Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuullshit.

dave

I believe it is probably a law of nature somewhere tha we
can neither create nor destroy matter - we can only
transform it into another form.  Now, with that as the
premise, and we have to get electricity from some source to
recharge the electric car if we intend to operate it
reliably, the most likely source would be an electric
generating plant.  That plant will provide the electrical
energy by transforming some sort of fuel whether it be
nuclear, coal, hydroelectric or oil into the electrical
energy.  Since man has never been able to produce a 100%
efficient anything, how would it be possible to make these
transformations w/o producing some form of unwanted
pollution?  You folks need to get a grip and use a bit of
common sense instead of getting all of your info from one
source.  You must also remamber that moviemakers are all
about entertainment and profit.  There are no other
motovators to produce some of this crap.  Just think of all
the air pollution that was produced to make the film and for
all those folks to go see it.  They didn't get there w/o
causing some pollution from the fuel expended by their
private aircraft, cabs and limos.  I'll be you didn't see
one walking.

Lugnut

The Chrissavage99@hotmail.com entity posted thusly:

Really?

I agree.

Hey, go for it.

I'll leave that to you., but I will say one thing. The best argument
you could make for your position is to build that car. If you build
it, we will come. We will be heartily surprised, but we WILL come.

I'm waiting for the sequel......

"Who killed the lying, sob, gullible, tree-huggin' idiotic liberal who
hasn't got a single clue?"

Where does the electricity come from to charge these electric vehicles?

NIMBY?

What about the hazardous waste impact of the batteries/chemicals/heavy
metals, etc. when they are used up?

NIMBY?

What about the hazards of servicing these high-voltage vehicles? You're
asking automotive technicians to take on the same risk as electrical
company line workers.

What sort of impact will THAT have on workers comp and other insurances?

Electric cars - and alleged "intellectual and property proprietary
information" involved will, effectively, eliminate the independent
automotive service aftermarket - giving dealerships a monopoly. You think
auto repair is expensive now?

If you believe GM would like to see the Electric car or Hybrids die, you
are sadly mistaken. Service exclusivity would be a windfall for its
"stealerships".

While I must applaud your enthusiasm, think about where you get your
electricity from. Does your power plant produce electricity pollution
free? Mine doesn't either. I've always thought that having an electric
car does not stop pollution, it just moves the source of pollution from
your exhaust tail pipe to the power plant's smoke stake, although they
probably produce it a little more efficiently.
To produce electricity pollution free you need to get it from hydro,
the sun or from the wind. Which one do you have? Can you imagine if
everybody had a solar cell, a large windmill or a source of hydro power
in their back yard? It's just not going to happen.
One more thing about "GM and Uncle Sam shredding it". GM doesn't own
the world and neither does Uncle Sam. (although Uncle Sam tries to) Do
you see electricity used ANYWHERE in the world as the major source of
automobile transportation? Most of the world's electric subways get
their power from pollution-producing power plants also.
Now, if electric cars are so simple to build, go ahead and build one
and show us how it is done. Remember that it has to have most of the
conveniences of an internal combustion engine or people won't want to
buy or use it.

Good luck.

   
    There was a write-up in Design News (trade and technical
journal for the design engineering profession) a few months ago on
this very subject.  People from all kinds of different industries were
interviewed or surveyed about the prospects of bringing a truly
practical electric vehicle to market.
    The real problem is with batteries, not power generation.
Storage batteries that can provide the power to move even a
lightweight vehicle around on the roads in anything like the manner of
petroleum-fueled vehicles just don't exist at the moment.  Batteries
are heavy and expensive.  Batteries take a LONG time to re-charge,
after relatively short traveling time.  Batteries are NASTY hazardous
waste when it comes time to dispose or recycle.  And other
disadvantages.
    The consensus of the battery, electric motor, and vehicle
makers who communicated in the article mentioned above was,
essentially:  "At the present level of development, there are no
batteries that are adequate for widespread, commercially-viable use as
prime movers in vehicles.  And, given the `state of the art' at this
time, there will not likely be any such batteries available within a
couple of decades."

They're dead?

Go buy a Prius. In a year or two, there will be some aftermarket kits
for plug-in hybrid conversions (its possible now for the DIY crowd).

There is a small amount of truth to the rumor that 'Uncle Sam' doesn't
like them. They haven't figured out how to apply road tax to the charger
outlet. But give them time. There is no limit to man's ingenuity when it
comes to squeezing a few bucks out of the consumer.

GM's Impact isn't really a good case for a viable production product
being squelched. It was a prototype, highly subsidized and very
expensive to maintain. If you think that a similar vehicle could be mass
produced for a significant market, go right ahead. Keep in mind that
there are quite a few federal regulations regarding ongoing maintenance
support to deal with.

IIRC, there were a few hundred Impacts produced. Aside from the cost of
the unique technology itself, we already have some good data on what it
takes to design, produce and support vehicles that are built in
production runs of only a few hundred. They typically cost upwards of a
half million dollars to several million dollars apiece. Ferrari,
Lamborghini, Porsche all have examples of limited production cars.

I think GM made a big mistake by NOT allowing the lessees to convert to
purchase contracts. For a price in line with what other limited
production autos command, it would have been a great PR move. But I'm
not convinced that there was a conspiracy involved. GM just hasn't been
very bright lately when it comes to marketing decisions.

What's below the grass's roots? Bullshit, that's what.

That movie leaves out quite a lot, and badly distorts what it does include.
Read more here:
http://www.gmtoday.com/news/auto/topnews33.htm

Electric cars were -- and are -- a stupid, expensive, masturbatory,
environut wet dream.

http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807
http://www.americanpolicy.org/un/thereisnoglobal.htm
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=848

Professor Bob Carter, Hon. FRSNZ, is a graduate of the University of
Otago
and Cambridge University. He has been Director of the Australian
Secretariat
of the Ocean Drilling Program, Chair of the Australian Marine Science
and
Technology Grants Scheme, and Chair of the Australian Research Council's
Panel for Earth, Engineering and Applied Sciences. Bob is the author of
many
scientific papers and articles on past environmental change, including a
recent paper in Science magazine which describes the longest (4 million
year-long)
continuous high-resolution climatic record available for the Southern
Ocean.

Email: bob.carter@jcu.edu.au
-----------------------------------------------

Alarmist computer models notwithstanding, a human-induced warming of
Earth's
atmospheric temperature has not yet occurred to a degree that can be
measurably distinguished from natural variations. More specifically, the
pattern of "global" surface temperature change over the last 100 years
does
not match the smoothly-increasing curve of atmospheric carbon dioxide
which
is so widely alleged to be the cause.

Additionally, the ancient climate record shows that in the past
increasing
temperatures preceded increases in carbon dioxide. This means that in
the
real world atmospheric carbon dioxide content cannot be the primary
cause of
global warming. In this regard, it should always be remembered too that
the
computer models which predict 1-60 C of future warming from greenhouse
gas
accumulation are no more nor less reliable than computer models which
predict the future of the stock market.

------------------------------------------------

The IPCC's (and many scientists') fixation with judging modern climate
trends against the last 1000 years is intellectually lazy, if not
actually
dishonest. There is nothing whatever about the last 1000 years of Earth
history that has any especial relevance to judging contemporary climate
change.

When the ancient climatic record is examined on longer timescales of
thousands to hundreds of thousands of years, it is seen to encompass
many
occasions of rapid climate change.

During such an episode the temperature at a particular site can swing
from
almost full glacial to full interglacial conditions, or the other way
round,
in periods as short as one or two decades. The mechanism controlling
these
rapid swings remains unknown, and for all we know one could have started
yesterday. Reassuringly, perhaps, in the past rapid climate changes seem
to
have been commoner during glacial periods compared to warm interglacial
periods such as the one we live in today.

------------------------------------------------

It has become increasingly apparent lately that the last 1,000-year
interval
which is the context for most IPCC advice and analysis is a completely
inadequate period over which to assess global climate change. The focus
of
discussion, therefore, is shifting away from the short-term mechanisms
studied by meteorologists and climatologists, to attending more to the
knowledge base for long term climate change which exists in the
geological
record.

In this regard, U.S. geologist Bill Ruddiman has recently shown that
greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane) which are expected to have
declined in the atmosphere since the last glaciation instead show
increasing
trends from ~8,000 and 5000 years ago, respectively. He interprets these
reversals as human-caused, resulting from the clearing of trees and
development of agriculture.

Ruddiman's work has shifted the focus of the climate change debate
irrevocably. The key question now is not "is industrial-age,
human-caused
global warming occurring?", but rather "are we sure that the human
effect on
climate over the last 8,000 years has helped to prevent the occurrence
of
another glaciation?" Should the answer to that question be "yes", then
it
prompts the further question: "do we wish to maintain the human warming
effect, or instead to counteract it and allow Earth's climatic cycle to
drop
back into its next (natural) glacial episode?".

------------------------------------------------

A typical computer model projection predicts that implementing the Kyoto
Protocol would reduce an expected temperature increase of 2.10 C by 2100
to
1.90 C instead. Put another way, the world would postpone until 2100 a
temperature increase which would otherwise occur in 2094. Adhering to
the
Kyoto Protocol will therefore have a negligible effect on reducing
climatic
warming.

Several trillion dollars, which is the estimated cost of the Kyoto
accord,
seems a lot of money to spend to buy just six years of breathing space.
As
Bjorn Lomborg never tires of pointing out, a better use of this money
would
be to spend it alleviating some of the much more acute global problems,
such
as starvation, sanitation and health services in less privileged
countries.

------------------------------------------------

Contrary to strong public belief, the effects of increasing carbon
dioxide
in the atmosphere are generally beneficial. Enhanced plant growth has
many
obvious benefits, amongst them increased natural vegetation growth in
general,
and increased agricultural production in particular. And to maintain or
slightly increase
planetary temperature is also very much a global good if -- as Ruddiman
and
other scientists assert -- the human production of greenhouse gases is
helping to hold our planetary environment in its historic, benignly
warm,
interglacial mode.

This news has yet to percolate up to the policy level within western
governments, most of whom are still preoccupied with the politics of the
Kyoto protocol, including in many cases advanced plans for carbon
trading
taxes on energy consumption. Even worse, however, major government
science
agencies, or senior scientists such as the U.K.'s Sir David King,
continue
to propagate the view that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide are,
of
themselves, environmentally harmful.

There is an urgent need for governments to shake themselves free of the
partial advice provided by environmental advocacy groups and government
science agencies, all of whom have a strong and often undeclared
self-interest in most environmental matters. Nowhere is this need
greater
than in the debate over climate change.

The Saturn EV-1 weighed 3,000 lbs., could accelerate 0-60 in 9 secs.,
and got the equivalent of 45 miles/gallon.  What killed it were two
factors;

1. It was produced by GM, a company famous for spending huge sums of
money to start up new projects and then not following through and
letting them run down, as they have with their Saturn division.

2.  It essentially had a gas tank with a capacity of just 1.5 gallons.
That was about to be doubled with a changeover to iron batteries, but
the famous GM lack of follow-through kicked in first.

At least electric cars make more sense than hygrogen fueled cars, which
may need 3 times as much energy per mile as electrics, once the energy
costs of producing hydrogen are considered.

a car full of batteries,

is more explosive than a car full of gas!

Hydrogen, comes from petrolium!!

---------------------FREE ENERGY-----------------------------