Not only does that bring in price, but that's also more environmentally friendly because that car would have been scrapped (and recycled, sure, but there's still energy that was lost originally making it, recycling it, and making something new from it).
It just sounded like he bought the truck for the conversion (it makes sense to have a small light truck--it's light and has storage room for batteries) when they said "including the cost of the truck". He might not have bought it when it was new, but unfortunately, we can't make any assumptions on whether or not he bought the truck for the conversion from the article, other than the author's "including the cost of the truck".
I just meant in the amount of fuel required to start those locomotives moving and getting up to speed. Once they're at speed, sure, they're efficient... Maybe we can electrify certain distances near where they stop (as far as I know, they stop at regular locations) to make it more efficient for them to get moving again and once they are, cut back over to diesel.
The PRR had most of SE PA electrified and it kind of made sense, however it doesn't make sense to electrify the entire stretch from LA to to Dallas, or Santa Fe to Billings, y'know? Way too much electricity lost over that kind of distance.
The 2008 Volvo S80 has four cats, which I think is a lot. It does, as you say, lower NOx emissions, but it increases some other emissions (offhand, I can't recall). However, NOx emissions are the biggest culprit of air pollution and should continue to be eliminated in the best way we know until something else comes along.
Your argument stipulates that he was going to purchase a new vehicle anyway, rather than going out and buying a new one that contained the batteries and engine, which we SHOULD assume he bought specifically for this conversion because the article stated $12,000 included the cost of the truck. Even if he bought it new and spent $5,000 for the conversion, there's still the original MSRP for the truck, plus the cost of paying off the interest in the loan, but THAT can be more successfully argued as not being incorporated into the cost of conversion. Buying a vehicle for a conversion is still part of the cost of the conversion.
Slashdot Mirror
Not only does that bring in price, but that's also more environmentally friendly because that car would have been scrapped (and recycled, sure, but there's still energy that was lost originally making it, recycling it, and making something new from it). It just sounded like he bought the truck for the conversion (it makes sense to have a small light truck--it's light and has storage room for batteries) when they said "including the cost of the truck". He might not have bought it when it was new, but unfortunately, we can't make any assumptions on whether or not he bought the truck for the conversion from the article, other than the author's "including the cost of the truck".
I just meant in the amount of fuel required to start those locomotives moving and getting up to speed. Once they're at speed, sure, they're efficient... Maybe we can electrify certain distances near where they stop (as far as I know, they stop at regular locations) to make it more efficient for them to get moving again and once they are, cut back over to diesel. The PRR had most of SE PA electrified and it kind of made sense, however it doesn't make sense to electrify the entire stretch from LA to to Dallas, or Santa Fe to Billings, y'know? Way too much electricity lost over that kind of distance.
You forgot diesel-electric locomotives.
The 2008 Volvo S80 has four cats, which I think is a lot. It does, as you say, lower NOx emissions, but it increases some other emissions (offhand, I can't recall). However, NOx emissions are the biggest culprit of air pollution and should continue to be eliminated in the best way we know until something else comes along.
Your argument stipulates that he was going to purchase a new vehicle anyway, rather than going out and buying a new one that contained the batteries and engine, which we SHOULD assume he bought specifically for this conversion because the article stated $12,000 included the cost of the truck. Even if he bought it new and spent $5,000 for the conversion, there's still the original MSRP for the truck, plus the cost of paying off the interest in the loan, but THAT can be more successfully argued as not being incorporated into the cost of conversion. Buying a vehicle for a conversion is still part of the cost of the conversion.