Is it possible to live in America without a car?



Jack May wrote:
> "Joshua Putnam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...

>
>> The end of the EV-1 is not the death of the electric car, it's the death
>> of GM's overpriced electric car beta test program.

>
> Tell us exactly which battery technology can produce a practical electric
> car in winter in the US. Nobody else knows the answer to that question.
>
> Battery technology is mature. Breakthrough are not likely.
>
> If a solution exist, it should be obvious what it is.
>
>

On you, I give up. You are hopelesely muddled in you own lack of knowledge.
Bill Baka
 
Jack May wrote:
> "Bill Baka" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Jack May wrote:
>>> "H M Leary" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>> "Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Bill Baka" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> Jack May wrote:

>
>> That's very interesting.
>> Brazil is doing more damage to the planet than any single nation by
>> burning the rain forests and we are throwing money at them?

>
> Brazil emerging market are a lot more than alcohol production. Technology
> is changing the world so that third world countries have the possibility of
> turning into advanced nations.
>
> Emerging market still are heavily driven by commodities, but they are also
> progressing towards technology.
>
> BTW, my emerging market mutual funds paid me several percent return on my
> investment just for today alone. It is somewhat of a risky investment but
> a hell of a lot better than the bank.
>
>

Which makes you one of the S.O.B.'s that is financing Brazil.
That is all I need to know about you.
Bill Baka
 
"Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>

>
>> Bill, your logic amazes me at times.
>>
>> Let's recap...
>>
>> The cost of designing and producing the vehicles is outrageous.
>>
>> GM sold them at a huge loss.
>>
>> Still they couldn't sell or lease ONE a day.
>>
>> Bill's take.
>>
>> A huge number of people really wanted to buy one (must have been
>> some pretty unmotivated shoppers).
>>
>> Raise the price on them to cover the cost (yeah, that'll help
>> sales).

>
> I have been assuming that transit advocates are the dumbest people in the
> world. I am obviously wrong. Electrics car fanatics have transit
> advocates beat by miles.
>


The plug-in hybrid would be quite acceptable for most people using existing
technology. As long as it would go 30 miles or so, most commuters would not
need to start the on-board engines. Even if they did, it would still use a
lot less oil. Yes, electricity generated by coal would replace oil, but we
have coal.
 
"dgk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 14:40:03 -0700, "Baxter"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>-
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> One of the things you'll learn if you read all the links is that JUST
>>> the new coal-fired power plants planned in China will MORE than offset
>>> the theoretical gain if all the Kyoto signers actually did what they
>>> said they would (which they aren't, BTW).

>>
>>So, because of what China MIGHT do, we should just keep polluting as we
>>always have (and in fact worse since Bush -lowered- EPA standards)?
>>

> I don't understand why folks are so excited about global warming. So
> what if the earth heats up a bit and the climate change causes famine
> and lots of suffering? Maybe it will even lead to the extinction of
> the human race. Big deal. Most of us are a bunch of selfish assholes
> and the universe will probably cheer.
>
> And maybe Bush and his supporters are correct, and this is really the
> END TIMES and armageddon is coming. Global warming is obviiously God's
> hand pushing us towards the end and we'd be morally wrong to do
> anything about it.
>
>

The world has been much warmer in the past than it is today. This is a
geological fact. It used to be argued that warming since the last ice age
is what gave the human species the ability to spread and thrive. Further,
massive amounts of new land will come into play for growing crops,
increasing food supply which will enable more people to live on the planet.
Now, that may be not what many people want, but it is probably what is going
to happen in maybe 25 generations from now. What other worries have we got
until then?
 
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 14:32:50 GMT, "george conklin" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> The world has been much warmer in the past than it is today. This is a
>geological fact. It used to be argued that warming since the last ice age
>is what gave the human species the ability to spread and thrive. Further,
>massive amounts of new land will come into play for growing crops,
>increasing food supply which will enable more people to live on the planet.
>Now, that may be not what many people want, but it is probably what is going
>to happen in maybe 25 generations from now. What other worries have we got
>until then?


Why, none.

None atoll.
 
george conklin wrote:

> The world has been much warmer in the past than it is today. This is a
> geological fact.


<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ice_Age_Temperature.png>

The worst-case temperature increases predicted for the next century
could put us above any estimated average temperatures over the last half
million years. We are close to peak cyclical temperature/minimum ice
levels now.

> It used to be argued that warming since the last ice age
> is what gave the human species the ability to spread and thrive.


We are currently in an inter-glacial period, it's the wrong time to turn
up the heat.


> Further,
> massive amounts of new land will come into play for growing crops,
> increasing food supply which will enable more people to live on the planet.



<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming>

While local benefits may be felt in some regions (such as Siberia),
recent evidence is that global yields will be negatively affected.
"Rising atmospheric temperatures, longer droughts and side-effects of
both, such as higher levels of ground-level ozone gas, are likely to
bring about a substantial reduction in crop yields in the coming
decades, large-scale experiments have shown" (The Independent, April 27,
2005,


> Now, that may be not what many people want, but it is probably what

is going
> to happen in maybe 25 generations from now. What other worries have

we got
> until then?


Droughts, extreme weather, species extinction, coastal flooding, acidic
seawater, etc.

The time frame being discussed is perhaps 3 generations, not 25.

This is a very interesting time for climatologists. It reminds one of
the Chinese curse: "May you live during interesting times."

It may be that these changes won't happen. It may be that our
technological improvements will allow us to mitigate the phenomenon or
it effects -- but it's a very big risk.
 
Jack May wrote:
>> > If the had sabotaged the implementation of bicycle transportation like

> > they do now, YES, we could be speaking about hijacking by Big Oil and
> > car manufacturers.

>
> Aluminum hat theories of grand conspiracies are foolish and a waste of bits.
> Companies are always going to try and beat their competitors. That is the
> free market. That is not conspiracies.


The lion ensures he gets no competition and to that effect ties up the
monkey. And sometimes he's even gagged...

Example, the lion says: "Sure, you can have a bicycle, but can't ride
in traffic 'cause there's no room for you and it's a jungle out there.
Well, but you can always buy a car (as well as gas and insurance) from
me." ;)

Remember: "Competition is a sin." -John D. Rockefeller
 
Jack May wrote:
> I saw the trailer of the movie on "Nothing But Trailers" on HD NET
>
> What a total bunch of illiterate morons with not understanding at all of
> what they were talking about.
>
> It is trivial to come up with such tin foil cap type theories when you
> ignorant of virtually everything.
>
> I doubt any of them have tried to run an electric car in 20 below zero
> temperatures


Well, they can send the electric car down south where we got too many
SUVs. Luckily, Key West already has them since they were smart enough
to declare themselves an independent "Conch Republic," and leave the
American jungle behind. How long you think you could survive in one
these things in the Darwinian roads?

Ford's entry into the Neighborhood Electric Vehicle market is now a
reality.

We saw it, we drove it, we checked it out and took lots of pictures. We
were completely taken off guard recently when a local institution
called us up saying they have been reading our articles on other NEVs
and would we like to come and look over a 'Ford Neighbor' that they are
test driving. Of course we jumped at the chance. We have previously
reported on the Bombardier and Gem (we owned some of those) and
recently Lee Iaccoca's 'Lido'. We have known about the Ford Think
Neighbor but had never seen one.

SO WHAT DO WE THINK?
Frankly our very first impression was that the design must have been
approved by the Spruce Pine Ugly Committee. (Spruce Pine is a little
town nearby us that is so messy we always joke that they must have an
Ugly Committee to approves local businesses). But after we got a better
look, that impression went away and we began to appreciate the true
design.

After our examination and test we concluded that the Think Neighbor is
a giant step forward in the creation of a truly practical and
affordable Neighborhood Electric Vehicle. It is the best NEV we have
seen to date. Here's why...

Ingress - Egress - Roominess
A major complaint of other NEVs was that they were difficult to get in
and get out - with various degrees of aggravation. Not so with the
Think. The enclosure (rain curtain) has big bold zippers in just the
right positions that permits easy access to either the front or rear.
This 4 seater had grab handles for all 4 seats to assist in access.
Once inside, the front compartment is amazingly roomy. The driver's
seat is adjustable and we actually had to slide it forward to have a
comfortable grip on the steering wheel. The rear seat of this 4 seater
version is like riding in the back seat of a compact car - adequate but
not roomy. The bucket type front seats and the bench back seat are very
comfortable with conventional seatbelts and head restraints (functional
but not attractive) on all seat backs.

Street or Golf Use???
This NEV can be used either as a Golf Car or a Street Vehicle. Of
course it is street legal and according to Fed Rules, the vehicle's top
speed is 25 mph. The six 12 Volt batteries provide a 72 volt, 350 amp
system that gives the car lots of pep. It has a GE Controller with
Regen and rollaway features. The ignition switch has the simple
positions of "Off, 'D' (Drive), 'T' (Turf - 15 mph max), and 'R'
(Reverse). And the digital instrument cluster has all the information
you need. This model had both a front and rear lockable compartment.
The front can double as a cooler. There is also a Glove Box on the
Dash.

more...

http://personal.atl.bellsouth.net/t/r/troprent/ford.htm
 
Jack May wrote:
> "donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Bill wrote:
> >> > With R&D costs of only a billion dollars, or $1.25 million per car
> >> > leased, it's hard to understand why GM stopped producing them.
> >>
> >> There were plenty of people who wanted one that GM never built one for
> >> and I am sure the market would have beared (borne) the higher price.
> >> They were really big with Hollywood types who wanted to improve their
> >> image as well as the small part of Americans who realized most of their
> >> trips were short. My grand-daughter just blew about $200 on her Honda
> >> for a crummy 1.2 mile commute to her job at McDonalds (she is still
> >> going to college). It had a bad starter, which I told them so they
> >> bought a battery, against my advice. 2 starts later the starter went up
> >> in smoke. After a session of "I told you so." they spent over $100 to
> >> get a starter on this 'Economy car' that is used on one mile commutes.
> >> That about proves my point about electric and short drives. The girl is
> >> just plain too fat to ride and being just out of high school it isn't
> >> cool to ride a bike. Such is life.
> >> Bill Baka

> >
> > Forget the talk about the futuristic technologies. That is often a
> > delaying tactic used by politicians to opiate people for a while (think
> > of Bush's talk of researching new technologies, bla, bla, bla). The
> > future is in the past, in simplicity: Ride a bicycle, RIDE TO WORK.

>
> Nonsense. Bikes don't meet the requirements of commuters.


Not those of ordinary BIG FAT AMERICANS who are too lazy to drive
anything but an Stupid Unnecessary Vehicle. But as a matter of fact,
THEY WOULD BE THE FIRST TO BENEFIT FROM IT --BURN THE CALORIES, BIMBO!

Bike Commuting: Better Living by Design
The Bike Commute Challenge is an opportunity for local businesses to
compete against each other for the most trips by bike per number of
employees in the company. So far, opus:creative is represented by 13
cyclists out of a total of 31 employees, with a few more stragglers
expected to sign on before the competition begins. Individual employees
who participate in the Challenge are eligible for discounts in local
bike stores at the end of the month, and the employers who sponsor them
stand to benefit well beyond the scope of the one-month contest.

"Bicycling reduces stress and anxiety, and makes for happier
employees," the BTA claims, citing the National Center for Health
Statistics study that shows absentee and turnover rates being lower
among physically active employees, as well as a Blue Cross/Blue Shield
study that showed how companies spend less on health care when they
encourage in programs promoting physical activity.

Outside of opus:creative, bike commuter numbers are exploding
throughout Portland, as profiled recently in an Associated Press
article that credited cycling - and the City of Portland's emphasis
on livable urban design that encourages such activities - for helping
keep Oregon's adult OBESITY RATE STAGNANT, while other U.S. states
continue to climb steadily.

http://www.opuscreative.com/blog/PermaLink,guid,e69122cb-f773-4909-890e-b99d4f5a40b4.aspx
 
Seems to be the unending thread, and it's resorted to this same tired
argument of "cycling is no better than cars, because it takes a lot of
energy in some form or another to power/manufacture the bicycle".

This argument is simply ridiculous. Those who pose this argument need
to factor in the all the energy, including HUMAN energy, to explore for
oil, to drill for oil, to ship oil, to refine oil into gasoline, to
ship gasoline, to power service stations, to mine the ore necessary for
steel production, to smelt the ore into steel, to ship the steel, to
power the automobile production facility, to ship the cars, to power
the auto dealership facility, and finally to power the cars.

Oh but then let's don't forget about the road construction, the bridge
and other infrastructure construction, the auto parts stores that seem
to be everywhere. So now compare this to the bicycle. RIDICULOUS!
-----
Jim Gagnepain
http://home.comcast.net/~oil_free_and_happy/index.html
 
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Dave Head" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> an honest to goodness climate scientist, says it ain't necessarily the

truth.
> He say's that most of Gore's scientific hoarde is more about predicting

the
> _results_ of a global warming episode than about predicting the

_likelyhood_ of
> a global warming episode, or whether we have anything to do with it or

whether
> there's anything we could do about it.


Reputable Climate Scientists say the likelihood of a global warming episode
is 100%.
 
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Dave Head" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Yeah, it exists... people can see it in their own lifetimes. The crux,

tho,
> is _why_ it exists. I'm thinking that this fellow from Australia is more
> right, and that the reason is _mostly_ natural causes.


No it's not. The real crux, however, is regardless of source what can we do
about it. Spewing millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere is NOT going
to help.
 
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"george conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> >

> The world has been much warmer in the past than it is today.


And we were noticably absent during those times.

>This is a
> geological fact. It used to be argued that warming since the last ice age
> is what gave the human species the ability to spread and thrive. Further,
> massive amounts of new land will come into play for growing crops,
> increasing food supply which will enable more people to live on the

planet.

Actually it won't. It WILL make new deserts where there is now farmland,
and weather will be so unstable that it will lead to many, many crop
failures on the land it does open up.
 
"Peter Cole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> george conklin wrote:
>
>> The world has been much warmer in the past than it is today. This is
>> a geological fact.

>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ice_Age_Temperature.png>
>
> The worst-case temperature increases predicted for the next century could
> put us above any estimated average temperatures over the last half million
> years. We are close to peak cyclical temperature/minimum ice levels now.


Your cite is from a user-contributed posting and reflects the interests of
the posters, not science.

As far as the past, I don't see more coal deposits in the polar regions, do
you?

And the OCEANS were much higher in the past too. 500,000 years is yesterday
in geological history.
 
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 21:28:20 -0700, "Jack May" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>There is no need for fuel cells. Hydrogen works great in modified internal
>combustion engines.

Yes, IC Engines like it though there are some tweaks that have to be
made. Crankcase oil lasts much longer, for example.
One such effort is at http://www.safehydrogen.com/technology.html
But to be honest, hydrogen "fuels" are really an energy storage and
transportation medium, not a primary fuel, and if one looks upstream
it is very expensive energy, and there is still CO2/carbon produced in
its formation, whether from the generation of electrical power used in
electrolytic preparation, or from splitting from methane, etc.
People feel good about nothing but water coming out of an exhaust pipe
or fuel cell, though, despite what the overall system does, or costs.
Then there is the 'Hindenberg" aspect. Most drivers we see should
not really be trusted with a petrol tank, let alone a 6,000 PSI
Pressure Vessel.
The above URL attempts to address the high presure storage problems.
 
Baxter who? writes:

> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------


>> Yeah, it exists... people can see it in their own lifetimes. The
>> crux, tho, is _why_ it exists. I'm thinking that this fellow from
>> Australia is more right, and that the reason is _mostly_ natural
>> causes.


> No it's not. The real crux, however, is regardless of source what
> can we do about it. Spewing millions of tons of CO2 into the
> atmosphere is NOT going to help.


Those who have seen times go by will recall that in the days of black
smoke belching RR steam engines, California had no idea what smog was
nor was the word commonly known. "Clean" burning cars in sufficient
numbers changed all that. Similarly, primarily these vehicles and
power generators produce enough CO2 to make a difference in world
climate.

It's not that there are too many cars. There are too many drivers.
Humans seldom consider themselves the problem, but we are multiplying
in yeast-like fashion. Therein lies the root cause.

Jobst Brandt
 
oilfreeandhappy wrote:
> Seems to be the unending thread, and it's resorted to this same tired
> argument of "cycling is no better than cars, because it takes a lot of
> energy in some form or another to power/manufacture the bicycle".
>
> This argument is simply ridiculous. Those who pose this argument need
> to factor in the all the energy, including HUMAN energy, to explore for
> oil, to drill for oil, to ship oil, to refine oil into gasoline, to
> ship gasoline, to power service stations, to mine the ore necessary for
> steel production, to smelt the ore into steel, to ship the steel, to
> power the automobile production facility, to ship the cars, to power
> the auto dealership facility, and finally to power the cars.
>
> Oh but then let's don't forget about the road construction, the bridge
> and other infrastructure construction, the auto parts stores that seem
> to be everywhere. So now compare this to the bicycle. RIDICULOUS!


They know it's ridiculous but remember dinosaurs are too stupid to
change. And also, all the vested interests that go into it...

Hey nice little bike you got there. I want to get a little one too. :)
> -----
> Jim Gagnepain
> http://home.comcast.net/~oil_free_and_happy/index.html
 
[email protected] wrote:
> It's not that there are too many cars. There are too many drivers.
> Humans seldom consider themselves the problem, but we are multiplying
> in yeast-like fashion. Therein lies the root cause.
>
> Jobst Brandt


No, it ain't. Holland is more environmentally friendly than America and
see their population densities...

Netherlands... 395 square km

United States... 30 square km

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density

However those 30 people cause a lot of pollution: SUVs, motorboats, and
other stupid senseless and superflous junk.
 
george conklin wrote:
> "Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Bill, your logic amazes me at times.
>>>
>>> Let's recap...
>>>
>>> The cost of designing and producing the vehicles is outrageous.
>>>
>>> GM sold them at a huge loss.
>>>
>>> Still they couldn't sell or lease ONE a day.
>>>
>>> Bill's take.
>>>
>>> A huge number of people really wanted to buy one (must have been
>>> some pretty unmotivated shoppers).
>>>
>>> Raise the price on them to cover the cost (yeah, that'll help
>>> sales).

>> I have been assuming that transit advocates are the dumbest people in the
>> world. I am obviously wrong. Electrics car fanatics have transit
>> advocates beat by miles.
>>

>
> The plug-in hybrid would be quite acceptable for most people using existing
> technology. As long as it would go 30 miles or so, most commuters would not
> need to start the on-board engines. Even if they did, it would still use a
> lot less oil. Yes, electricity generated by coal would replace oil, but we
> have coal.
>
>

Yeah,
About a 100 years worth of it and it produces CO2 when it burns too, in
addition so Sulfur, which scientists are trying to make scrubbers to get
the Sulfur out. That is what caused all the acid rain back in the east
when there were big steel mills in operation.
Study some history.
Bill Baka
 
george conklin wrote:

> The plug-in hybrid would be quite acceptable for most people using existing
> technology. As long as it would go 30 miles or so, most commuters would not
> need to start the on-board engines. Even if they did, it would still use a
> lot less oil. Yes, electricity generated by coal would replace oil, but we
> have coal.


Long term, we'll probably be driving plug-in hybrids that use ethanol
for the ICE. Toyota is finally talking about plug-in hybrids, now that
so many people have done after-market conversions to the Prius.

The electricity will have to be generated by nuclear power or
hydro-electric. The last thing we need to do is to start burning massive
quantities of high sulfur coal in order to generate electricity. You can
see the effect of this in China already.

Once the U.S. gets over their irrational fear of nuclear energy, and
joins the rest of the industrialized world, it'll make plug-in hybrids
the best option.
 

Similar threads