Slashdot Mirror
Washington State Legalizes NEVs on Public Roads
ptorrone writes "Washington State just passed NEV legislation, legalizing them for in-road use. NEVs are neighborhood electric vehicles. This is a big deal with more and more consumers having the choice of a variety of non-car solutions, we'll see charging stations and more people in general considering alternative transportation means. It'll also be fun to geek out some NEVs." From zero to twenty in 9.8 seconds!
Modern, working cars don't pollute enough to make a difference either
Oh yea right. I guess all that COx and NOx compounds spewing out of millions are cars are in no way causing an enviromental impact.
For those not familar with the State of Washingon, most of our power comes from hydroelectric plants. We tried for nuclear power once in western washington, known as I believe " Washington Public Power Supply System" aka or WoPPSS. While it can be argued about the enviromental impact of hydro power, it indeed is a fuck of alot cleaner then internal combustion engines. Additional supplimental power plants are being constructed that burn natural gas, which again tends to be a fuck of alot cleaner then petrol.
I see a major application of electric vehicels for in town commuting, on roads where the posted limits are between 25-35 mph. Many of these vehicels can achieve 25mph, while considered slow... perfectly within acceptable limits esp on days with heavy trafic conjestion. While the posted limit may indeed be greater then 25mph, 10mph is often times more typical in downtown areas.
While you have a point, a city's road system can be accomidated to actually support the use of these sub 30mph cars reasonably. Most major cities here are setup in a convienent grid like patern, dedicate a road parelell to the 35mph zones to things that can travel that fast, and slower residental streets to the sub 30mph crowd.
Given that the eco-friendly road alterntive is manual powered bike, I see there being less of an issue with conjection actually.
Infact, I don't see them being a major issue on our interstates between Seattle and Tacoma during rushour, as the average speed tends to be sub 25mph, unfortunatly.
There are those of us who would actually use cheeper more eco-friendly forms of transportation if it was available. People like my self would invest the the expence of using natural gas if it wasn't for the lack of filling stations. But I personaly can't refuel on it unless I drive roughly 40miles away, making it none too practical. Electric is a viable alternative for us who need more cargo room then a motorcycle, but less cargo room then a typical car.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
The biggest problem with electric cars is recharging them - it takes hours.
Instead, I've seen other solutions that provide similar capabilities as electric cars, but without the recharge headache. The one that I find most promising is the air car.
It's about the size of a Geo Metro, and goes ~200 miles on $2 worth of electricity, and you can refuel in under 1 minute! It also has a small built-in compressor which takes a few hours, which means that at its worst, it's no worse than an electric vehicle.
The best part - they are apparently already being manufactured in France and South Africa. If I had the money I'd definitely want to get one.
No pollution, dirt cheap to operate, and the engine should be more reliable than a gas engine because there's no combustion.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
One thing that annoys me, well, all over the US, is bikes on the street, right next to a good bike path, and people in the street right next to a good sidewalk.
If people they're intended for aren't using them, how "good" can they be? We have a number of paths around Minneapolis that are "multi-use" paths, not bike paths. They get traffic from people strolling, jogging, blading, and biking. If you were a cyclist, you would understand just how fucking dangerous it is to be on such a path going at 15mph or faster (many even have speed limits of 10 or 12mph posted!), not just for you but for others. People think nothing of stopping mid-stride and stepping across the path to point at some pretty flower or bird. On the street, I can cruise along with traffic and not have to worry about that, and you pretty much don't need to worry about be slamming on the brakes and swerving into your path. Suck it up and go around the bikes, you big baby.
Some simple background facts: the majority of American families own more than one automobile; the majority of American families live in urban areas; the majority of imported oil is used for automobile fuel; oil exporting countries are not necessarily our friends and are members of a price-fixing cartel (OPEC); aggregate automobile fuel economy is under 25mpg; a large percentage of automobile trips are 5 miles or less (both individual excursions and total miles driven). Taken together, these suggest that a highly-efficent (75+mpg or electric), short-range vehicle would make sense for a lot of people.
Unfortunately, although these vehicles may exist, nobody buys them because they're too expensive (e.g. $14K+ for the Ford Th!nk IIRC) to justify their utility and savings. Solution?
A Federal program to eliminate oil imports and to reduce air pollution in urban areas while simultaneously reducing traffic congrestion, stimulating the economy, and increasing jobs.
How?
Encourage adaptation of appropriate vehicles by providing tax incentives to both manufacturers and buyers. Provide tax incentives to get rid of older and/or low mpg cars; make zero percent financing available; allow really big tax write-offs and/or credits to individual purchasers of such vehicles (how about allowing the entire purchase price - up to some defined limit - to be applied as a credit toward tax liability over a three year period?).
What would this cost and what would it accomplish?
Cost? Presuming that the $14K price of the Ford Th!nk is typical, and that 100% of that price would be returned to the buyer as tax credits, it would cost only $140B (about 1/3 of the tax cut for the rich currently in process) to allow 10 million families to obtain and use such a vehicle.
Accomplish? Replacing 10 million 25mpg vehicles each being driving 5000 miles per year in short, local trips might save 2 billion gallons of gasoline per year (which require approximately 60 million barrels of oil to produce), reduce air pollution, and relieve dense urban traffic congestion, create thousands of jobs in the manufacture and maintenance of the vehicles and their components, and reduce oil imports from the middle East by approximately 10%.
Applying the same concepts to fuel-efficent hybrids for long-range vehicles would have even larger benefits.
Has anyone driven one of these? I've been told they are cool. They are only 60lbs, made of a carbon fiber, and look bad ass. I've often thought it looked like the perfect local commuter vehicle.
There is a distributor in Cali from what I hear.
-Peter
. Penguins Surely Ca
I probably know more about race car design than you do, having wrenched on them myself.
You seem to be making the argument that helmets play an insignificant role in preventing death in auto racing accidents. That is, simply put, absurd. They were saving lives long before many of the safety innovations you cite were ever invented.
First of all, the cars are made to absorb energy. This means that big crash you see where the car gets torn apart, that's the car material sacrificing itself, taking in all the kinetic energy.
It's what they call "crumple zones" in passenger cars.
Then the driver is encased in a 5 point harness.
And in a passenger car, the speeds are lower and the driver has a lap/shoulder belt and an airbag.
Then there's the Han/Hutchens device, which prevents the whiplash effect (what killed Earnhardt, he could have used one).
No, there are two different devices and they are know as the HANS (Head and Neck Support) device and the Hutchens Device.
Just simply wearing a helmet doesn't afford instant protection
Yes, it does. It may not be absolute, but it is instant. Helmets have saved the lives of thousands of motorcylcists over the years. The motorcyclists whose lives were saved had no roll cages, crumple zones, HANS-type devices, or five-point harnesses.
I never claimed that the use of helmets in automobiles would eliminate deaths, did I? It would just drastically reduce the number of deaths caused by brain injuries -- one of the leading causes of death in automobile accidents on public roads.