Are electric cars more energy efficient?

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 11:12:54 -0700, "Bruce L. Bergman (munged human


That's absolutely the way to do it, but you can fool the jerks with a wad of mostly ones if you want to be dirty about it. <g>
-- Always bear in mind that your own resolution to succeed is more important than any one thing. -- Abraham Lincoln
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
20:39:41 -0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

    Not my desire. I want to be able to send my driver down to the dealership with some petty cash, and have him pick out a new one. Only this time, he gets to pick the color.
tschus pyotr
--
pyotr
Go not to the Net for answers, for it will tell you Yes and no. And
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
20:39:41 -0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

    My German Teacher called what you describe as a "Feeby (FBI) Bankroll." She then reverse the wad so the dollar bill was on the outside "And this is a Scottish Bankroll".
--
pyotr
Go not to the Net for answers, for it will tell you Yes and no. And
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

The average age has varied, and tends to increase during recessions and decrease when times are good. The 7 years is the amortization period for cars used in business.
And I keep my cars for at least that long, usually longer. I buy them new and start looking for the next car when they get to 100,000 miles, because I don't want to deal with all the repairs that come as the car starts to wear out. I used to keep them far longer, but it became too much of a hassle.
Joe Gwinn
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

    The classic "Little Old Lady who only drove it to Church." Unless she went to a church fifteen miles away - so that the engine can get up to temps.     Or the Salesman forgot to mention the car was formerly owned by a Little old Lady from Pasadena. Who only drive it to the Church of NASCAR, and races it. B-)
--
pyotr
Go not to the Net for answers, for it will tell you Yes and no. And
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 10:14:07 -0400, Joseph Gwinn

I BUY mine with 100000km (60,000 miles) on them about 5 years old - except for this last one that was 10 years old and had 30,000 miles on it. 5-6 thousand bucks a crack - drive them for another 10 years or untill the body falls off. The New Yorker had 240,000 km on it and a solid body when I SOLD it - not scrapped it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm betting that you drive far more miles a year than I, because I'm not running up and down California. I average 10,000 to 12,000 miles a year.
Joe Gwinn
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

    About twenty years ago, there was a referendum to make Washington car tabs $30, instead of the formula based on an unrealistic depreciation schedule. (Olympia figured that your car was worth MSR for the firs three years.)     My observation was that this would make buying a new car "pencil" out for a lot of people with three/four year old car. Which would be in turn bought by folks selling their six to eight year old cars. Which would in turn be bough by folks selling off their 10 year or older cars - which is the price point I could afford.     Trickle down car sales. I can live with it.
tschus pyotr
--
pyotr
Go not to the Net for answers, for it will tell you Yes and no. And
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gunner Asch wrote:

My Dakota is a '97 model.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 03:22:55 +0000 (UTC), snipped-for-privacy@rahul.net (Edward A. Falk) wrote:

No, it does not.
There are essentially two sources of electric power on the planet: Hydroelectric and coal. There are others, but they are very small.
Hydro power is cheap, so is always sold first. In other words, the production capacity is always maxed out. It is not possible to produce more hydro power than we already are.
Every electric car increases the total global demand for power, and the only way to satisfy the demand is to make more coal power. Every electric car is therefore coal powered.
--
RoRo

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
If you're going to correct someone else, try to get your facts right.
http://www.differentsourcesofelectricity.com /
Sources of electricity in the United States
49.8% of electricity in the US is generated by burning coal 19.9% from nuclear power, 17.9% from natural gas 6.5% from hydroelectric, 3% from burning petroleum a paltry 2.3% from other renewable energy sources such as wind power , solar energy , geothermal power, and biomass. Renewable energy accounts for about 8% of all electricity generated. (Source: Energy Information Administration) A list of the different types of power plants Information on renewable energy and renewable sources of electricity Breakdown of how electricity is generated in the US
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
No, it does not.
There are essentially two sources of electric power on the planet: Hydroelectric and coal. There are others, but they are very small.
--
RoRo



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

things were starting to move, but then the event in Japan shut it down. We're not likely to see ANY new nuclear plants for decades.
Karl
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@embarqmail.com says...

I really wish the tree-huggers would all get together and come up with a rational policy. One groups screams "we need more windmills, they're clean" and another group screams "windmills spoil the view". One group screams "roll CO2 back to the 1900 level" another says "no nukes".
The only candidate in the last presidential election to take global warming seriously was McCain, and he had a program to deal with it in a way that would address the concerns of the UN commission. But it involved nukes. Obama's solution has been to put his finger up his butt and let somebody else sometime in the future worry about it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"J. Clarke" wrote:

Obummer was pushing nukes as well (the only currently viable solution) up until Fukishima. The fact that Fukishima was 40yr old technology why has little in common with current reactor design is of course lost on the clueless masses who are prone to believe the propaganda from the loony antis.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

Arguably, the main problem with nukes is that they are so costly to build that private investors are loathe to fund their construction.
=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_States
"As of December 2011, construction by Southern Company on two new nuclear units has begun, and they are expected to be delivering commercial power by 2016 and 2017.[9][10] But, looking ahead, experts see continuing challenges that will make it very difficult for the nuclear power industry to expand beyond a small handful of reactor projects that "government agencies decide to subsidize by forcing taxpayers to assume the risk for the reactors and mandating that ratepayers pay for construction in advance".[11]"
=And before anyone starts suggests that government ought to take over, using taxpayer dollars, you need to realize that someone's taxes would need to go up, and that government-control of energy production is a textbook example of socialism.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The government has owned and controlled energy production since 1933: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Valley_Authority
"The Kentucky Sierra Club called the [2008 Kingston] disaster the "worst environmental disaster since Chernobyl"." "The disaster continues to poison lakes and stream as well as potentially the drinking water of millions."
Who knew?
jsw
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Still, it goes a long ways towards demonstrating that certain projects having the potential of providing huge benefits for all of society are oftentimes beyond the scope of private enterprize alone, the up-front costs being prohibitive.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

-Still, it goes a long ways towards demonstrating that certain -projects having the potential of providing huge benefits for all -of society are oftentimes beyond the scope of private enterprize -alone, the up-front costs being prohibitive.
We swing back and forth in an ad-hoc manner on public vs private utility ownership, often after the private ones succumb to greed or the public ones to incompetence or corruption. Both types need the carrot plus the stick. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Bank http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service
MITRE where I used to work was founded as a private corporation whose research was almost all in the public (=military) interest. Engineering the DEW line of radars across Canada had required a broader range of radar + computer + communications expertise than any one company possessed. At first MIT got the contract, spinning off Lincoln Labs, but the workload was too great for professors part-time.
MITRE was the next attempt, on the same model as the RAND Corporation and Sandia Labs, among many others. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAND_Corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandia_National_Laboratories Not being a direct government employee has a lot of benefits such as freedom to work on a wider range of projects, if you value adventure over stability. Still it was a strange shadowy world.
jsw
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:25:46 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"

Coal plants emit radioactive materials into the air and store many more in the ash. With the exception of Fukushima, nuke plants don't.
Wait until we get the Keystone pipeline from Canada to Texas. It'll be spilling oil into the main rivers (and maybe seeping into the Oglalla Aquifer) in no time.
And with all the fracking going on nowadays, half the aquifers in the USA stand to be affected. How many different seven-to-twenty syllable toxic chemicals would you like in your water today?
-- Always bear in mind that your own resolution to succeed is more important than any one thing. -- Abraham Lincoln
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Jaques wrote:

Any that my RO filter and it's carbon pre-filter will remove are fine.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.