Of course GM was the source of many of those electric cars around 1996 -- cited and pictured in the blurb. Does the Sony film suggest GM, beyond ending its 100 million + research, did so for nefarious reasons, other than economics? -- that is that the electic car was not going to make it in the then current climate of oil prices, jump-start incentives, and consumer preferences? (It was a cool car-- acceleration was unworldly.)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Opening around the country: > http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/ > > new.morning wrote: > > >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote: > > > > > >> > >>In a message dated 7/3/06 12:30:25 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > >>babajii_99@ writes: > >> > >>By the way, did you know we could have had electric cars, like ten > >>years ago; > >>The technology is there, > >>Unfornately it would put filling stations and repair stations out of > >>business, you see; > >>Because an electric car won't need as many repairs at all. > >>And you plug it in your wall at home; so the Saudi/Bush group > >> > >> > >>Where is all of this electricity going to come from? Did you know > >> > >> > >that an > > > > > >>enormous amount of electricity is lost, in thin air, just in the > >> > >> > >transmission > > > > > >>from power station along the power line grid, before anybody uses it? > >> > >> > > > >I would not characterize 7% or so (typical transmission losses in an > >electrical grid) as "enormous". The efficiencies of energy production > >(more kwh per unit of energy) (as well as pollution control) is much > >higher in large scale plants compared to a car engine and make up for > >such transmission losses a number of times over. > > > > > > > >>If we > >>weren't burning the oil in our cars as gasoline, we would be > >> > >> > >burning it to > > > > > >>generate electricity to charge those cars up at night. > >> > >> > > > >Ha. Good one. Oil is used in less than 2-3% of electrical generation > >in the US (and most elsewhere) -- mostly for small peaking units used > >when demand is highest 10-50 hours a year. > > > > > > > >>Too bad we don't have more > >>nuclear power plants to generate electricity. > >> > >> > > > >Its about 20%. Waste disposal for the 100,000 year half life has not > >has dolved, nor the security of transportation and storge against > >terrorist highjackings of the material. And the history of nuclear had > >been a cost disaster. In California, the cost has been so high > >compared to other generation sources its a joke -- and a number of > >plants have been retired early (Songs 1 and 2, Rancno Cordova, etc.) > >Diablo Canyon, the last great behemouth in California, has such a > >history of incredibly high costs per kwh, its laughably -- but sad for > >ratepayers . Nuclear does have the lowest fuel costs of any major > >generation (except hydro, solar, wind, etc), but huge capital, > >operational and safety costs. On the other hand the nuke industry says > >THIS time they really do have very cost-competitive untis. If so, let > >them compete instead of asking for govt subsidies. And pay the full > >cost of externalities for storage and insurance against terrorist > >theft. (Unsurmountably high -- and don't ask for exclusions. Pay the > >costs if its cost effective.) > > > >If electric cars were deemed most desirable, it would take 20 years + > >to change out the current fleet. Enough time to build new electrical > >generation. And much of the unused capacity of current generators at > >nightime could be used, with no new construction. About 30-40% etra > >national generation simply by running plants fully at night and weekends. > > > >Perhaps a more electric hybrid is the ticket. Can run on charge at > >night from power company, at low off-peak rates -- and would be good > >for most around town trips. Shifts into fuel/hybrid mode 40 mpg + on > >longer trips. Hopefully with bio fuels. > > > >We could have had all of this right now, essentially for free if we > >had wise energy policies going back 20-30 years. A fuel tax (10 cents > >/ year cumulative -- $3 now) reinvested in research and jump starting > >demand / economies of scale for low cost batteries, hybrid tech, bio > >fuels, etc. would have paid for it self, keeping world oil prices > >lower, greatly decreasing or eliminating US need for foreign oil, and > >reducing all of the other external -- aka externality costs that > >burning oil causes -- national security, health, pollution, global > >climate change, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
