Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Your guess is not well informed. The hypermilers techniques are for ICE's and would not work at all for electric autos.
Lets think about this a moment, take the Nissan Leaf after you get one you have paid roughly around 35 K with takes, etc, out the door. Now if your driving needs are such that it makes sense to drive a short distance to and from work let's say and you recharge it each night, there is the impact on your utility bill to consider as well when it comes to operating costs. Now compare that lets say to a Ford Fusion Hybrid at roughly 22K after you have paid all you need to pay at the dealer. The Ford gets 41 mpg and also works on Electric technology for the same short distance commute. It would seem that from a pure cost standpoint the Ford would make more sense. However, this nation each year spends around 800 Billion dollars in it's fuel needs from foreign sources and many of them use that money to finance operations for groups that do not have our best interests in mind. So it does make sense from a long term point of view both economically and from a national security standpoint to look for practical solutions like EV for our transportation needs. It's worth noting that as technology matures so does it's capability. One of the benefits of that might just be that our nations foreign based fuel consumption diminishes , then those nations that now use that as a means to finance weapons purchases, hatred and hold us hostage economally will no longer have the means to do so and we will prosper.
Fear of the future continues to be the bedrock of conservative thought. I'm sure the great, great grandparents of our conservative friends lamented the motor vehicle, scared of putting black smiths out of work, as well as farmers who grew the feed for beasts of burden and tack rooms all around America.
Fear of the future continues to be the bedrock of conservative thought. I'm sure the great, great grandparents of our conservative friends lamented the motor vehicle, scared of putting black smiths out of work, as well as farmers who grew the feed for beasts of burden and tack rooms all around America.
Lets think about this a moment, take the Nissan Leaf after you get one you have paid roughly around 35 K with takes, etc, out the door. Now if your driving needs are such that it makes sense to drive a short distance to and from work let's say and you recharge it each night, there is the impact on your utility bill to consider as well when it comes to operating costs. Now compare that lets say to a Ford Fusion Hybrid at roughly 22K after you have paid all you need to pay at the dealer. The Ford gets 41 mpg and also works on Electric technology for the same short distance commute. It would seem that from a pure cost standpoint the Ford would make more sense. However, this nation each year spends around 800 Billion dollars in it's fuel needs from foreign sources and many of them use that money to finance operations for groups that do not have our best interests in mind. So it does make sense from a long term point of view both economically and from a national security standpoint to look for practical solutions like EV for our transportation needs. It's worth noting that as technology matures so does it's capability. One of the benefits of that might just be that our nations foreign based fuel consumption diminishes , then those nations that now use that as a means to finance weapons purchases, hatred and hold us hostage economally will no longer have the means to do so and we will prosper.
Let's think about this even further shall we? Most of the power to run your EV is coming from a power plant burning fossil fuels. Most of the plants run off of coal. Most of the CO2 the alarmists bleat about comes from coal fired power plants. You lose a good portion of the electricity you generated in transmission loss. The Leaf costs roughly twice what a good ICE powered auto costs. Further it costs THREE times as much to actually run it. Then what do you do when the battery pack runs out of life cycles? You junk it because no one will pay a dime for a vehicle that will cost 18K to rebattery. The ICE powered vehicle on the other hand can roll on and on and on. Simple maintenance will keep them running well over 200,000 miles these days.
I can go on if you prefer, but your argument that we will save money that is otherwise going to Arab countries is a non starter. The energy to power your little EV has to come from somewhere and currently the simple fact that it costs three times as much to run compared to the ICE option means you are actually using MORE energy than the ICE counterpart. That is called math. Further when it reaches the end of its life it is junk, no one will pay for it so you have the additional loss of resources needed to manufacture a replacement whereas the ICE option can continue to soldier on for many many years theryby negating the expenditure of enrgy to replace it.
EV,s I hope, will eventually have a place. Right now they don't. Get the efficiencies up to at least within 20% of an ICE vehicle and then you will see more people buy them. Figure out how to rebattery them for less than 5K and that will enable more people to afford them in the long run.
In other words, instead of giving our precious money to the likes of Mann and Jones and Hansen, give it to the people who are trying to fix those issues. Then the EV will fly.
Lets think about this a moment, take the Nissan Leaf after you get one you have paid roughly around 35 K with takes, etc, out the door. Now if your driving needs are such that it makes sense to drive a short distance to and from work let's say and you recharge it each night, there is the impact on your utility bill to consider as well when it comes to operating costs. Now compare that lets say to a Ford Fusion Hybrid at roughly 22K after you have paid all you need to pay at the dealer. The Ford gets 41 mpg and also works on Electric technology for the same short distance commute. It would seem that from a pure cost standpoint the Ford would make more sense. However, this nation each year spends around 800 Billion dollars in it's fuel needs from foreign sources and many of them use that money to finance operations for groups that do not have our best interests in mind. So it does make sense from a long term point of view both economically and from a national security standpoint to look for practical solutions like EV for our transportation needs. It's worth noting that as technology matures so does it's capability. One of the benefits of that might just be that our nations foreign based fuel consumption diminishes , then those nations that now use that as a means to finance weapons purchases, hatred and hold us hostage economally will no longer have the means to do so and we will prosper.
Let's think about this even further shall we? Most of the power to run your EV is coming from a power plant burning fossil fuels. Most of the plants run off of coal. Most of the CO2 the alarmists bleat about comes from coal fired power plants. You lose a good portion of the electricity you generated in transmission loss. The Leaf costs roughly twice what a good ICE powered auto costs. Further it costs THREE times as much to actually run it. Then what do you do when the battery pack runs out of life cycles? You junk it because no one will pay a dime for a vehicle that will cost 18K to rebattery. The ICE powered vehicle on the other hand can roll on and on and on. Simple maintenance will keep them running well over 200,000 miles these days.
I can go on if you prefer, but your argument that we will save money that is otherwise going to Arab countries is a non starter. The energy to power your little EV has to come from somewhere and currently the simple fact that it costs three times as much to run compared to the ICE option means you are actually using MORE energy than the ICE counterpart. That is called math. Further when it reaches the end of its life it is junk, no one will pay for it so you have the additional loss of resources needed to manufacture a replacement whereas the ICE option can continue to soldier on for many many years theryby negating the expenditure of enrgy to replace it.
EV,s I hope, will eventually have a place. Right now they don't. Get the efficiencies up to at least within 20% of an ICE vehicle and then you will see more people buy them. Figure out how to rebattery them for less than 5K and that will enable more people to afford them in the long run.
In other words, instead of giving our precious money to the likes of Mann and Jones and Hansen, give it to the people who are trying to fix those issues. Then the EV will fly.
Frist no one has ever accused me of ever being remotly in agreement with Dr. Mann whom I consider to be a fraud and someone looking for publicity and economic gain rather than science. Further, I do think, I pointed out or at least tried to ,that operating costs of the current generation of EV cars and trucks are not only higher than their Hybrid counterparts but also the cost and impact upon a persons utility bill must be factored into that cost. Now having said that, I'm well aware that our nations energy production is in large measure coal based at the moment. Frankly though, I cannot and will not buy the agrument that because technology exists in a current form, it cannot be improved upon, or other means sought to benefit this nation. Every soultion poses some sort of risk or some sort of challenge, it's when we as a nation cease to take those risks is when we relegate ourselves to 3rd world status. I do see EV technology as it matures as a good solution to this nations transportation needs when taken in conjunction with a national self producing energy policy that includes, coal, nuclear, wind, solar, (fill in the blanks). In short the current generation of EV cars is in it's infancy and i'm sure if you purchased a 2011 Ford Mustang with the same operating paramters of a Model T you might come up with the same opinion of the Ford Mustang and its internal combustion engiine.
Your point though on current EV's is a valid one, in that to make a leap to EV technology would given the current operating costs of these vehicles prove economically a disaster. That is why bridge technologies exist, like the Hybrids, that I spoke of, that allow such vehicle to mature to the point where they do make econmic sense. In short if we as a nation choose to move to these techologies we cannot do so without every energy source brought to the table in a safe , and clean manner and I for one am of the opinion our nation still has the ability to do so, if put to the test.
Independence of the grid, of the energy companies is what an EV offers. Presently, the price is too high, although DBM Energy may change that within a couple of years.
Something to remember here is that were you to take the plans of a modern V6 engine to a machine shop, that engine would cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not a million+. It is only the miracle of mass production that makes the present ICEs affordable. Now if DBM Energy has a good product that can be adapted to mass production, they may very well change the equation, and the EVs may cost the same as, or even less, than an ICE driven vehicle.
A combination of gridtied solar and an EV would create an economic independence to be envied.
Let's think about this even further shall we? Most of the power to run your EV is coming from a power plant burning fossil fuels. Most of the plants run off of coal. Most of the CO2 the alarmists bleat about comes from coal fired power plants. You lose a good portion of the electricity you generated in transmission loss. The Leaf costs roughly twice what a good ICE powered auto costs. Further it costs THREE times as much to actually run it. Then what do you do when the battery pack runs out of life cycles? You junk it because no one will pay a dime for a vehicle that will cost 18K to rebattery. The ICE powered vehicle on the other hand can roll on and on and on. Simple maintenance will keep them running well over 200,000 miles these days.
I can go on if you prefer, but your argument that we will save money that is otherwise going to Arab countries is a non starter. The energy to power your little EV has to come from somewhere and currently the simple fact that it costs three times as much to run compared to the ICE option means you are actually using MORE energy than the ICE counterpart. That is called math. Further when it reaches the end of its life it is junk, no one will pay for it so you have the additional loss of resources needed to manufacture a replacement whereas the ICE option can continue to soldier on for many many years theryby negating the expenditure of enrgy to replace it.
EV,s I hope, will eventually have a place. Right now they don't. Get the efficiencies up to at least within 20% of an ICE vehicle and then you will see more people buy them. Figure out how to rebattery them for less than 5K and that will enable more people to afford them in the long run.
In other words, instead of giving our precious money to the likes of Mann and Jones and Hansen, give it to the people who are trying to fix those issues. Then the EV will fly.
Frist no one has ever accused me of ever being remotly in agreement with Dr. Mann whom I consider to be a fraud and someone looking for publicity and economic gain rather than science. Further, I do think, I pointed out or at least tried to ,that operating costs of the current generation of EV cars and trucks are not only higher than their Hybrid counterparts but also the cost and impact upon a persons utility bill must be factored into that cost. Now having said that, I'm well aware that our nations energy production is in large measure coal based at the moment. Frankly though, I cannot and will not buy the agrument that because technology exists in a current form, it cannot be improved upon, or other means sought to benefit this nation. Every soultion poses some sort of risk or some sort of challenge, it's when we as a nation cease to take those risks is when we relegate ourselves to 3rd world status. I do see EV technology as it matures as a good solution to this nations transportation needs when taken in conjunction with a national self producing energy policy that includes, coal, nuclear, wind, solar, (fill in the blanks). In short the current generation of EV cars is in it's infancy and i'm sure if you purchased a 2011 Ford Mustang with the same operating paramters of a Model T you might come up with the same opinion of the Ford Mustang and its internal combustion engiine.
Your point though on current EV's is a valid one, in that to make a leap to EV technology would given the current operating costs of these vehicles prove economically a disaster. That is why bridge technologies exist, like the Hybrids, that I spoke of, that allow such vehicle to mature to the point where they do make econmic sense. In short if we as a nation choose to move to these techologies we cannot do so without every energy source brought to the table in a safe , and clean manner and I for one am of the opinion our nation still has the ability to do so, if put to the test.
Technology will of course improve. The current waste of money by the AGW alarmists ius what I wish to halt. I would much rather see the money they waste go to the scientists and entrepeneurs who are developing the technology to take us away from ICE vehicles.
Hybrids are a stepping stone but they too actually are more harmful to the environment to produce then a Ford F-150. They suffer from the same problem as the EV's do when the battery pack dies as well. That being said I support their continued development because eventually that will no longer be true.
My biggest problem is the environmentalists belief that EV's are the great panacea that will cure all ills of the world. They ignore the fact that EV's for a very long time will be more environmentally damaging than ICE vehicles. They ignore the simple fact that the electricity has to come from somewhere. That is a huge problem. That needs to be stopped.
Frist no one has ever accused me of ever being remotly in agreement with Dr. Mann whom I consider to be a fraud and someone looking for publicity and economic gain rather than science. Further, I do think, I pointed out or at least tried to ,that operating costs of the current generation of EV cars and trucks are not only higher than their Hybrid counterparts but also the cost and impact upon a persons utility bill must be factored into that cost. Now having said that, I'm well aware that our nations energy production is in large measure coal based at the moment. Frankly though, I cannot and will not buy the agrument that because technology exists in a current form, it cannot be improved upon, or other means sought to benefit this nation. Every soultion poses some sort of risk or some sort of challenge, it's when we as a nation cease to take those risks is when we relegate ourselves to 3rd world status. I do see EV technology as it matures as a good solution to this nations transportation needs when taken in conjunction with a national self producing energy policy that includes, coal, nuclear, wind, solar, (fill in the blanks). In short the current generation of EV cars is in it's infancy and i'm sure if you purchased a 2011 Ford Mustang with the same operating paramters of a Model T you might come up with the same opinion of the Ford Mustang and its internal combustion engiine.
Your point though on current EV's is a valid one, in that to make a leap to EV technology would given the current operating costs of these vehicles prove economically a disaster. That is why bridge technologies exist, like the Hybrids, that I spoke of, that allow such vehicle to mature to the point where they do make econmic sense. In short if we as a nation choose to move to these techologies we cannot do so without every energy source brought to the table in a safe , and clean manner and I for one am of the opinion our nation still has the ability to do so, if put to the test.
Technology will of course improve. The current waste of money by the AGW alarmists ius what I wish to halt. I would much rather see the money they waste go to the scientists and entrepeneurs who are developing the technology to take us away from ICE vehicles.
Hybrids are a stepping stone but they too actually are more harmful to the environment to produce then a Ford F-150. They suffer from the same problem as the EV's do when the battery pack dies as well. That being said I support their continued development because eventually that will no longer be true.
My biggest problem is the environmentalists belief that EV's are the great panacea that will cure all ills of the world. They ignore the fact that EV's for a very long time will be more environmentally damaging than ICE vehicles. They ignore the simple fact that the electricity has to come from somewhere. That is a huge problem. That needs to be stopped.
Power generation MUST be part of an overall solution in order for any EV, Hybrid, or improved ICE, solution to work. If it's not then you suffer from high costs , not only in front end where you see the cost difference between current EV's, Hybrids, and ICE vehicles, but the disposal of such things as battery packs. I will say though that even in the disposal part of the solution it is possible even with existing technology to have a complete solution that involves disposal and recycling. It's my contention there are too many players in this with too many self interests guiding them and none of them have the overall goal of leading this nation into a brighter future that does not involve bending our knee's to foreign nations for our energy needs. Just though you all migh be interested in the following little article as a side note to our discussion.
Lithium Batteries
The contents of the batteries are exposed using a shredder or a high-speed hammer depending on battery size. The contents are then submerged in caustic (basic not acidic) water. This caustic solution neutralizes the electrolytes, and ferrous and non-ferrous metals are recovered. The clean scrap metal is then sold to metal recyclers. The solution is then filtered. The carbon is recovered and pressed into moist sheets of carbon cake. Some of the carbon is recycled with cobalt. The lithium in the solution (lithium hydroxide) is converted to lithium carbonate, a fine white powder. What results is technical grade lithium carbonate, which is used to make lithium ingot metal and foil for batteries. It also provides lithium metal for resale and for the manufacture of sulfur dioxide batteries
How Battery Recycling Works
This site does explain the process of recycling several types of batteries wet and dry cell. Just as food for thought here, I do believe as the technology matures and it becomes more cost effective the average consumer will move too it. Much like the early cell phone for those of us old enough to remember how large and how much the original ones cost.
