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!
What are NEVs, fancy golf carts and Segways?
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
so do you think that all bicycles should be off the road? they can't keep up with traffic either. modern working cars -do- pollute, in fact that's where over half of the pollution comes from in my state (wa).
but they do use gasoline and we really should work on cutting back on our dependance on fossil fuels.
Aston Games
Bicycles are easy to pass though. Might be more difficult with bulkier slow vehicles.
The problem with this is that there aren't really any road-capable NEV's or whatever you want to refer to them as.
The segway hits a top speed of what....11MPH? Do you really want to get stuck behind some yuppie and his $5000 segway inching along the street when you are in a rush to get to the office?
We already have enough traffic problems with vehicles that CAN do the speed limit, lets not worry about alternative transportation until it can at least keep up with normal means of travel.
I would expect such blatant racism on Fark, but on Slashdot? Mods please ban this asshole.
" so do you think that all bicycles should be off the road?"
If there is an adjacent bike path or shoulder and the speed limit is 45, absolutely. Unless the bicyclists can pedal 45 mph.
Well this is one way to combat gas prices. Not to mention you can always find plugs around in public property ^_^;
Have a look at the Ultra project for a more creative solution to electric mass transport :-)
If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
Now we can have vgolf carts everywhere! I can't wait to get on the freeyway behind a group of 'em!
I do. Bikes should be provided special lanes or routes along major corridors, and kept off any but slow residential streets. On a 35 or 45 MPH road, a bike is a danger. In fact, in most places, if I was going as slowly as a bicycle in my car, I could be ticketed for travelling too slow. Why? Because it's dangerous.
Sorry. This is totally unrelated to any arguments about pollution. You wouldn't advocate letting a pedestrian walk on a busy road, so why should a bike be allowed?
-"I talked to God and here's the deal/ He said to floss between each meal" -- Uninvited
Why you hate-in on the auto this weekend
Story 1
Story 2
Stroy 3
I hope it doesn't screw up the paint on my Dually when I start running these things over
You think it's tough getting laid driving a Toyota Corolla
How is a bike a danger? It typically weighs 20-30lbs and travels 20-30 mph cf a car that weights 100 times as much, and travles about 2wice as fast Cars are much more dangerious.
Bikes can travel near the shoulder and do not obstruct the flow of faster moving traffic. Indeed in stop and go traffic bikes can 'white-line' and are faster than cars.
Pedaling 45 mph (posted speed limit) is not the problem. Pedaling 45 mph and having traffic merging to your right at 60mph is the problem. Doubters can take East Cahuenga from Burbank to Los Angeles, running alongside the 5 Freeway (Cahuenga Pass), by bicycle - I did that for several months as part of a 15 mile commute (that's 15 miles each way, 30 miles a day.) Face it, you're always going to have normal car traffic going way faster than any other traffic (ie, semi trailers, campers, old people in cadillacs, bicycles) unless there just happens to be a cop there. Then EVERYBODY slows down...
Frankly, bikes can travel faster than NEVs can (NEV's, by DEFINITION have a top speed of 25mph - and are speed governed to ensure that speed...) A more useful speed would have been 40mph - that way an NEV could keep up with most traffic in the slowest lane. Unfortunately, I doubt many people want to chance 40mph in a souped up golf cart without doors (yes, I know you can buy doors as an option), and very little in the way of crash-collision engineering.
Ever test drive one of these things? It's incredibly irritating to floor the accelerator and feel like you're on a Disneyland Autotopia car - only slower (although there is noticable absence of motor noise and gasoline exhaust fumes.) The price isn't too shabby if you need a utility cart - $5k. But no, they clearly are not designed to blend in with normal traffic - something that many cyclists (assuming they're obeying traffic laws) can do easily on most city streets.
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.
just because something doesn't go 100 mph, doesn't mean it should not be allowed on -public- roads, freeways are obviously different, NEVs are not meant for those, read what NEV stands for.
e 2.html
Principles of Universal Access
http://www.humantransport.org/universalaccess/pag
1. Universal Access to Destinations
All destinations served by the public road system shall be accessible by pedestrians and by drivers of all vehicles (including bicycles), except that vehicle operation may be restricted for reasons of excessive weight, noise or size, or extraordinary potential for damage to the property or person of others.
2. Equal Rights of Use
People's right to use that portion of a street designed for travel is not diminished by less weight, less size, or less average speed associated with their travel mode. The adequate accommodation of heavier, larger, faster travel modes by a road's design must not imply its inadequacy for or unintended use by smaller, lighter, or slower modes. Demand-actuated traffic signals must detect and serve a diversity of users including bicycle operators in the roadway and pedestrians using crosswalks.
3. Integration of Modes
Travel by different modes shall not be segregated by law or facility design without compelling, objective, scientifically valid evidence of operational advantages of segregation that outweigh the disadvantages. Segregation of pedestrian from vehicle traffic may be warranted on busy roads due to the different maneuverability and nighttime visibility characteristics of pedestrians and vehicles. Segregation of different vehicle types is undesirable, as this segregation almost always creates increased conflicts at junctions, forces users of some vehicle types to use inferior facilities, or stigmatizes users who violate the segregation policy for safety reasons.
4. Uniformity and Simplicity
Transportation systems should be simple and intuitive. Designs and regulations should be uniform across facilities. Similar traffic situations should be treated in a similar manner, enabling more rapid and reliable user behavior. Vehicle-type-specific exceptions to the Rules of the Road are undesirable because such exceptions make traffic movements less predictable and traffic negotiation less reliable.
5. Accessible Surfaces
To the extent practicable, travel surfaces should accommodate travel on foot with minimal trip hazards and via common assistive devices such as wheelchairs. Roadway surfaces should be as clear as possible of hazards for narrow tires such as bicycle wheels.
6. Crossable Roadways
Crossing distances at non-signalized access locations must not exceed the distance that can be covered at walking speed before traffic may arrive from beyond sight distance, or during reasonable gaps in roadway traffic. Refuges provided to reduce crossing distances should be large enough to store assistive devices such as wheelchairs and strollers. Traffic signal timing should provide adequate clearance intervals for safe crossing by pedestrians and slow vehicles.
7. Appropriate Space for Use
Adequate space for maneuvering and recovery should be incorporated for all vehicle operators and for pedestrians including wheelchair users. If it is desirable to accommodate faster speeds for some modes while slower modes are present on the same road, the road may be designed to facilitate easier overtaking between modes. Overtaking activities should take place at distances appropriate for the difference in speed, maneuverability of modes, and vulnerability of users.
While I can't provide studies that directly link automotive exhaust to asthma, it can be safely inferred.
Studies have shown that the majority of urban pollution comes from vehicle emissions. Other studies have linked increase in respiratory ailments (asthma, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, etc) to urban pollution levels. Therefore, it can safely be inferred that automotive emissions contribute to asthma and other respiratory difficulties.
What?
But hey, we don't need to cut anything back, since Iraq is now a Colony of the US, it would be patriotic of us to buy gas from the Bush, Cheney & Friends Oil Company, in fact, I think it should be law that you must buy a certain amount of gas every week, and if you don't wanto to, you must be an unpatriotic anti-American, and you'll pay for that by getting shipped to Guantanamo!
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.
See L.A. Can't see it through the smog?
Visit L.A. take a deep breath
Feel the soot on your car after just one day there. Lovely isn't it.
Leave L.A. compair and contrast the ease of breathing in L.A. and just 20 miles north.
Los Angles California is a pretty toxic enviroment. While I don't have any ACTUAL studies in front of me, I can reasonably assume that the vast majority of their air polution comes from cars. It kinda makes it a good testing ground for new clean air regulations, it being a basin filled with millions of people, and millions of cars.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
Modern, working cars don't pollute enough to make a difference either.
Until you have your car modified so that the exhaust feeds into the cabin, you're a fucking liar and you know it.
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.
You *can* have convenience with natural gas -- by installing a refueling compressor in your garage. They *are* available for home users. I'm not sure how much they cost -- probably a couple thousand bucks. Of course it should cost less, but that's how it goes with these things -- they're always marked up several hundred percent. The bigger hassle is probably road taxes. Depending on which state you're in, you may have to file a road tax return, and/or get your mileage verified by some nitwit inspector who doesn't return phone calls, etc.
Probably; I'm a big fan of the hybrid concept for this. Like a "normal" car in every respect - same fuel, handling, driving etc - but far less pollution, far better fuel consumption. IMHO, they're a far better short/medium-term bet than electric cars (no infrastructure changes at all, much lower barrier to acceptance) - possibly even more efficient (power stations are more efficient, but that's offset by transmission losses over long distances.)
The one downside, though, is terrorism: as you cut Western oil consumption, you're cutting the throat of Middle East economies like Saudi. The influx of oil money gave them relatively high standards of living, and well-paid jobs - now that's starting to collapse, with soaring unemployment and a prolonged recession in Saudi Arabia. Contrary to Huffington's theory, terrorism needs very little money: bombs, guns and cars are all cheap. It's angry unemployed Arabs who hate the West which were in short supply: cut off their one significant source of income, and there will be no shortage...
They do not cause traffic congestion, since the areas they tend to be used the most in areas with stop every block or two. While military bases make for an ideal location to use these I have seen the same types GEMS on the streets in Los Vegas. You can rent one for a night on the town. They've all been done up with extra neon lighting so you can't miss them. Even loaded down with four large and usually very drunk males, they kept up with traffic just fine on the main strip.
The only bad thing is if you live in areas such as Calfornia, you are going to get raped on the cost of electricity.
Quote form Unregistered: "Modern, working cars don't pollute enough to make a difference either."
Modern cars do pollute enough to make a difference, especially when you are talking about a couple of million of them opperating in the same area. Come out here to LA and drive down the 405 and try saying that again with a straight face.
Like I said NEV have their place, and hopefully cities being more friendly towards these vehicles will help stir up interest in EV's and maybe the end of the excuses that the technology is not ready coming form the auto manufactures.
Dammit, I never have points when I need them, only when they're inconvenient.
-- Even if a god did exist, why the fsck should I worship it?
The exact cause of asthma is unknown, but, there is a relationship with alergies. Often though an asthmatic may not be alergic to anything at all. For some it's stress. For others food allergies may be the cause. For many asthmatics there is little to no warning of an approaching attack. Additionally the common treatment for asthma is steroids which work to weaken ones immune system which is causing the imflamation in the air passages.
In fact some "studies" indicate that the sterile environments provided for children by over-anxious yuppy parents prevent proper development of the immune system. A link has also been shown between asthmatics and premature births. But to pretend that a link to arbitary pollution can be made is dishonest at best, and a disservice to those with the disease at worst.
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.
Slashdot readers interested in this stuff should read EV World regularly. Support its dedicated editor by purchasing a subscription if possible.
1. uncouple the regenerator/motor on downhills. My bicycle can go 40+ mph on a downhill. I don't see why a NEV can't, as long as you beef up the brakes for safety.
2. Lower it and re-do the roof. Most of the NEVs I've seen are built for comfort, not speed. They have high roofs and look like expensive golf carts, which is really what they are. Close those windows too. Plenty of room to reduce wind resistance on these babies.
3. DIY pulsejets. 'nuff said.
4. I'm already sick of Monster Garage, but as long as that show's on the air, they might was well stick one of their chromed bike motors in a NEV.
Of course, these last two suggestions take the E out of NEV, but what they heck.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Try passing a bike on a windy road or near a hill. Can't go 100 feet in western PA without seeing a hill or curved road. I just worry about passing some guy on his bike and him falling off and suing me.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
And don't complain about pollution. Modern, working cars don't pollute enough to make a difference either.
How about efficiency then? That BFO power station can convert fuel to power a damn sight more efficiently than your petrol engine, even after transmission and the motor take their cut. It also allows you to use whichever fuel source (gas, oil, nuclear) that happens to be cheapest that week.
The only thing stopping them building a 400 bhp electric car is the fact that power storage densities are too low. It won't be that long however before a battery powered two seater is beating your tank-sized SUV off the lights. Before you run it over that is.
Beep beep.
What I don't understand, is why most of them are designed with radiator grills (functional or faux).
--it's the same, wherever you go, just someplaces are more blatant than others. "royalty" and excessive and blatant hedonism have done them in, and pure boneheadedness and laziness, and all that mixed in with nutjob fundies. so yes, we'll be seeing more "terrorism" no doubt. You take what one fatcat saudi prince drops in an evening at the casino, what with his retinue and whores and drinks and limos and high stakes gaming and renting entire floors of suites, etc, you got a whole small villages income for one year, if not more than that.
now, how many princes do they have again?
Biggest mistake the islamic oil owners did was to SELL most of their oil, if they had started USING it more as an energy source to become vertical manufacturing nations-like china did-they'd all be quite well off now, probably by orders of ten or better. They could have sold small amounts of it for expensive prices, but it was too ridiculously easy and lazy of them to just pump it all out and sell it off for cheap (with a little help from their western handlers of course). Much easier doing that than actually working with it. Now they've blown 50 years of decent income, and will all be taken over, just watch it happen. Saudi Arabia is as much on the neowarcons hit list as the other "axis of targets" list nations are.
North Korea, though, I think they will wait on, them boys would put up a fight. The other ones, iran, libya,syria, sudan, wherever = targets.
That's my guess anyway.
Oil is still far and away the big kahuna, no matter what the apologists say. This is what the future historians will write about as the century of the resource wars, oil, water,and exotic and precious metals.
I like solar and use it, but I am also a realist, whether it's a normal piston engine or a hybrid or a turbine, most of the fuel is coming from the black slimy stuff for the next buncha years. Hydrogen sometime, not right now though for most places.
The problem with Bicyclists is that they stay on the car side of the white stripe on the 55 mph state highway.
Electric vehicles are great, BUT, how much fossil fuel must be burned to recharge the batteries??
If they are charged by solar panels then that it fantastic and I'm totally, 1000% for it.
But it they are burning oil and even worse, foreign oil, to charge them up, then it seems to defeat the purpose.
Electricity doesn't grow on tree, unless you burn them for it.
And it doesn't rain down from the sky either. Oh, wait a minute, it sure does! You just have to use the right collector to catch all that free energy....
Let's get cracking on non polluting, FREE energy..
Hydroelectric has enviromental consequences that are far reaching and difficult to see in the short term, oil & coal is just not a good thing. NG is the lesser of the fossil fuel offenders but it too has consequences that are far reaching.
Solar, wind, geothermal are what we need to pound on, over and over.
I would like to see the roof of EVERY house and building in the country covered with solar panels and use them to power small collective, community grids. And in places where it's feasible, windmills too.
That and more energy-efficient designs in appliances, lighting, heating, cooling and most importantly, insulation procedures.
This country was designed and built in a very energy wasteful manner and still operates under that mindset. We've GOT to change.
There is a low cost option that exists today in the Seattle area--Biodiesel. I recently sold my '96 Honda Accord and with the proceeds bought a '79 Mercedes diesel. I now drive the Mercedes on biodiesel-a fuel made from vegetable oil. Why would I do such a thing?
- This car does not contribute to global warming as the CO2 it emits was fixed from our current atmoshpere, not a Jurassic atmosphere like petro fuels
- It has 50% the CO emissions of a regular diesel engine
- It has 10% the total hydrocarbon emissions
- It has a 100% reduction in sulphides compared to standard diesel fuel
- There are 4 pumps in the Puget sound area
- If I can't get a hold of biodiesel, I can just put regular diesel in the pump, with no problems
- The car gets 27 MPG
- I don't rely on foreign oil to get around town
- I don't support Exxon/Mobil/Texaco
- I support the American economy by using fuels grown in America
Biodiesel is here today, is inexpensive to get into, has no switching costs, has great political and economic ramifications, and I look suhweet rolling in my Benzo.
I'm much funnier now that I'm a subscriber.
so do you think that all bicycles should be off the road? they can't keep up with traffic either.
Absolutely. Bikes on roads cause accidents, and even their riders are pretty darn likely to be killed.
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
Sure it has an internal combustion engine... but have you considered the enviromental costs of producing all those batteries or solar cells in your electric vehicles? What are their expected life spans? These scooters will still be put-putting along when the apes take over, and they are made from almost all recycled steel and aluminum. The environmental costs over their expected life spans will put almost any electric vehicle to shame.
I just bought one for my wife New Scooter and it's an amazing little vehicle.
The best solution is rarely the highest technology one.
--Mark
In 1992 I lived in Peachtree City, GA, just a little south of Atlanta. One of the things that made the city interesting was that all publicly accessable buildings had to be accessable via the golf-cart road system in the city. New sites had to be linked into the golf-cart roads. This was a golfing community, and residents could drive anywhere in town on these little roads. The only city roads you drove on were residential roads to get onto the golf-cart roads.
:)
It was the only place I know of where KMart sold golf carts and there were used golf-cart lots on the side of the road.
. 62,400 repetitions make one truth -- Brave New World, Aldous Huxley
--umm, I just looked at the pics for those things. They ARE cars, just smaller, electric, and more efficient for their tasks as intended. We have towers, servers, laptops, notebooks, PDAs and cell phones that can do all of the above badly, plus make a call. Same deal with vehicles. I think they are cool for what they are for, urban/suburban commuter specials. Now, you don't tow your skiboat to the lake with them. Besides that, 4 wheels, steering wheel, body, out of the weather, I'm sure pretty moddable-yep, that's a car!
I have a small 4 banger , a full size van, an RV, and a jeep, they all serve different purposes. I still have a moped, too, for when I lived in town, and 4 bicycles. They all got a use, and if I could get a used cheap one of these eletric things I probably would. I'll wait until a million have been sold and snag a trade-in sometime.
Tell ya what I would like right now, a garden tractor that was electric. I make a lot of surplus juice in the middle of the day from the solar panels here, usually by 1PM on sunny summer days all the batteries are full, I could plug in an electric vehicle then, the almost 4 acres of grass I cut would appreciate it, and I could do without the stink and noise of the little gassers I use now.
ya, they probably got them, I just never saw one for a few hundred for sale used anyplace. I've seen the little push mowers and robomowers that are electric, that ain't gonna cut it though, pun intended, need to be able to cut a scosh more than 18" wide at a whack.
I appreciate all ideas to reduce polluting too, but still can't help thinking what will happen when some drunkie crashes a NEV, which had right of the way, with one of those heavy SUVs nowadays so popular there in U.S.
Luckily public traffic in most European cities works quite well, so one does actually need to drive less frequently.
Personally, i don't even own one.
“Wait for Hurd if you want something real” –Linus
Lets be realistic, electric motors have a tremendous amount of torque. Anyone who has driven a golf cart knows this. I better the electric cars will go from 0 to 20 in 2 seconds at most.
Checking out my form of escapism.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
This is uninformed FUD. Utility-scale power plants are more efficient at producing energy and pollute less, per unit of energy produced, than the internal combustion engine in your car.
Do traditional power plants (coal, natural gas, even nuclear) producing energy for a million electric cars still generate pollution? You bet - but less pollution than a million cars burning fossil fuel. In my book, less pollution seems like a good idea.
Plus, there is at least the theoretical option of recharging your electric car with power from a renewable source - solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, etc.
In Soviet Rush, today's Tom Sawyer gets high on you.
For NEV, as well as their older and more practical predecessors (bicycles), to become popularized as an alternative transportation method, cities are going to have to start paving bike lanes into their streets. Right now, it's just too frickin' dangerous to ride a bike (or NEV) because most the cars aren't watching for you, many of them try to squeeze around you so close I'm amazed the side-view mirrors don't hit me every time, and a few of them actually swerve to hit (Not exaggerating. Quite a few cyclists die because of this every year in the USA.)
If you build neighborhoods correctly, you don't need to rely on any external forces to get you the food you need.
Aye, there's one big source of our dependance on the auto. The U.S. has an *enormous* installed base of poorly-designed neighborhoods. Winding streets with no sidewalks, strict segregation of residential and commercial activities, and sprawling development (single-story houses on 3/4 acre lots. gag!) make it almost a requirement to drive to get any sort of outside input! NEVs are a stopgap solution, what we need in the long term is better urban planning. We need more mixed-use development, more compact residential areas, etc. The guiding principle should be to have everything needed on a daily basis within easy walking (or bicycle) distance from every home.
0 1 - just my two bits
Electric vehicles have been banned from the drag strip in my town because some guy rigged together a battery powered car that started out being ridiculously fast compared to all the other cars there, and just kept getting faster every time he refined it.
The point about efficiency rather than performance is the crux of the situation. The truth is, although many alternative fuel vehicles may be cleaner while you drive them, their energy efficiency tends to be about the same if you make them as fast as a normal car. This makes it self-defeating to make them fast. Besides, the target market for alternative fuel vehicles is largely the group of people who buy Geo Prizms for the 44mpg and don't give a damn that it's a Geo - they probably don't care that the AF car is slow, either.
How much more efficient?
Total efficiency?
Lets see, move gas to car. Burn gas(moderately efficient)
vs
Move gas to power plant, run turbine (efficient), generate electricity (low efficiency), transmit to car (ok), recharge battery (generally ok), turn electric motor (a little more efficient then a gas engine, depending on duty cycle).
I think that it might be a slight improvement, but mostly it is a NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard).
I also again question the longevity of the car, more waste comes from the production of the vehicle then its tailpipe emissions anyway.
Take a quick look at efficiencies, the generation of electricity is quite inefficient, and hurts the overall efficiency of the system.
Will there be special lanes, so SUV drivers won't be running everyone over?
>>Modern, working cars don't pollute enough to make a difference either
they don't!? hmm, im pretty sure my car doesn't run on hopes and dreams.
________________________________________________
Be awesome if they can get the room temp super conducting .
to work with NEV's, would make them super efficient
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/7/4/5
Peace,
Ex-MislTech
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
There have been a number of suicide attempts where they have tried to use the exhaust from a modern catalysed car...and have failed. Modern engine management reduces the CO and HCs to very low limits indeed. (Modern as in proper closed loop rather than fuel injection + catalyst).
If you count CO2 as pollution (and I do), then you're right - but in terms of the stuff that kills you fast, a modern car is pretty clean.
There are two huge advantages by using generated power instead of individual engines:
1. Centrally generated power, even in small cells, can more efficiently control pollution and achieve economies of scale. This isn't always the case, but it's often so. Point-source pollution is more readily captured and remediated.
2. Improvements in generation and reduction in pollution from generation can happen relatively rapidly, over years or a decade, where cars can stay on the road for several decade. I saw figures a few years ago in which a small percentage of cars on the road did, in fact, generate the majority of pollution because most of those cars were old smoke spewers.
You're definitely right that you have to track the entire energy and pollution and materials cost of everything to understand its gestalt effects. There was a study a few years ago comparing disposable and reusable diapers, and the results were interesting. If you don't think that throwing things away is a problem -- that is, if you believe that landfills have plenty of space -- disposables came out way ahead in energy and materials. If you want a fully closed system, then cotton diapers are better, but they do use an awful lot of infrastructure: water, detergent, gasoline to transport them (for services).
Freelance tech journalist for the Economist, MIT Technology Review, Macworld, and others
Metal Nickel Hydride are being used in the Toyota Prius and the Civic Hybrid cars. Both companies warrant the battery packs for 100,000 and 80,000 miles, respectivcly. Which means that both car companies have a lot of faith in the battery packs to be charged and discharged repeatedly. Try getting a warranty like that on a set of Lead Acid Batteries. You can't. Some current battery technologies can be cycled (charged and discharged) well over a 1000 times.
The future looks brighter for Lithium Ion and Lithium Polymer battery technology. This technology can COMPETE with current Fuel Cell technology in range and is a whole lot cheaper. It's also available today!!! It's not someone's pipe dream 20+ years down the road.
A good electric car can get about 125 miles per charge. Be charged overnight while you sleep. Use cheaper overnight electric rates. They are simpler in construction and cheaper to build. They don't have to be made out of lead acid batteries.
Check out www.evworld.com for more information and links.
I'd rather look to making something better than poo-pooing old technology.
>>Modern, working cars don't pollute enough to make a difference either
t ml
>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.
The thing to notice is the qualifier "modern, working". I'd have to look up the exact figures but the older cars and the out-of-tune ones swamp the emissions from newer cars in good order. Of course CO2 is a glaring exception.
Electric cars give you a several wins on pollution control. They let you move the pollution to where the power plant is, often outside a populated area and certainly outside (e.g.) the LA basin. They let you do pollution controls on a fixed plant, where you don't have to worry about the size or weight of the equipment like you have to when you put the smog controls on a car. Finally, you have a wider choice of prime energy sources. Some just can't be put into a car, like hydropower. Others shouldn't, like this one: http://www.velocityjrnl.com/jrnl/1958/vmd1210ov.h
Why? I value not being made into a paraplegic in an accident. When in transport, I want a frame around me. In a battle of a head hitting the road, the road always wins.
Perhaps you should learn to drive/ride rather than playing bumper cars on the road. It's your kind of "bigger-is-better" mentality that has moms driving to the grocery store and post office in Chevy Suburbans.
If you are so concerned about safety, why don't you wear a helmet in your car? It would cut your chances of dying in an accident about in half. Why do you think they wear them in race cars and survive accidents at 200MPH+.
You bring up a fuck of a lot of good points there, although these things don't belong on the road because they might cause someone to get hurt. I can't even imagine this thing merging onto a highway.
why run from Vincenzo?
I'm waiting until this nation (us) abandons coal as it's primary energy source. Driving an electric car is not neccesarily any more eco friendly than driving a combustion powered vehicle unless your energy source is renewable and clean. When you plug your electric car into the grid you're probably burning coal.
Unfortunatly, electric cars will probably not lower our dependance on fossil fuels anytime soon. If anything they may increase them. The important step is the adoption of alternative energy sources.
Until then I'll still rely on human-powered transportation.
And car drivers eating a burger, talking on their cell phone or applying makeup don't cause congestion?
I'd say this is a good idea for communities with a large population of seniors who don't necessarily need the expense of running a car that can do 0-60 in 10 seconds. Instead, they just want to get their groceries and visit their friends in the locality.
-"I talked to God and here's the deal/ He said to floss between each meal" -- Uninvited
This is the big error you people make, you assume there's a nice big river everywhere that is suitable for making a hydro plant. You never paid attention in geography class, did you?
Hmmm, the artical was about Washington State... regarding electric cars. It's rather why I said, "we" have hydro power.
Here (Washington state) electric cars make sence. We have dams, that provide power. Additional power plants are being built that use natural gas.
Where you live, you might not have hydro power, you might be on coal for example. For place not easily accessible that don't have access to reasonably clean power, electric cars would be a very poor choice.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
I can't read your link (fonts too tiny), but can you tell me how it recharges? What powers the compressor? Electricity? Gas? Inflating rubber balloons?
Actually electric motors used in cars have much more torque than gas motors. The fastest acceleration from 0-60 in a four wheeled vehicle was done with an electric car. Do a google for John Whaland(sp?) for more information.
*Condense fact from the vapor of nuance*
Hey, I'm a WA state resident. I just saw two people using a Segway today! It was a guy who had one, and his son. They were waiting at a crosswalk just standing there on them. The segways actually look kind of silly, plasticy and playskoolish. It was cool though. I thought it was funny that I read this story then went out and saw a Segway for the first time.
but they do use gasoline and we really should work on cutting back on our dependance on fossil fuels.
Why? I'm not dependant on fossil fuels. I use fossil fuels because they're the cheapest alternative. When they cease to be the cheapest alternative, I'll stop using them. I'll buy a diesel, and start using vegetable oil. Or I'll buy an electric, since everyone else will have one, it won't be as annoying going so frickin' slow.
Use of fossil fuels is not the same as dependence on fossil fuels.
Technical problems are trivial to overcome compared to market inertia...
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
Electric cars pollute too. Where do you think electricity comes from, the tooth fairy?
Hell, even bikes pollute. That energy that you use to pedal the bike comes from somewhere, after all. Unless you grow your own organic vegetables for your entire food intake, I doubt your food source is created without causing any pollution.
We use more renewable enrgy than you thank,
not nearly enough of course. Besides, there
are two arguments for using electric even
though that energy clearly has to come from
somewhere
1) It is cheaper and easier to make a more
efficient, cleaner single large power plant
than it is to try to make millions of small
efficient clean vehicles
2) electric vehicles are source agnostic,
they don't care what the source of the energy
is and it would make it that much easier to switch the economy over. Only a few key players would
have to change vs. every ignorant or mis-informed
Tom, Dick and Harry.
PS> And for something like an NEV with low
energy requirements it would be quite easy
to setup a photovoltaic system for charging.
Were that I say, pancakes?
i have a solar array, my power comes from the sun. aside from that...in seattle, most of the power comes from hydro. our #1 source of pollution is not powerplants, it is from the millions of independently owned cars. the only -zero- sum game is to kill one's self, we all consume, some less than others. electric powered vehicles are -net- better, that's the goal.
Right, but what is lost in your argument is that a gas engine is 13% or so efficient while a gas-fired electric plant is >70% efficient in transferring energy from gas to electricity (including delivery losses). So a hypothetical electric plant that runs on gasoline could make 5 electric cars go the same distance as one gasoline car - all other things being equal.
"Find a way to extract energy from hydrogen (and likewise convert it into energy a vehicle can use) that doesn't require more net energy (and waste) in the process and then come talk to me."
Again, all energy conversions are suboptimal. There is no way to change energy from one form to another without losing some of it. This is why photovoltaics aren't really viable - because it takes more energy to refine the silicon and grow the cell than the cell delivers during its lifetime. All energy conversion processes have waste - there's no way around it.
This is uninformed FUD. Utility-scale power plants are more efficient at producing energy and pollute less, per unit of energy produced, than the internal combustion engine in your car.
Then why doesn't everyone have one? Is this some sort of conspiracy? Or is it just that the increased efficiency is more than outwieghed by the decreased efficiency in production?
We already have a method to determine how much of a drain on resources a particular power system is. It's a free market economy.
Plus, there is at least the theoretical option of recharging your electric car with power from a renewable source
Just because it's renewable doesn't mean it's better. If that were the case we'd all be cutting down and burning trees to power our homes.
Where are the teen-punks going to put the fart cannon? The giant spolier? Where are all the stickers going to go?
:)
Maybe if they put a "Type-R" sticker on the back, they'd be popular.
A quick google didn't show any aftermarket vinyl racing stripes to make these go faster, so I don't see where these will do very well.
Ooohhh I know what I'll patent now - a giant speaker to mount under the rear with a continuous-loop recording of a highly-amplified bumble-bee, just to make it sound like it has an engine. Then it'll sell
i have a solar array, my power comes from the sun.
Unless it's fission, everyone's power comes from the sun.
How about all that silicon? Where'd that come from? What about all the workers who made those solar arrays? How did they get to work? What about the machines made to create the solar arrays? Did they run off solar power too?
in seattle, most of the power comes from hydro. our #1 source of pollution is not powerplants, it is from the millions of independently owned cars.
Show your source. I'm sure commercial pollution is more of a problem than personal car use.
And what type of pollution are you worried about? You think hydro doesn't pollute? Dams destroy the country's natural ecosystems. Entire species of plants and animals are wiped out because of it.
electric powered vehicles are -net- better, that's the goal.
I don't see how electric powered vehicles could possibly be net better. We already tax energy enough to more than make up for the pollution it causes. And to drive an electric car at the same speeds that you drive a regular car is more expensive, even after the taxation subsidies. I'd say it's a net loss, not a net gain.
It looks like a normal, electrically powered compressor. I'd stick a solar panel on the roof and it could charge itself up while it sits idly parked.
Interestingly these machines would also be exempt from the £1250pa ($2000pa) London congestion charge.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
Here in vegas, NEVs are legal on public roads. So heres the scoop. I'm driving along at 55mph (in a 45 zone in a superarterial). All of a sudden I come up behind one, in the right traffic lane doing 30mph (15 below the limit), being driven by a 12 year old (my guess at his age, i really didntt stop and ask). These are a problem because of such incidents. Between irresponsible parents and kids not realizing the fact that the are MOTOR vehicles (regardless of how they're powered) its not a safe thing.
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
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.
anthony_dipierro writes: How about all that silicon? Where'd that come from? What about all the workers who made those solar arrays? How did they get to work? What about the machines made to create the solar arrays? Did they run off solar power too?
l
so basically, you were wrong about pollution and what the major source is in my state. you were wrong about the net gains of using electric powered vehicles. your statements and arguments are pretty common from people who haven't spent the time and did any research.
nothing is for free. the only way to have zero impact is to kill yourself...it's all about tradeoffs. solar has the least compared to other forms.
anthony_dipierro writes: "Show your source. I'm sure commercial pollution is more of a problem than personal car use".
the department of ecology in wa state. and i'll quote "this is important because motor vehicles are Washington's largest source of air pollution, accounting for about 57 percent of air pollution statewide".
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0202005.html
google around, it's all over the place.
anthony_dipierro writes: "And what type of pollution are you worried about? You think hydro doesn't pollute? Dams destroy the country's natural ecosystems. Entire species of plants and animals are wiped out because of it".
actually, that's not true. at least in my state. i can gladly supply other links, but how about you do some research this time. i have a solar array, so i'm even off that grid. we all need power, hyrdo when engineered properly is one of the best.
anthony_dipierro writes: "I don't see how electric powered vehicles could possibly be net better. We already tax energy enough to more than make up for the pollution it causes. And to drive an electric car at the same speeds that you drive a regular car is more expensive, even after the taxation subsidies. I'd say it's a net loss, not a net gain".
you should do some reading...here's a quick link, there are a million more. http://innovations.copper.org/global/ev_clean.htm
cheers,
pt
A cars energy cost seems pretty simple to me, 20 mpg, 40 mpg, whatever.
But these things are misleading. You think that somehow it is 'green' and better then a car just because you are plugging it into an electrical outlet.
And electricity comes from where, fossil fuels, nuclear, damns, wind and in a small amount of cases solar.
If you want to measure the true environmental impact of these things you cannot stop at the electrical outlet on your wall. You really must consider what is generating that electricty.
Case in point. Hydrogen cars. To create the hydrogen they use an electric charge to separate the hydrogen atoms from the oxygen atoms in water.
Currently if our country went to a hydrogen economy we would use MORE fossil fuels running power plants then what we use currently running cars.
Don't be fooled. The green people are just that, green, moldy and without a lot of thought.
I can see this on a freeway or urban highway, where people expect to be able to maintain a nearly constant speed for hours on end. In typical urban traffic, where there's constant traffic lights, stop signs, people parallel parking, people loading and unloading passengers, etc., drivers have to be a little more alert. Having to occasionally pass a bike going a little slower than you shouldn't be a big deal.
A lot of people like bike lanes, but honestly as far as I know the jury's still out on whether they're safer than just having bikes and cars share lanes all the time. Accidents tend to occur at intersections, so separating the traffic between intersections in exchange for making the intersections themselves more complicated isn't necessarily a good tradeoff.
--Bruce Fields
Yeah, that sounds too high, at least for "typical" speeds. Racers certainly can do 30mph on the flat for a while, and obviously anyone can exceed those speeds given a sufficient downhill, but "typical" speeds for bike traffic are probably more like 10-20mph.
On the other hand, once you factor in traffic lights and such, nobody, regardless of vehicle, is likely to be doing more than that on a lot of downtown streets.
--Bruce Fields
Sorry; there's just too many places to go where the most direct route is a street with a 45mph speed limit. At worst that means that cars might have to slow down to bike speed for a few seconds while they wait for a break in traffic to pass. I don't see that as too great a burden.
--Bruce Fields
nothing is for free. the only way to have zero impact is to kill yourself...it's all about tradeoffs. solar has the least compared to other forms.
I disagree. I think solar has the most compared to other forms.
"this is important because motor vehicles are Washington's largest source of air pollution, accounting for about 57 percent of air pollution statewide"
Oh... For Washington... I thought you were talking about national. It's really not fair to count only Washington, since they import many of their products from elsewhere.
actually, that's not true. at least in my state.
You deny that dams reroute water?
i have a solar array, so i'm even off that grid.
How much land do you have to operate this solar array? And like I said, how much pollution do you think was caused creating and distributing those solar panels? I bet it was a lot more than would be created by being on the grid.
you should do some reading...here's a quick link, there are a million more. http://innovations.copper.org/global/ev_clean.html
That link only measures direct costs, and it only measures air pollutants. If you want to measure all costs, direct and indirect, it's very simple. You look at the price.
Yeah, that sounds too high, at least for "typical" speeds. Racers certainly can do 30mph on the flat for a while, and obviously anyone can exceed those speeds given a sufficient downhill, but "typical" speeds for bike traffic are probably more like 10-20mph.
Thanks to my trusty bike computer, I can tell you that I average about 10 mph in traffic, with a typical moving speed 12-15 mph and peaks in the 18-20 mph range. During rush hour I beat all busses and maybe a third of cars; during times of light traffic, I'm about even with the busses and slightly slower than cars.
This is in San Francisco; in other cities, YMMV. (Heh, first time I've said that and had it be literally what I meant.)
you're saying solar is worse than coal or gas? okay, you've jumped the shark. -some- dams reroute water, some hydro-power does not. you need to do some research and see that all the ways we power the world have trade-offs. good luck, you've got quite a bit of reading to do. you'll be eating up lots of power on that computer too, which wastes a lot of power too.
Yes you are. Anecdotes about how you were almost killed however many times are unconvincing. You should also check out some of the discussion in the literature on bike-lane safety. They're not a panacea.
Sure. And people get hit standing on the sidewalk every year, too--it's a big country, after all--but we don't think of standing on the sidewalk as "frickin' dangerous". One or two sensational news articles don't make a trend. Bicycling in traffic can be done safely; produce real statistics (not just anecdotes) or you're just spreading FUD.
--Bruce Fields
you're saying solar is worse than coal or gas?
It's certainly worse than gas. I don't know much about coal.
okay, you've jumped the shark. -some- dams reroute water, some hydro-power does not.
You can't gain power from water without rerouting it. It's impossible. You simply can't do it.
you need to do some research and see that all the ways we power the world have trade-offs.
I know that. I'm not saying solar is worse in general. It's great for some things. But as a power source for a general purpose car, it sucks.
Again, you have to look at the whole cost. Sure, we might have slightly cleaner air with solar power. So we might live 3 days longer. But how much suckier is our life going to be? How much more time will we have to spend working in factories building solar panels? How much longer will we spend driving? How much more will we have to pay in taxes when we eliminate a huge source of government funding?
Overall, when you add up all the costs, most people agree that solar power just isn't worth it. That's why it's more expensive.
In highly concentrated forms sure car exhaust is horrid to human beings. The CO itself can strangle your lungs so you can't get any O2 after a while. Many things that aren't too bad for you in small amounts are deadly in high amounts.
Take a hydrogen fuel-cell care. They emit pure water. Right after you retrofit yours to dump all the H20 into the cabin I'll start sucking on my CO exhaust
Water kills. Don't let anybody fool you.
you've yet to prove "solar is worse than gas" and good luck trying. data? but now, you're moving on to saying "solar as a power source for a general purpose car sucks"...that's different. there is no -one- power solution that is perfect, all trade-offs you've yet to prove anything. of course we need gas, coal, wind nuclear, solar, hydro, we need it all, unless we all decide to check out. the challenge is-- control the pollution to small areas, use a source that won't run out for a while and doesn't cost too much to gather once you're up and running.
There aren't a hell of alot of people that can even manage to reach a speed of 25mph on a bicycle, let alone maintain that speed for any reasonable time.A person of average fitness could maintain a max 10-15 Mph.
That NEV isn't sounding so slow anymore is it?
In my opinion, if the vehicle cannot maintain at LEAST the minimum speed limit for a given road, it should not be legal to drive said vehicle on a given road.
you've yet to prove "solar is worse than gas" and good luck trying.
OK, admittedly, solar is better for some things, like powering a calculator.
but now, you're moving on to saying "solar as a power source for a general purpose car sucks"...that's different. there is no -one- power solution that is perfect, all trade-offs you've yet to prove anything.
Right, but that's what we're talking about here. A power source for a general purpose car.
of course we need gas, coal, wind nuclear, solar, hydro, we need it all, unless we all decide to check out. the challenge is-- control the pollution to small areas, use a source that won't run out for a while and doesn't cost too much to gather once you're up and running.
And right now the best solution for that is good old gasoline. Hybrids have promise for the future, but right now they're too expensive to make to be worth it.
Not being well versed in electric vehicles, what do you classify this car (click on "the fish car") as? I see this thing zipping all over Portland. They claim a top speed of 60!?
I'm assuming it's street legal in Oregon.
Does the WA legislation support these too, or will the support only apply to strict NEV's? And what is a electric "thing" called when it can do more than 25, yet isn't a real car chassis?
You know what?
Try to contact the air car company to get licenses to distribute... You will find that there are already exclusive licenses taken everywhere by the big car companies.
Would someone in an NEV have to purchase insurance? What if someone in a huge Chevy Tahoe or Ford Explorer mowed them down because they didn't see them or couldn't stop in time? Sounds really messy. Major liability because you have basically no protection AND you move at such slow speed. No thanks!
A few flaws (as I see it) in your thinking. Ford no longer sells the Th!nk vehicles. There are some other companies (gemcar) that sell comparable vehicles, at around $7,000.00 for a base model (i presume that's a 2 seater with no doors, not very practical). This saves as you said 2billion gallons of gas over a year. (I didn't check the math).
Now, let's say that an average of $0.46 of that is tax (IIRC that's what Colorado has). That's an additional $920,000,000.00/year lost in tax revinue that goes towards road maintance. This could be replaced in part by adding taxes to the electic, but that's not really fair is it, since only 10 Million will be using these cars and everyone uses electic powered items that don't cause wear on the roads.
$70,000,000,000.00 to provide cars for people plus an added cost of $920,000,000 per year. Kind of expensive don't you think?
Not sure how this is going to allieve traffic congestion, since you're still driving on the same roads (just slower).
I really don't care to speculate on how many jobs this would create, since selling an electic car to someone, in most cases would preclude them buying a traditional auto, so those sales would decrease by 10 million and those workers would be displaced (fired or transfered).
Now the tax cut that you infer that we should cut into to pay for this is for everyone. The "rich" that you speak of might see a greater portion of this than you or I, but that's because they are already paying more in taxes. The sliding scale tax means that the more you make, the larger chuck of money that you earn each year goes to the governement. Seems only fair if that were to be evened out a little.
Now, don't get me wrong. Gas powered cars have their days limited and this is a good thing, but I don't see that it's the governement's job to finance the whole thing with our money. I think some of our money should go to funding research, but not too much of it. The private companies that fund this research will be the ones to reap the bennifits.
Sorry for the long rant there. You've got the right idea in general - let's move away from internal combustion engines, but not in the way you've proposed.
Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.
Well, they don't "belong" on a 45-65mph highway, that's for sure, with the exception of the hybrid cars.
However.... I see little issue with them on 30mph roads, assuming their max speed is 25mph. I see little issue with them on a parelell residental street to a major arterial. I see little issue with them in downtown areas where the posted limit is 25mph, or where the realistic limit is 25mph and below.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
They're less than 1 grand, can keep up with traffic (30-45+ mph depending on model), and get 80-100mpg. Why aren't those taking off in the US? I'd rather drive a scooter than spend 5 grand on a 25mph top-speed golf cart.
Only reason I don't drive a scooter is because I have to share the road with humongous trucks, SUVs and 18 wheelers and I don't want to be squashed. Until the laws change to make such vehicles illegal I'll have to stick with a reasonably large car.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Air Car is nothing more than an elaborate hoax. Note that the information supplied by MDI is all about 'predicted' performance, however none of the people who have actually set eyes on the bi-energy prototype or the new compressed-air-only engine has been able to verify MDI's claims. I estimate the useful energy storage capacity to be something like 3 kWh for 90 litres at 300 bar, using basic physics and assuming an ideal gas. There is no way any vehicle of that size is going to travel up to 300 km at around 100 kmph on the equivalent of five 50 Ah car batteries.
It's a matter of scale. Power needs back then were trivial. You want to power London off the Thames today, and you'd have to dam the river.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
Works for me. I think the Iraqi people would probably like that arrangement, too. More money in their pockets for them to spend, now that they don't have to worry about Ba'ath rape squads trolling their cities.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
A power utility in Southern California has a some RAV4-EV's that have over 120,000 miles on them. The RAV4-EV's use Ni-MH, I think.
If you really want top performance out of that vehicle, pick a rocket. H+O has lots of energy, but a complicated engine add a bunch of weight, so better be really specialized, and pick a designed solid fuel rocket. (Of course, the best ones tend to have a poisonous exhaust. So the crowd better stand back at a distance. [Did I hear about one made from rubber recently, that had a non-toxic exhaust? Maybe.])
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
You'd think if these did things like causing the Thames to flow through Brimingham, or the Trent to divert to Newcastle, we'd know about it.
I didn't say you can't gain power from water without causing the Thames to flow through Brimingham. I said you can't gain power from water without rerouting it.
This type of pollution, like all others, isn't a big deal if it's done in moderation. But our current energy needs are much greater than they were during the industrial revolution.
Mainly because they are smaller. An NEV weighs about 1/10th as much as a SUV. To a first approximation that also means 1/10th the emissions!
If they were gas powered, they'd be even smaller. Batteries are much heavier than gas, for the same amount of power.
Many studies indicate that cars are ultimately a very poor solution to urban transportation.
Cars are an important part of the solution. Granted, subways, buses, trains, bikes, and even NEVs serve their own particular niche, but these "studies" don't indicate the realities of urban transportation. If I want to get from 10th street to 75th street in Manhattan, I'm generally going to save a helluva lot of time taking a taxicab. If I'm going outside the city, I probably want to take a car. If I'm going to 42nd street in the middle of the day, I should probably take the subway. Sometimes the bus is the best solution, though I have to admit that I haven't been in such a situation very often. Most people know what form of transportation is best for the situation. And the powers that be generally do a decent job adjusting the taxes of various products to adjust those prices to reflect the true costs of using a particular transportation method.
They consume massive amounts of real estate (65% is a typical figure...probably a lot more in a "car shopping" (big box/mall) district.
Are you including taxicabs under the category of "cars?"
They aren't even a particularly fast way to get about, averaging 10-15mph in an urban environment.
Then why do people use them? Perhaps because their starting point and destination don't offer a better alternative? And why is that? Perhaps because their particular locations are not travelled between in high enough volume during that time of the day to justify it?
It all depends how you phrase the question. If your end goal is to reduce pollution at any cost, then obviously we have a long way to go. But if you accept that a little bit of pollution can be a fair trade for increasing the general standard of living, then I think we're balancing things fairly well.
To put it on a more personal level, let me pose this question: Would you accept the inconvenience of walking a block if it meant that the street you live on would be closed to IC vehicles?
Well, since I live on a corner, it wouldn't be a problem. But assuming I had to walk a block to get to my car, I'd probably move somewhere without such draconian laws. I mean, this place isn't that great to begin with. I'm sure I could find something in this are which was just as good, cost about the same amount of money, and had parking. If it cost me too much to move, then yeah, I'd accept it. Actually first I'd talk to the fire department to see if they could obtain a waiver for me in two weeks when I become a member. Forcing me to run a block would cut hurt my response time, after all. I'm sure something could be worked out with the local police.
Here at Edwards we can build any kind of aircraft (wanna Joint Strike Fighter) you want from scratch, but everyone knows only the Aliens at Area 51 can build Pro-drivers.
Those GEMS are more fun than our EZgo's (think heavy duty industrial flat bed cart). They do make side panels for them. There's two or three that are in my neighboor hood, with one a little old lady bought having the sidepanels. Made much like a Jeep softtop and doors.
Yeh the smog still is pretty sucky. Everytime I fly into LAX the area has that perma-cover of browninh smog clouds.
The truth is, although many alternative fuel vehicles may be cleaner while you drive them, their energy efficiency tends to be about the same if you make them as fast as a normal car.
True, but, seems that's just a battery capacity issue. After all, even though you may be getting the same number of miles per unit of stored energy, you can get the energy from sources that aren't dependent on an exhaustible supply of dead dinosaurs.
In Los Angeles, the Department of Water and Power offers the option of getting "Green Power," where you pay a couple bucks extra per month but they are buying power from renewable resources on your behalf. (Obviously they can't ensure that EXACTLY the same watts they purchased from a particular source end up in your socket, but it changes the balance of consumption a little at a time.) So, if I drove an electric car (which I don't, because basically I don't drive), and if I still lived in City of Los Angeles (instead of the Island of West Hollywood which unfortunately is powered, or not as the case is at least a few seconds out of every week, by Southern California Edison), I could ensure that every mile I drove came from renewable resources. Which isn't an efficiency argument per sé, but has a certain ecological elegance to it.
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
There are advantages to an electric vehicle:
1. Power generated elsewhere -- even if its burning hydrocarbons, you can have better filters on plants than you can on a combustion engine = less polution entering the environment overall.
2. Pollution exitting power plant pollutes one area. This is much better than cars constantly polluting everywhere.
3. Probably it's more efficient (don't know though) even burning hydrocarbons
4. As mentioned, many places can use wind or hydro (if the god damned environmentalists would get the hell out of the way instead of playing contrarian everywhere they can. Ironically, it's a lack of understanding the bigger picture...)
"Has [being a kidnapped teenage girl, raped repeatedly for months] changed you?" - Katie Couric to Elizabeth Smart
I could care less if there was a bike that ran on a perpetual motion machine, I would not use it.
;-).
Why? I value not being made into a paraplegic in an accident. When in transport, I want a frame around me. In a battle of a head hitting the road, the road always wins.
If your head hits the road, you already lost. You're either on a bike without a helmet (which is required by law around here), or you're in a very sleek-looking convertible without a rollbar. In either case, it's your own damn fault.
No amount of vehicle can make up for basic safety. The other day, the professor in my Transportation Engineering class told us about a fatal accident on one of the streets in his jurisdiction (he's also a practicing engineer): a woman picked her nephew up from school, then, without him putting on his seatbelt first, proceeded to go the WRONG WAY for about 10 feet on the street so she wouldn't have to drive farther and make a U-turn. Her large SUV got hit by a driver travelling legally along the left lane of traffic, and because of where she was positioned relative to the traffic island (the one she was driving around, because it was inconvenient for her), her vehicle tipped over. Now, the kid might have survived, except that the very large passenger window of this very large vehicle was open, and the kid (no seatbelt, remember) fell out and was crushed by the very large vehicle.
I've been in more accidents than I'm strictly speaking comfortable with, both as driver and passenger. They were in: a late-70s Honda Civic hatchback; a late-80s Saab 900 sedan; a 1985 Honda Civic sedan; an early-90s Saab 900; and three in my del Sol. Want to know how many times I've been injured? Zero. Some of these were relatively minor accidents; the three times my del Sol has been hit have all been in the right rear quadrant and at relatively low speeds (though the guy in the Ford Excessive who hit me at 5 mph while literally looking OVER my roof for traffic still managed to do a good $4,000 damage), but all the others officially totalled the car I was in. The first Saab accident was a spinout from about 65 mph where we hit the center divider. The second Honda Civic went smash into the back of a 1970s station wagon at about 15 mph, and demolished the front end... but not me.
Also, note that none of these cars had the kinds of safety features required now. In at least one, I was only wearing a lap belt. I've never seen an airbag go off.
On the other hand, we're finding that accidents involving SUVs tend to be a LOT more injurious and deadly. Why? More pounds of metal to squish people with, higher centers of gravity to make rolling easier, and then there's the occasional massive tire defect
Your large vehicle might make you feel safer, but it definitely makes everyone else on the road less safe. Stop being shortsighted and start being smart about the road.
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
Again, this has nothing to do with my original post. I thank you for putting a black mark on cyclists by pointing out that they can get places a lot faster by violating the traffic laws.
Not sure about bicycles, but under the California Vehicle Code, motorcycles can legally "split the lane" provided:
- They do not exceed the speed of traffic flow by more than 10 mph;
- They at no time go faster than 35 mph.
Granted, motorcyclists that do this routinely break both of these rules... but that doesn't mean it's patently illegal.
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
What you said. [nodding vigorously]
-- haaz.
LEAF = SOLAR PANEL (..and a darn good one at that).
The roof area is about 6m^2 which should be able to produce 400-500 watts on a sunny day.
The on-board compressor however is 5kW and takes 3 hours to charge the air tank. So estimate around 30-40 hours to fill up in summer, say 40 hours, that's 1/4 of a tank per day. The range is 300km, so if you're doing less than 75km (45miles)/day you're laughing.
Something nobody mentioned about it. It does 0-60 in 7 seconds, with passengers[1]... Doesn't go any faster than 60 though.
[1] http://www.carstreet.com/fullstory.asp?code=334
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
Yeah, that sounds too high, at least for "typical" speeds. Racers certainly can do 30mph on the flat for a while, and obviously anyone can exceed those speeds given a sufficient downhill, but "typical" speeds for bike traffic are probably more like 10-20mph.
When I was riding my bike to my summer school classes between my freshman and sophmore years in high school I was routinely hitting 35-40mph on flat ground, and I was hardly a racer. I'm sure my average was something like 10-20 miles per hour, but how different is that from a car on surface streets?
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.