--- Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Kyle Mcallister wrote:
> I have never heard of retrofitting older vehicles
> with emission
> controls. In any case, the main concern is for CO2
> and this cannot be
> reduced in an older car by any means.
No, they just want to boot them off the road. No
thought is given to extending the useful life of a
vehicle, re: expending much more energy and/or
producing more waste (some very harmful) to make a new
one. Throw-away is not always the right way.
> Reducing fuel consumption reduces the overall cost
> of the vehicle,
> although it may raise the purchase price. By the
> same token, adding
> safety features may raise the purchase price
> somewhat but it really
> reduces the cost of insurance and the overall cost
> of owning the
> vehicle because most of the money paid in insurance
> claims go for
> bodily injury rather than automobile repair.
I'd like to see insurance prices actually reduced. So
far, despite what the lizard says, I see them only go
up. Not counting on this incentive.
Second, if you want to dictate how to build cars, the
burden is on you to figure out how to make them cheap,
but cheerful at the same time. Bipartisan does not
mean (and bipartisan is applied here loosely, not just
to the ancient Reps/vs./Dems thing) YOU get to dictate
how everyone manufactures and does everything. It
means we meet in the middle somewhere.
Environmentalists should learn this.
>
> >2. If these restrictions are to be gran'daddied
> onto older cars . . .
>
> That is physically impossible, as I said.
You are no mechanic. If you reduce the amount of fuel
used to go a given distance at a given speed and/or a
given acceleration, you automatically reduce the
amount of CO2 produced. If you think it is physically
impossible to do this to older cars, I invite you up
here to Buffalo, to actually learn about it. You love
your Prius, with it's bells and whistles. Can you fix
it when it breaks? You also go on about your old 1.0L
3-cyl Geo Metro. You say it can't go more than 55 or
60 unless going downhill. What's wrong with it? I've
done 80 in them. My boss had one, a beat to shit '94
with rust holes all over it, and we got it up to 80 on
level pavement. Maybe the added speed was due to so
much sheet metal having fallen off previously, though.
One gets the impression you really don't know a lot
about how cars work. This is a real problem, when
people that don't know much about the thing they are
bitching about start trying to decide what is and is
not legal.
> >4. You want a cheap electric car. Fine. You want it
> to plug in and
> >shift the carbon upchuck somewhere else . . .
>
> This is incorrect. You cannot move carbon emissions.
> Carbon goes
> everywhere instantaneously.
I didn't know carbon had anything to do with Bell's
Inequalities or the EPR effect. What is your problem
with what I said? If the electric car is not producing
carbon dioxide...
...but the power plant 75 miles away is...
...the emission is 75 miles away. You are still
emitting (an admittedly smaller amount, due to
efficiency gains) of CO2. But you have physically
moved the point of emission.
> Electric cars do not
> move carbon
> emissions; they reduce them by half or more.
Yes, while moving the emissions. Which is neither bad,
nor good. I'm simply pointing out to the dull witted
(not calling you this, don't take it personal like
last time) that electric cars are not emissionless
/with current centralized energy production facilities
that emit./ Hopefully this will change later as we
invent better things, and hopefully grow the balls to
railroad the greenieweenies standing in the way of
nuclear plants.
> Electric cars are
> cheaper than gasoline cars because they save money
> on fuel.
My '86 Monte Carlo got 28mpg, and cost me $400. How
would buying an overly complicated (a hybrid can be
far simpler) Prius compete with that? There were also
no toxic batteries to have a Superfund team scrambling
over, well, besides perhaps the standard 550CCA
lead-acid "Neverstart".
> (Bear in
> mind that the cost of gasoline is far greater than
> the purchase price
> at the pump. You have to add several dollars to pay
> for wars,
> terrorism, global warming and so on.)
And to pay for welfare, and to pay for free birth
control, (I am not opposed to birth control) and to
pay for blah blah blah. If taxed as much as you like,
someone, probably a liberal, would find a way to spend
it on something stupid. For the record, I wouldn't
trust a republican with the tax revenue either.
I know, someone is going to say, oh the taxes aren't
to spend to SOLVE the problem, they are to cause
people to drive less. If you feel this way, you are
NOT solving the bigger picture, you are impeding it
with an ohms rating so big that you cannot put enough
zeros behind it. If it is guaranteed (how?) that the
tax is spent on building infrastructure to let people
live their current or better quality of life, while
not harming the environment, I don't have a problem
with it. Let's see if there is proof that anyone on
your side actually wants to do so.
> Again You misunderstand. Los Angeles could easily
> accommodate vast
> numbers of electric cars. I do not know the exact
> numbers but I
> expect half of the cars there could be electrically
> powered with no
> change to the infrastructure. By the time all of the
> cars there are
> electrically powered, the infrastructure could
> easily be upgraded.
Half is not enough. Especially given the exponentially
increasing pissing and moaning from the planethugger
side of the issue. Expecting half is not
enough...before you load the grid down that badly, you
MUST show that it can handle it, and with plenty of
overhead in event of a problem. But your side won't
let us build any more powerplants!
I hope that you saying "by the time all of the
cars...are electrically powered, the infrastructure
could easily be upgraded" means that the upgrading
would take place before or during the transition to an
electrical fleet. By your wording, it seems to mean
you want to upgrade after. Which plainly won't work.
Again, who is going to let us build the power plants
to do this?
Transitioning from a Type 0 to Type I civilization
requires energy. Do not conserve energy: produce and
use it wisely, and lots of it, but produce it the
non-lazy way, and achieve the same result without harm
to anyone.
Or do some of the greenies just, perhaps, hate
technological society? Maybe...just want us to hug
trees, and will always come up with something that is
wrong, that we must stop doing?
--Kyle
