DC Tom Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 You are not thinking correctly. Pave more roads. that will fix your network. Yeah...if I pave more roads, the transportation distance will get shorter! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Oh, I'm pretty sure I know more about it than most of the people on the board. I don't think anyone here's under the delusion that I know less about it than you.TOTAL transportation distance. If you have a multitude of smaller facilities, you have a larger transportation network, and a LONGER DISTANCE, you idiot. You're confusing the size of your network with the average distance you'll have to ship a unit of yard waste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 You're confusing the size of your network with the average distance you'll have to ship a unit of yard waste. Nooooo...YOU don't understand that it's not the distance materials travel, it's how much energy is used to ship how much materials over how long a distance. That's one of the reasons coal gets shipped in 120-car trains across the country...energy-wise, it's cheaper than shipping fifty trains across a state to smaller facilities. Is there anything you're ever going to understand? Ever? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Nooooo...YOU don't understand that it's not the distance materials travel, it's how much energy is used to ship how much materials over how long a distance. That's one of the reasons coal gets shipped in 120-car trains across the country...energy-wise, it's cheaper than shipping fifty trains across a state to smaller facilities. Is there anything you're ever going to understand? Ever? Right. And the coal can be conveniently loaded onto those 120 car trains, because it all came from the same coal mine. But the plant material is coming from a more dispersed area. You'd have trucks roaming around, gathering up leaves and branches from people's yards. Getting from that point to your 120 car train is pretty tough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Right. And the coal can be conveniently loaded onto those 120 car trains, because it all came from the same coal mine. But the plant material is coming from a more dispersed area. You'd have trucks roaming around, gathering up leaves and branches from people's yards. Getting from that point to your 120 car train is pretty tough. ...is irrelevent, because YOU HAVE TO DO THAT EITHER WAY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 ...is irrelevent, because YOU HAVE TO DO THAT EITHER WAY. Not necessarily. Plant material originating from within a 10 or 20 mile radius of the power plant would never be loaded onto a train. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Lovely spam, wonderful spam...Maybe we should go for a spam-based energy infrastructure. Anyone know the carbon footprint of spam? It has to be less than Al Gore's since Gore has more fat per lb than Spam® does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oneonta Buffalo Fan Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 I'd get one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 No, you catweasel, I don't want YOUR spam in my threads. If you didn't respond, they wouldn't spam. I don't know how many more times I have to say it until you get it through that concrete melon of yours. As an illustration, this thread has 108 or so posts in it. I'd wager that 80+ of them are related to you somehow. You're the cause of spam. Damn telephone poles! Get out of our lives! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Nooooo...YOU don't understand that it's not the distance materials travel, it's how much energy is used to ship how much materials over how long a distance. That's one of the reasons coal gets shipped in 120-car trains across the country...energy-wise, it's cheaper than shipping fifty trains across a state to smaller facilities. Is there anything you're ever going to understand? Ever? Even cheaper if you float that down the river in 9 feet of water... In a 15 barge unit tow... You can get that 22,500 ton of product (not sure how many miles of train that is?) to fit into about a 1200' x 105' wide space (one MODERN single lockage)... I actually used to have a IDOT (Iowa) chart comparing truck, trains, and river trans... I will try and dig it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Here it is Tom: Compare Cargo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 1. The movie "Who Killed the Electric Car?" described an electric car GM had been manufacturing... If I may add 2 watts... The person who said she was the prime mover 'n shaker of that flick was a gust on the local AM radio talk show here in Cincy, a few months ago. I was left with the impression that "Who Kiled the Electric Car" is a propaganda piece for feeding to the gullible and to schoolchildren, along the lines of "Farenheight 911" and Al's "Inconvenient Truth". She contended that the GM vehicle, the all-electric EV-1 in the late '90's, was ultimately taken off the market and not allowed to be sold, reason being some sort of nefarious plot. Hmm….. The EV-1s were strictly test vehicles, manufactured to evaluate the real-world viability of an all-electric car . It was never to be offered for sale...it was a lease-only item. A test of it, as well as the 1997 monthly lease price ($399) was published in a magazine - Consumer Review Cars '98 Buyers Guide, Harris Publications Inc., 1115 Broadway, NY, NY 10010). She failed to mention a similar test vehicle from Honda (thou shalt not criticize Honda ). That same publication tested the 1998 Honda EV Plus, like the GM car - only available as a lease ($455 per month). Both companies had the identical intent - data collection -and neither was working a conspiracy. And both found out that an all-electric vehicle needed considerably more development. She mentioned a vehicle being produced in California as proof of electric car viability, a vehicle offering stunning acceleration. That vehicle is the Tesla (inconveniently, not in production). It is contemplated by a company named Tesla Motors, a San Mateo start-up company. It's an electric conversion of an existing exotic sports car, the Lotus Elise. Here is what the Tesla is (source: Automotive Engineering International, Volume 115, No. 1, January 2007, The Society of Automotive Engineers): “Tesla's backers include Elon Musk, founder of PayPal and CEO of SpaceX, as well as Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page. Martin Eberhard, CEO of Tesla, and Marc Tarpenning, Vice President of Electrical Engineering and acting Chief Financial Officer, founded and sold NuvoMedia, an electronic book maker. The result is that Tesla lacks for neither funding nor technical expertise. Nevertheless, even with its $60 million in backing, Tesla is still dwarfed by the resources GM dedicated to developing the EV1, so the obvious question is what makes Tesla's attempt different from the previous efforts? The answer lies in simple motivation of the participants, insists Tarpenning. "We love to drive, and our company is full of gearheads. We are building a car by and for people who love to drive. That is why we built a sports car first." “The Tesla Roadster boasts true sports car performance, with a projected 0-60 mph (0-97 km/h) time of about 4 s and a top speed of 130 mph (209 km/h). Driven less vigorously, the car can achieve a highway range of 250 mi (400 km). Attacking the electric car market with a car that prioritizes performance also gives Tesla the benefit of participating in a segment where high prices are not unusual. Previous economy oriented electrics have typically stumbled on their high prices, but Tesla expects that, in the sports car segment and at the low sales volumes forecast, the $100,000 price should not be an obstacle. Indeed, the car sold out its initial production run of 100 cars just a month after its announcement." "With help from Lotus, and also conversations with Panoz Auto Development on matters of building and selling low-volume sports cars, Tesla will be able to meet federal stan dards, but Tarpenning admits that the job was harder than expected. "A certain amount of naivete is required to be an entrepreneur," he chuckled. " "An issue unique to electrically powered cars is the safety of the high-voltage battery systems. Batteries must be treated with care while charging and discharging, as well as protected in the event of a crash. "We've gone through some learning exercises to learn what makes battery systems safe," said Tarpenning." “A big advance came with the decision to build the battery pack using many small cells rather than fewer, more powerful ones. "That leads to a much safer battery pack because in each individual battery the energy level is controllable. That strategy brought its own problems, however. "Getting that many batteries to work together is not trivial," Tarpenning explained. Great care must be taken in charge balancing and watching the temperature of the 6831 cells, a job that has consumed about half the effort the company has put into developing the car, he said.” “California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger received a ride in the Tesla Roadster at the car's announcement, where the car attracted orders from other Hollywood types such as George Clooney”. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 If I may add 2 watts... The person who said she was the prime mover 'n shaker of that flick was a gust on the local AM radio talk show here in Cincy, a few months ago. I was left with the impression that "Who Kiled the Electric Car" is a propaganda piece for feeding to the gullible and to schoolchildren, along the lines of "Farenheight 911" and Al's "Inconvenient Truth". She contended that the GM vehicle, the all-electric EV-1 in the late '90's, was ultimately taken off the market and not allowed to be sold, reason being some sort of nefarious plot. Hmm….. The EV-1s were strictly test vehicles, manufactured to evaluate the real-world viability of an all-electric car . It was never to be offered for sale...it was a lease-only item. A test of it, as well as the 1997 monthly lease price ($399) was published in a magazine - Consumer Review Cars '98 Buyers Guide, Harris Publications Inc., 1115 Broadway, NY, NY 10010). She failed to mention a similar test vehicle from Honda (thou shalt not criticize Honda ). That same publication tested the 1998 Honda EV Plus, like the GM car - only available as a lease ($455 per month). Both companies had the identical intent - data collection -and neither was working a conspiracy. And both found out that an all-electric vehicle needed considerably more development. She mentioned a vehicle being produced in California as proof of electric car viability, a vehicle offering stunning acceleration. That vehicle is the Tesla (inconveniently, not in production). It is contemplated by a company named Tesla Motors, a San Mateo start-up company. It's an electric conversion of an existing exotic sports car, the Lotus Elise. Here is what the Tesla is (source: Automotive Engineering International, Volume 115, No. 1, January 2007, The Society of Automotive Engineers): “Tesla's backers include Elon Musk, founder of PayPal and CEO of SpaceX, as well as Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page. Martin Eberhard, CEO of Tesla, and Marc Tarpenning, Vice President of Electrical Engineering and acting Chief Financial Officer, founded and sold NuvoMedia, an electronic book maker. The result is that Tesla lacks for neither funding nor technical expertise. Nevertheless, even with its $60 million in backing, Tesla is still dwarfed by the resources GM dedicated to developing the EV1, so the obvious question is what makes Tesla's attempt different from the previous efforts? The answer lies in simple motivation of the participants, insists Tarpenning. "We love to drive, and our company is full of gearheads. We are building a car by and for people who love to drive. That is why we built a sports car first." “The Tesla Roadster boasts true sports car performance, with a projected 0-60 mph (0-97 km/h) time of about 4 s and a top speed of 130 mph (209 km/h). Driven less vigorously, the car can achieve a highway range of 250 mi (400 km). Attacking the electric car market with a car that prioritizes performance also gives Tesla the benefit of participating in a segment where high prices are not unusual. Previous economy oriented electrics have typically stumbled on their high prices, but Tesla expects that, in the sports car segment and at the low sales volumes forecast, the $100,000 price should not be an obstacle. Indeed, the car sold out its initial production run of 100 cars just a month after its announcement." "With help from Lotus, and also conversations with Panoz Auto Development on matters of building and selling low-volume sports cars, Tesla will be able to meet federal stan dards, but Tarpenning admits that the job was harder than expected. "A certain amount of naivete is required to be an entrepreneur," he chuckled. " "An issue unique to electrically powered cars is the safety of the high-voltage battery systems. Batteries must be treated with care while charging and discharging, as well as protected in the event of a crash. "We've gone through some learning exercises to learn what makes battery systems safe," said Tarpenning." “A big advance came with the decision to build the battery pack using many small cells rather than fewer, more powerful ones. "That leads to a much safer battery pack because in each individual battery the energy level is controllable. That strategy brought its own problems, however. "Getting that many batteries to work together is not trivial," Tarpenning explained. Great care must be taken in charge balancing and watching the temperature of the 6831 cells, a job that has consumed about half the effort the company has put into developing the car, he said.” “California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger received a ride in the Tesla Roadster at the car's announcement, where the car attracted orders from other Hollywood types such as George Clooney”. They would have worked, though, if we'd fuelled 'em with corn stalks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 They would have worked, though, if we'd fuelled 'em with corn stalks. And more wire. At least 3.5 times as much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 If I may add 2 watts... The movie "Who Killed the Electric Car?" was clear about the fact that all GM's EV1s were leased, not sold. People wanted to buy their cars at the end of the lease period, but GM refused the multi-million dollar check those people collectively offered. Instead it sent the vehicles to the crusher. Given GM's behavior--and its subsequent pursuit of an SUV-intensive strategy--a certain amount of suspicion is justified. The most sinister motive the movie attributed to GM involved regulation. Specifically, California had passed a law which mandated that, by a certain year, 1% of each car manufacturer's total vehicle sales had to be zero emissions. GM wanted to fight this law. According to the movie, GM saw the EV1 as an obstacle to the fight. If people are driving around in electric cars, it's harder for GM to claim the concept isn't viable. Given that I'd heard about the California law from other sources, the movie's take on the situation doesn't seem that far-fetched or propagandistic to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 The movie "Who Killed the Electric Car?" was clear about the fact that all GM's EV1s were leased, not sold. People wanted to buy their cars at the end of the lease period, but GM refused the multi-million dollar check those people collectively offered. Instead it sent the vehicles to the crusher. Given GM's behavior--and its subsequent pursuit of an SUV-intensive strategy--a certain amount of suspicion is justified. The most sinister motive the movie attributed to GM involved regulation. Specifically, California had passed a law which mandated that, by a certain year, 1% of each car manufacturer's total vehicle sales had to be zero emissions. GM wanted to fight this law. According to the movie, GM saw the EV1 as an obstacle to the fight. If people are driving around in electric cars, it's harder for GM to claim the concept isn't viable. Given that I'd heard about the California law from other sources, the movie's take on the situation doesn't seem that far-fetched or propagandistic to me. The Cali solons - as they often do - put forth regulations far in excess of your stated 1%. No admission on their sainted fanny's part about how idiotic their ideas were as they quietly rescinded. Because CA is full of appointees and elected clowns and a slappy population that think that because with a simple snap of their self-assured, supremely self-important fingers, prevailing science and knowledge must invent a new physics. Think about it. Do you seriously think that if GM perceived that there was a buck to be made, they wouldn't jump on it? And I ask...did the propaganda piece gig Honda for similar approach...or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Think about it. Do you seriously think that if GM perceived that there was a buck to be made, they wouldn't jump on it? Well...it is GM... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 The Cali solons - as they often do - put forth regulations far in excess of your stated 1%. No admission on their sainted fanny's part about how idiotic their ideas were as they quietly rescinded. Because CA is full of appointees and elected clowns and a slappy population that think that because with a simple snap of their self-assured, supremely self-important fingers, prevailing science and knowledge must invent a new physics. Think about it. Do you seriously think that if GM perceived that there was a buck to be made, they wouldn't jump on it? And I ask...did the propaganda piece gig Honda for similar approach...or not? It was a while ago when I saw the movie, but I do vaguely remember them talking about non-GM electric cars. I'll have to see it again to be sure they mentioned Honda, but if I had to bet one way or the other, I'd bet that they did. I'm not saying that GM isn't money-motivated. Neither did the makers of the film. They felt that GM's focus on SUVs to the exclusion of electric cars was greedy, but in a short-sighted way that would ultimately harm the company. Given the way gas prices have gone up in the last few years, the filmmakers may well have a point. I see the California regulatory commission as long on good intentions, but short on wisdom, realism, or competence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 I see the California regulatory commission as short on wisdom, realism, or competence. Well, it must be comforting to know you'll be at the top of their hiring list, given those job requirements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Well, it must be comforting to know you'll be at the top of their hiring list, given those job requirements. Let me guess: you applied there and got rejected, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts