Is it possible to live in America without a car?



"Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Jack May wrote:
>>> "Joshua Putnam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...

>
>> On you, I give up. You are hopelesely muddled in you own lack of
>> knowledge.
>> Bill Baka

>
>No, I know exactly what I am talking about. You are wallowing in fantasies
>that can never happen.


That, and fantasies that never happened (past tense). ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
 
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Why create an enormous economic hardship on the US people and
> instustry,


That's where you rightards go wrong. There's no reason that complying with
Kyoto would require "economic hardship on the US".

As I indicated before - with Yankee Ingenuity, every "downside" would
represent an opportunity to make money.
 
"Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote:

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

>> Like I said, Americans are spoiled. If gas had been $3.30 a gallon back
>> then I bet interest would not have dropped so fast. If I had 20 miles to
>> go to work and 20 back that would be one charge and I could plug it in
>> overnight, so big deal. Better than walking and better than riding in the
>> rain or trying to ride and carry presentation literature to work.
>> People have to get over cheap gas habits or it will be up to $5.00 a
>> gallon in a year or two. China is starting to have people wanting cars and
>> if they do and also happen to have oil they are not going to export it if
>> they need it. Ditto Mexico, more people with cars.
>> When gas gets so expensive that it becomes gas for the car or blings for
>> the computer or car people might start to realize that any transportation
>> that gets them that 20 miles to work is better than a gas

>
>20 miles in an electric car in winter in most of the US? People would be
>lucky to get out of their driveway.


Then do the math to figure out how much battery capacity you'll use to
warm up the inside of a 1500 pound car to 70 degrees when it's below
zero. Economics are one thing, but thermodynamics can be a bear! ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
 
Mark Hickey wrote:
> I know it's a lot easier to jump on the "sky is falling bandwagon"


That sounds like the Religious Right that elected Bush...

The Last Days of Born-Again History
Shop, Go to Church, Support Bush's War and Wait for Armageddon
by SAUL LANDAU

In my neighborhood of trimmed lawns and two or more car garages, with
one or two more vehicles parked outside the garage, I counted fifteen
American flags in less than five minutes of my slow trot, most of them
new since the US invaded Iraq. One house had a sign with a US flag
waving over a map of Iraq. Americans learn geography through war,
experience the traumas of battle-well, virtually-and root for the good
guys. We know we're good because God blesses America and f..s our
enemies-with the help of the missiles, bombs, tanks and other war
technology with which He has blessed us. Our God loves peace and keeps
us, as Gore Vidal quipped, in "perpetual war." Our God does not like
opposition, from within, or from our former friends abroad. He has told
our leaders, all of whom remain in close contact with Him, to punish
such heretic behavior.

http://www.counterpunch.org/landau04192003.html

Cyclists though are (for the most part) optimists and humanists. :)
 
Mark Hickey wrote:
> Again, I'm not against studying global warming. I am against
> implementing "political solutions" that don't work at huge costs.



Is taking the lane or even making bike lanes such a huge cost for big
fat Americans?

Or is it having an 8 ton SUV to carry the same insignificant guy/soccer
mom?
 
Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

<snip>
>
> I'll give you the same challenge as I did another poster recently:
>
> 1) How much of the total CO2 released into the air every year is
> caused by man?
> 2) How much would a reduction of 7% of the man-caused (as opposed to
> total) CO2 released into the atmosphere every year reduce the
> temperature of the planet?
>
> I would think you'd want to know these things in order to complement
> your obvious interest in the issue.
>


These questions suggest to me you have been reading only "climate
contrarian" websites because they demonstrate an incomplete understanding
of the global carbon cycle. The IPCC scientific assessments are
available free of charge for downloading, a quick google search will lead
you to them (try "ipcc climate scientific assessment" for starters).
They are scientifically impeccable, free of political bias, and will
explain inexcruciating detail the link between the natural carbon cycle,
and the effect of man's activities on it.

1) Nearly all of the CO2 released naturally gets reabsorbed by the
oceans and cycled by the terrestrial biosphere. That's why the CO2
concentration of the atmosphere fluctuates so slowly compared to the
rapid increase over the past 150 years due to anthropogenic activities.
So comparing the anthropogenic emissions to the global total is not the
right thing to look at. The parameter you need to use is the fraction of
the total average yearly increase in atmospheric CO2 that is due to
anthropogenic activities. That fraction, last time I checked, was around
100%.

2) A 7% reduction in yearly CO2 output would reduce the yearly increase
of atmospheric CO2 by about 3.5% (I am guessing a little here) since
approximately half of the CO2 released by mankind gets absorbed by the
oceans (there is excess carrying capacity for CO2 in the oceans, which is
why atmospheric CO2 concentrations are relatively stable (the ocean can
buffer a lot of carbonic acid, given enough time)). Nobody has a good
estimate for whether reducing the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 by
3.5% would have any appreciable impact on global averaged temperatures.
But that really isn't the point of the Kyoto Protocol, which I suspect
you understand but just are eliding. The point of the Kyoto Accords is
to slow down the rate of increase so that the doubling of atmospheric CO2
levels is pushed farther out into the future. The reason for that, as I
think you know but I'll state anyway because I am a long-winded asshole
and nobody has read this far anyway, is that the doubling of atmospheric
CO2 is thought of as the canonical tipping point, beyond which nothing
much will mitigate the climatic impacts of altering the radiative
properties of the atmosphere. The reason pushing that horizon back is
desirable is because, as everyone knows, remediating atmospheric CO2
increase to stop climate change is horrendously expensive using current
technology. A delaying action, while itself costly, would perhaps allow
advanced technologies to be developed and brought to bear on the problem
so that the real mitigation could be considered as a practical matter (as
opposed to the semi-delusional schemes floating around now). The Kyoto
Accords won't do much and will be expensive, but you have to start
somewhere and this is going to be a serious problem.

Anyway, to get back to the carbon cycle (this is a cycling newsgroup
after all), the 600-lb gorilla in the corner is what might happen to
atmospheric CO2 levels if anthropogenic climate change messes up the
natural global carbon cycle. Increasing deep-water upwelling (which
releases lots of CO2) for instance, without a concomittant increase in
deep-water formation (which sequesters CO2), would dramatically increase
atmospheric CO2 levels. Another example is the acidification of the
oceans due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 (this has demonstrably
occurred now, do a web search for something like "sabine feely oceanic
alkalinity decrease" and you can find the reference). Plankton are
incredibly sensitive to changes in pH (a testament to the buffering
capacity of the ocean in that it is nearly constant) and if the ocean pH
decreases enough, you shift the balance of planktonic ecosystems, and the
global biological CO2 pump is a huge part of the global carbon cycle.

If you want to talk rationally about climate change, you really need to
read the unbiased scientific assessment of how the natural systems work.
The IPCC reports are a great place to start, they are not biased, despite
what the right-wing media might suggest.

--
Bill Asher
 
William Asher wrote:
> > I would think you'd want to know these things in order to complement
> > your obvious interest in the issue.
> >

>
> These questions suggest to me you have been reading only "climate
> contrarian" websites because they demonstrate an incomplete understanding
> of the global carbon cycle. The IPCC scientific assessments are
> available free of charge for downloading, a quick google search will lead
> you to them (try "ipcc climate scientific assessment" for starters).
> They are scientifically impeccable, free of political bias, and will
> explain inexcruciating detail the link between the natural carbon cycle,
> and the effect of man's activities on it.


We can go on forever and call for conferences and fund studies on the
subject of whether there's Global Warming or not. But COMMON SENSE (not
rocket science) tells me that WHEN IN DOUBT PLAY IT SAFE. No?

And we should be riding bikes and burning the calories which is also
good for your health and aesthetics, right?
 
"donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> That sounds like the Religious Right that elected Bush...
>


Once again, it wasn't the Right that elected Bush, it was really the
Democratic Party who elected him by running two of the biggest idiot losers
in the history of politics against him.
 
Mark Hickey wrote:
> Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I think that's the conclusion, yes. It seems to be the reason why every
>> major environmental group is against the proposal.

>
> And of course, there couldn't POSSIBLY be a political component in
> play there, right? ;-)


I don't think you have to look that hard. The various environmental
groups simply favor more reduction in pollution. There may be a
geographical slant to the problem as older cities in the Northeast don't
like the idea of their plants continuing to emit at historical levels
because the newer plants in the sun belt trade emissions, or that they
can't hold Midwestern plant operators liable for pollution plumes that
dump East.

> Obviously this can't possibly happen, but I've left a nice "time bomb"
> for my evil Republican successor. He takes office, tears up my bill,


There's plenty of real opposition to the administration's environmental
policies, and there has been for 6 years now. It's not a matter of a
Clinton-era "time bomb".

>> Why is it that the only other major holdout on Kyoto (Australia) has the
>> highest per capita CO2 emissions. Isn't it obvious that the US and
>> Australian positions are self-serving? It seems to be obvious to the
>> rest of the world.

>
> Of COURSE they're self-serving (we pay them to be that way). The
> issue isn't whether it's the right thing to do or not - it's whether
> signing up for Kyoto would be creating a significant hardship on the
> citizens of those countries without providing any measurable benefit.


Well, we disagree. I think the real issue *is* to do the right thing.

> CO2 simply isn't the
> problem, but that fight has superceded the actual issue to become the
> "sound bite du jour".


<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#Objectives>

"According to a press release from the United Nations Environment Programme:

"The Kyoto Protocol is an agreement under which industrialized
countries will reduce their collective emissions of greenhouse gases by
5.2% compared to the year 1990 (but note that, compared to the emissions
levels that would be expected by 2010 without the Protocol, this target
represents a 29% cut). The goal is to lower overall emissions of six
greenhouse gases - carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur
hexafluoride, HFCs, and PFCs - calculated as an average over the
five-year period of 2008-12. National targets range from 8% reductions
for the European Union and some others to 7% for the US, 6% for Japan,
0% for Russia, and permitted increases of 8% for Australia and 10% for
Iceland."

> I'll give you the same challenge as I did another poster recently:
>
> 1) How much of the total CO2 released into the air every year is
> caused by man?
> 2) How much would a reduction of 7% of the man-caused (as opposed to
> total) CO2 released into the atmosphere every year reduce the
> temperature of the planet?
>
> I would think you'd want to know these things in order to complement
> your obvious interest in the issue.


The questions you pose aren't really the essence of the debate. The real
questions are:

1) How much of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to man-made CO2
emissions?

2) How fast is the planet warming?

3) How much of the warming is from increased CO2 levels?

The consensus of the scientific community seems to be:

1) virtually 100%

2) pretty fast, and getting faster

3) virtually 100%


>> In any case, as so many have pointed out, conservation would itself lead
>> to reduction in all pollutants, while reducing foreign dependence -- a
>> win-win in my book, perhaps just a simple win in yours. The 1990 -7%
>> could be easily reached just through conservation -- an idea I think
>> would appeal to a conservative.

>
> Again, I'm NOT "pro-pollution" - I'm for finding solutions that
> actually work, rather than just tossing many billions of dollars into
> a hysteria-fueled political bonfire. Let's put the money where it
> actually does some good - I hope you'd agree that's the prudent
> approach.


A reduction of consumption would achieve a reduction of emissions. Left
alone, the free market won't reduce consumption. The energy market is
being subsidized by government policy in that costs of pollution and
military intervention to secure energy supplies aren't reflected in the
price of energy. The costs are being unfairly shared in the present and
deferred to future generations.

Conservation alone would achieve Kyoto goals and reduce dependency on
unstable global markets. We've tripled our dependency on imported oil
since the crisis of the 70's and because of that are in an unacceptably
vulnerable situation. We've had over 30 years to prepare for the
inevitable and haven't done squat. Cutting our per capita energy use to
industrialized European levels will cost "many billions", but it will
save many billions, too. The net difference is that the many billions
(trillions, actually) will be shifted from oil/coal/gas producers and
military expenses to technology and infrastructure. A much better deal,
I think.

Conservatives like to argue that Iraq isn't an oil war (despite the fact
that nobody really believes that -- here or there). Even if it wasn't,
it should be. We're (the industrial West and emerging East) teetering on
a knife's edge. There's chaos, hostility, corruption and instability
across OPEC and any serious hiccup will throw the economics of the world
into disarray. We've painted ourselves into a corner where we have to
fight for control of those resources -- despite the crippling costs.
This was not an inevitable situation.

The Kyoto Protocol (and the world opinion it represents) is just another
clue that we have to change our ways. Those changes will make a stronger
and richer America, not a poorer and weaker one.
 
On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 13:00:16 -0700, "Baxter" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>-
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Why create an enormous economic hardship on the US people and
>> instustry,

>
>That's where you rightards go wrong. There's no reason that complying with
>Kyoto would require "economic hardship on the US".


Of course it would.

How do you think we could get these coal-fired electric plants to stop emitting
CO2? Why, shut 'em down, of course. But that would interrupt industry, so
they would likely be turned off at times other than during the workweek. IOW,
I'd probably be sitting here in the dark right now, 'cuz the power would be
off, maybe for the weekend.

And, of course, the only way to get the transportation sector to quit emitting
would be gas rationing. Then people would be using their car coupons to stick
gas into Harleys, and getting busted up and killed like a certain NFL
quarterback did, or almost did.

I went to a movie today, then to the gym for 2 1/2 hours of grunting and
sweating. 40 mile round trip. Think I'd be able to do it if we actually tried
to meet the Kyoto limits? Not on your life. I'd barely be able to get to work
and back (34 mi round trip). On the Harley.

The long and the short of it is that the environmentalists are going to
collaborate with the NIMBYs to prevent the construction of the real solutions
(which wouldn't be ready in time to avert the above nightmare even if we could
construct 'em as quickly as we could pour concrete) which would be nuclear
power, opposed by the environmentalists for fairly hysterical reasons, and wind
power, opposed by the environmentalists 'cuz the only known way to do it kills
birds, and all opposed by the NIMBYs because if its construction, they oppose
it.

No, the Kyoto treaty, if we _really_ attempted to meet its restrictions, would
be economic suicide for this country.

Now, we _will_ reduce emissions, over time, because, gradually and as it makes
economic sense, raise the average fuel efficiency of the cars and trucks as
hybrid technology is advanced. Then next Prius is supposed to be 94 mpg. Then
there's the hybrid-electric that can charge its batteries from the main lines,
which, with several decades of wrangling in the courts, will get its power from
nuclear sources and wind sources and maybe even PV. But not according to a
Kyoto timetable.

We shouldn't be signing any treaties that we can't live up to, and living up to
the Kyoto treaty would devistate this economy.

Dave Head

>As I indicated before - with Yankee Ingenuity, every "downside" would
>represent an opportunity to make money.


Sure there would, but there isn't enough money to pay for it all - the
opportunity to make money requires someone to be there to provide it, and that
is what would bankrupt the country - people trying, and failing, to pay for it,
'cuz its more expensive than they have money for.

DPH
 
Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 1) How much of the total CO2 released into the air every year is
> caused by man?


Point me to where someone has offered an answer to this. I think we
can get somewhat of a handle on the man-made part, but there is a
great unknown in the other parts. As I tried to explain in an
earlier post, there are natural sources and sinks. Suppose, for
argument, man adds to the sources side 10 units of CO2 per year. If
the natural sources amount to 1000 units of CO2 while the natural sinks
are, at the present time, 900 units of CO2, then the natural effects
contribute a net of 100 units of CO2 per year and man represents 10%
of that net, but only 1% of the total sources.

The ice core record at http://carto.eu.org/article2481.html
shows the huge fluctuations in atmospheric CO2 due to the
interplay between the natural sources and sinks. According to
that record we are on a rising cycle for CO2 and have been for
something like 17,000 years.

I have a preliminary handle on the sources/sinks that reflects the
ice core record, but I would really appreciate seeing what others
have to say about the dynamics of the source/sink effects.


> 2) How much would a reduction of 7% of the man-caused (as opposed to
> total) CO2 released into the atmosphere every year reduce the
> temperature of the planet?
>


There are a number of ways that your second point can be interpreted.
One way is to say that suddenly we drop back by 7%, but continue our
growth rate thereafter. Since the world economy grows at 2%/year or
so that means we would delay the ultimate resolution by something
like three years. Ultimate resolution is whatever Armageddon that
Gore thinks we are heading to.

You and I both know that the temperature effect of a 7% reduction
would probably not be measurable.
 
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Dave Head" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 13:00:16 -0700, "Baxter"

<[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> >That's where you rightards go wrong. There's no reason that complying

with
> >Kyoto would require "economic hardship on the US".

>
> Of course it would.
>
> How do you think we could get these coal-fired electric plants to stop

emitting
> CO2? Why, shut 'em down, of course. But that would interrupt industry,

so
> they would likely be turned off at times other than during the workweek.

IOW,
> I'd probably be sitting here in the dark right now, 'cuz the power would

be
> off, maybe for the weekend.


Why shut them down? Improve their efficiency by 10%. Reduces CO2 emissions
AND reduces fuel costs.

You rightards are too stupid to understand. You said the same thing about
minimum wage and about EPA and about nearly every technological advance
within memory.
 
William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> and nobody has read this far anyway, is that the doubling of atmospheric
> CO2 is thought of as the canonical tipping point, beyond which nothing
> much will mitigate the climatic impacts of altering the radiative
> properties of the atmosphere.


Are you saying that we are all doomed if the atmospheric CO2 levels double?
Is that the foundation of the entire global warming warming scare? We can
see the effect using the MODTRAN atmospheric model:
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/cgimodels/radiation.html

Doubling the current level of CO2 from 375 ppm to 750 ppm would
cause a temperature rise in the tropics of 0.83K and a lesser amount
at latitudes away from the equator. The effect of atmospheric absorbtion
goes as the log of the concentration of the greenhouse gases. The log
rises very steeply at first but levels off. We are on the leveled off
part. If instead of doubling the CO2 we were to cut it in half we
would go back to the real ice age where glaciers covered all of
Canada.

Plankton are
> incredibly sensitive to changes in pH (a testament to the buffering
> capacity of the ocean in that it is nearly constant) and if the ocean pH
> decreases enough, you shift the balance of planktonic ecosystems, and the
> global biological CO2 pump is a huge part of the global carbon cycle.
>


It seems clear to me it is the dynamics of the ocean plankton that is
responsible for the reasonable balance between the sources and sinks
of CO2. The ocean has been able to handle an atmospheric CO2 level
10 times the present [http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/107.htm]
so there seems little to fear for a mere doubling.


> If you want to talk rationally about climate change, you really need to
> read the unbiased scientific assessment of how the natural systems work.
> The IPCC reports are a great place to start, they are not biased, despite
> what the right-wing media might suggest.
>


I would welcome a citation for a useful IPCC report. What I have seen
is careful bookkeeping of atmosperic sources that I cannot relate
to a model which fits the ice core records. It isn't a coincidence
that sources and sinks are in relative balance historically. That
is the effect of the process. Man is a newcomer to the picture and
our effect has not been incorporated into the dynamic.
 
On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 18:34:06 -0700, "Baxter" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>-
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>"Dave Head" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 13:00:16 -0700, "Baxter"

><[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >That's where you rightards go wrong. There's no reason that complying

>with
>> >Kyoto would require "economic hardship on the US".

>>
>> Of course it would.
>>
>> How do you think we could get these coal-fired electric plants to stop

>emitting
>> CO2? Why, shut 'em down, of course. But that would interrupt industry,

>so
>> they would likely be turned off at times other than during the workweek.

>IOW,
>> I'd probably be sitting here in the dark right now, 'cuz the power would

>be
>> off, maybe for the weekend.

>
>Why shut them down? Improve their efficiency by 10%. Reduces CO2 emissions
>AND reduces fuel costs.


With money as tight as it is, I'd be real surprised if there was an opportunity
to improve efficiency by 10%. IOW, with fuel prices as they are, I'm pretty
sure that there's no damn way to improve efficiency by 10%, or they'd have done
it for economic reasons by now.

>You rightards are too stupid to understand. You said the same thing about
>minimum wage and about EPA and about nearly every technological advance
>within memory.


You don't seem to be aware that _most_ of the Kyoto signers are _not_ meeting
their requirements under the treaty, either. Its not possible, not without
more pain than they're reasonably willing to undertake.

Of course, _we_ would be the goody two-shoes to try it, and subject our economy
to a death blow...

Better to be straightforward about it and not sign the damn treaty, rather than
to put it into effect and turn ourselves into a 3rd world country, or worse.

Dave Head
 
Mark Hickey wrote:
> "Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Bill Baka" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Joshua Putnam wrote:
>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>> [email protected] says...
>>>>
>>> Like I said, Americans are spoiled. If gas had been $3.30 a gallon back
>>> then I bet interest would not have dropped so fast. If I had 20 miles to
>>> go to work and 20 back that would be one charge and I could plug it in
>>> overnight, so big deal. Better than walking and better than riding in the
>>> rain or trying to ride and carry presentation literature to work.
>>> People have to get over cheap gas habits or it will be up to $5.00 a
>>> gallon in a year or two. China is starting to have people wanting cars and
>>> if they do and also happen to have oil they are not going to export it if
>>> they need it. Ditto Mexico, more people with cars.
>>> When gas gets so expensive that it becomes gas for the car or blings for
>>> the computer or car people might start to realize that any transportation
>>> that gets them that 20 miles to work is better than a gas

>> 20 miles in an electric car in winter in most of the US? People would be
>> lucky to get out of their driveway.

>
> Then do the math to figure out how much battery capacity you'll use to
> warm up the inside of a 1500 pound car to 70 degrees when it's below
> zero. Economics are one thing, but thermodynamics can be a bear! ;-)
>
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> http://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $795 ti frame


I meant de-ice the windows so you could see to drive. Electric seat and
steering wheel warmers would make it redundant to heat the whole car.
The batteries would warm up as you drove so the energy would be there. I
think you are equating cold cranking power of a lead-acid battery to
that of an electric vehicle. If it is all that much below zero I don't
want people to have full power since I have lived in icy states and
found the best entertainment was to watch the traffic at a stop light
from indoors somewhere safe. The small engine thing was/is used to cold
start big diesel equipment that has been off overnight. I saw a small 4
cylinder gas engine being rebuilt at one of the major shops here and
wondered what it was. The mechanic told me that it was the engine that
warmed up the big one on really cold days.
That was the original point.
Bill Baka
 
Mark Hickey wrote:
> "Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Jack May wrote:
>>>> "Joshua Putnam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On you, I give up. You are hopelesely muddled in you own lack of
>>> knowledge.
>>> Bill Baka

>> No, I know exactly what I am talking about. You are wallowing in fantasies
>> that can never happen.

>
> That, and fantasies that never happened (past tense). ;-)
>
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> http://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $795 ti frame


Mark,
Just be glad you were never a passenger either in one of my fast cars or
on one of my 'Kamikaze Kawasakis'. My friends up here still remember and
they insist on driving whenever they are in the car.
Bill (passenger) Baka

The tricycle was just a way overestimated speed by a 4-5 year old.
Sure was fun though.
The cop never got close to catching me on the motorcycle but the ticket
would have been in my hall of fame.
 
Bill wrote:

> The Prius is still far from perfect, although, as some have pointed out
> batteries are near the end term of development and just about all
> chemistries have been tried.


Not really. There continue to be incremental improvements. There are big
improvements in charging time coming, which helps reduce the need for
larger capacity batteries, though would require more infrastructure, for
all-electric cars.
 
SMS wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>
>> The Prius is still far from perfect, although, as some have pointed
>> out batteries are near the end term of development and just about all
>> chemistries have been tried.

>
> Not really. There continue to be incremental improvements. There are big
> improvements in charging time coming, which helps reduce the need for
> larger capacity batteries, though would require more infrastructure, for
> all-electric cars.
>
>

MAYBE.
I have some maximum capacity AA NIMH batteries that get really hot under
a full rapid charge. What would your solution be, big heat sinks?
Even batteries, which make power, do make some waste heat.
Maybe super ultra capacitors, but they are running into chemistry
barriers. Flywheels? Maybe, but would you want to have one spinning off
in a crash? Best leave those to buses. If we can just learn to live
without the acceleration we would get around much better. I can nearly
double or cut in half my mileage on my little Mazda by either hot
rodding from light to light or by barely moving and shifting into fifth
at only 25 MPH. Of course everyone behind me gets bent out of shape but
my mileage goes way up when I drive like I'm maybe 100 or so. Everyone
around me drives like it is an all out drag race every time the light
turns green, and that is not good with a 4,000 pound 300 HP SUV.
Bill Baka
 
+

"donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> William Asher wrote:



> And we should be riding bikes and burning the calories which is also
> good for your health and aesthetics, right?


Riding bike increases the food consumption. Food requires about ten
calories of oil energy for each calorie that is consumed. The body at
98.6 degrees is not thermodynamically efficient.

So where is the great advantage to the bike? How are you going to get
people to ride these fuel guzzler bikes when they don't meet the
requirements of the potential users.

As always, you have mindless clichés, little knowledge, and no where near a
workable solution. You contribute nothing to a possible solution. Just
another ignorant loser without a clue of how the world works or even what a
solution would looks like.
 

Similar threads