Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)

Perhaps Prizms had a higher percentage of rental cars than Corollas?

Rental cars are more likely to be driven by drivers unfamiliar with both the car and local driving laws and conditions.

I don't think that is true. It is probably true that 80-90% of driving is done in that range.

The only context I have ever heard the safety "nuts" make that claim is in regards to why you should always wear your seatbelt (i.e. not just on long trips.) Do you really think that is "nuts"? Sounds like pretty sound advice to me. Is the statistic somehow misleading? Possibly in some ways, but not really. Anyone with half a brain can figure out why the statistic is true, but it doesn't make the advice any less valid.

I would guess a 110V system like that would cost no more than a couple thousand. The problem is that it would take hours (essentially overnight) to fully recharge an electric car on 110v.

I'm not sure what you mean by high power, but it certainly wouldn't be a simple electric range outlet.

I also wonder how many times you can do that 45 minute charge before the batteries are toast.

Rather than guessing we could check information on the intenet:

Model S will have a range of 160 miles (260 km), 230 miles (370 km) or

300 miles (480 km) when fully charged, depending on the chosen battery option, and feature a 45 minute QuickCharge when connected to a 480V outlet. In addition, a battery swap will be possible in less than five minutes. [4]

? 42 kWh battery storage system standard ? 70 kWh and greater battery storage systems optional

They say a full charge costs "as little as $4" whatever that means. Would be nice if they told us how many kWh for a full charge.

The battery swap is an interesting proposal, especially if you could trade up or down in storage capacity. However, you have to whether the infrastructure for on-the-road quick charging or battery swaps will ever be installed during the life of your 2012 model.

If you assume that gas costs $4, and a Prius gets 40 mpg, it will cost you ten cents a mile to fuel it. As little as $4 sounds like at least $6 to go 160 miles in your S. That is four cents a mile or a savings of 6 cents over the Prius. Driven 12,000 miles per year, that is $720 in fuel savings. That won't even come close to paying the interest on the extra $25K cost of the S. Of course the S would be a lot more fun to own, but most people cant afford $25K for fun. If they could, BMW would be selling a lot more cars.

I appreciate the difference from current hybrids, but the fact is that this is a plug-in series hybrid. Afterthought or not, the engine is critical to making it viable in the marketplace. And remember, this car is totally unproven at this point. Last I heard GM doesn't even have a battery supplier yet. At best this thing will go 40 miles under optimum conditions. Without the engine, no one would trust the car for more than 30 miles and even that much trust might not be justified.

Perhaps we don't mean the same thing by stress. What I mean is draining the batteries down low and then fully charging them back up.

"A lithium-ion battery provides 300-500 discharge/charge cycles. The battery prefers a partial rather than a full discharge. Frequent full discharges should be avoided when possible. Instead, charge the battery more often or use a larger battery."

"Fully discharging your Lithium battery frequently can actually be quite harmful to your battery?s health, possibly rendering it completely unusable if energy levels go too low."

Li-ion batteries are not as durable as nickel metal hydride or nickel-cadmium designs, and can be extremely dangerous if mistreated. They may explode if overheated or if charged to an excessively high voltage. Furthermore, they may be irreversibly damaged if discharged below a certain voltage. To reduce these risks, li-ion batteries generally contain a small circuit that shuts down the battery when discharged below a certain threshold (typically 3 V) or charged above a certain limit (typically 4.2 V).

I understand the principle, I just don't think that pure electric cars will have any measurable impact on our energy needs for at lest 10 -

15 years. That will only come when they are economically viable and they aren't even close now.

The first step to treating it with respect is to never consider it benign.

They are until they aren't. And then they are very bad.

Nuclear energy and military force should both be treated with great respect. That could explain why we have had a major nuclear accident and France hasn't (yet).

I agree.

In message , Gordon McGrew writes

I know you've only been independent for about 200 years, but a child learns to spell in primary school (4to11 to you), when will you learn to spell and then not talk rubbish about "Processing" against dry storage? You've a lovely country, it's a shame that your brains don't match up.

Um, is this supposed to be a reply to anything I wrote?

Thus spake Jim Yanik :

Oh, oil is finite. Many geologists believe we will soon reach "peak oil", if we haven't already. Saudi Arabia has never disclosed their reserve numbers. The consensus is that we probably have 30 to 40 years left at current use.

And, ask yourself what else we use petro for. You know those computer chips? They are in epoxy cases. A petro product. You know that keyboard I'm hammering on? Yup. How about that poyester suit? Okay, there are some things we won't miss.

With a few exceptions, SUVs really aren't needed. I hear protestations about needing the space for the "team", but how often does that really happen? Do the parents of all of the kids "need" one? The number of times I see a solo driver on my way to work (guilty of solo, not guilty of SUV) is outrageous.

>

Which allows plenty of time to develop alternatives. All it takes is leadership.

True, but as an aside, plastic products can be recycled which minimizes the impact.

Well, SUV(s) replaced the venerable station wagon which was being held to passenger car requirements regarding both, fuel efficiency and safety. Leave it to Detroit to find a way around such...

JT

Grumpy AuContraire wrote in news:JYPEl.558051$ snipped-for-privacy@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

HOW can any "expert" make estimates when new fields ARE being discovered? Oil may be "finite",but we certainly haven't found ALL the drillable oil fields yet,or began producing from them.

All the leadership in the world is not going to bring about a battery capable of holding enough energy to equal a tankfull of gas or diesel. That requires a scientific breakthrough.

Used oil can be used for making plastics. Perhaps vegetable oils and coal (perhaps together)can be used to make them.

"Detroit" could have made good smaller cars,but instead chose to fight the trend and continue making the same stuff. AND in the process fostered the import of foreign oil that gave 3rd world nations incredible wealth that they used for evil instead of bettering their people's lives,and cost US more in security.

Most oil producing countries have already peaked. The US peaked almost 40 years ago. Yes, they find new oil fields every year but they aren't enough to replace what we suck out in a year. And the fields they develop are getting harder and harder to extract.

Leadership can help us stretch what oil we have. The best thing we have right now is conservation. Building mass transit and replacing SUVs with subcompacts do not require scientific breakthroughs.

Most "used oil" is CO2 in the atmosphere. And most plastic products (unlike packaging) can't be recycled as a practical matter.

Only at a far higher price than petroleum.

If we had just paid for Iraq with increased gas tax, we would be driving Priuses and bicycles now.

Jim Yanik wrote in news:Xns9BECCC067D387jyanikkuanet@74.209.136.87:

Of course,the DemocRATs were the ones who stopped US domestic oil production,and currently are holding up any new drilling and refinery construction. BTW,oil tankers are the biggest risk and have done the most damage to the environment,from oil production.

Peak oil like "human caused" climate change is a joke at best and giant scam at the worst. There's plenty of fossil fuels left but the point is the liquid form is controlled by unstable and often unfriendly nations. It's akin to economic blackmail which in turn should provide the incentive to replace what we don't have with alternative existing technology, (nuclear power), and new technologies.

(BTW, your comment above was not to any of my statements)

And that's what leadership can bring about. Battery technology is advancing very rapidly at the present time. My guess is that most urban tasks could be done with plug-in cars within five years.

I don't think that vegetable oil should be considered unless you want to see price spikes like the ones that occurred with ethanol from corn products. Any cartel that can grab you by the short hairs will wring your wallet dry if the guv'ment doesn't do so first.

And caused foreign manufacturers to also create mostrous SUVs. Ever follow a CRV? It ain't the Honda that I fondly remember...

JT

Has domestic oil production stopped? I had not heard that. I did hear (WSJ) that US refineries are being shut down because the oil companies are predicting declining demand.

Another good argument for conservation.

Grumpy AuContraire wrote in news:jI8Fl.120652$ snipped-for-privacy@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

Not all of it.The US has known reserves we refuse to produce.

Nuclear is not going to power automobiles.Not without a decent battery.

well,the other folks are ones I killfiled.

sorry,but leadership does NOT bring about scientific breakthroughs.

Not all vegetable oils come from farming. They're working on algae that produce oil.also oils from weeds and other non-food vegetation. And I wouldn't use them for the high volume auto transportation application,but for plastics feedstocks.

CRVs are small compared to most domestic SUVs on the roads today,and have better fuel economy,I suspect. Granted,Toyota,Honda and Nissan all make monster SUVs/PU trucks,too.

In message , Gordon McGrew writes

I did hear that the shale (shell?) sands of Canada contained about 50% of world oil, but at the moment it was to expensive to extract it.

I'm volunteering my weeds. Someone please come get them.

The mere fact that we are talking about oil shale is proof that we are running out of oil. A lot of the conventional oil left in the ground is going to be very difficult to extract.

I would prefer to think that it is because oil derived from shale deposits are in a friendlier part of the world... But not viable with the price of gas less than $3 per gallon.

JT