The American Spectator

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 6.27.11 @ 6:18AM

Based on your article, I'm sure someone at the federal D.O.T. will insist that society create more rich idiots, not fewer overpriced economically inefficient electric vehicles.

Handy| 6.28.11 @ 5:01AM

Bill,
I actually know a lot of supermodels. One bought a Tesla and challenged me to a race from Chicago to Atlanta. I drive a 1999 Audi wagon.

Bottom line short. I arrived in 10 hours with no tickets, athough I did take it up to about 150 MPH in a brief stretch of I-65. She came in two days later with three speeding tickets. Apparently not even a Tesla can outrun helicopters and Motorolas.

And, apparently not every gas station is equipped to recharge electric cars. She got stuck in a Kankakee Motel 8 until they figured out how to power her to Louisville, KY on the next charge.

Motel 8's are fine with me, but they nust be hell on supermodels.

Dollface| 6.27.11 @ 6:48AM

Didn't Obama give them a bunch of stimulus money?

Carmudgeon| 6.27.11 @ 10:20AM

Brian B. at eight clicks below our exchange posted the comment I was going to make about the millions in Porkulus funds our Barry threw at Tesla.

Bill| 6.27.11 @ 7:07AM

All of the environmental wackos and the liberals should be required to buy one of these cars. Put their money where their mouth is and lets see the results.

Redstateboy| 6.27.11 @ 4:50PM

Bill?? Having Liber-uls put THEIR money where THEIR big mouths are would be in violation of the Liber-ul collectivist lemming philosophy. With Liber-uls?? Everyone must go over the Cliff collectively.

Gary| 6.27.11 @ 7:13AM

The market delivers its unmistakable message: No one wants a coal-fired, all-electric car.

Can't you just hear the bureaucrats now? "But, they should want these cars!"

You can lead a liberal to water...

Cabermon| 6.28.11 @ 8:40AM

....but he'll demand Perrier. On your nickel.

LMajito| 6.27.11 @ 7:52AM

as somebody who watched these environmental groups claiming to be a majority when in reality they're only one group (albeit small) of fools that try to morph into several groups and thus give the appearance of being a large numbers, i knew that these so called green products only have a handful of supporters that give the appearance (thanks to the lamestring media) of being huge number of citizens.

these clowns should learn from toyota or nissan (datsun back in the day) that penetrated the market with low priced, sensible cars that caught on...after all the initial toyota corolla could no climb the san francisco hills (except in reverse)...

JimH| 6.27.11 @ 8:08AM

I wonder what the disposition of their suit against Top Gear is. The lads on the program essentially pointed out that the Tesla would require a real long extension cord to be of any use.

lydia| 6.27.11 @ 8:29AM

I am a 28 years old doctor, mature and beautiful.and now I am seeking a good man who can give me real love , so i got a username Andromeda2002 on--s'e'ek'c'ou'ga'r.c óm--.it is the first and best club for y'ounger women and old'er men, or older women and y'ounger men,to int'eract with each other. Maybe you wanna ch'eck 'it out or tell your friends!
these clowns should learn from toyota or nissan (datsun back in the day) that penetrated the market with low priced, sensible cars that caught on...after all the initial toyota corolla could no climb the san francisco hills (except in reverse)...

darudz| 6.27.11 @ 2:11PM

Lydia,
Get off this site!

Bob Grant| 6.27.11 @ 9:33PM

Indeed!

Let's see. She's 28 years old, a doctor, and beautiful, yet desperate enough to troll a conservative website in which the median age (I'm guessing) of those commenting is twice hers.

It all makes perfect sense!

Belize042| 6.27.11 @ 11:06PM

"Penetrated?" Oh, you naughty, naughty spambot.

Louis Jenkins| 6.27.11 @ 8:30AM

It only took a couple of years, as we all knew, before Telsa went bottom up. Now the new sedan might sell a few copies, but it will go bottom up as well. Only the uber rich can afford it, not those of us who would drive gas powered vehicles. Electric autos rival the modern wear that we see slinky models wearing while strutting the runway. They may be nice but we can't afford them.

Charles Ingalls| 6.27.11 @ 9:08AM

Don't mock Tesla, building a reliable car that doesn't depend on gasoline will require plenty of mistakes and people with the courage to stumble. The magazines and tv shows deserve more ridicule, they tell you how wonderful the "wave of the future" will be whether they know it's practical or not. All to deceive readers and viewers into paying attention for five minutes.

Dan Hirsch| 6.27.11 @ 9:41AM

Chuck;

You betcha! Just so long as private investors are the dopes being fooled into a venture that current technology cannot support, especially in light of how hard it is to amend those darn laws of physics.

But let's don't rely on the "wisdom" you seem to divine in the "magazines and tv shows..." the technically-naive sector of the media pushing electric cars should not ber trusted. After all they have gluttonously devoured the global warming/climate change and re-engorged themselves on it repeatedly after spewing it back out.

You have to do your own research, using your own common sense, reason, and sources. Allowing mainstream pop media to do it for you will leave you confused, bamboozled, and robbed.

It is not that hard...

Stuart Koehl| 6.27.11 @ 11:02AM

Put quite simply, one can can build a reliable car that doesn't depend on gasoline, right now, without any new technology. It's called "diesel", and they use it in Europe quite a bit, so that you can get diesel-powered full-size sedans that get mileage in the high thirties, economy cars with mileage in the high forties--and in Europe, diesel is priced lower than petrol (as well it should be, since gasoline requires more refining than diesel). Moreover, modern diesel engines are quite as clean as gasoline engines, and equally reliable to boot.

The prejudice against diesel in the U.S. is the single largest impediment to improving fuel economy and reducing our consumption of oil. Moreover, as diesel does its job without the aid of ethanol, we can kiss that boondoggle goodbye as well.

Skippy| 6.27.11 @ 2:28PM

I sell Fords.
We have 4 diesel engines we sell worldwide that go in cars, small and mid-sized trucks, and commercial vehicles.
The US EPA will not allow us to sell them here because...well, they just won't.
More evidence that the Govt. man is here and he just wants to help.

Occam's Tool| 6.27.11 @ 4:08PM

I will be interested in electric vehicles when they get one that is a pickup 4 wheel truck that has a 100 mile radius and can maintain charge in minus 40 fahrenheit---and can push through snow like my GMC, while recharging from full drain in 6 hours or less. When they get that for under 50K, yeah, I'll be interested then. Then I could use it as a work vehicle. Until then, give me a break.

Purpleguy| 6.27.11 @ 4:53PM

so you wouldn't want the Model T, the first mass produced Ford would you? The truck your talking about came decades after the first autos were built. If all thought the same you do, nothing new would ever happen. You're obviously not a risk taker, and that's fine, but it's not necessary to criticize those who want to move forward with new technologies - ideology aside.

Stuart Koehl| 6.27.11 @ 8:38PM

Things the Model T was that the Tesla was not:

1. Practical--could carry a family of four plus luggage
2. Affordable--every man could own one.
3. Reliable--ran regularly and was easy to repair.
4. Supportable--tapped into the existing petroleum distribution network.

There really is no comparing the Model T with the Tesla--a more appropriate analogy would be Daimler's first 1896 model--a toy for rich people built by hand for no purpose other than ostentatious display.

Purpleguy| 6.28.11 @ 11:45AM

I was comparing the attitude of then and now, not the actual cars .. or did you miss that point?

Stuart Koehl| 6.28.11 @ 1:08PM

The attitude toward the Model T was shaped by its practicality, affordability, reliability, and supportability. If the Model T had had the attributes of the Tesla, it would not have been the Model T, hence it would not have changed attitudes toward the automobile.

You see, the Model T was truly mass produced--the Tesla was not. The Model T was the first car for the average man. The Tesla most certainly is not. The Model T was a practical tool, the Tesla a cross between a science project and a millionaire's toy.

Your analogy therefore crashes and burns because you are trying to compare two cars that are not equivalent in the roles you set out for them. It is inapt.

This is not the first time you have foundered on the rocks of false analogy. I'll bet you went to college after they dropped that part of the SATs.

Rick Z| 7.11.11 @ 11:45PM

IIRC, Barry's Stimulation gave Tesla over $500 million to build a factory, complete engineering work. ..... ..... ..... Sharp looking car --- they should have stopped with the Matchbox series.

Brian B| 6.27.11 @ 10:13AM

--And next: Who is backing this venture?--

We are. Tesla got a $465 million government loan from Barry in 2009.

David Minnich| 6.27.11 @ 10:44PM

Just another $465 million flushed down the toilet.

Wes in MT| 6.27.11 @ 10:35AM

Electric vehicles make sense only for really short trips in temperate weather. That's why it is somewhat successful for golf carts and small fork lifts. I hated the electric fork lifts - the battery would always fade just when you needed it.
Honestly, the windmill and solar panel crowd have been spouting the same nonsense for over 30 years - "the next great leap is just 10 years out" so they finally have politicians that buy their line of crap. Yet, we don't drill for domestic oil and gas because " it won't hit the market for 10 years". Any one see a pattern???? Deny smart, common sense moves because it will take too long to help, but keep throwing money down the rathole that is alternative energy. Maybe the new and improved "O-NASA" can research fairy dust and unicorn magic along with the flying carpets in the "muslim outreach " department. Maybe they can also make folks want to ride trains again as well. Sadly, you cannot fix stupid.

Stuart Koehl| 6.27.11 @ 11:26AM

The problem of the electric car is analogous to the problem of the electric submarine: batteries have a low energy density, provide power for relatively limited times, and need extended periods for recharging.

That is why purely electric submarines were never practical--all of them had some sort of internal combustion engine to propel the submarine while it was on the surface and to recharge the batteries.

Most submarines used either a diesel-direct drive, in which the diesel engines were connected either to a generator to charge the batteries or to the propeller shaft, using a clutch. Others used diesel-electric drive, in which the the diesels were connected to a dynamo that could be used both to drive an electric motor connected to the propeller shaft, or to charge the batteries. This system was more flexible.

Diesel-direct drive is analogous to the system used on the Prius, where the gasoline engine kicks in to propel the car when the battery runs down. Diesel-electric is closer to the Volt, where the small donkey motor keeps the batteries topped up, the car being propelled at all times by an electric motor.

Diesel-electric submarines can combine high speed and long range--but only while on the surface. Surface speeds for modern diesel-electric boats is on the order of 15 knots, with ranges upwards of 10,000 nautical miles.

Once they pull the plug, it's another matter: while maximum submerged speed can be considerably higher (because the electric motor is more powerful than the diesel plant, and because hull shape is optimized for submerged speed) at 20 knots or more, this is the "one hour rated speed"; i.e., after an hour at top speed, the battery is flat. Submerged endurance is inversely proportional to speed: at a 3 knot crawl, a submerged diesel-electric boat can stay down for as long as a week, but its range is a paltry 500 miles or so.

This is why, in naval parlance, submerged diesel-electric submarines are often called "mobile mines": they do not have the submerged speed and endurance to chase after targets, but have to wait and hope a target comes to them.

Electric cars are no different: their range will always be inversely proportional to their speed (plus the auxiliary load), and will always be inferior to that of internal combustion vehicles, because of the greater energy density of gasoline and diesel fuel.

Purpleguy| 6.27.11 @ 4:56PM

And, yet the combustion engine in cars today is only 12% efficient ... the rest is simply heat. Surely, we can do better than that ...

Stuart Koehl| 6.27.11 @ 8:39PM

Perfect is the enemy of good enough.

Bob Grant| 6.27.11 @ 9:36PM

Then buy yourself a clown car and be done with it.

And don't call me Shirley!!

chuck| 6.27.11 @ 9:36PM

If you're so damned smart, why don;t you do the engineering to make either the internal combustion engine more efficient, or develop the necessary batteries so make electric cars financially feasible.

But I guess it's easier for you to make your usual stupid comments, Purpleguy!

David Minnich| 6.27.11 @ 10:27PM

Actually, gasoline engines are about 30% efficient at converting fuel to mechanical energy, according to the Department of Energy - diesel engines are about 45% on the same measure, but dopey federal government doesn't permit most of them.
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ve.....engine.pdf

Purpleguy| 6.28.11 @ 11:48AM

Wow, you're a believer in the Department of Energy .. that's a first on this site. Anyway, both engines are polluting giants while clean electric cars are on the way. Hold onto to your buggy whips.

Stuart Koehl| 6.28.11 @ 1:10PM

Relying on a published report from an agency does not constitute endorsement of the agency or its mission.

In addition to making false analogies, you are also prone to drawing false conclusions.

Dagny Taggert| 6.28.11 @ 2:59PM

Where does the electricity come from? If it's "clean energy" then it's subsidized by you and me. If it's "dirty energy" then you're back to the original problem.

Stuart Koehl| 6.28.11 @ 4:20PM

No, you are actually worse off, because in evaluating the efficiency of a vehicle, one must consider the entire manufacturing chain and the efficiency of the total energy budget.

So, in comparing energy efficiency, we have to look at the cost of extracting the raw materials needed to build an electric vehicle, including the rare elements needed to produce the batteries; the cost of transportation; the energy needed to produce the finished parts, and then, finally, the cost of the energy needed to make the vehicle run.

In the case of an internal combustion engine, the costs of extracting and refining petroleum are quite low in comparison to the energy stored per unit mass. On the other hand, not only are batteries expensive to make, they are highly inefficient (mass vs. energy) and dirty to produce. Beyond that, to get the electrons into the battery, they have to be produced at a power plant, which has its own energy budget, transmitted over power lines (with their own energy budget), through a transformer (ditto), into the charger (ditto), and finally to the battery.

Taking the total energy budget into consideration, people who believe electric cars can replace gas and diesel powered vehicles are in the same demographic as those who believe they can save Tinkerbelle by clapping their hands.

Fairbanks99| 6.28.11 @ 9:27PM

A Trident submarine on reactor power - 20+ knots for 8-10 years. On the battery powered electric propulsion motor - less than 10 hours. At three knots. My last boat, the USS Florida had its first re-fill after more than 20 years of service.

The only real advantage for the "diesel boat" is silence. On electric power, there is no coolant pump or turbine noise. As a coastal defence tool, the diesel boat rocks. As a world circling hunter - not so much.

JayDick| 6.27.11 @ 10:45AM

So much of this environmental stuff makes no sense. It makes you wonder what these people have where their brains are supposed to be. Maybe "stupid" is the only explanation, but that doesn't seem adequate. Congenital defect maybe?

Purpleguy| 6.27.11 @ 5:00PM

No, it's concern for the environment to some. Exploring new technologies for others. For others is the fact that the amount of oil we import is a national security issue - and no one says we can completely replace all imported oil by "drill, baby, drill" everywhere in the U.S. And, finally, others are concerned about running out of oil for which we use for more impossible to replace functions in pharmaceuticals, plastics and a host of other areas that cannot be replaced by other means.
They are definitely not stupid, nor defective.

Terrible Ted| 6.27.11 @ 9:34PM

Electricity is: generated mostly by fossil fuels with energy losses, transmitted over wires with energy losses, stepped down in voltage with losses, distributed over wires with losses, used to charge batteries with losses, stored in batteries with losses, and finally provided to the motor with losses. This doesn't consider the energy capital and other resources required to improve the electrical infrastructure to support electric vehicles. Not to mention the environmental impact of maintaining the batteries, etc. All this for little to no environmental improvement.

There are numerous others who say we can replace imported oil, excepting Canada and Mexico, by allowing more exploration here, and that we are not running out of oil. We can continue to make the internal combustion engine more efficient.

Electric vehicles just sound stupid.

Dagny Taggert| 6.28.11 @ 3:00PM

Just paranoid.

George S| 6.27.11 @ 10:52AM

Hydrocarbon fuels are unmatched. Not only do they carry a bigger BTU punch per weight, but they are portable. It is why we don't have to be stuck with electric lawn mowers or leaf blowers or electric snow blowers. We can transport energy to construction sites without having to wait for a power plant (economic growth would be impossible without that). Air travel would be impossible if Jet A didn't weigh 6 pounds a gallon, for it enables the aircraft to carry its fuel to its destination with plenty of reserve power to push the 80 percent of the speed of sound. The same is true for automobile travel, the gas tank and the relatively low fuel weight makes yesteryear's living out our whole lives within 2 miles of our birth a historical relic.

The electric car is backwards, we sense that. So we naturally resist. Resistance: The great lesson in free market economics. Oil equals freedom; those who try to limit our use of energy are really trying to limit our freedom.

Kevin Compton| 6.27.11 @ 10:59AM

Now there's a great government boondoggle for you, an all electric passenger plane. Maybe I should put together a proposal for a big government grant and retire early.

Purpleguy| 6.27.11 @ 5:01PM

Been done already - all electric airplane has already flown.

dissent555| 6.27.11 @ 6:02PM

a little premature, don't you think. I'm still looking for the specs on the commercial passenger and cargo aircraft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_aircraft

Purpleguy| 6.28.11 @ 2:31PM

Well, super jets didn't appear a year after Kitty Hawk, now did they?

Stuart Koehl| 6.27.11 @ 8:40PM

The all-electric airplane is essentially a powered glider with minimal payload, a severely restricted performance envelope and nothing going for it but very long endurance--which is why it is used principally as a platform for high-altitude, long-endurance atmospheric testing.

chuck| 6.27.11 @ 9:40PM

Stuart, you really are confusing poor Purple with all of these darned facts.

Purpleguy| 6.28.11 @ 2:32PM

And, you have to start somewhere don't you? You do realize that the 747 didn't just magically appear a year after Kitty Hawk?

Stuart Koehl| 6.28.11 @ 4:24PM

I was at a meeting many years back, at the old Martin Marietta Advanced Development and Technology Office (ADTO), listening to some guy make a pitch for an incredible new radar that could detect a gnat at 100 miles, yet generated no more power than a flashlight.

"That's impossible", said one engineer. "It violates the rules of simple physics".

"Well", responded the pitch man, "At our company we don't do SIMPLE physics"--which got a laugh, but at the end of the day, simple physics won out.

I like to put things differently, and I think this aphorism applies to Purpleguy in spades:

"Nothing is impossible to the man who won't obey the laws of thermodynamics".

While I've got your attention, would you like to invest in my new perpetual motion machine?

David Minnich| 6.27.11 @ 10:30PM

We are talking about aircraft on the level of commercial jets, not some goofball experimental device that flies slower than one can drive and carries almost nothing. Dolt.

Purpleguy| 6.28.11 @ 2:38PM

Well, well, aren't we a low information individual with no imagination? So if you were there in 1903 in North Carolina you would have said the 100 foot flight at Kitty Hawk was a goofball experimental device that would never go anywhere? Really? Seriously? are you that dense?

Stuart Koehl| 6.28.11 @ 4:25PM

You're a true technological ignoramus, aren't you? You sound like some lawyers I know when they try to discuss technology.

Tom in Michigan| 6.27.11 @ 11:25AM

Uh, don't forget the $55 million in "protection" money , I mean "stock purchases" Toyota poneyed up following Henry Waxman's committee pummeling their boss, Akio Toyota over the fake "rapid acceleration" non-scandal (The NHTSA later showed 99 out of 100 of the claims involved driver error while one, that did result in a fatality involved after-market floor mats).

The Obamaviks wanted to re-open the shuttered NUMMI plant in Fremont, CA which was - concidentally, I guess the only Toyota plant (they also made Pontiac Vibes) that never made a profit and was - again, coincidentally I reckon the only Toyota plant organized by the UAW. All this occurred - coincidentally, of course after the Obamaviks took their share of GM and Chrysler in the UAW, I mean "auto" bailout.

I imagine the behind-the-scenes conversation between the estimable Mr. Waxman and Mr. Toyota went something like this; "Nice little car comp'ny ya got their, Mac. Be a shame if sump'n happn'd to it now, wound't it?"

Funny how the NHTSA results hardly made the news - outside of Rupert Murdoch's outlets and, funnier still how the whole thing went away after Toyota came up with the scratch the Obamafia was looking for.

John| 6.27.11 @ 11:34AM

In addition to these gas calculations we should take a look at:gas price could go dramatically up,eliminating gas emissions,eliminating importing oil from unfriendly nations.

Tom in Michigan| 6.27.11 @ 12:37PM

Canada and Mexico are our largest oil suppliers - hardly "unfriendly" neighbors, despite the latter's many problems.

The key to capturing the chimera of "energy independence" is developing our own resources - including the massive reserves of natural gas now under attack by the Obamaviks.

All this rubbish about "importing oil from unfriendly nations" is just leftist propaganda designed to divert us from the fact the left is purposefully keeping the United States from developing its own resources so they can weaken the nation.

Don't tell me either that "I don't care about the environment." Solar panels use cadmium, a heavy metal; wind turbines require huge expanses of land while oil and gas development requires a relatively small footprint in comparison.

To hell with facts though; we'll just keep blaming "Big Oil" and remain fools for the left.

Purpleguy| 6.27.11 @ 5:10PM

"leftist propaganda designed to divert us from the fact the left is purposefully keeping the United States from developing its own resources so they can weaken the nation." - So, since Republicans were in charge for most of the last decade, who is keeping us from doing this? And, since the presidency has been in Republican hands for all but 10 of the last 30 years after Jimmy Carter, WHO is keeping us energy dependent on foreign oil imports? Hmmmm?

Bob Grant| 6.27.11 @ 9:39PM

Maybe it's a plot to hoard our own resources until we've hit peak oil reserves around the World at which point we can extract from our own natural supply.

Just throwin' it out there.

axbucxdu| 6.28.11 @ 1:00PM

"...Just throwin' it out there."

Yup, and the CIA ain't gonna like you too much for doing so. Prepare yourself for a visit by those men in black...

David Minnich| 6.27.11 @ 10:34PM

One example - who blocked opening up ANWAR? Wasn't the GOP.

Tom in Michigan| 6.27.11 @ 12:40PM

For the record; I just purchased a vehile with a 2.0 litre turbo engine that not only averages over 35 mpg; it will run with the big boys and handles like a freakin' dream.

If the left was so keen on gas mileage; why aren't they pushing turbos and the new diesl engines.

The left doesn't care about the environment; they care about power. More POWER and control over the lives of others. "Environmentalism" is just the latest noble cause, like free speech and civil rights -they've co-opted to control the proles and destroy the hated bourgeois.

Warren| 6.27.11 @ 12:54PM

This was Tesla's business plan/model all along - introduce a super-sport, then discontinue and move into the mid-range market.

There's nothing surprising about this move, or at least - there shouldn't be to anyone who's followed the company.

As to who would buy such a thing? The folks who like having nearly-unique toys, car enthusiasts, etc. I can't see myself going for an all-electric car for a *very* long time, but berating the company (and their customers) like this is irresponsible.

Trinacria12| 6.27.11 @ 4:48PM

W-
Now that Obammy has made me a part owner of his p.o.s. I have every right to criticize it, it's substandard product, and it's unsustainable business model. Indeed, to do as you suggest and shrug my shoulders in apathy as this company squanders my (and your) money would be irresponsible. If you feel some moral obligation to keep your mouth shut, I encourage you to do so; as for the rest of us, we shan't be needing your guidance on the opinions we choose to express.

Warren| 6.28.11 @ 9:31PM

Hold on a second - how is Obama an investor in Tesla?

cicero| 6.27.11 @ 1:04PM

Read in t he WSJ this morning that the O admin now wants to boost the CAFE standards to 56 mpg by 2025. Just keep moving the bar up, until we are all in mini cars. Up until last year, I would lease 3 year old JAG XJ8s. Those big V8s would give me 35-36 mpg on the highway. Great! They did away with the deal, so now I am into a Lincoln MKZ, with a 4 , with not as much power, but close to thee same mileage. I understand that Ford's EcoBoost engine gives more power and better mileage.
Maybe we need an engineer in the White House, rather than just another socialist philosopher.

Tom in Michigan| 6.27.11 @ 3:08PM

You might want to rethink that. Carter was an engineer.

Occam's Tool| 6.27.11 @ 4:04PM

I believe Rickover said something about Carter being an engineer in the sense that a train engineer is one.

Stuart Koehl| 6.27.11 @ 4:29PM

Jimmah Cahtah was to Navy reactor operations what Homer Simpson is to Springfield Light and Power.

Bob Grant| 6.27.11 @ 9:42PM

He apparently sucked at it, hence, the peanut farming gig (sucked as well), hence, the political career. No comment on his performance there :-)

matthew s harrison| 6.27.11 @ 1:42PM

And we only put 500M worth of taxpayer dollars into that company. funny how the greens are so willing to waste our money on shit that is useless, and novel at best!

Purpleguy| 6.27.11 @ 5:14PM

Oops, - did you miss the Terry Schiavo fiasco, where the entire Federal government had to stop all other Congressional and Presidential functions (Bush had to fly back to Washington) to vote on and sign the Terry Schiavo legislation ? And, you want to call out people that are trying to find alternatives to the stranglehold oil has on our economy? Even Bush admitted to our "addiction on oil" being national priority to address. Seriously, take that bump between your shoulders out from between your other pair of cheeks.

David Minnich| 6.27.11 @ 10:33PM

Having been thoroughly trounced on the topic at hand, now Purpleguy misdirects by talking about - Terry Schiavo. Like that has anything to do with the topic under discussion. Typical liberal argumentation.

Purpleguy| 6.28.11 @ 2:40PM

"how the greens are so willing to waste our money on shit that is useless, and novel at best!" - and you wasted how much on Terry? Let me spell it out for you ... trounced, ya, sure.

kvn| 6.27.11 @ 1:52PM

Before Ford or Daimler discovered cars that ran on gasoline, there were electric powered cars. First one was designed by Egyptians thousands of years ago (it ran on batteries made of beer and metal). The idea is thousands of years old and no one has been able to perfect it. Can we say "next"?

Solar and wind power are nearly 200 years old as well...

Purpleguy| 6.27.11 @ 5:15PM

And, once cheap oil and gas are consumed, we aren't going to have any more ... then what's next?

Stuart Koehl| 6.27.11 @ 9:20PM

That will be a couple of centuries from now, at the earliest. Then there is natural gas. When that's exhausted (in a couple more centuries), we should be ready for Mr. Fusion and the flux capacitor.

chuck| 6.27.11 @ 9:50PM

I remember when Carter was Pres(wish I could forget it, but doesn't seem too bad compared to O), people were talking about running out of oil in 30 years. Wow, that was oh, about 30 years ago! Last time I check, there was plenty of gas at the station.
There is plenty of oil in the ground, and more being discovered everyday, plus extraction methods are getting better, so older wells can produce more.
Sorry to confuse you with more facts, Purple.

Purpleguy| 6.28.11 @ 3:45PM

yeah, just put your head in the sand and it'll go away. sure, yeah, that's the brilliant move. You do know that no more oil will ever be made? Do you know how oil was created?

Stuart Koehl| 6.28.11 @ 4:27PM

It is not clear at all that there will be no more oil. There is a competing theory that new oil is being produced all the time by tectonic processes. In any case, I'm pretty sure what you know about petroleum engineering could fit into a very small condom.

chuck| 6.28.11 @ 7:56PM

Listen smart ass, I've forgotten more about oil production than you will ever know. Chemical Engineering degree, U of Houston. As in Texas, oil land. No one knows for sure how oil was produced, but there are theories that it is naturally occurring in the earth, not dead dinosaurs. Depleted oil wells are not empty, it just is no longer economical to extract the remaining oil. As the price goes up, these become profitable to rework and use more expensive extraction techniques.
Oh, hell, what the point, Purple, you're too damned stupid to understand.

Bob Grant| 6.27.11 @ 9:51PM

Look, you have many options TODAY. Take public transportation to work if you like. Buy a moped. Buy a clown car...a bicycle...some really, really good hiking shoes from REI.

A horse and buggy perhaps.

Leave the rest of us alone!

Purpleguy| 6.28.11 @ 3:47PM

Unfortunately, we live on the same planet - so, no I can't leave you alone. Too bad, so sad you don't see the folly of your ways.

David Minnich| 6.27.11 @ 10:36PM

Well, coal to gas and coal to liquid fuels - the Tropsch Fischer process. 500 years of coal, at least, in the US alone.

David Minnich| 6.27.11 @ 10:40PM

Pound for pound, the best batteries weigh about 30 times as much per energy unit as gasoline. That means to replace a 15 gallon tank of gasoline, you would need a battery pack weighing about 2,700 lbs - almost as much as the car itself! And don't even think about using electric battery power for trucks, particularly 18 wheelers - half the trailer would be filled with batteries.

Stuart Koehl| 6.28.11 @ 1:21PM

This was the great advantage of the truck over the horse-drawn wagon. A one-horse wagon could pull about a ton of payload (slowly) for about eight hours a day--somewhere between sixteen and twenty miles. At the end of the day, the horse needs about twenty pounds of fodder. Some may be available as pasturage, but often it must be carried in the wagon, displacing usable payload.

Suppose we want to go just 150 miles with a ton of cargo. We would have to carry ten days worth of fodder with us, which would displace 200 lbs. of cargo. But with a truck, we can cover that 150 miles in 5 hours or less, using only about ten gallons (70 lbs) of fuel.

The relative advantage of the internal combustion vehicle over animal power becomes more apparent the farther the distance to be covered. The horse's need for fodder in fact places an upper limit on how far one can travel before the entire payload of the wagon is displaced by fodder: 2000 lbs of fodder = 100 days of travel =1500 miles covered. When one considers that both the truck and the wagon must return to the point of origin to pick up another load, the radius of action for a wagon is just 750 miles, whereas, carrying nothing but fuel, a truck would be able to go 4,285 miles (286 gallons x 15 mpg).

This is why the 6x6 Two-and-One-Half Ton truck revolutionized warfare. Without it, neither the Western allies nor the Russians would have been able to sustain combat operations all the way into Germany.

On the civilian side of the ledger, internal combustion powered trucks and trains move vast quantities of good over equally vast distances at incredible speed, without which our civilization could not be sustained.

Electric vehicles have a lot more in common with horse-drawn wagons than they do with real trucks, especially from a logistic standpoint.

Peter in Newport| 6.28.11 @ 1:20AM

This silly car is very popular around the Newport Beach Ca. area. I see them at the side of the road. Out of juice. The owners are not out of money, but they are sure out of "cense"!!!!

weddingdresses| 6.29.11 @ 5:27AM

Well, coal to gas and coal to liquid fuels - the Tropsch Fischer process. 500 years of coal, at least, in the US alone.

nike shoes UK| 8.8.11 @ 6:22AM

is good