More on electric cars.
 

harry wrote:
On Sep 19, 10:38 am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:

If I buy an electric car, it will do infinity MPG if worked on a cash
basis. I can charge it from my solar panels.
Your solar panels and associated control gear and wiring etc were free?

--
*Save a tree, eat a beaver*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Er, we're talking about relative fuel costs aren't we?
All fuels have a capital cost implication.
But solar has no primary fuel source such as gas oil or coal.
So you buy your panels and there are no other costs apart from repair
s if by badluck you need any..

And in harrys world all the energy used to make them and transport then
and install them is also 'free'


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

More on electric cars.
 

In article
,
harry wrote:
On Sep 19, 10:38 am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:

If I buy an electric car, it will do infinity MPG if worked on a cash
basis. I can charge it from my solar panels.


Er, we're talking about relative fuel costs aren't we?
All fuels have a capital cost implication.
But solar has no primary fuel source such as gas oil or coal.
So you buy your panels and there are no other costs apart from repair
s if by badluck you need any..

Well, if you bought an underground tank of petrol and forget the purchase
price, that would provide free fuel too. Until it ran out. Solar panels
failing with time, exactly the same.

--
*A closed mouth gathers no feet.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

More on electric cars.
 

In article
,
harry wrote:
On Sep 19, 12:37 pm, Steve Firth wrote:
harry wrote:

[snip]

If I buy an electric car, it will do infinity MPG if worked on a cash
basis.
I can charge it from my solar panels.

Excellent idea you can charge it overnight. Oh, hang on.

I take it that you never read the blog of the guy who converted a
Bedford Rascal to LiIon cells and a custom wound electric motor? Even
he admitted that on solar it would take a week to charge.

--
•DarWin|
_/ _/

In Summer I could charge it in a day from the PV.
Don't forget, it wouldn't be run to depletion anyway.
I don't use my car every day.

Which makes the high initial cost of an electric car even more stupid for
your circumstances.
You fall into the common trap of thinking fuel costs being the only one of
motoring. With low use they become the least significant, when running a
new vehicle.

--
*When you've seen one shopping centre you've seen a mall*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

More on electric cars.
 

In article
,
harry wrote:
In the future, motoring will once again be the province of the
wealthy.
The herbs will be on the buses/trains.

What fuel will buses/trains use that will be cheaper than that for a car?

--
*Consciousness: That annoying time between naps.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

More on electric cars.
 

In article
,
harry wrote:
Nitric oxide, Nitrogen dioxide, Hydrogen sulphide. Carbon monoxide,
Carbon dioxide, Carbon particles, Ammonia, Sulphur dioxide, VOCs +
numerous unburned hydrocarbons. Even with a catalyser.

Catalytic convertor. Apart from carbon dioxide, many of these are lower
from a car exhaust than those present in the average town.

--
*No I haven't stolen it , I'm just a **** driver*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

More on electric cars.
 

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:
In the future, motoring will once again be the province of the
wealthy.
The herbs will be on the buses/trains.

What fuel will buses/trains use that will be cheaper than that for a car?


nuclear electricity of course.

Trolley busses.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

More on electric cars.
 

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:
Nitric oxide, Nitrogen dioxide, Hydrogen sulphide. Carbon monoxide,
Carbon dioxide, Carbon particles, Ammonia, Sulphur dioxide, VOCs +
numerous unburned hydrocarbons. Even with a catalyser.

Catalytic convertor. Apart from carbon dioxide, many of these are lower
from a car exhaust than those present in the average town.


Indeed. Virtually NO sulphur or carbon monoxide out of a modern car
exhaust on modern fuels.More ammonia in harry's urinals than in car
exhausts too. And no unburnt hydrocarbons at all from hot exhausts - far
more from fuel spillage at the pumps.

The one that is left is Diesel particulates. Very nasty, very carcinogenic.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

More on electric cars.
 

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:
In the future, motoring will once again be the province of the
wealthy.
The herbs will be on the buses/trains.
What fuel will buses/trains use that will be cheaper than that for
a car?

nuclear electricity of course.

Trolley busses.

Yes, in fact does anyone know why places like Manchester, Edinburgh, are
putting in trams at ruinous expense instead of electric trolley busses?
Apart from the willy-waving factor, that is.


Some people just like playing with bigger train sets.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

More on electric cars.
 

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The one that is left is Diesel particulates. Very nasty, very carcinogenic.

For Euro 5 compliant cars with a particulate filter, how much is the
volume of particulates reduced?

More on electric cars.
 

Andy Burns wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The one that is left is Diesel particulates. Very nasty, very
carcinogenic.

For Euro 5 compliant cars with a particulate filter, how much is the
volume of particulates reduced?

I have no idea. Presumably a lot.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

More on electric cars.
 

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The one that is left is Diesel particulates. Very nasty, very
carcinogenic.

For Euro 5 compliant cars with a particulate filter, how much is the
volume of particulates reduced?

I have no idea. Presumably a lot.

I've never seen any wisp of smoke out of mine (no actually tell a lie,
once the engine failed to start at first attempt, and when it started on
second attempt it belched out a small cloud).

My previous diesel (non Euro5, non DPF) would noticeably lay smoke e.g.
getting up to speed on motorway up-ramps.

The price to pay is potential replacement of the DPF after a few years,
and higher fuel consumption whenever it decides it needs to burn-off the
trapped soot.

More on electric cars.
 

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:
In the future, motoring will once again be the province of the
wealthy.
The herbs will be on the buses/trains.

What fuel will buses/trains use that will be cheaper than that for a
car?

nuclear electricity of course.

Trolley busses.

Yes, in fact does anyone know why places like Manchester, Edinburgh, are
putting in trams at ruinous expense instead of electric trolley busses?
Apart from the willy-waving factor, that is.

Trams make traffic jams. A waste of time in many cases. Manchester try to
pass off Metrolink as rapid-transit. What a joke! Rapid transit has to be
grade segregated.

Tram networks were considered outdated after WW2. Most disappeared. The
Continent kept them up as the cities did not have the money to replace them.
For some reason in the UK they had a renaissance, led by Manchester.
Manchester's Metrolink is good as they are effectively tram-trains running
on existing tracks and lines and using existing stations and run on streets.
They interchange well - there is a Metrolink platform at Manchester Victoria
station for ease of changing. The others tram networks are a bottomless pit
for money with poor price performance. The ill-conceived Merseyrtram was
rightly shelved

Still, the recent Merseytram project was a joke - they never learn. It never
integrated with the Merseyrail metro, unlike Manchester's Metrolink. Stops
outside stations is not integrating. I am glad HMG cancelled the whole
joke.

The clown who was behind Merseytram, Neil Scales, lefta shambles behind. He
was chief at Merseytravel. There is Merseyrail rapid-transit urban rail
network which is underground in the centres of Liverpool and Birkenhead.
Merseyside has an amazing level of disused rail infrastructure - and much
mothballed. About 5 miles of disused tunnel under are awaiting reuse. The
oldest tunnels in the world. The Wapping tunnel dates from 1829, is 1.25
miles long and was the first ever bored under a metropolis. So serious
transport history here as well. This can be incorporated cheaply into
Merseyrail metro.

Instead of extending the Merseyrail metro, in 2001 Scales went for a
stand-alone street running tram network. It was not integrated into
Merseyrail. Nearby Manchester wanted an underground metro but could not
afford one so went for a street running tram network that also ran on old
rail lines. The trams pulled up to platforms at local stations for easy
transfer, and then ran onto streets - meshing in. See this, the Manchester
Metrolink is mentioned as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merseytram
Liverpool did no such thing.

The government approved Merseytram. £80 was spent in "consultancy fees"
before a line was laid. The government rightly cancelled the lot in 2005.

Instead of being wise and turning to the metro to expand using superb rail
infrastructure left by the Victorians, Scales was still wanting the trams
after HMG cancelled and was obsessed with getting his way. He started to
make compulsory purchases to get in the overhead wires in and purchasing
land for the cancelled network. He set the city back 15 years. The city
still has not had its underground metro extended or a new tram network.
Nothing.

http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/...2534-25810677/

Liverpool Councillor Stuart Monkcom has been an outspoken critic of the
Merseytram scheme, highlighting the poor financial performance of tram
networks in the UK. In the Liverpool Daily Post he wrote:

"However, one of the greatest causes for concern is Revenue Deficit.
Virtually all the attention is currently focused on the capital cost of the
scheme (currently £450M and rising) with no apparent consideration of cost
over-run which is inherent in all light rail projects or the possibility of
revenue deficit if the project ever reaches fulfillment. In 2006, for
example, Manchester's Altram accounts showed a loss of £8M due to
overoptimistic passenger projections, while in the West Midlands the Midland
Metro, also operated by Altram, showed losses of about £16M. Worst of all,
down in London, Tramtrack Croydon Ltd recorded debts of £100M and was
seeking financial restructuring in order to continue trading."

Then there is the Edinburgh debacle. What an expensive joke. Expansion of
existing networks is feasible but I new tram networks apear dead.

Supecap, zero polution at point of running, buses, charging at each bus
stop, made into a full guided bus network is far cheaper than street trams
with many clear advantages all around, cost only being one. Trams only came
about because the IC engines, road vehicles and roads of the late 1800s were
all dire. Technology has caught up and traffic jam making trams are history.

CPOs are needed to string ugly and dangerous wires from buildings. The
advantages of trams were a sense of permanence, and zero emissions in
cities. Supercapacitor buses negate the latter and a sense of permanence is
easily achievable using buses. Using platforms having no step to board a
bus is easily done. Look at Bogotá's guided bus network.

DfT has been looking at new technologies and the supercap buses are a
success and look the way to the future in urban areas.

R&D in fuel cell trains was under way for the past 10 years, especially in
Japan - hence why HMG held back on electrification of surface lines keeping
outdated and slow diesel trains. Running overhead lines for hundreds of
miles is not cheap and them the maintenance costs on top. Fuel cell trains
carried their own fuel. The technology did not come to fruition fast enough
so HMG started to electrify lines like Liverpool to Manchester, London -
Bristol, Great Western, etc.

More on electric cars.
 

On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:39:09 +0100 Tim Streater wrote :
Yes, in fact does anyone know why places like Manchester, Edinburgh, are
putting in trams at ruinous expense instead of electric trolley busses?
Apart from the willy-waving factor, that is.

Carrying capacity? Our newest 'Bumblebee' 5-section trams can take up to
240 people.

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on',
Melbourne, Australia www.greentram.com

More on electric cars.
 

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:
In the future, motoring will once again be the province of the
wealthy.
The herbs will be on the buses/trains.

What fuel will buses/trains use that will be cheaper than that for a
car?

nuclear electricity of course.

Trolley busses.

Yes, in fact does anyone know why places like Manchester, Edinburgh, are
putting in trams at ruinous expense instead of electric trolley busses?
Apart from the willy-waving factor, that is.

government policy (at the time)

tim

More on electric cars.
 

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
...

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:
In the future, motoring will once again be the province of the
wealthy.
The herbs will be on the buses/trains.

What fuel will buses/trains use that will be cheaper than that for a
car?

nuclear electricity of course.

Trolley busses.

Yes, in fact does anyone know why places like Manchester, Edinburgh, are
putting in trams at ruinous expense instead of electric trolley busses?
Apart from the willy-waving factor, that is.

Trams make traffic jams. A waste of time in many cases. Manchester try to
pass off Metrolink as rapid-transit. What a joke! Rapid transit has to be
grade segregated.

for 95% of the route it is

tim

More on electric cars.
 

On 20/09/2012 10:49, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:
On Sep 19, 10:38 am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:

If I buy an electric car, it will do infinity MPG if worked on a cash
basis. I can charge it from my solar panels.


Er, we're talking about relative fuel costs aren't we?
All fuels have a capital cost implication.
But solar has no primary fuel source such as gas oil or coal.
So you buy your panels and there are no other costs apart from repair
s if by badluck you need any..

Well, if you bought an underground tank of petrol and forget the purchase
price, that would provide free fuel too. Until it ran out. Solar panels
failing with time, exactly the same.

Ah, but petrol is no use for dipping your snout in the subsidy trough...


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

More on electric cars.
 

In article , Andy Burns wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The one that is left is Diesel particulates. Very nasty, very carcinogenic.

For Euro 5 compliant cars with a particulate filter, how much is the
volume of particulates reduced?

http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice...e-filters.html
reckons about 80%, if it's driven in a way that the regeneration cycle burns
it off keeping the filter clean.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_particulate_filter says it can be better
than that (and again points out potential problems if it isn't being cleaned:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/watchdog/..._filters.html).

One answer is a hybrid, running on electric power in the conditions most
likely to soot up the filter.
e.g. http://www.gizmag.com/volvo-v60-plug...-hybrid/17940/
But there's a fairly limited choice, and the downsides of hybrids in general
have already been covered in the thread.

More on electric cars.
 

In article , The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Still you cant run a car on coal can you?

You can if there's a war on (well, sort of, coal gas) :-)
http://green.autoblog.com/2007/10/16...1940-coal-gas/

(And there's been some research on fluidized coal burning IC engines,
but nothing practical AFAIK.)

More on electric cars.
 

On 20/09/2012 07:42, harry wrote:

There are a lot of daft ****s here that can't get their heads out of
their arses.

Where "****" would be anyone that does not share your opinion I take it?

They are daft ****s because they pay for domestic fuel and I pay
nothing.

You pay nothing - but someone *is* paying.

Harry, out of interest, how do the numbers work out for your
installation if you took away the FiT payments?

In other words, lets say you can save the cost of purchase of any
electricity you use, and you can sell any surplus to the grid at
industry spot wholesale prices (i.e. significantly below retail, and
varying with time of day - so less during a sunny afternoon, but more on
a winter evening etc).

I have a suspicion that looked at like that, the numbers don't work -
however I would be happy to be proved wrong.

They rabbit on about combi- boilers and other unneccesary **** when
all you need is insulation.

Insulation is not great at heating water. It is also frequently not
economically feasible to fit enough of it to all properties.

I expect they are descendants of people who wanted to keep horse and
carts. (it'll never catch on syndrome)
The price of all fossil fuels will rocket. But not renewable energy
which will come down.

Currently, most "renewable" energy (especially wind) is really just a
disguised vehicle for turning fossil fuels into electricity. Not
directly obviously, but the fuel costs are all embedded in there. Why
else do you suppose it is so expensive?

In twenty years you will be driving an electric car or nothing at all,
regardless of how the technology has progressed. You need to get used
to the idea.

Why not a man made diesel or a hydrogen powered car? Both are doable
with adequate electrical generation capability.

The vehicles themselves are not the real stumbling block. Right now we
don't have the generation capacity to support even a marginal shift to
electric road transportation.

So Drivel you see is a trendsetter. Even if he is mad.

He is probably still wearing flares and a tank top.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

More on electric cars.
 

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 14:25:40 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:



Maybe pure hydrogen fusion is an easier thing to do.. ceramic piston
sucks in water vapour, compresses it, and a laser fires at top dead
centre, making a bang, and some helium

Good idea, the world is running short of helium for party balloons (and particle
accelerators)

... and some oxygen

Too much could lead to the whole planet burning up

Having no CO2 emissions is a big drawback, the planet is cooling rapidly and we
need as much CO2 in the atmosphere as possible :)


--

More on electric cars.
 

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 21:23:32 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

The Other Mike wrote:

and the Prius is even less economical than BMW M3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=badoMjA_rW0

Total ********.

The camera never lies. Not only will you look a dork driving a Prius you are
simultaneously trashing the planet.


--

More on electric cars.
 

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 21:30:33 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

The Other Mike wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 08:37:57 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
geoff wrote:

Yeah - what sports car did he claim to have too ?

DB5 or other exotic?

That I do have.

and it's made by Dinky

They were in Liverpool. This one bigger and made in Newport Pagnell.

Purchased at Newport Pagnell services, from the toy section.


--

More on electric cars.
 

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 22:52:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Still you cant run a car on coal can you?

The South Africans do


--

More on electric cars.
 

On 20/09/2012 12:30, Tony Bryer wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:39:09 +0100 Tim Streater wrote :
Yes, in fact does anyone know why places like Manchester, Edinburgh, are
putting in trams at ruinous expense instead of electric trolley busses?
Apart from the willy-waving factor, that is.

Carrying capacity? Our newest 'Bumblebee' 5-section trams can take up to
240 people.

If one painted out the route - with nice easy rail like curves and
corners etc, how many people would you carry in similar length (or half
length and double decker) electric road train?


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

More on electric cars.
 

John Rumm wrote:
On 20/09/2012 12:30, Tony Bryer wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:39:09 +0100 Tim Streater wrote :
Yes, in fact does anyone know why places like Manchester, Edinburgh, are
putting in trams at ruinous expense instead of electric trolley busses?
Apart from the willy-waving factor, that is.

Carrying capacity? Our newest 'Bumblebee' 5-section trams can take up to
240 people.

If one painted out the route - with nice easy rail like curves and
corners etc, how many people would you carry in similar length (or half
length and double decker) electric road train?


My thoughts exactly.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

More on electric cars.
 

Alan Braggins wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Still you cant run a car on coal can you?

You can if there's a war on (well, sort of, coal gas) :-)
http://green.autoblog.com/2007/10/16...1940-coal-gas/

(And there's been some research on fluidized coal burning IC engines,
but nothing practical AFAIK.)

Well yes- SASOL was making a lot of liquid fuel from coal when S Africa
was under embargo.

But its not the most efficient process is the world.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

More on electric cars.
 

The Other Mike wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 22:52:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Still you cant run a car on coal can you?

The South Africans do


Not directly, no, and not any more IIRC.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

More on electric cars.
 

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Yes, in fact does anyone know why places like Manchester, Edinburgh, are
putting in trams at ruinous expense instead of electric trolley busses?
Apart from the willy-waving factor, that is.

Trams are much more energy efficient. Less rolling friction.

--
*Who is this General Failure chap anyway - and why is he reading my HD? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

More on electric cars.
 

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 23:11:58 +0100, Andy Champ wrote:

On 19/09/2012 13:03, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
The Wankle engine - same as other two stroke designs - suffers from
poor 'cylinder' filling and evacuation.

Dunno what this "Wankle" engine is

It's a contraction of 'wank hole', I think, which explains why drivel
knows so much about it.

More on electric cars.
 

harry wrote:
On Sep 19, 12:37 pm, Steve Firth wrote:
[snip]

In Summer I could charge it in a day from the PV.

No you couldn't.

Don't forget, it wouldn't be run to depletion anyway.
I don't use my car every day.

You don't use your brain any day.

--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

More on electric cars.
 

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Yes, in fact does anyone know why places like Manchester, Edinburgh, are
putting in trams at ruinous expense instead of electric trolley busses?
Apart from the willy-waving factor, that is.

Trams are much more energy efficient. Less rolling friction.

But more weight and infrastructure maintenance. Which respectively
require more energy to accelerate, and generate CO2 emissions. And the
extra congestion they cause makes other road users use more fuel. And
they're less flexible in use. It would be much cheaper and more space
efficient to use trolleybuses on a guided busway.

Trams are good where you have a *lot* of people to move in a steady
stream along a dedicated track. Or is that a train?

Incidentally, the coach I'm driving today will be doing about 300
passenger miles/ gallon later, and did the same this morning,if you
allow for the dead mileage. Our buses on stage carriage average about
200 passenger miles/ gallon if you take the whole day into account,
slightly less for the hybrids.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

More on electric cars.
 

John Williamson wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Yes, in fact does anyone know why places like Manchester, Edinburgh,
are putting in trams at ruinous expense instead of electric trolley
busses? Apart from the willy-waving factor, that is.

Trams are much more energy efficient. Less rolling friction.

But more weight and infrastructure maintenance. Which respectively
require more energy to accelerate, and generate CO2 emissions. And the
extra congestion they cause makes other road users use more fuel. And
they're less flexible in use. It would be much cheaper and more space
efficient to use trolleybuses on a guided busway.

Trams are good where you have a *lot* of people to move in a steady
stream along a dedicated track. Or is that a train?

Incidentally, the coach I'm driving today will be doing about 300
passenger miles/ gallon later, and did the same this morning,if you
allow for the dead mileage. Our buses on stage carriage average about
200 passenger miles/ gallon if you take the whole day into account,
slightly less for the hybrids.


The busses I saw in London were doing about 3 passenger miles per gallon.

One passenger for every three busses.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

More on electric cars.
 

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The busses I saw in London were doing about 3 passenger miles per gallon.

One passenger for every three busses.

Only time I've ever been on an empty bus is where I've got on one at the
terminus. And not for long.

Of course 'they' can't win. Ask a motorist why he never uses buses on a
journey suited to them and the inevitable answer is 'all that waiting
around for one'. Followed by 'too crowded'. ;-)

--
*I'm already visualizing the duct tape over your mouth

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

More on electric cars.
 

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The busses I saw in London were doing about 3 passenger miles per gallon.

One passenger for every three busses.

Only time I've ever been on an empty bus is where I've got on one at the
terminus. And not for long.

Of course 'they' can't win. Ask a motorist why he never uses buses on a
journey suited to them and the inevitable answer is 'all that waiting
around for one'. Followed by 'too crowded'. ;-)

Nope. I used on about 15 years ago, waited 20 minutes and 4 people got
on. I could have walked. Next time I did.

Once I get fed up with the fag end of a party at 4 a.m. That was in
Bayswater,. No taxis. No buses.. No tubes. So I walked. To Belsize park
where I was staying. Took a little over an hour - Smack through the
centre of London with no one about at all. Fabulous.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

More on electric cars.
 

On Sep 20, 9:13*am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
harry wrote:
On Sep 19, 10:38 am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
* *harry wrote:

If I buy an electric car, it will do infinity MPG if worked on a cash
basis. I can charge it from my solar panels.
Your solar panels and associated control gear and wiring etc were free?

--
*Save a tree, eat a beaver*

* * Dave Plowman * * * * * * * * London SW
* * * * * * * * * To e-mail, change noise into sound..

Er, we're talking about relative fuel costs aren't we?
All fuels have a capital cost implication.
But solar has no primary fuel source such as gas oil or coal.
So you buy your panels and there are no other costs apart from repair
s if by badluck you need any..

And in harrys world all the energy used to make them and transport then
and install them is also 'free'

Er,doesn't that come under the capital costs?

More on electric cars.
 

On Sep 20, 9:51*am, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,





*harry wrote:
On Sep 19, 9:48*pm, John Rumm wrote:
On 18/09/2012 17:19, Doctor Drivel wrote:

John Williamson wrote:

It does with the Ampera

Only by using the fossil fuel engine to keep the battery charged.. In
which case, why not just use a simpler internal combustion engined
vehicle?

You are very slow. As the name implies, "hybrid". *Full EV in cities
and when you go long distance occasionally the car runs on the genny
and still gets 60mpg.

And I can get 70mpg on a run in a number of small cars

The Ampera is NOT small. Again dumbo, it runs on zero emissions in the
city where we do not need harmful, toxic emissions. *For the long range

So what harmful toxic emissions come out of conventional modern cars then?

Nitric oxide, Nitrogen dioxide, Hydrogen sulphide. Carbon monoxide,
Carbon dioxide, Carbon particles, Ammonia, Sulphur dioxide, VOCs +
numerous unburned hydrocarbons. Even with a catalyser.

CO2 is not toxic and neither are the "carbon particles" or the "numerous
unburned hydrocarbons".

You should really learn what the word "toxic" means. Cyanide,
f'rinstance *is* toxic.


Carbon particles can give you cancer. And CO2 does not support life
the last I heard.
So you die anyway.
But read this anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercapnia

More on electric cars.
 

On Sep 20, 9:53*am, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,

*harry wrote:
On Sep 19, 12:42*pm, tony sayer wrote:
Harry...

Do you think that we'll have enough ground area to put all the solar
panels that will be needed if that idea might have a chance to work?...

[snip harry's evasion]

So we'll take that as a "No", then.

You put them on the roofs so taking up no additional space and
dispersing them thus reducing the load on the grid and improving
efficiency

More on electric cars.
 

harry wrote:
On Sep 20, 9:13 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
harry wrote:
On Sep 19, 10:38 am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:
If I buy an electric car, it will do infinity MPG if worked on a cash
basis. I can charge it from my solar panels.
Your solar panels and associated control gear and wiring etc were free?
--
*Save a tree, eat a beaver*
Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Er, we're talking about relative fuel costs aren't we?
All fuels have a capital cost implication.
But solar has no primary fuel source such as gas oil or coal.
So you buy your panels and there are no other costs apart from repair
s if by badluck you need any..
And in harrys world all the energy used to make them and transport then
and install them is also 'free'

Er,doesn't that come under the capital costs?

Its still energy darling.

everything is capital costs when it comes down to it, and all capital
plant degrades to scrap eventually,. Solar panels faster than most things.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

More on electric cars.
 

harry wrote:
On Sep 20, 9:51 am, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,





harry wrote:
On Sep 19, 9:48 pm, John Rumm wrote:
On 18/09/2012 17:19, Doctor Drivel wrote:
John Williamson wrote:
It does with the Ampera
Only by using the fossil fuel engine to keep the battery charged. In
which case, why not just use a simpler internal combustion engined
vehicle?
You are very slow. As the name implies, "hybrid". Full EV in cities
and when you go long distance occasionally the car runs on the genny
and still gets 60mpg.
And I can get 70mpg on a run in a number of small cars
The Ampera is NOT small. Again dumbo, it runs on zero emissions in the
city where we do not need harmful, toxic emissions. For the long range
So what harmful toxic emissions come out of conventional modern cars then?
Nitric oxide, Nitrogen dioxide, Hydrogen sulphide. Carbon monoxide,
Carbon dioxide, Carbon particles, Ammonia, Sulphur dioxide, VOCs +
numerous unburned hydrocarbons. Even with a catalyser.
CO2 is not toxic and neither are the "carbon particles" or the "numerous
unburned hydrocarbons".

You should really learn what the word "toxic" means. Cyanide,
f'rinstance *is* toxic.


Carbon particles can give you cancer. And CO2 does not support life
the last I heard.

So plants are not alive?

Wow. Im glad you told me that.

So you die anyway.
But read this anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercapnia


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

More on electric cars.
 

harry wrote:

CO2 does not support life the last I heard.

You're claiming you don't talk to plants, then?