>
> >Gord> >> > >> >> SFTVrat> >>
> >> >> > .......If it WERE possible to build a 400 MPG civic
> >> >> > or Prius, Honda or Toyota or Ford would would already be
> >> >> > doing it (and bragging about it on the television).
> >>
> >> >> They can do it easily. They just have to leave the electricity to charge
> >> >> the plug-in hybrid's batteries out of the equation.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >That's called cheating.
> >>
> >> Sort of, but it is not a meaningless fact. The electricity for the
> >> plug-in may be generated without burning fossil fuel. ....
> >
> >
> >
> >Hello Gordon,
> >
> >I'm sorry but that's still irrelevant. The topic was achieving an
> >energy (key word) efficiency of 400 mpg, regardless if you use
> >gasoline, or electric, or solar for your source.
>
> Well, that's not specified in the original post. More to the point,
> that is not what anyone is claiming. (At least not anyone who knows
> what they are talking about - the builders/modifiers of these vehicles
> for instance. If the press is reporting otherwise, it is probably due
> to reporters who don't know a kilowatt-hour from a diode.)
>
> >In your message, you said nuclear. Well, you input X amount of
> >nuclear kilowatts per day into your car. Now convert the kilowatts to
> >the equivalent gasoline value (gallons). Does your nuclear-powered EV
> >exceed 400 miles per gallon-equivalent? No. It doesn't even come
> >close to the goal. (Most EVs average only 60-70 mpg.)
>
> Of course not. Anything resembling a modern road car is never going
> to have energy efficiency equivalent to 400 mpg of gasoline. But
> again, no knowledgeable person is claiming that.
>
> >Also:
> >
> >It's worth nothing that solar & nuclear sources DO require fossil
> >fuels. It requires burning fossil fuels to (1) dig the materials out
> >of the ground and (2) build the panel or the plant. Everything we do
> >has an impact on the environment. That's why ACEEE.org rated the EV1
> >as no cleaner than a Prius or Civic Hybrid. (The cleanest cars, by a
> >wide margin, are the natural-gas civic and the Insight.)
>
> I am a little puzzled by how an all-electric car would not be cleaner
> than a hybrid. I suspect there are some assumptions about the source
> of energy for the power station. Many run on coal so this may not be
> cleaner. As for nuclear, wind, solar, hydro, etc. the assumptions
> could vary radically. How do you rate nuclear waste, for example?
> Properly contained it has zero effect on the environment. If it
> leaks, it could be a disaster. However, I would guess that the fossil
> fuel needed to get it into the reactor is negligible.
>
> You are correct that there will never be a zero-impact car. Even an
> electric running on solar power is probably worse overall than an
> electric commuter train.
Gordon, allow me to introduce you to Troy Heagy, performance troll and the self styled "most annoying man on usenet"
Troy posts under at least half a dozen names (see below) and his game is to create a thread that might otherwise be interesting, and introduce a deliberate mistake into it, and watch it fall apart with people arguing about his mistake instead the actual topic.
He's been busted in rec.arts.tv so many times that he's expanding his net to other groups, like mostly sci-fi like Farscape, and autmobile ones like these. But he sets the cross posts to rec.arts.tv to show that he's still managing to annoy us here.
He'll now scream that we're haters, and are stalking him, etc., etc., etc., and probably threaten legal action, yadda yadda yadda.
Oh, and he sends death threats to people that expose him like this, and then will claim they've been sending HIM death threats, and writing his boss and trying to get him fired, blah blah blah.
Killfile Troy Heagy in all (s)he-its many incarnations now: snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com, snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com, snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com,fred_h snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com
**DON'T FORGET THE NEWEST ONE>>> SFTVratings snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com