Re: Electric Cars - The Pros And Cons
Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 1:42 pm
A place to discuss the world of Wapsi Square
http://forum.wapsisquare.com/
I find always amusing to hear Americans rant about fuel price. You still have it easy. Try 1.54€/Liter on premium unleaded, that is french prices right now and even worse in some other EU countries. Ok our commute is typically shorter and we have in most cities quite good public transportation.Julie wrote: That's actually a very good point...and something I've discussed with my husband when we noticed that some stores and other companies were making an effort to provide plug-in stations to electric cars. If we ever did get an electric car, we both agreed we'd still have one of our two vehicles be a fuel-efficient IC car so we could go on road-trips without having to worry about the "How far can I go before I have to stop and plug-in for the night?" situation. We may look into a hybrid at some point to see if we can have a kind of "best of both worlds," but that's entirely because of the growing expense of putting gas in our tanks. With the cost of fuel/gallon still high (why is it that no one seems angry about this anymore?), it's getting ridiculously expensive to fill up my little Mazda...and I live in Dallas (where gas prices are far from the highest in the nation), use regular unleaded, and get 30 miles/gallon during my regular city driving. I hate to think how expensive it is for people who have to use premium on a larger tank with bad gas mileage.
Uh uh.MrFireDragon wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/this-could- ... 17691.html
Back when i was stationed in Italy since my car (my poor, dead, Sprite Mk 2.5 - literally the only one confirmed, rather than just rumoured, to have been built and sold) had Armed Forces Italy plates, rather than being registered in Italy, i could buy books of coupons that let me buy tax-free gasoline for (about) thirty cents/US Gallon.alj_ws wrote:Julie wrote: I find always amusing to hear Americans rant about fuel price. You still have it easy. Try 1.54€/Liter on premium unleaded, that is french prices right now and even worse in some other EU countries. Ok our commute is typically shorter and we have in most cities quite good public transportation.
It ain't gonna fly because it's a pain in the gazoo to install, and i'm not real sanguine about its durability.jwhouk wrote:That kit car ain't gonna take off. Tesla Motors has 1,000 times more upside than that thing.
Personally, i want a Porsche/VW 914 with a Mazda rotary...shadowinthelight wrote:It does sound like too much work. It is probably technologically simpler to do a full electric conversion. This page talks about the issues with electric conversion but I have to admit I like the idea of a pimped out electric Chevy S10.
Yes, Wikipedia is user-edited. Yes, it is only as good as its editor and sources. Yes, it is not acceptable as a reference in an academic or professional work. HOWEVER, It often provides a good summary of the sources cited. What I used to do was use Wikipedia to do a top-level look, and then drill down into their references until I found a "reputable" source (like a newspaper), read their wording, and use that as my source.ShneekeyTheLost wrote:As far as Wikipedia... my niece in Jr. High was told by her English teacher that if she cited Wikipedia, it would be an instant F. This from Jr. High. In Collegiate circles, it simply gets you laughed off the podium. It is a User Edited document. Anyone can come in and edit any article at any time for any reason. As a cited source, it makes you look like an uneducated and ignorant individual. Sources Wikipedia cites can range from accurate to wildly inaccurate, depending on the article at hand, and the polarization on the issue it is commenting on.
Umm... you may be misunderstanding slightly. I was making a statement in general that citing Wikipedia is Bad Form, and likely to draw ridicule rather than applause. I wasn't aware I even had an 'opponent'. It's a fact, wikipedia is not a reliable source. Citing it as one is counterproductive and makes you look silly.Dave11 wrote:Saying that your opponent in a debate "looks uneducated and ignorant" due to Wikipedia use, when they outright stated that they investigated the cited sources themselves, sounds to me like an ad hominem attack rather than a reasoned argument.
Several science fiction authors even used them in their works. I'm trying to remember one that had them as unicycles, with a gyro-stabilized body, thus using the flywheel for multiple purposes simultaneously.Fairportfan wrote:I like flywheel energy storage - back in the 1960s/70s busses based on flywheel storage were being developed - big heavy muthas spinning in a vacuum.
unfortunately, storing energy in compressed air is a rather costly proposition in term of efficiency because of the big heat generated while compressing and the big cold when decompressing. More worrying is the safety issues. low pressure (7-20 bars) tanks must be checked annually in the industry because they are considered unsafe, and a car would need either a very big tank at those pressures, or a small one one but at eg 200 bars. If that explode, it would makes a lot of damages. Not something I would sit on.Bathorys Daughter wrote:I think the issue should be electric cars or other types of non IC engine cars. I believe the way too go is the compressed air engine car. They can have much the same range as an IC engine car and can be "recharged" in a short time with high pressure pumps. They certainly have the same range as an electric car even now. No problems with battery replacement and disposal issues.