Sign In Join 



Electric Vehicle Pros & Cons

1586 messages,  Last post on Oct 23, 2009 at 4:19 PM

You are in the Electric Vehicles Forum. Your Host is pf_flyer

What is this discussion about? Alternative Fuels, Coupe, Hatchback, Truck, Sedan, SUV


Messages Page 158 of 160
1
...
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion

#1563 of 1586
press request by kirstie_h HOST
Nov 13, 2008 (3:13 am)
Reply
A reporter would like to speak with consumers who are considering BMW’s electric Mini Cooper lease. If you are interested in this vehicle or currently drive an electric car, please respond to jwahledmunds.com with your daytime contact information no later than Monday, November 17th.
  
 
Thanks,
Jonathan Wahl
Corporate Communications
Edmunds Inc.
#1564 of 1586
Re: Does the arguement change? [snakeweasel] by pf_flyer HOST
Nov 13, 2008 (4:31 am)
Reply

Replying to: snakeweasel (Nov 12, 2008 7:51 pm)

If we're counting on us being collectively smart, I'm not sure if I'm worried or not
#1565 of 1586
Re: Does the arguement change? [pf_flyer] by snakeweasel
Nov 13, 2008 (5:02 am)
Reply

Replying to: pf_flyer (Nov 13, 2008 4:31 am)

Collectively we are neither smart nor stupid as either side cancels out the other. EV development will continue as there will be people who are worried that $4 gas will be back and to stay in the not to distant future. But it won't be developed as fast if gas stays under $3.
 
My bigger concern is if the current political structure is going to make it far more difficult to generate the electricity in a cost efficient manner to power a large fleet of EV's. The incoming administration has made some comments that would make it nearly impossible to create more electric power plants.
#1566 of 1586
Re: Does the arguement change? [snakeweasel] by gagrice
Nov 13, 2008 (4:52 pm)
Reply

Replying to: snakeweasel (Nov 13, 2008 5:02 am)

No new Coal, No Nuclear. Wind is ok, just not in my back yard. Solar not much good for charging vehicles overnight. I think we will have to wait for a little less restrictive government for the EVs to take hold. I do think the $7500 tax credit tossed into the bailout bill will encourage some foreign companies to try and sell what they have to US.
 
PS
Collectively I would say we are dumber than a box of rocks, given the results of the last election.
#1567 of 1586
Re: Does the arguement change? [gagrice] by snakeweasel
Nov 13, 2008 (6:33 pm)
Reply

Replying to: gagrice (Nov 13, 2008 4:52 pm)

Wind is ok, just not in my back yard.
 
We have wind farms going up all over Northern IL.
 
Solar not much good for charging vehicles overnight.
 
I would think that it would be a great ideal to have some sort of solar system that would charge some sort of battery or capacitor system that you plug your EV into at night that will power up your car at night.
#1568 of 1586
Re: Does the arguement change? [snakeweasel] by michael2003
Nov 18, 2008 (5:10 am)
Reply

Replying to: snakeweasel (Nov 13, 2008 6:33 pm)

Solar not much good for charging vehicles overnight.
 
Excess solar captured during the day could be sold to the utilities to reduce daytime peak need and then purchased back when needed at night to charge up our EV's. I would think that this would greatly help in reducing our need for further central generation capacity.
 
The only time that local power storage would be needed would be as a back up in case of a utility outage.
#1569 of 1586
Re: Does the arguement change? [gagrice] by gypsy_tech
Nov 24, 2008 (12:18 pm)
Reply

Replying to: gagrice (Nov 13, 2008 4:52 pm)

The only thing wrong with Nuclear is the cost. It's cheaper to use Coal and the current solar technology for a power plant is more like a furnace where the solar radiation is used to heat a massive boiler where the heat is used to generate electricity. That would keep creating electricity until it cooled down, long after dark and much cheaper per MW than PV panels.
 
PS Collectively the population is finally starting to wise up considering the last election.
#1570 of 1586
Re: Does the arguement change? [gypsy_tech] by gagrice
Nov 24, 2008 (5:04 pm)
Reply

Replying to: gypsy_tech (Nov 24, 2008 12:18 pm)

current solar technology for a power plant is more like a furnace where the solar radiation is used to heat a massive boiler where the heat is used to generate electricity.
 
The only thing I can find on that technology is the Curnutt Solar Furnace. I do not see any practical application of that 30+ year old technology. It was given lots of press in 1978 and nothing came of it. I am sure if it was practical someone like SDG&E would be on it. The electric companies are mandated to have a certain percentage of alternative energy by 2012. They run into environmental roadblocks with everything they do. The only viable alternative currently working is wind generation provided by one of the Indian tribes. They are not bogged down with state and Federal regulations. SDG&E signed an agreement for a solar generator in 2005. To be completed in 2008. It is still being held up by environmentalist. Not the current Republican administration. I think we voted ourselves into a deeper bog of environmental regulations. No two green weanies agree on anything. Here is just one of many eco roadblocks to alternative energy.
 
Many environmentalists who oppose Sunrise are also sharply critical of Stirling's solar energy project. They argue that Stirling's technology is commercially unproven and say the project will take years longer to build and cost four or five times more than Stirling has estimated.
 
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20080701-9999-1b1solar.html
 
I would say collectively the population has their head where the sun don't shine.
So much for solar energy.
#1571 of 1586
Amazing by pf_flyer HOST
Nov 24, 2008 (5:24 pm)
Reply
We demand "clean" energy and then throw up "environmental" road block after road block. Can't have wind farms... some bird might get killed.
 
At some point perhaps humans get back to the list top of species we need to ensure the survival of.
#1572 of 1586
Re: Amazing [pf_flyer] by gagrice
Nov 24, 2008 (6:20 pm)
Reply

Replying to: pf_flyer (Nov 24, 2008 5:24 pm)

The latest on the solar project is a 2 year environmental impact study for the BLM. That does let the contractor off the hook on the 2010 date of completion. Mean time the clock is ticking on the CA mandate for renewable energy.
 
My favorite is in Hawaii where they have blocked further geo-thermal because it is an affront to Pele.
 
Pele is a living deity fundamental to Hawaiian spiritual belief. She is the eruption, with its heat, lava and steam. Her family takes the form of forest plants, animals and other natural forces. But geothermal development interests see Pele as simply a source of electricity.
 
http://www.namaka.com/catalog/spirit/pele.html
 
So if it ain't Ted Kennedy keeping the Wind farms from blocking his view it is some other group wanting to stop US from drilling for oil. I do not think there is any form of alternative energy that is universally acceptable.

Messages Page 158 of 160
1
...
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion
To POST a message, please Sign In.

New? Join Now!

Forum Tools

Please sign in.
Email Address:

Password:

Forgot Password?

Search Forums

Enter Keyword(s)

Advanced Search

Browse by Vehicle



View All Vehicles
Advertisement
Ask the Community
See What People Are Asking

Browse by Board

Browse by Topic


View All Topics

Today's Chats

Advertisement