I actually agree with you (and odd you should bring up the Servel
fridge, as I just got back from my grandma's place...) it's just
Graham's attitude that his way is the only right way that pushes my fur
backwards (and his refusal to accept that his solution isn't perfect for
everyone.)

I almost did buy a TDI a couple years ago, but I don't delude myself
enough to think that I could drive it up to Alaska, shut it off outside,
and come back and expect it to start.

nate

It will no doubt inflate your sense of superiority even further to
learn that the Chicago Transit Authority has recently ordered a new
set of cars with precisely this type of regenerative braking
capability.

In sci.environment, Matthew T. Russotto
<russotto@grace.speakeasy.net>
wrote
on Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:09:47 -0600
<_qSdnQX0OpkW0eTanZ2dnUVZ_tGonZ2d@speakeasy.net>:

And have since been ripped up and rerouted.  The area
immediately around the Empire State Building was probably
empty until the Empire State Building was in fact built.
(IIRC it was a shopping complex, filled with small shops,
that were torn down.)

Even if it was not, the horse and buggy was the primary
means of conveyance until the early 20th century, and
the streets were designed therefor: paved, wide enough,
and easy to navigate.  The private car is about the same
size as the non-horse part of the carriage.

The private car also has the advantages that it doesn't
attract flies when it dies, or drop little smelly
splots as it travels.  Presumably, these were big problems
in NYC and Boston at the turn of the 20th century.

Mass transit inherently sucks, as the private car has far
more destination options, especially in spread-out cities
such as Houston, Los Angeles, and to a lesser extent the
San Francisco Bay Area.  The speed of the car is about
the same as mass transit (between stops) unless traffic
planning is so bad that nothing moves (including busses)
on surface streets.

This is why mass transit works so well in NYC; the
streets are regularly jammed.  Ideally, one would
build multiple levels of streets and "caravators" --
big elevators for cars -- to transit from level to level.
Of course that gets slightly ridiculous fast costwise, and
the "caravators" would introduce their own limitations.
Fortunately, the NYC subway goes to the more interesting
places, and is not subject to surface traffic problems.

The only way mass transit works 100% is if the city is
gridded, the busses run at 5 minute intervals or less
on every street, the connections are nearly perfect,
and people don't have to carry more than a small bag of
groceries from point to point.  (The concept of "Manhattan
distance" would work here.)

Since this schedule clearly doesn't work (busses might
get 5-10 mpg if they're lucky, and people don't make so
many trips that the busses will fill), mass transit won't
work 100%.  Whether it works 99%, 9.9%, or 0.99% is not
clear; it may depend on the city, and the people therein,
who trade off:

- speed of getting from A to B
- cost of getting from A to B
- carry capacity
- personal safety (thefts, muggings, assaults, murders)
- personal safety (collisions, roadway hazards)

An alternative would be to build high-rises clustered
thickly around a train track.  AIUI this is more or less
the NY city model.  Diesel trains, if full, might get
3x the mileage (per person) of a single commuter vehicle,
last I checked -- but we'd probably be better off simply
packing them in 4 to a car, if the destination for all
4 of them is the same (e.g., office workmates).  Electric
trains are about the same although the power source for
electric trains is never the same as the private car,
unless the car is a steam-powered coal burning affair.

Other options such as "borrow-an-electric-car" might work
for awhile.  Of course all that does is displace pollution
outside the city (something has to power the battery
charger), and electric cars have other problems such as
limited range.  Presumably, this is being worked on but
the battery has a major problem: it has lower energy density
than a fuel source which can extract power from the atmosphere.

The gasoline combustion reaction is quite clear on this:

C8H18     + 12.5 O2 = 8CO2  + 9H2O + E
114 g     + 400 g   = 352 g + 162 g

There's no way one can get more energy per kg in a battery
reaction, as outside air comprises almost 80% of the mass
in standard gasoline combustion, and most batteries are
sealed as far as actual electrical generation is concerned;
Wikipedia mentions the possibility of water electrolysis
if one overcharges a lead-acid battery, which can lead to
explosive conditions -- but doesn't help all that much
regarding charging.

Nuclear power is theoretically possible if the vehicle
is big enough, but the shielding requirements preclude
its use in the standard automobile.

Hydrogen-powered affairs do not work, mostly because there
are too many technical problems to approach the reliability
of the current solution, the reciprocating piston engine
fueled by liquid gasoline.  Liquid hydrogen has *lower*
energy density than gasoline (about 3x, by volume) and
I see problems keeping it liquid during a hot summer day
while the car is parked.  Gaseous hydrogen's density verges
on the ridiculous:

http://www-safety.deas.harvard.edu/services/hydrogen.html

For liquid hydrogen, one gets 4.23 pounds per cubic foot,
but gaseous has 192 cubic ft per pound.  That's a ratio
of over 800 times less dense -- an issue if one wants a
car instead of an oversize gas tank with wheels.

Pure ethyl alcohol might get 70% the energy density of
gasoline (by volume), which makes it barely viable --
though nowadays most cars touted as "ethanol cars" use
an 85%/15% alcohol/gasoline mix (E85), if not an 85%/15%
gasoline/alcohol mix (E15) or even a 90%/10% mix (E10).
Ethyl alcohol has the peculiar problem of being miscible
with water, making pipeline delivery problematic; gasoline
and diesel are immiscible.

Modern diesels suffer from a prejudice but might become
viable; of course diesel fuel currently comes from the
same location as good old gasoline, and vegetable oil
has the problem that it turns rancid after awhile.

Walking is not an option in most cities, mostly because
"big box" stores simply aren't within walking distance.
Both walking and bicycling will not work in foul weather,
nor do they have good carry capacity.

The best option?  The gasoline-powered private car, with
all of its problems.  That's why we use it.  (That, and
the efficiencies of overseas production of the car, as
it's the only model sold by the millions -- though
diesels might overtake it at some point.)

It's all very well for the enviro-types to wring their
hands and say "Oh, that's evil, eeeeeevil", but I don't
see a better solution coming from them.  Best I can do is
jack up oil prices -- and that also affects mass transit
options around here, as we use diesel trains to commute
up the Peninsula.  Granted, it might depend on one's
definition of "better"; were we in a totally closed
environment where oxygen was in very limited supply
(e.g. a wheel-type space station), or when the oil
totally runs out, one might rethink these issues.

But don't expect miracles. ;-)

 In my area, busses are now equipped with bicycle racks.

 I'm sure that all of my ideas have been thought of before.

 New ideas aren't needed since the answers are already known.

 Cowards and the Corrupt refuse to implelement the solutions however.

 The coming solution?  Exsecution of the corrupt.  It solves the corruption
problem and will motivate the cowards.

 Before I tell  you, you will have to stand on one foor for 7 days and
nights.

 Then feel free to find a method of eating your own dung as a means of
living past nature's capacity to provide.

 Alternately you can eat the dung of your KKKonservative brothers.
Something you obviously do from time to time.

 On a personal note, when the time comes, I intend to take part in the
extermination of the dung eaters.