The Electric Car
in [Design]
|
From: R.H. Allen on 27 Sep 2007 13:29 Robert Adsett wrote: > In article <1190864038.610319.23630(a)o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > says... > >> I think the regulations are different in America and Canada. >> In America they are allowed to let them go faster. In Canada they >> managed to get them classified as a bike, so you don't have to even >> have a drivers license. > > Not in most of the country as far as I know. I'm fairly certain that > scooters are classified as motorcycles in Ontario for instance. In the US, whether or not it's classified as a motorcycle depends on what state you're in and the size of the engine. Where I live, anything 50 cc and under does not require a motorcycle license, but is also illegal on highways (it's also usually pretty easy to tell which drivers *don't* have motorcycle licenses just from the way they drive). I'm not sure on what basis the state would classify an electric scooter, since 50 cc doesn't make much sense in that case, but I haven't seen any electrics at the two local scooter shops I drive past every day. I think the biggest issue with electric scooters around here would be recharging them. Virtually every scooter driver I know -- and I know more than a few -- is an apartment dweller and would have a tough time finding a place to plug in. In a lot of ways it's the same infrastructure issue that affects electric cars. >> If you wanted to take one on the highway, well if you want to be in >> traffic on the highway, then you would want an electric motorcycle. >> This one will do 70 km hr. which would be ok for commuting. >> Considering it only costs $2,700 brand new, thats pretty cheap. >> And pennies a day to run. Like maybe 8 cents a day. >> http://www.e-ride.ca/Electric_Motorcycles/MotGTc.html > > 70km/hr is close to suicide on the highway. It's dangerous enough in an > automobile I shudder to imagine what that would be like on a bike. Not far from me last year a scooter driver doing about 60 mph on the highway was literally run over from behind and killed by a driver in a car that was moving much faster....
From: Eeyore on 27 Sep 2007 13:40 Rich Grise wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > Punjab The Sailor Man wrote: > > > >> Plutonium batteries last longer. A nuclear powered car only needs > >> refueling once in 20 years with unlimited mileage. You could plug your > >> house into it. > > > > And without a biological shield that kills the nuclear car idea stone > > dead, you'll also be able to save on lighting bills since you'll be > > glowing in the dark. > > I see you're another one of those who received his science education > primarily from "B" sci-fi movies. ;-) The glowing in the dark bit was artistic licence. ;~) Graham
From: BradGuth on 27 Sep 2007 14:34 On Sep 26, 11:36 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > BradGuth wrote: > > The likes of Eeyore tells you one thing without actually contributing > > to any given solution, then goes about summarily trashing most any > > other better idea, > > Show me a real 'better idea' instead of one of the joke ideas you've got on the > brain will you ? In your Yiddish mindset case, there's obviously nothing better than going along with the usual crapolla flow of whatever your pagan ExxonMobil god has to say. > > only because it's simply too clean and efficient. > > Your ideas are neither of these. > > You're an ignorant fuckwit who's incapable of doing the calculations to back up > you ideas, instead spewing a load of half-understood nonsense. If could do the > calculations, you'd see that your ideas are absurd, and hugely wasteful and > polluting. See what I mean. (silly me, as obviously you can't even see nor smell the cesspool of stay-the-course squat that you're standing within) BTW, what's your new and improved anything? BTW No.2, the four passenger VW Lupo if seriously redone at using the best of proven technology would have provided that kind of everyday 100 empg as is (especially on low sulphur heating oil), and without ever being the least bit hybrid or running on any of my h2o2. Obviously that Lupo is no Hummer, in fact a Hummer could pack a Lupo instead of a spare tire, and it wouldn't hardly know the difference. - Brad Guth -
From: Rich Grise on 27 Sep 2007 14:52 On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 18:40:04 +0100, Eeyore wrote: > Rich Grise wrote: >> Eeyore wrote: >> > Punjab The Sailor Man wrote: >> > >> >> Plutonium batteries last longer. A nuclear powered car only needs >> >> refueling once in 20 years with unlimited mileage. You could plug >> >> your house into it. >> > >> > And without a biological shield that kills the nuclear car idea stone >> > dead, you'll also be able to save on lighting bills since you'll be >> > glowing in the dark. >> >> I see you're another one of those who received his science education >> primarily from "B" sci-fi movies. ;-) > > The glowing in the dark bit was artistic licence. ;~) You don't get "the Drew Carey show" in the UK, do you? One time, Drew, Lewis, Oswald, and Kate got irradiated, and, of course, glowed green in the dark. The joke part was when this cloud of glowing green gas rose from behind Oswald... Cheers! Rich
From: rick_sobie on 27 Sep 2007 15:15
In article <46FB762E.430F8400(a)hotmail.com>, rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > > >rick_sobie(a)hotmail.com wrote: > >> I think that the whole electric car thing is just an attempt to keep >> people from demanding hydrogen powered cars. > >That merely shoes how ignorant / uneducated / gullible / stupid / blinkered you are. > >Graham > Mercedes said they were going to have a hydroigen powered car in mass production on the market by 2005. They made a feined attempt, claimed you needed hydrogen filling stations and had to carry a hydrogen tank in the trunk, both of which are false, and then basically stop persuing it. And that was the party line. Buses using the hydrogen cell, which did not brun Brown's gas, but merely converted hydrogen to electricity, which is the most ineficient method of powering a bus you can imagine, were found to be too expensive to operate. They made them run on hydrogen in Vancouver, using the Patterson cell. They are still throwing money at it. http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2005-2009/2007OTP0057-000539.htm And everyone knows, that if you burn HHO or Brown's gas or any of those products, which is produced on demand, then it is safer, and it makes a million times more energy available to power the vehicle. You should not be carrying around tanks full of hydrogen under pressure when it is unnecessary to do so when you can produce Brown's Gas on demand. The fact that people are ignoring that, shows you that there are political pressures preventing people from doing that. Scientific American also clearly stated that well known fact, that Hydrogen Power Cells are not efficient, when compared to the enormous amount of power that can be generated by merely separating the oxygen and hydrogen and burning it as fuel. So hamstring the process, make it so expensive that it won't be used, and that is what has been happening. |