Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All you people considering purchasing the SmartCar should be ASHAMED! Compared to the PUMA (below) the SmartCar is an oversized gasoline hog.
Besides, there is still a very slim possibility that should you get into an accident in the Obama endorsed SmartCar you may actually survive, albeit briefly, and become a burden to the Affirmative Action President's Healthcare for Communists. The PUMA will ensure a quick and untimely death, thus freeing your fellow comrades from the burden of paying for your pathetic lives.
1. Only for NOW because they are in the development stage. Do you recall what a PS 2 or VCR cost when they first came out?
It has been more than a few years now and I refuse to buy one until that premium disappears. BTW, I didn't buy VHS or DVD players when they first came out hehe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevK
2. As opposed to an ENGINE that cost $4000 when it breaks? No contest! The batteries last at least 10 years.
Diesel engines are better than gasoline engines. No spark plug either. Diesel engines on old volvo's have done 1 million miles before failing to function.
As for the battery, it takes more than 10 years to get your money back on fuel savings and that is just for the initial increase in the cost of the vehicle. When the battery breaks it will take at least another 5-10 to get back the savings and by then you will be getting another car. Secondly, most Americans don't even keep their car for longer than 6 years so already you don't even get your savings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevK
3. Lie
The highest mileage out of all of the hybrid vehicles came from the toyota prius which came at 44 mpg combined vs a jetta tdi where the combined mileage was 46. The fact is that diesel fairs better when on the highway and hybrids fair better when doing city driving. It depends largly on what type of driving you do mostly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevK
4. Maybe but who needs a diesel besides a big truck or a barge?
Are these statements even considered a viable counteragument?
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevK
5. Lie
A hybrid vehicle in the city has its engine shut off. This silent car poses to be a danger for pedestrians that can't hear it coming. Secondly, the reduced power on a freeway can in fact cause an accident because you won't be able to avoid it through a lane change. This is predominantly why you actually see more trucks in accidents than sport cars even though a sport car has an added risk to be killed on impact.
Driving 50 miles on electric will cost you about 2.98.
Driving 50 miles on gasoline, at a minimum will cost you over 5 dollars.
Considerable savings.
Where did you get these electricity figures from. Out here in CA I spend about 300/mo on electricity for my house and all I am running are alarm clocks.
Do you plug in these electric cars in your home or will there be electric stations.
Seeing as Obama is the biggest liar in the world, it would be as in other instances where he would deny he ever said it even if a video recording proved that he had. I just wonder how many millions that Honda and Toyota put into secret bank accounts for the anointed one.
My guess would be a lot fewer than Halliburton and Exxon salted away for Cousin Dicky and his wonderpuppet Georgy Boy.
Even if we could go straight to solar, wind and geothermal. What makes you think that anybody will be able to use these resources for free. Taxing the sun, wind, and heat generated from the Earth is insane. The Bolivian government tried to tax poor indigenous citizens for the rain they collected to drink. Does this seem right? So we can all count on "free energy" to cost the citizens as much or more than using fossil fuels... the only savings will go straight to the government.
We all know that hybrid cars and energy saving appliances and green building materials cost anywhere from 50%-300% more than regular products. The savings in fuel and energy take more than the life of the product to get back. It has already proven itself not to be economical. So... now that we know it is not economical, what other benefit is there to going green? Nothing except for saving the environment and this leads me to my final point.
If we were to become energy independent tomorrow, China would just buy all the oil that we stoped using to further industrialise itself and pollute. Last time I checked, global warming was a global issue. Honestly, global warming is the biggest hoax played on the most ignorant of our kind in aims to gravitate towards a world government.
Huh? We'll get solar, wind and geothermal energy from our electricity supplier just like we currently do. If you pay tax on your electric bill now then you'll pay tax on green power in much the same way. The electric utility company will be the ones investing in green power generation. Right now, that power is not cost competitive with burning fossil fuels and without better energy storage systems we cannot guarantee that the power will be available when we need it most. The cost issues and the storage issues will be solved relatively soon though and, until that time, I suggest we use hydroelectric, nuclear and natural gas-fired generation to meet the bulk of our electric needs. America has a lot of coal so there is interest in "clean coal" technology but it isn't very clean at all. You still have the problems of acid rain and air pollution plus you have the problems associated with carbon capture and storage (an unproven technology).
In terms of China, the western world has have 100+ years of industrialized living without much concern for the environment. We shouldn't begrudge China and other emerging countries their turn completely but we should help them make better choices than we did. Whatever we learn about "clean coal" (what a terrible name) should be given away to the developing world since it will ultimately help everybody. Like the United States, China has a lot of coal resources and they are going to want to use it.
I am not wearing a tinfoil hat so I cannot comment on the world government plans.
Do you plug in these electric cars in your home or will there be electric stations.
Initially, you'll probably need to plug them into your house giving you a limited distance that you could travel within the city on pure electrical power. The good news is that cars like the Chevy Volt have a small gas combustion engine and they can recharge the battery as they drive. Traveling at highway speeds also taps the combustion engine. Needless to say this will impact fuel efficiency so these cars are actually better used within a city (in terms of saving money).
Eventually, I would not be surprised to see gas station offering an electric recharge station.
Eventually, I would not be surprised to see gas station offering an electric recharge station.
LOL! Only if you want to wait 6 to 8 hours. That is how long it takes to recharge the Volt. That battery is only good for 40 miles, after that, you will be running on gasoline and getting worse gas mileage than most of todays sedans.
Huh? We'll get solar, wind and geothermal energy from our electricity supplier just like we currently do. If you pay tax on your electric bill now then you'll pay tax on green power in much the same way. The electric utility company will be the ones investing in green power generation. Right now, that power is not cost competitive with burning fossil fuels and without better energy storage systems we cannot guarantee that the power will be available when we need it most. The cost issues and the storage issues will be solved relatively soon though and, until that time, I suggest we use hydroelectric, nuclear and natural gas-fired generation to meet the bulk of our electric needs. America has a lot of coal so there is interest in "clean coal" technology but it isn't very clean at all. You still have the problems of acid rain and air pollution plus you have the problems associated with carbon capture and storage (an unproven technology).
In terms of China, the western world has have 100+ years of industrialized living without much concern for the environment. We shouldn't begrudge China and other emerging countries their turn completely but we should help them make better choices than we did. Whatever we learn about "clean coal" (what a terrible name) should be given away to the developing world since it will ultimately help everybody. Like the United States, China has a lot of coal resources and they are going to want to use it.
I am not wearing a tinfoil hat so I cannot comment on the world government plans.
Well I am glad someone here is an optimist. Honestly, I can't see myself and majority of Americans switching to a cleaner fuel source unless we can extrapolate from it similar power at a similar cost with similar convenience. Until then most people will not sign on to it.
France (a country that is much more liberal than the US) is using close to 75% of its energy from nuclear power. Still this is even too extreme for the wacko environmentalists in our country that make up the majority of the Democratic party. I rather go to nuclear first before we start using all of our land for large wind turbines and solar fields which could be better used for farming.
France (a country that is much more liberal than the US) is using close to 75% of its energy from nuclear power. Still this is even too extreme for the wacko environmentalists in our country that make up the majority of the Democratic party. I rather go to nuclear first before we start using all of our land for large wind turbines and solar fields which could be better used for farming.
I think we should get at least 10% of our electrical power from renewable sources just to keep the R&D moving forward. As much as I would be considered fairly liberal, I realize that going completely renewable with today's technology is not likely to be workable. Thus, I accept nuclear power as a necessary evil. I'd like to think that any newly purchased nuclear power plants would be among the last (considering that they have a 40+ year useful life and that should be all the time we need). I'd like to see nuclear power plants that use reprocessed uranium (one pass through normally and then reprocessed for a second pass). This creates a lot less nuclear waste but somewhat surprisingly is more expensive then purchasing two passes worth of new uranium because the reprocessing is more expensive than uranium mining. France can use both types of fuel while Canada's nuclear reactors cannot use reprocessed fuel. I think American reactors use a mix of both technologies (depending on the location).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
