Opens in the Bay Area this weekend so I'll see next week (maybe if it opens at the local Cinearts where I've seen the trailer).
new.morning wrote: >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 [email protected], Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>Opening around the country: >>http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/ >> >>new.morning wrote: >> >> >> >>>--- In [email protected], 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 --------------------~--> Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/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/
