Have you noticed that the weather is getting worse?

[Guest052813-01]

Originally Posted by lacrew_2000

The famous hockey stick graph is based on 'modified' data. Its all conjecture, using an algorithm. Most scientists would brag about their work, and gladly show their algorithm to anybody who wanted to see it...most scientists would want their algorithm challenged by others, and want others to unsuccessfully try to disporove it. Not Jones. He has refused to make his algorithm public.

I just think it's funny that he uses a failed AL GOR(e)RITHM.

[kcbigpapa]

Originally Posted by fritz3552

I just think it's funny that he uses a failed AL GOR(e)RITHM.

That was pretty damn funny fritz.

On an unrelated note:

Could we please stop claiming that there is no global warming because there was a lot of snow on the East coast and because some states that normally don't get snow got snow? That would be like me claiming that there is global warming because Vancouver has been unseasonably warm this season. We know the weather is cyclical. What we are more concerned about is the long term weather trends. I am not saying there is or isn't global warming. As I mentioned in a previous post, I am not that well informed on the subject to state my opinion one way or another. I would think (opinion) that the amount of smog in the worst cities, Houston, LA, etc, has to impact the world in someway.

[Guest052813-01]

Originally Posted by kcbigpapa

Could we please stop claiming that there is no global warming because there was a lot of snow on the East coast and because some states that normally don't get snow got snow?

OK. There is no global warming because there has been no global warming since 1995, according to the scientists that originally claimed there was global warming. We are in a cycle of global cooling that will probably last until 2020, when the next cycle of warming will begin (please see the post a page earlier from the UK Daily Mail).

[lacrew_2000]

Everyone is aware that electric batteries wear out right? Toyota will only warranty for 150,000 miles, then time to plug down another $2,600...and there might be a 'small' disposal fee for 500 lbs of battery. We all know that in brutally cold weather, the battery life in impaired, right? And if the power goes out in a storm (see the east coast right now), you're stuck in the dark with no way to drive to greener pastures.

Look, I'd love it if electric cars worked...but they don't. Google Lithium...there isn't much of it. Its a fool's errand to think plug in cars are the wave of the future. Even assuming Lithium was in sufficient supply, does anyone really think the current $/KWH will stay the same. Current rate decisions (born by attempts at 'green' energy) stand to increase my bill by 25% in the next 3 years. Add to that the need for more plants and transmission lines, power cost will be comparable to gasoline. And what about that 43.4 pennies per gallon we pay for gasoline in Kansas (for TEA projects). Where will that money come from? Oh, it would be shifted to the power bill.

Concerned that OPEC keeps it from being a free market? Lets see, power companies in Kansas are run as regulated monopolies, with no competition. A rate board decides all. I think I'll trust the free market over that.

Off peak power? We are aware that residential transformers cool at night, correct? And using them continuously, especially in the summer, will cause them to blow...not a problem for movie stars who already have oversized transformers, for their pool heating systems, etc...but in the average residential neighborhood, a big concern of serious people in the power industry who are facing the reality of these cars.

So the question is, why keep pouring money into a technology that a) Most consumers don't want, b) can't perform in all weather conditions, c) will radically strain the power generation grid in this country, d) will cause an environmental nightmare due to lithium mining and battery disposal? Because some rock star in Rolling Stone told you to? Really, How Does It Work?

Why do I even care if someone wants to drive an electric car? Now, as a result of physics professors such as Al Gore and Ashley Judd testifying before congress, we have new economy mandates in place. As a result, everybody will have to drive a crappy subcompact (like what I drive by choice btw) or pay a premium for a full size care (read, car makers will dump cheap cars at below cost and make up the difference with customers who have the means to buy a reasonably large car for their families). There will be no in between....and the whole damn time, Al will be gettin off his private jet, ride his limo to a parking lot, and drive the last few blocks to his speech in a Prius

[Guest052813-01]

Hell hasn't frozen over, but Lake Erie has...

http://www.accuweather.com/news-stor...er=0&article=2

[swarmyone]

Originally Posted by fritz3552

Hell hasn't frozen over, but Lake Erie has...

http://www.accuweather.com/news-stor...er=0&article=2

Isn't Detroit on Lake Erie? Detroit is as close to Hell on this Earth that I can think of. Does this mean that Hell HAS really frozen over?

[Guest052813-01]

Originally Posted by swarmyone

Isn't Detroit on Lake Erie? Detroit is as close to Hell on this Earth that I can think of. Does this mean that Hell HAS really frozen over?

Actually, Detroit lies on the banks of the river that runs between Lake Huron and Lake Erie. Toledo and Cleveland are both on Lake Erie, though.

[Longermonger]

In 15 years some of you cheap b@$+@®∂$ will be figuring out how to plug your hybrid in at work so you can get a free charge. lol

a) Plenty of consumers DID want hybrids and they WILL want plug-in hybrids that work better, are cheaper to operate, quieter, and let the car be pre-heated or pre-cooled when it is plugged in.
b) NO car can perform in ALL weather conditions (F5 tornados, biblical flooding, pyroclastic flows, tidal waves, avalanches, canned-ham sized hail, etc) but a plug-in hybrid can handle everything a regular car can and more. Keep in mind that ALL cars become plug-in cars when it gets cold enough. An advantage of plug-in hybrids is the instant heat from the electric heater instead of waiting for the coolant to warm up.
c) I don't think the ramp-up to these cars or EVs is going to be so RAPID that it is going to make the sky fall overnight. Besides, you just said that there wasn't enough lithium for all these cars to even exist.
d) Recycle the batteries. (duh) Lithium ion battery technology is relatively new compared to ICEs, so you have to expect breakthroughs. See: silicon nanotubes. Besides, I don't care what is used as the energy storage device. Look at KERS (Kenetic Energy Recovery System) in Formula One racing for example. There are many ways for engineers to skin a cat.

more b) A car that uses electric motors has the potential of complete AWD torque vectoring. That alone would make it the safest car ever made.

[Guest052813-01]

Originally Posted by Longermonger

In 15 years some of you cheap b@$+@®∂$ will be figuring out how to plug your hybrid in at work so you can get a free charge. lol

a) Plenty of consumers DID want hybrids and they WILL want plug-in hybrids that work better, are cheaper to operate, quieter, and let the car be pre-heated or pre-cooled when it is plugged in.
b) NO car can perform in ALL weather conditions (F5 tornados, biblical flooding, pyroclastic flows, tidal waves, avalanches, canned-ham sized hail, etc) but a plug-in hybrid can handle everything a regular car can and more. Keep in mind that ALL cars become plug-in cars when it gets cold enough. An advantage of plug-in hybrids is the instant heat from the electric heater instead of waiting for the coolant to warm up.
c) I don't think the ramp-up to these cars or EVs is going to be so RAPID that it is going to make the sky fall overnight. Besides, you just said that there wasn't enough lithium for all these cars to even exist.
d) Recycle the batteries. (duh) Lithium ion battery technology is relatively new compared to ICEs, so you have to expect breakthroughs. See: silicon nanotubes. Besides, I don't care what is used as the energy storage device. Look at KERS (Kenetic Energy Recovery System) in Formula One racing for example. There are many ways for engineers to skin a cat.

more b) A car that uses electric motors has the potential of complete AWD torque vectoring. That alone would make it the safest car ever made.

I'm waiting for the car that runs on a nuclear reactor. In the meantime, I would not mind owning a hybrid SUV, since it derives its electric power from the alternator and brakes and does not have a degradation in horsepower or speed, but not a plug-in electric car, where the problems with horsepower, speed and re-fueling (i.e., charging the battery) are the main drawbacks. I do not like the fact that I will have to shell out $10,000 every 10 years for a new battery, however.

[lacrew_2000]

"a) Plenty of consumers DID want hybrids"...if that were true, we'd see more hybrids sold. There was a tax credit on these for a while, and they still didn't sell. Consumer sentiment on these cars is obvious.

"b) NO car can perform in ALL weather conditions (F5 tornados, biblical flooding, pyroclastic flows, tidal waves, avalanches, canned-ham sized hail, etc) but a plug-in hybrid can handle everything a regular car can and more."...um...is that worth responding too? Winter weather reduces battery range by 20-30 percent...winter is a little more likely than, say, tidal waves.

"c) I don't think the ramp-up to these cars or EVs is going to be so RAPID that it is going to make the sky fall overnight."...ok, we get to pay to replace and double our electrical grid over a period of years? Now I feel better about it. Its a real cost, a huge cost, a cost with an environmental factor...and it is to be ignored because it takes a while?


"d) Recycle the batteries. (duh)" Duh? Really? Well nanny nanny boo boo. Right now 80-95 percent of car batteries are recycled, even with the bounty paid for them. Great, only 25-100 million car batteries get thrown in landfills every year. Go ahead, put your head in the sand and refuse to believe this is a parameter to be considered with these cars.

"There are many ways for engineers to skin a cat."....we're not magicians. I don't just get acronyms from Popular Mechanics and post them on message boards. I am an engineer damnit...got my degree, worked hard for my license, deal with Westar every day, have done work on wind energy projects, as a sideline I have dismantled more engines than most people have changed diapers, and one I mentioned earlier that nobody noticed - I am LEED accredited (its my Green badge). If I could figure out a way to make this work, I'd make myself a billionare like Al Gore...but trust me, no matter how I look at it, it fundamentally does not work. Electric cars have been around for something like 80 years. Every once in a while, somebody thinks they invented it, and we get all excited about it...then the tax credits and excitement fade away. Gas will still be king of the road for many decades to come...the debate on that is settled

[kcbigpapa]

Originally Posted by lacrew_2000

"a) Plenty of consumers DID want hybrids"...if that were true, we'd see more hybrids sold. There was a tax credit on these for a while, and they still didn't sell. Consumer sentiment on these cars is obvious.

Actually, when that tax credit was phased out (under Bush), there was a waiting list for the hybrids, especially the Prius. If you called a dealer looking for Honda or Toyota hybrids, you were out of luck. I really only remember the Ford Escape hybrid being the only US hybrid at that time.

I think it was you that mentioned in an earlier post about getting better MPG. I absolutely agree, but the problem is the lack of forward thinking by the automakers. They fight any gov't MPG increase tooth and nail, as does the oil industry. They refuse to give the people what they want, which is why the foreign automakers became so prevalent in the US. Imagine where we would be if the automakers focused on MPG years ago. We'd have powerful engines getting high MPG by now. Of course hindsight is 20/20.

[lacrew_2000]

MPG is an interesting discussion. CAFE standards have caused an artificial dynamic in the US automobile industry. The vehicles that are popular and sell well (SUV) happen to get crappy fuel mileage. The automakers have to compensate for this crappy mileage by selling lots and lots of compact cars...which puts them in direct competition with Japanese and Korean (and soon Chinese) automakers, in their area of expertise. Its kind of like KFC being forced to try to sell hamburgers to compete with McDonalds, instead of chicken. This is why automakers don't like CAFE.

However, I am not opposed to reasonable, physically possible, increases in CAFE standards (the latest energy bill went beyond the physically possible unfortunately).

There are other pressures on mpg also. Emmissions controls can reduce mileage. You may notice that extra pulley on your car that grandpa's Olds didn't have (A-I-R system).

Safety mandates also pressure mpg - weight. (and total car cost btw).

But I don't think American car companies have blindly 'refused to give people what they want'. There are plenty of compact American cars on the market. However, they cost more than imports. This is partially due to unfair labor practices in asian countries. It also demonstrates that it is impossible to absorb the legacy costs of retired UAW workers ($1,900 per car for GM) in a compact car...which gets us back to why US carmakers want and need to make larger more expensive cars.

So, the US carmakers have made alot of mistakes, and they will pay dearly for them, as I predict Chinese and Indian imports will be here very, very soon. But, they fight CAFE standards for survival...not because they are trying to deny consumers what they want. There is no way US car makers can compete with $8,000 utilitarian cars from China and India (and I think they are coming soon). Their only choice will be to continue to try and corner the pickup and SUV market...but the latest energy bill will force them to compete directly with imports even more.

Oh yeah, about the waiting list for hybrids...I also remember that there was once a waiting list for those PT Cruisers. But that died off (and I wonder when it hits PT Cruiser owners that they actually paid above MSRP for a PT Cruiser!). So, anything can benefit from hype. But is there a waiting list now? I almost bought a Honda Hybrid once. It had been on the lot for two years, with no interest. It was reduced significantly (but still not enough to justify buying it when I ran the numbers)...but obviously there wasn't much consumer demand for this dog fleet of hybrids on the Honda lot. I don't personally know anyone who owns one, I don't see any in the parking lot at work, probably see one on the road every few weeks. Don't seem too popular. Prius sales have dropped off the cliff, faster than the rest of auto sales.

And about Bush phasing out the AFV tax credit...it was signed into law in 2005 and took effect for the 2006 tax year. So, if he killed it, he also gets credit for creating it in the first place, doesn't he? Before that was the clean burning fuel credit (2001-2005)...also Bush era. I think Bush and the Republican congress made alot of mistakes on energy. If they get blamed when these laws sunset, they should at least get the credit for passing them in the first place.

[kcbigpapa]

Originally Posted by lacrew_2000

And about Bush phasing out the AFV tax credit...it was signed into law in 2005 and took effect for the 2006 tax year. So, if he killed it, he also gets credit for creating it in the first place, doesn't he? Before that was the clean burning fuel credit (2001-2005)...also Bush era. I think Bush and the Republican congress made alot of mistakes on energy. If they get blamed when these laws sunset, they should at least get the credit for passing them in the first place.

This was not meant to take a shot at Bush as you may have implied. It was meant to give more of a timeline of when the hybrids had waiting lists and when the energy credit coincided. My fault for not being clear. Also, I do believe there are other tax credits still available for AFVs. However, as long as we are discussing this, did you notice the AFV credit ended, or is/was being phased out, while the accelerated depreciation for vehicles weighing over 3 tons remained. This was one of the primary reasons business owners were buying SUVs. Their accountants were recommended it because of the tax consequences. Not a surprise that an oil man like Bush would love the tax break for the SUVs.

[Omahan]

I know! Nuclear power generators, electric cars and the street is wired. Sort of like the old street cars. I suppose the roads would need warning labels.

[lacrew_2000]

Section 179 - I believe you can accelerate only the first 25k of a vehicle under 14k lbs...but still its a tax break. Personally, I don't like to see Ma and Pa House painting tooling around in a brand new van....that I helped pay for. They can pay full price like everybody else. I don't know of the history of this section has as much to do with fuel consumption as it does with encouraging small business to buy equipment. But hell yes, get rid of it.