Tiahaar wrote:Excellent AZ.
Let's see...for 50 weeks of the year I bicycle it, 84 miles/week to work and errands for 4200 miles.
Then I do a 1300 mile round trip to the playa @ 8mpg or 162.5 gallons of diesel.
So my yearly mpg index is 5500 miles per 162.5 gallons = 33.8
Not too bad :)
Apollonaris Zeus wrote:Talk is cheap, what MPG are you getting?
Rob the Wop wrote:Fully electric. Moot point. Ha! Ha ha!
Kinetic IV wrote:Rob the Wop wrote:Fully electric. Moot point. Ha! Ha ha!
Awww, that's cute.
Now playing devil's advocate for a bit....
How many tons of coal did it take to provide power for that electric car? How much mercury was released into the environment by those coal fired plants to generate the electricty pushed into those batteries? How many gallons of diesel fuel did it take either BNSF or the UP to haul that coal in to the local powerplant? Oh, the local powerplant is nuclear? Are they properly storing those spent fuel rods or do they have a silent problem with tritium leaking into the groundwater like ComEd does outside Chicago? And back to those lead batteries, how many children suffer with lead poisoning from the smelters that are required to make the internal plates for those batteries?
Rob, all of the above is NOT an attack on you, it's the whole electric car thing in general. I'm shooting at the idea, not the messenger.
Rob the Wop wrote:Kinetic IV wrote:Rob the Wop wrote:Fully electric. Moot point. Ha! Ha ha!
As to the coal for the car- very little. Most (75% in 2003) of our power is from hydroelectric in Northern Oregon, and I am signed up for the electric plan where my power bill money goes strictly to alternative sources. Lead acid batteries are extremely recyclable. So- yes the components required for initial creation are bad. Less so than for a standard car as it is smaller, has less steel components, and does not require a constant influx of petroleum products to continue running (oil changes, gas, power fluids, etc.). The less complex an engine is- the less waste.
Also here is a concept a lot of people don't get. The majority of car driving is with one person in the car. If that car is made mostly of metal, and is big enough for four people- you are paying mostly to move all that steel around. Your weight in negligible in reference to the vehicle. But most people are worried about horsepower and having room/convienence/ etc. My primary vehicle is only around 650lbs, has room for groceries, and fits only one person. The motor is only 7 hpw, doesn't go above 40 mph, and is extremely power efficient. I only take another vehicle if the distance is too great for the limited range, the electric lightrail doesn't travel there, I am carpooling, or I need to carry very large items. So- less damage initially, far far less damage over time, and ridiculously less damage when you compare the ratio of fuel usage versus miles traveled.
By your logic EVERYTHING is evil. Your shoes. Your clothes. The roads you use. Everything in the US of A kills or pollutes something. Even if you eat only organic things, weave your own cloth, and don't travel- you will use something that directly or indirectly damages. The difference is in scale. My vehicle does less damage and provides a method for covered daily travel with cargo allowance.
Also with electric cars in general, there is a large variety of ways to create electricity (and many extremely clean ones). So once the car is developed, you just have to charge it. Can the same claim be made for any petroleum based system? Any other method (hydrogen/biodeisel/etc) has only ONE method of fuel. And usually with the greater number of moving parts- you need more petroleum products to keep things well lubed. And the majority of the alternative methods required more steel (and subsequently a poorer fuel usage per mile ratio).
Ranger Genius wrote:I think KIV was pointing out the irony which exists in the cases of MOST electric car users (which, as I said, doesn't apply to you) that the owner bought it to be environmentally conscientious, but is actually causing more harm than good by effectively buying a coal-powered car. There are also extra steps involved in the process of harnessing the energy (chemical-heat-motion-electricity-motion, as opposed to chemical-motion), and every step reduces efficiency. (Of course, for you, it looks more like motion-electricity-motion).
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], MSNbot Media and 3 guests