No, I'm saying that they were the only reason that electric cars had any currency at all, (pun intended), early in the automobile era. Once risking life and limb, and upper body strength were no longer required to start an engine, the limitations of electric cars were all that were required for them to fall from favor.
Tom C wrote: > So you're saying the fairer sex is the reason we drive automobiles with > gasoline-powered internal combustion engines? I'm sure it was not this one > item alone. > > It would venture it was more likely that Ford started mass-producing with an > assembly line, creating low-cost vehicles, and those fossil-fuel powered > vehicles quickly gained such a market share and support infrastructure that > the competition had the the electric car beat . There was no way to compete > and lack of funding to continue R&D on other technologies dried up. > > It is a market economy and the primary driver of it comes down to one > thing... greed. That may seem like a strong term but it especially apples > when profit and wealth is more important than pollution and health. > > Man, with all his knowledge and science, and for all the good it has > produced is also pretty myopic. > > > Tom C. > > > >> From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: Doomsday is coming upon us? >> Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 19:58:01 -0500 >> >> Electric automobiles of the early 20th century were "ladies" vehicles, >> they didn't need a crank starter and a woman could turn one on and drive >> around town. They suffered from the battery technology of the day, >> energy density was relatively low, range was limited, and they were >> relatively heavy due to the lead-acid energy storage. The same battery >> that made these vehicles viable at all, also made the starter motor >> possible. Which meant that a lady, with less upper body strength than a >> man, could simply flip a switch and start the gasoline engine. That >> pretty much sealed the fate of the electric car. >> >> Tom C wrote: >> >>>> There is a limit on how much we can do when we cant even agree on the >>>> necessity of the actions. We will have to deal with the rest when we >>>> know more. I think we should do a lot more right now, but a little >>>> is better than nothing. >>>> >>>> I have chosen to live in a place where I usually do not need any >>>> other transport than my feet. It would be great if everybody could >>>> do that but it would require re-planning most of our cities... >>>> >>>> DagT >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> With thinking like that we'd all still be huddled over in Mesopotamia. >>> >> :-) >> >>> Developing sustainable low or non-polluting energy sources enabling >>> >> travel >> >>> is preferable to not going anywhere, or making everyone live within >>> people-power distance from their employment. >>> >>> Early in the 20th century electric automobiles were being developed. >>> >> Their >> >>> production, and R&D into the technology mostly ground to a halt, no >>> >> doubt >> >>> for greater economic gain by using polluting fuels. Even now the >>> >> majority >> >>> of efforts to produce non-polluting energy is either half-hearted or >>> hampered by non-funding. >>> >>> If we can go to the moon and plan to go to Mars we surely have the >>> >> smarts to >> >>> find a way around our own planet without destroying it in the process. >>> Whether mankind at large has the collective common sense to do so is >>> >> another >> >>> matter. >>> >>> Tom C. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler. >> --Albert Einstein >> >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> > > > > -- Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler. --Albert Einstein -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
