Electric Cars Great....Indoors

[PoliticalChic]

Oh, nooooo!

Not more bad news for our Warmist pals!


Yup.....AAA tested electric cars and found they perform poorly in cold weather......

....and in hot weather.



1. "The average electric vehicle battery range for each full charge in AAA's test was 105 miles at 75 degrees Fahrenheit.

2. That dropped 57% to 43 miles when the temperature was held steady at 20 degrees.

3. Warm temperatures were not as stressful but still delivered a lower average of 69 miles per full charge at 95 degrees, AAA said.



4. The AAA Automotive Research Center in Southern California found that the average range of an electric car dropped 57% in very cold weather – at 20 degrees Fahrenheit – and by 33% in extreme heat, a temperature of 95 degrees.

5. .....we did not expect the degradation we saw," said Greg Brannon, AAA's director of automotive engineering.....a 2013 Nissan Leaf, a 2012 Mitsubishi iMIEV and a 2014 Ford Focus Electric Vehicle....

a. ...The three vehicles chosen were selected because they're the most widely available electric cars in the USA,...




6. ....two of the vehicles, ... were equipped with dedicated management of the battery temperature.
"We were expecting that difference would yield differences in the optimal range of the vehicles in extreme temperatures," he said. "It did not."


7. Among AAA's recommendations: storing the electric car in a garage; monitoring recharge times in colder weather; preheating or cooling the car while it's plugged in to reduce battery drain, and using electric seat heaters to keep warm."
AAA: Range of electric cars cut in cold, hot weather





So.....as long as the temperature is 75 degrees.....you're fine.

Only driving indoors is the answer......




Or......hope for global warming.

 

[RGR]

So.....as long as the temperature is 75 degrees.....you're fine.

Only driving indoors is the answer......

So when I've been driving mine outside to take the kids to school when it was 0F outside...I wasn't supposed to? Somehow I didn't accurately notice how...not...fine...I was?

Yikes...someone should have told me my wonderful commuting experience was supposed to be something else, based on their vast experience of never having owned one.

 

[HenryBHough]

Friend recently moved from Fairbanks, Alaska to a small town in Indiana. She had her Toyota Pious (as she called it) put in a box and transported in the moving van. She bought the car to save money driving her kids to school. It did save her money! She drove them from home to the school daily until mid-October. After that she'd drive them halfway there and kick 'em out to walk the rest of the way so she'd have enough battery left to get the car home to recharge so she could pick them up from the halfway point when school closed.

She didn't move exclusively so she could do the round trip each day all year but she won't deny it was a factor in the decision.

 

[mamooth]

Given that the Prius has a gasoline engine, that story makes no sense.

 

[HenryBHough]

Given that the Prius has a gasoline engine, that story makes no sense.

It does if you're so adamant about saving the planet that you don't put gas in it. I never said she wasn't an enviro-loon of a zealotry that puts yours and most liberals to shame!

 

[Mr. H.]

Speed Raceway | Indoor Go Karts PA & NJ Locations

Indoor electric go-kart racing.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So.....as long as the temperature is 75 degrees.....you're fine.

Only driving indoors is the answer......

So when I've been driving mine outside to take the kids to school when it was 0F outside...I wasn't supposed to? Somehow I didn't accurately notice how...not...fine...I was?

Yikes...someone should have told me my wonderful commuting experience was supposed to be something else, based on their vast experience of never having owned one.

Are you arguing with me about the efficacy of electric cars, or making excuses for your own gullibility?


Take up the argument with the scientists and engineers at the AAA.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Given that the Prius has a gasoline engine, that story makes no sense.

It does if you're so adamant about saving the planet that you don't put gas in it. I never said she wasn't an enviro-loon of a zealotry that puts yours and most liberals to shame!

‘In fact, more than half of the Prius buyers surveyed this spring by CNW Marketing Research of Bandon, Ore., said the main reason they purchased their car was that “it makes a statement about me.” ‘
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/04/business/04hybrid.html

 

[rightwinger]

Drill baby drill

We don't need no lectric cars

 

[westwall]

Speed Raceway | Indoor Go Karts PA & NJ Locations

Indoor electric go-kart racing.

That looks like fun!

 

[westwall]

Drill baby drill

We don't need no lectric cars

It keeps the lights on...

 

[rightwinger]

Why do Conservatives root for the failure of any new technology that challenges the internal combustion engine?

Drill baby drill

 

[westwall]

Why do Conservatives root for the failure of any new technology that challenges the internal combustion engine?

Drill baby drill

Critical thinkers don't. What we root for is the most efficient, cheapest form of energy possible so that the poor can afford it. No "renewable" energy source has been able to do that. I USE solar and water power for some of my energy needs. We were off the grid when I first built this house and that's where solar does best OFF GRID.

What I despise is giving huge quantities of public money to friends of politicians to pad their wallets while pushing an inferior product on the public. I hate the fact that oil is used to run cars, I really do.. it can be used for so many better purposes. But there has been no meaningful advancement in decades in alternate powered vehicles.

I love the new Tesla, I don't like the fact that poor peoples tax money is being used to produce a vehicle that only rich people can afford to buy however. You're all about fairness yet you seem to think it's A-OK to take money from poor folks to benefit rich folks.

That just seems weird.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why do Conservatives root for the failure of any new technology that challenges the internal combustion engine?

Drill baby drill

"Solyndra Scandal
Key coverage of the investigation into Solyndra, the Silicon Valley startup that collapsed, leaving taxpayers liable for $535 million in federal guarantees ."
Solyndra Scandal | Full Coverage of Failed Solar Startup - The Washington Post


Why do Leftists continue to throw taxpayer funds into the bottomless pit of failure....

...unless it is simply a way to reward their donors....

 

[rightwinger]

Why do Conservatives root for the failure of any new technology that challenges the internal combustion engine?

Drill baby drill

"Solyndra Scandal
Key coverage of the investigation into Solyndra, the Silicon Valley startup that collapsed, leaving taxpayers liable for $535 million in federal guarantees ."
Solyndra Scandal | Full Coverage of Failed Solar Startup - The Washington Post


Why do Leftists continue to throw taxpayer funds into the bottomless pit of failure....

...unless it is simply a way to reward their donors....

Yup

And a hundred years ago oil went through those same growing pains. It was a new energy source looking for a use.
But the US Government invested billions in transportation infrastructure that made a car more practical than a horse

 

[westwall]

Why do Conservatives root for the failure of any new technology that challenges the internal combustion engine?

Drill baby drill

"Solyndra Scandal
Key coverage of the investigation into Solyndra, the Silicon Valley startup that collapsed, leaving taxpayers liable for $535 million in federal guarantees ."
Solyndra Scandal | Full Coverage of Failed Solar Startup - The Washington Post


Why do Leftists continue to throw taxpayer funds into the bottomless pit of failure....

...unless it is simply a way to reward their donors....

Because they are corrupt. Just look who the beneficiaries of that money were. Pelosi, Feinstein and their friends and family. It was legalized theft of poor peoples tax money all to benefit the rich and powerful in California politics.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why do Conservatives root for the failure of any new technology that challenges the internal combustion engine?

Drill baby drill

"Solyndra Scandal
Key coverage of the investigation into Solyndra, the Silicon Valley startup that collapsed, leaving taxpayers liable for $535 million in federal guarantees ."
Solyndra Scandal | Full Coverage of Failed Solar Startup - The Washington Post


Why do Leftists continue to throw taxpayer funds into the bottomless pit of failure....

...unless it is simply a way to reward their donors....

Yup

And a hundred years ago oil went through those same growing pains. It was a new energy source looking for a use.
But the US Government invested billions in transportation infrastructure that made a car more practical than a horse

Now,now.....are you pretending that you missed the implication that Leftists invest in these failures simply to kick back taxpayer funds to their supporters????



Let's take a trip down memory lane.....



1. “On March 3, 2007 USA Today ran a piece on then-Senator Obama regarding two stocks in his portfolio. Obama was running for President and his critics were stating that the Senator may have been involved in insider trading, cronyism, using his position for personal gain, etc. Basically the media ran this story for a day, and then kissed it goodbye. Could you imagine the outrage if these same set of circumstances involved a Republican running for President?”
Obama the Investor ? Brian Sussman


2. And, from the original AP story: WASHINGTON — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday he was not aware he had invested in two companies backed by some of his top donors and said he had done nothing to aid their business with the government. The Illinois senator faced questions about more than $50,000 in investments he made right after taking office in 2005 in two speculative companies, AVI Biopharma and Skyterra Communications.


3. Obama purchased $5,000 in shares for AVI, which was developing a drug to treat avian flu. Two weeks after buying the stock, as the disease was spreading in Asia, Obama pushed for more federal funding to fight the disease, but he said he did not discuss the matter with any company officials.



4. Obama also had more than $50,000 in shares of Skyterra, a company that had just received federal permission to create a nationwide wireless network that combined satellite and land-based communications systems. Among the company’s top investors were donors who raised more than $150,000 for Obama’s political committees, the New York Times reported Wednesday.

a. 'Skyterra' doesn’t ring a bell? Well, how about under its new name: LightSquared? “Reston-based satellite company SkyTerra Communications Inc. re-emerged July 20 as LightSquared,…”
SkyTerra, now LightSquared, enters the national 4G race - Washington Business Journal

b. “The liberal Daily Beast reports on a broadband project backed by a frequent Obama White House visitor and donor that has Pentagon officials concerned over potential military GPS interference. The Obama FCC took the lead in intervening on the donor, billionaire hedge fund manager Philip Falcone’s, behalf and granting his company called “LightSquared” one of those coveted Obama waivers from existing law. Then Obama officials reportedly pressured a general to alter his testimony about the company’s impact on military satellite transmissions.” Michelle Malkin | » LightSquared: The next Obama pay-for-play morass?



5. Obama said he didn’t invest in a qualified blind trust because it wouldn’t enable him to limit which companies he invested in, such as those in the tobacco industry and other areas that he did not want to support. USATODAY.com - Obama faces questions on his investments





Just another Chicago thug-thief.

Wipe that egg off your face.

 

[westwall]

Why do Conservatives root for the failure of any new technology that challenges the internal combustion engine?

Drill baby drill

"Solyndra Scandal
Key coverage of the investigation into Solyndra, the Silicon Valley startup that collapsed, leaving taxpayers liable for $535 million in federal guarantees ."
Solyndra Scandal | Full Coverage of Failed Solar Startup - The Washington Post


Why do Leftists continue to throw taxpayer funds into the bottomless pit of failure....

...unless it is simply a way to reward their donors....

Yup

And a hundred years ago oil went through those same growing pains. It was a new energy source looking for a use.
But the US Government invested billions in transportation infrastructure that made a car more practical than a horse

Actually, it didn't. Prior to petroleum whale oil, and coal oil were the predominant sources of indoor lighting fuel. Both had enormous problems, not the least of which was the three foot deep cloud of smoke in your home when you were using your lights (why do you think old houses had twelve foot ceilings) and of course the grotesque number of whales being killed for their oil.

Kerosene came along and it was cheaper, cleaner (by far), and easier to use. And, just so you know, petroleum products have been in use for over 2000 years.

 

[RGR]

Yikes...someone should have told me my wonderful commuting experience was supposed to be something else, based on their vast experience of never having owned one.

Are you arguing with me about the efficacy of electric cars, or making excuses for your own gullibility?

I have no argument about efficiency, but those who do not use them apparently don't realize how that has nothing to do with their use in modern America suburbia. And I certainly didn't buy mine based on gullibility but the ABILITY to do something the average american commuter CAN'T...which is avoid the corner extortion stores for months at a time.

And of course if I don't buy liquid fuels, I can spend that money on other stuff. Feel free to spend your money on liquid fuels just to move your body around, but that strikes me as where the gullibility lies.

Take up the argument with the scientists and engineers at the AAA.

Why? I don't use liquid fuels....which is the point of the exercise. What are they going to tell me that i don't already know? Are they going to insist I use more liquid fuels? Are they going to insist that I CAN'T do EXACTLY what I have been doing for years now? Do they live in a different dimension where their liquid fuels cost is less than the cost of electrical fuels for my car?

Why exactly would I want to argue with them when my electric is doing exactly what was advertised? And costs less? And I don't have to buy liquid fuels?

You don't like electrics? Don't buy them. But those of us using them and those cars meeting our expectations, hell, we don't need to talk to engineers anywhere. The things just work. Just as they are supposed to.

Perhaps your expectations need recalibrated?

 

[rightwinger]

"Solyndra Scandal
Key coverage of the investigation into Solyndra, the Silicon Valley startup that collapsed, leaving taxpayers liable for $535 million in federal guarantees ."
Solyndra Scandal | Full Coverage of Failed Solar Startup - The Washington Post


Why do Leftists continue to throw taxpayer funds into the bottomless pit of failure....

...unless it is simply a way to reward their donors....

Yup

And a hundred years ago oil went through those same growing pains. It was a new energy source looking for a use.
But the US Government invested billions in transportation infrastructure that made a car more practical than a horse

Now,now.....are you pretending that you missed the implication that Leftists invest in these failures simply to kick back taxpayer funds to their supporters????



Let's take a trip down memory lane.....



1. “On March 3, 2007 USA Today ran a piece on then-Senator Obama regarding two stocks in his portfolio. Obama was running for President and his critics were stating that the Senator may have been involved in insider trading, cronyism, using his position for personal gain, etc. Basically the media ran this story for a day, and then kissed it goodbye. Could you imagine the outrage if these same set of circumstances involved a Republican running for President?”
Obama the Investor ? Brian Sussman


2. And, from the original AP story: WASHINGTON — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday he was not aware he had invested in two companies backed by some of his top donors and said he had done nothing to aid their business with the government. The Illinois senator faced questions about more than $50,000 in investments he made right after taking office in 2005 in two speculative companies, AVI Biopharma and Skyterra Communications.


3. Obama purchased $5,000 in shares for AVI, which was developing a drug to treat avian flu. Two weeks after buying the stock, as the disease was spreading in Asia, Obama pushed for more federal funding to fight the disease, but he said he did not discuss the matter with any company officials.



4. Obama also had more than $50,000 in shares of Skyterra, a company that had just received federal permission to create a nationwide wireless network that combined satellite and land-based communications systems. Among the company’s top investors were donors who raised more than $150,000 for Obama’s political committees, the New York Times reported Wednesday.

a. 'Skyterra' doesn’t ring a bell? Well, how about under its new name: LightSquared? “Reston-based satellite company SkyTerra Communications Inc. re-emerged July 20 as LightSquared,…”
SkyTerra, now LightSquared, enters the national 4G race - Washington Business Journal

b. “The liberal Daily Beast reports on a broadband project backed by a frequent Obama White House visitor and donor that has Pentagon officials concerned over potential military GPS interference. The Obama FCC took the lead in intervening on the donor, billionaire hedge fund manager Philip Falcone’s, behalf and granting his company called “LightSquared” one of those coveted Obama waivers from existing law. Then Obama officials reportedly pressured a general to alter his testimony about the company’s impact on military satellite transmissions.” Michelle Malkin | » LightSquared: The next Obama pay-for-play morass?



5. Obama said he didn’t invest in a qualified blind trust because it wouldn’t enable him to limit which companies he invested in, such as those in the tobacco industry and other areas that he did not want to support. USATODAY.com - Obama faces questions on his investments





Just another Chicago thug-thief.

Wipe that egg off your face.

PC strikes again...trying to derail her own thread

Is there some reason you believe oil companies are not corrupting our political process?

Has your head been in the sand about what has happened in the last 100 years with Big Oil?