tie up traffic
at intersections.
Ah, well, it's bound to make some people rich.
> And also people forget that once oil is pumped out
>of the world and the supply of it dimishes, the cost of aviation gas is
>going to skyrocket. And nobody has figured out how to power
>non-military airplanes from anything other than liquid fuel. Hence the
>interest in high-speed bullet trains.
They don't work well in the tunnel between LA and Hawaii.:-)
>
>When the choices are going to be electric cars and electric rail or nothing,
>people are going to take the electric cars and mass transit.
>
>> 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.
>>
>
>Your forgetting one thing and that is that it's possible to design a
>_constant_velocity_ engine to be more efficient than a
>variable speed engine.
Haven't forgotten it at all. I've been saying for years that hybrids
should be driven by diesels. Much more efficient than gas engines for
that use.
>You can tune the ports and a lot of
>other things. If the hybrid designs were a highly efficient engine
>coupled to a generator that fed motors in the wheels, with a
>battery for idling speeds, you might use even less fuel. The big
>problem here is that accelleration is ----, which is why the hybrid
>designers didn't go this way. Once again, though, if gasoline was
>$25 a gallon, people would suffer not being able to make
>jackrabbit starts off the light.
It's more than accelleration; the diesel just isn't sexy enough.
Hybrids could be advertised as actual economy cars, and the diesel
would fit that niche quite nicely, except for their image.
Advertising would be key here, since commuting cars just don't need
the accelleration today's hybrids offer.
>
>> 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.
>>
>
>There's a tradeoff you missing here, and that is convenience.
>The reason the personal automobile is so popular right now is
>that the cost of running it is pretty low and it is enormously
>convenient. As the oil runs out and
>the cost of running it starts to rise, people will be stuck with
>a choice between paying a lot of money for the convenience of
>running a personal car and paying less money and being more
>inconvenienced by using subway/light rail/walking/busses
Unfortunately, they won't be paying less for those solutions.
Busses, light rail and subways (except for those already in place)
will be very expensive. Only buses will use the infrastructure already
in place, and they are very slow, unless expresses are used.
Light rail/subways will have to be either built or expanded, a very
expensive proposition.
In many places, and for many people, the walk just isn't a viable
alternative.
Many cities in the SW and west are just too hot for many months for
walking more than a few blocks.
>
>Ultimately what is going to come out of this is a society where
>if people want to keep their cars they are just not going to be
>able to put 10,000 miles a year on them, or they are going to
>have to give them up and waste more hours of their life sitting
>around waiting for busses/rail/etc. My guess knowing the
>population of the United States, that people are going to hold
>on to their cars as long as possible, so your going to see a
>lot more people selling homes and moving close by when they
>take a new job, or they are going to be demanding their
>employers supply telecommuting options for jobs (clerical
>etc.) that can do it.
Some do those things now.
Unfortunately, moving closer to the workplace tends to lead to crowded
conditions which many hate.
Or, we *could* use the island system, with workplaces and housing
forming their own small integrated communities, but that doesn't seem
to be something that is done much here, even though the impetus for it
exists.
You're certainly right in much you say, but the solution will be more
of a shift in the way people do things, rather than a major shift in
just technology.
Liek I said, the solution will be very expensive.
>
>
>Ted
>
<tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote:
>
>"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote in message
>news:26fdpvckl57mtsgh98lplhu2o2tddv47t8@4ax.com.. .
....
>> 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.
>
>No it wouldn't. Most electric cars would be recharged at night when
>power use is very low. And the power companies can easily enforce
>this, they have been ramping up for this as a matter of fact. A number
>have pilot programs that used computerized meters, that report usage
>back via cellular. Industry has got used to paying different rates for
>power consumed during peak periods, and if electric cars became widely
>used, the power companies would simply change tariffs to allow them to
>charge a lower rate for off-peak power, and a higher rate for peak power
>for residential users. It's unlikely the PUC's would object because the rate
>structure can be designed simply to make it more expensive to charge
>electric
>cars during the day, while otherwise the average rate paid would be little
>changed.
>Keep in mind that the power distribution grid has to be designed to supply
>enough power for everyone in the city to switch on their A/C unit
>in the middle of 100+ temperatures in the city. Most of the time it
>is loafing along.
California says dfferent. Quite often.
The distributiion grid in most cities simply can't handle the added
load of charging electric cars without some sort of system to
distribute the load differently than just turning on when the driver
gets home and plugs in.
Whether this is done with a box in the home, or a system in the car,
it's an added cost. And it's not being discussed to the consumer that
I can see.
>
>The big problem is generation capacity, espically in some areas (like
>California for example) The cost to bring new generation capacity
>online today is five times what it cost to bring it online 30 years ago.
>This is due to the requirement that the emissions requirements for
>new plants are more stringent than for old ones, also because now
>everyone and their dog can try to delay construction with environmental
>complaints and such during the environmental impact statement period.
>And unfortunately the only really available fuel we can use for power
>genration on a large scale is coal.
Hardly. Nuclear is a viable solution, except that it pisses the
tree-huggers off.
>
>> 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."
>>
>
>That is OK, though. We have a long, long time before the price of oil
>becomes impossible to use it for fuel. If the price of it doubles, then
>electric cars will become cheaper than gasoline for city people, even
>though gasoline still won't be too expensive to use for trucks and other
>shipping, as well as long-haul family vacations and road trips.
That was part of my point. Gas will work fine for some time yet. As
well, there is no technology to replace it in the near (10+ years) in
any case.
>
>After all consider the last time you took your boat up to the lake (or
>equivalent)
>It probably only cost about $30 in fuel. Now double that. While it
>hurts a bit, it's still not impossible to keep using gasoline for
>recreational
>use, hauling sheetrock, etc. But merely doubling it would be enough
>to get a lot of 2-car owner families in the city who own 2 gasoline cars to
>switch
>over to 1 gas burner, 1 electric, or to switch to 2 electrics, and 1 gas
>burner, assuming of course that electric power plants with their
>increased efficiencies of converting oil/coal into electricity are able to
>hold the line or just slightly increase electric power costs.
>
>Ultimately of course in the far future when the cost of oil really does
>go up ten times over today's costs, your going to see a lot of both
>short-hop and long-hop commuting switch over to electric rail
>lines. This already is cost-effective and very popular in cities like
>New York, and it is catching on as above-ground light rail in many
>other cities.
Phoenix is going ahead with a grade-level light rail system.
There have bene estimates (by the proponents) that no more than 2% of
*ALL* the city's drivers will use it, and they so far have not
addressed the fact that grade level rail will further tie up traffic
at intersections.
Ah, well, it's bound to make some people rich.
> And also people forget that once oil is pumped out
>of the world and the supply of it dimishes, the cost of aviation gas is
>going to skyrocket. And nobody has figured out how to power
>non-military airplanes from anything other than liquid fuel. Hence the
>interest in high-speed bullet trains.
They don't work well in the tunnel between LA and Hawaii.:-)
>
>When the choices are going to be electric cars and electric rail or nothing,
>people are going to take the electric cars and mass transit.
>
>> 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.
>>
>
>Your forgetting one thing and that is that it's possible to design a
>_constant_velocity_ engine to be more efficient than a
>variable speed engine.
Haven't forgotten it at all. I've been saying for years that hybrids
should be driven by diesels. Much more efficient than gas engines for
that use.
>You can tune the ports and a lot of
>other things. If the hybrid designs were a highly efficient engine
>coupled to a generator that fed motors in the wheels, with a
>battery for idling speeds, you might use even less fuel. The big
>problem here is that accelleration is ----, which is why the hybrid
>designers didn't go this way. Once again, though, if gasoline was
>$25 a gallon, people would suffer not being able to make
>jackrabbit starts off the light.
It's more than accelleration; the diesel just isn't sexy enough.
Hybrids could be advertised as actual economy cars, and the diesel
would fit that niche quite nicely, except for their image.
Advertising would be key here, since commuting cars just don't need
the accelleration today's hybrids offer.
>
>> 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.
>>
>
>There's a tradeoff you missing here, and that is convenience.
>The reason the personal automobile is so popular right now is
>that the cost of running it is pretty low and it is enormously
>convenient. As the oil runs out and
>the cost of running it starts to rise, people will be stuck with
>a choice between paying a lot of money for the convenience of
>running a personal car and paying less money and being more
>inconvenienced by using subway/light rail/walking/busses
Unfortunately, they won't be paying less for those solutions.
Busses, light rail and subways (except for those already in place)
will be very expensive. Only buses will use the infrastructure already
in place, and they are very slow, unless expresses are used.
Light rail/subways will have to be either built or expanded, a very
expensive proposition.
In many places, and for many people, the walk just isn't a viable
alternative.
Many cities in the SW and west are just too hot for many months for
walking more than a few blocks.
>
>Ultimately what is going to come out of this is a society where
>if people want to keep their cars they are just not going to be
>able to put 10,000 miles a year on them, or they are going to
>have to give them up and waste more hours of their life sitting
>around waiting for busses/rail/etc. My guess knowing the
>population of the United States, that people are going to hold
>on to their cars as long as possible, so your going to see a
>lot more people selling homes and moving close by when they
>take a new job, or they are going to be demanding their
>employers supply telecommuting options for jobs (clerical
>etc.) that can do it.
Some do those things now.
Unfortunately, moving closer to the workplace tends to lead to crowded
conditions which many hate.
Or, we *could* use the island system, with workplaces and housing
forming their own small integrated communities, but that doesn't seem
to be something that is done much here, even though the impetus for it
exists.
You're certainly right in much you say, but the solution will be more
of a shift in the way people do things, rather than a major shift in
just technology.
Liek I said, the solution will be very expensive.
>
>
>Ted
>