Re: AW: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[Adam Maas]

John Francis wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 11:50:01AM -0500, graywolf wrote:
>> Reads like that is a very early post WWII weapons grade breeder reactor 
>> not a modern power plant. Actually coal fired steam power plants are the 
>> most environmentally unfriendly and dangerous ones, on second thought 
>> maybe Kerosun type heaters are...
> 
> I remember a wonderful science fiction story (from, IIRC, the anthology
> "Great Science Fiction By Scientists") entitled "On the Feasibility of
> Coal-Driven Power Stations".  The scenario was set well in the future,
> and the story was set in the form of a study report on whether or not
> large deposits of coal still untapped could be used for power generation.
> 
> The conclusion was that the plan was infeasible; there was no way to
> reduce the emission of carcinogens (and other undesirable byproducts)
> to an acceptable level, and in any case the risk of a catastrophic
> explosion or other such failure in the entire process (from mine to
> power station) was orders of magnitude worse than safe nuclear power.
> 
> 

That's certainly true. Coal dust is nasty...

-Adam

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

AW: AW: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[Markus Maurer]

You do have some valid points here, Graywolf !

Markus (in nostalgic mode sipping Havana Club)


-Ursprungliche Nachricht-
Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Auftrag von
graywolf
Gesendet: Montag, 27. November 2006 17:50
An: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Betreff: Re: AW: OT - Prius Fuel Economy


Reads like that is a very early post WWII weapons grade breeder reactor
not a modern power plant. Actually coal fired steam power plants are the
most environmentally unfriendly and dangerous ones, on second thought
maybe Kerosun type heaters are...

Personally, I find humans the most dangerous things on earth, and they
should be done away with ASAP! 

OTOH, as I have said before, life is a fatal disease. Every thing that
has it dies eventually. So why worry about the small stuff?

--graywolf


Markus Maurer wrote:
> So I'm simple misinformed about the nearly severe accidents at Sellafield
in
> the last years?
>
> http://www.answers.com/topic/sellafield
>
> Nuclear power use is one of the most dangerous things ever invented  **for
> me** and should be stopped ASAP.
> greetings
> Markus


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[keith_w]

Patrice LACOUTURE (GMail) wrote:
> It meant oil, gas, coal, tar ;-) and all kinds of fossil matter that one 
> can burn...
> 
> Sorry for my poor english :-)
> 
> Patrice

Not a problem at all, Patrice.
I think the new word fits very well.
"Thermic" = fossil fuels.
  Okay!

Thanks!  keith

> keith_w a écrit :
>> Patrice LACOUTURE (GMail) wrote:
>>
>> A bit chopped out, for brevity, but I've one question, so I can put all 
>> that you wrote in place:
>>
>> What's "thermic?"
>>
>> keith whaley


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[Patrice LACOUTURE (GMail)]

It meant oil, gas, coal, tar ;-) and all kinds of fossil matter that one 
can burn...

Sorry for my poor english :-)

Patrice

keith_w a écrit :
> Patrice LACOUTURE (GMail) wrote:
>
> A bit chopped out, for brevity, but I've one question, so I can put all 
> that you wrote in place:
>
> What's "thermic?"
>
> keith whaley
>
>   
>> The exact figures for 2005 (as has roughly been since the mid 80s) are:
>> - nuke: 78%
>> - *thermic*: 11%
>> - hydraulic: 10%
>> - wind and solar: 0.2%
>> (from Electricité de France, 
>> http://www.industrie.gouv.fr/energie/statisti/pdf/elec-analyse-stat.pdf).
>> 
>
> [...]
>
>   
>> The French answer (for now, but of course there's controversy on this), 
>> is "stop fossil energy now, live to develop clean, renewable energies, 
>> and in the meantime fill the gap with the nasty nukes".
>>
>> I'm quite satisfied with this position, as I believe it's the most 
>> ecologically safe (ecologists will brobably burn me alive for writing this).
>>
>> I just can't understand some very "ecologist" countries, like Germany, 
>> that shut down nuclear plants to open new coal *thermic* ones, and pour 
>> more CO2 into the atmosphere!
>> 
>
> [...]
>
>   
>> Patrice
>>
>> 
>
>
>   


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: AW: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[John Francis]

On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 11:50:01AM -0500, graywolf wrote:
> Reads like that is a very early post WWII weapons grade breeder reactor 
> not a modern power plant. Actually coal fired steam power plants are the 
> most environmentally unfriendly and dangerous ones, on second thought 
> maybe Kerosun type heaters are...

I remember a wonderful science fiction story (from, IIRC, the anthology
"Great Science Fiction By Scientists") entitled "On the Feasibility of
Coal-Driven Power Stations".  The scenario was set well in the future,
and the story was set in the form of a study report on whether or not
large deposits of coal still untapped could be used for power generation.

The conclusion was that the plan was infeasible; there was no way to
reduce the emission of carcinogens (and other undesirable byproducts)
to an acceptable level, and in any case the risk of a catastrophic
explosion or other such failure in the entire process (from mine to
power station) was orders of magnitude worse than safe nuclear power.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: AW: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[graywolf]

Reads like that is a very early post WWII weapons grade breeder reactor 
not a modern power plant. Actually coal fired steam power plants are the 
most environmentally unfriendly and dangerous ones, on second thought 
maybe Kerosun type heaters are...

Personally, I find humans the most dangerous things on earth, and they 
should be done away with ASAP! 

OTOH, as I have said before, life is a fatal disease. Every thing that 
has it dies eventually. So why worry about the small stuff?

--graywolf


Markus Maurer wrote:
> So I'm simple misinformed about the nearly severe accidents at Sellafield in
> the last years?
> 
> http://www.answers.com/topic/sellafield
> 
> Nuclear power use is one of the most dangerous things ever invented  **for
> me** and should be stopped ASAP.
> greetings
> Markus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear reactor facilities are built like fortresses.  The structures
> are reinforced concrete, the perimeters are designed to be defended,
> and the security teams are typically equipped to repel anything short
> of a determined military strike.  (Whether they're trained to do that
> is another story)  Add to that, modern cores are encased in a
> multi-layered "tank" (steel and lead, primarily) that can withstand
> much more agitation than even the building it resides in.  All US
> reactors also incorporate a SCRAM switch.  This switch triggers
> automatically if the core temperature gets too high, and in some cases
> can trigger if the core temperature is increasing too quickly.  The
> operator can also trigger the switch manually.  This results in the
> rods being driven all the way into the core and slowing reaction to a
> minimum.  In this state the core is safe even without coolant being
> circulated.  Chernobyl style accidents are damn near impossible with
> modern reactors.
> 
> 
> 

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[David Savage]

On 11/27/06, keith_w <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Patrice LACOUTURE (GMail) wrote:
>
> A bit chopped out, for brevity, but I've one question, so I can put all
> that you wrote in place:
>
> What's "thermic?"

Coal, gas, Geothermal ?

Dave

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[keith_w]

Patrice LACOUTURE (GMail) wrote:

A bit chopped out, for brevity, but I've one question, so I can put all 
that you wrote in place:

What's "thermic?"

keith whaley

> The exact figures for 2005 (as has roughly been since the mid 80s) are:
> - nuke: 78%
> - *thermic*: 11%
> - hydraulic: 10%
> - wind and solar: 0.2%
> (from Electricité de France, 
> http://www.industrie.gouv.fr/energie/statisti/pdf/elec-analyse-stat.pdf).

[...]

> The French answer (for now, but of course there's controversy on this), 
> is "stop fossil energy now, live to develop clean, renewable energies, 
> and in the meantime fill the gap with the nasty nukes".
> 
> I'm quite satisfied with this position, as I believe it's the most 
> ecologically safe (ecologists will brobably burn me alive for writing this).
> 
> I just can't understand some very "ecologist" countries, like Germany, 
> that shut down nuclear plants to open new coal *thermic* ones, and pour 
> more CO2 into the atmosphere!

[...]

> Patrice
> 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[Patrice LACOUTURE (GMail)]

K.Takeshita a écrit :
> On 11/26/06 6:51 PM, "Patrice LACOUTURE (GMail)",
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>   
>> The French answer (for now, but of course there's controversy on this),
>> is "stop fossil energy now, live to develop clean, renewable energies,
>> and in the meantime fill the gap with the nasty nukes".
>> 
>
> French are smart, eh?
>   
To be honest, the French "all nuclear" electricity programme dates back 
from the 60s, when Algeria got independent, and France lost most of its 
fuel source! I'm sure it initially had not much to do about environment...

Patrice


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

RE: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[David Savage]

At 06:12 AM 27/11/2006, Bob W wrote:
>The World Trade Centre was also built to withstand the impact of a
>commercial airliner.


And it did. It was the resulting fire, robbing the steel sub structure of 
its temper, that brought them down.

Dave


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: AW: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[K.Takeshita]

On 11/26/06 10:20 PM, "Adam Maas", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> modern powerplant designs cannot go critical

Enrichment of U-235 is only 3 to 8% on commercial reactors.
Weapons grade goes up to 98% etc, so does the military marine propulsion
application (for compactness).
Much of early British reactors are of graphite moderated type (Chernobyl
too) which has a few inherent difficulties in operation such as the
emergency cooling etc.  Besides, they are obsolete and I do not believe
there is any commercial power generation plant of graphite moderator type
exists any more (except modern gas cooled ones).  British was the first to
commercialize the power reactor (Calder Hall) and Japan's first power
reactor was of the Calder Hall type in 50's but its days had gone a long
long time ago.
Commercial power reactors won't become a bomb, by design.
Today, small leaks by operator errors are of more concerns.

Pentax element :-)
1. Film might fog
2. SR might not work properly near a huge generator

Ken



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: AW: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[Adam Maas]

Sadly, stopping all Nuclear Power would involve the death of all living 
beings in the Solar System. All life currently depends on some form of 
Nuclear Power. That big bright ball in the sky is a Fusion Reactor.

Note that Sellafield is primarily a processing plant. Only one part of 
the plant was ever used for power generation and even that was primarily 
a plutonium production facility. So Sellafield is irrelevant to the 
discussion.

Any vaguely current power plant reactor design is utterly different from 
a breeder reactor or plutonium enrichment reactor. The former are 
completely safe, the latter have distinct risks (It's possibly for a 
plutonium breeder to go critical (IE rach critical mass) in very 
unlikely circumstances, modern powerplant designs cannot go critical)

-Adam



Markus Maurer wrote:
> So I'm simple misinformed about the nearly severe accidents at Sellafield in
> the last years?
> 
> http://www.answers.com/topic/sellafield
> 
> Nuclear power use is one of the most dangerous things ever invented  **for
> me** and should be stopped ASAP.
> greetings
> Markus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear reactor facilities are built like fortresses.  The structures
> are reinforced concrete, the perimeters are designed to be defended,
> and the security teams are typically equipped to repel anything short
> of a determined military strike.  (Whether they're trained to do that
> is another story)  Add to that, modern cores are encased in a
> multi-layered "tank" (steel and lead, primarily) that can withstand
> much more agitation than even the building it resides in.  All US
> reactors also incorporate a SCRAM switch.  This switch triggers
> automatically if the core temperature gets too high, and in some cases
> can trigger if the core temperature is increasing too quickly.  The
> operator can also trigger the switch manually.  This results in the
> rods being driven all the way into the core and slowing reaction to a
> minimum.  In this state the core is safe even without coolant being
> circulated.  Chernobyl style accidents are damn near impossible with
> modern reactors.
> 
> 
> 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

AW: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[Markus Maurer]

So I'm simple misinformed about the nearly severe accidents at Sellafield in
the last years?

http://www.answers.com/topic/sellafield

Nuclear power use is one of the most dangerous things ever invented  **for
me** and should be stopped ASAP.
greetings
Markus




Nuclear reactor facilities are built like fortresses.  The structures
are reinforced concrete, the perimeters are designed to be defended,
and the security teams are typically equipped to repel anything short
of a determined military strike.  (Whether they're trained to do that
is another story)  Add to that, modern cores are encased in a
multi-layered "tank" (steel and lead, primarily) that can withstand
much more agitation than even the building it resides in.  All US
reactors also incorporate a SCRAM switch.  This switch triggers
automatically if the core temperature gets too high, and in some cases
can trigger if the core temperature is increasing too quickly.  The
operator can also trigger the switch manually.  This results in the
rods being driven all the way into the core and slowing reaction to a
minimum.  In this state the core is safe even without coolant being
circulated.  Chernobyl style accidents are damn near impossible with
modern reactors.



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[K.Takeshita]

On 11/26/06 6:51 PM, "Patrice LACOUTURE (GMail)",
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> The French answer (for now, but of course there's controversy on this),
> is "stop fossil energy now, live to develop clean, renewable energies,
> and in the meantime fill the gap with the nasty nukes".

French are smart, eh?
I am not advocating the safety of nuclear power plants but was talking about
the "over engineering" aspect which is jacking up the cost enormously.
Primary containment for example is only the first defense and a nuclear
power plant has so many layers of safety barriers (another over
engineering).
Human cannot reduce the risk to zero (just like aircrafts could never be
made crash proof) but today's nuclear plants are very safe.
The problem is that the safety and environmental arguments are mostly
emotional and political.
If certain aspects of nuclear power plants might be judged unsafe, but with
scientific and objective arguments, I am sure they will (and should) be
properly addressed.
But unfortunately, nuclear power plants are usually built in remote sites,
which means farmers and fishermen have to be convinced.  Not that I no way
discredit their ability to make intelligent judgment based on objective
facts, they usually require assistance in public hearing etc.  This is where
the political elements and greed intrude.  Green Piece and Green Party etc
come in and make the issue overly complicated while all farmers/fishermen
really want is as much compensation money as possible.
The worst thing for mankind is to BURN the non-renewable fossil material as
fuel.  When it's gone, it's gone forever, unlike those used in chemical
industries etc.  Besides, in most power generation scheme (including
nuclear), much of energy is lost wasted in a form of exhaust gas (autos) and
cooling water (power plants).  Also, think about thousands of commercial jet
liners each with tons of fuel flying around in any given time, let alone the
fuel used for cargo ships.
Nuclear power plants, as in any other industrial products, have its own
risks but the "probability" of catastrophic accidents is nearly zero now and
it is a matter of consciousness by ourselves of the energy waste we are
creating vs. accepting some theoretical risk.  Difficult subject.
Well, I think I went too far on this OT and should stop, but hope this
BURNING would begin to subside some day :-).

Ken


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[Cotty]

On 26/11/06, graywolf, discombobulated, unleashed:

>Hugh Norton, the late owner of Grandfather Mountain,

A great motorcycle fan I understand ;-)

-- 


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[Patrice LACOUTURE (GMail)]

William Robb a écrit :
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Adam Maas"
> Subject: Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy
>   
>> The solution to the environmental issue is to outlaw coal power and
>> push
>> through nukes (Which are very safe and the disposal issue for spent
>> fuel
>> is far less of an actual issue than anti-nuke luddites insist that it
>> is).
>> 
>
> Absolutely.
> I heard the other day that France is something like 90% nuclear, and
> they don't seem to be having any problems with their reactors.
> Is Pickering still running?
> There are also political issues surrounding nuclear which attempt to
> limit who can have it.
>   
We only have problems with anti-nukes ;-)

The exact figures for 2005 (as has roughly been since the mid 80s) are:
- nuke: 78%
- thermic: 11%
- hydraulic: 10%
- wind and solar: 0.2%
(from Electricité de France, 
http://www.industrie.gouv.fr/energie/statisti/pdf/elec-analyse-stat.pdf).

For sure, the masses feel terribly more uncomfortable with nuclear waste 
than with fossil CO2 production, which has been running for 2 centuries 
without causing any huge and terrible catastrophy so far.

OTOH, most people have an image of nuclear waste that looks like a pile 
of rusted tanks that leak some nasty oily crap that glows purple in the 
night. What most people don't realize, is that most vitrified nuclear 
waste is just like regular glass, but with radioactive atoms embedded 
between the "normal" atoms. Most of the time, the resulting glass is 
just slightly more radioactive than many natural rocks. This glass will 
never leak all the nuclear atoms at once! Claims that it will remain 
radioactive for very long periods of time are justified, but for now, 
our choice between fossil and nuclear energy looks too much like a 
choice between "leave an unpleasant legacy to our grand-grand-grand 
children" and "kill ourselves now, and stop worrying about grand 
children"! Regarding renewable energies, the question is "will we be 
able to replace fossil energy with it before we kill ourselves with CO2?".

The French answer (for now, but of course there's controversy on this), 
is "stop fossil energy now, live to develop clean, renewable energies, 
and in the meantime fill the gap with the nasty nukes".

I'm quite satisfied with this position, as I believe it's the most 
ecologically safe (ecologists will brobably burn me alive for writing this).

I just can't understand some very "ecologist" countries, like Germany, 
that shut down nuclear plants to open new coal thermic ones, and pour 
more CO2 into the atmosphere!

> We are dallying with wind power generation out here, but I don't know
> how viable it is for large population densities, how long it takes to
> amortize the environmental liabilities associated with making the
> turbines.
>
>   
>> And even better long-term solution is Solar Power Satellites, which
>> have
>> a serious lead time to get active, but make solar power a viable
>> option
>> for power (as opposed to a good method for supplementing power). The
>> basic technology was worked out and proven 30 years ago.
>>
>> 
>
> I recall hearing many years ago that the Russions were playing with
> power transmission without using power lines, and I heard an item on As
> It Happens the other day where a fellow (or group) had come up with a
> method of recharging small device batteries using a wireless
> transmission method.
>
> William Robb
>
>
>
>   
In La Réunion, the French island where I was born in the Indian Ocean, 
an interesting electricity wireless transmission experiment was done, to 
provide electricity through microwaves to a very remote village 
(actually VERY remote, see photo here: 
http://membres.lycos.fr/nirrey/etsdsfr211.html). It was promising.

We may be WAY off topic, here!

Patrice

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[K.Takeshita]

On 11/26/06 6:03 PM, "John Francis", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>> The World Trade Centre was also built to withstand the impact of a
>> commercial airliner.
> 
> Which it did.  The problem wasn't the impact of the aircraft - it was
> the prolongued heat from the fires caused by the large load of fuel.

In the case of reactor building, collapsing is out of question but the
containment wall should not even be breached.

Ken 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

RE: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[Bob W]

> > 
> > The World Trade Centre was also built to withstand the impact of a
> > commercial airliner.
> 
> Which it did.  The problem wasn't the impact of the aircraft - it
was
> the prolongued heat from the fires caused by the large load of fuel.
> 

Precisely. They never planned for that when they designed it. All
sorts of things can happen which people, even the clever people who
design nuclear reactors, cannot plan for. So to claim that they are
safe just because they can withstand the impact of an aircraft is
hubristic, and sounds very much like the claim that Titanic was
unsinkable.  

Regards
Bob


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[Scott Loveless]

On 11/26/06, Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The World Trade Centre was also built to withstand the impact of a
> commercial airliner.

No, it wasn't.  It was designed to burn slowly and not collapse right
away.  Asbestos insulation was key to this design.  Part way through
the construction asbestos was taken off the table and an inferior
insulation was used to finish the building.

>
> The world is also full of the crumbled ruins of buildings designed to
> withstand earthquakes, but which collapsed when the earthquakes
> actually happened. Either because the design was wrong, or because
> they were built by corrupt contractors who bribed the politicians and
> inspectors, or all of the above.

Nuclear reactor facilities are built like fortresses.  The structures
are reinforced concrete, the perimeters are designed to be defended,
and the security teams are typically equipped to repel anything short
of a determined military strike.  (Whether they're trained to do that
is another story)  Add to that, modern cores are encased in a
multi-layered "tank" (steel and lead, primarily) that can withstand
much more agitation than even the building it resides in.  All US
reactors also incorporate a SCRAM switch.  This switch triggers
automatically if the core temperature gets too high, and in some cases
can trigger if the core temperature is increasing too quickly.  The
operator can also trigger the switch manually.  This results in the
rods being driven all the way into the core and slowing reaction to a
minimum.  In this state the core is safe even without coolant being
circulated.  Chernobyl style accidents are damn near impossible with
modern reactors.

-- 
Scott Loveless
http://www.twosixteen.com
Shoot more film!

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[John Francis]

On Sun, Nov 26, 2006 at 10:12:24PM -, Bob W wrote:
> 
> The World Trade Centre was also built to withstand the impact of a
> commercial airliner.

Which it did.  The problem wasn't the impact of the aircraft - it was
the prolongued heat from the fires caused by the large load of fuel.



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[mike wilson]

K.Takeshita wrote:
> On 11/26/06 3:53 PM, "mike wilson", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> 
>>The (at least) two that we've already had don't count, then?  I know
>>farmers in Wales still affected after Chernobyl, twenty years ago.  Nor
>>the fire in the graphite core at Windscale that spread radioactive
>>particles over most of western England?  It's not the frequency that
>>matters, it's the magnitude.
> 
> 
> Yes, I was almost referring to these :-).
> But those two were badly designed examples.  Soviet one did not even have
> sufficient core cooling capability.  Graphite core reactors also are usually
> obsolete.  Most modern power reactors are light water (ordinary H2O) based
> or some heavy water based (Canadian ones).  Their records, in spite of a
> couple of accidents, are excellent.  No China Syndrome. Last time I worked
> on those was 20 years ago but the technologies advanced.

I was actually referring to three.  Don't forget Three Mile Island. 
That and Chernobyl were, to all intents and purposes, China syndrome 
incidents.  Both mainly caused, not by poor maintenance or defective 
design, but by human intervention.  If there had not been the fire at 
Windscale, how many grpahite core reactors would we have today?  They 
are a _lot_ cheaper to build.

> The over-engineering problems and very strict regulatory requirements almost
> drove away investors.  Regulatory clearance/environmental hearing alone
> takes several years before obtaining the license to build one of those nuke
> plants, and they take another several years of construction before the
> actual power generation, with billions of dollars of fund required.

And then, in at least one case in the UK, they spend 40% of their life 
unfunctional due to problems of design and construction.

> With this long lead time, the power company still has to forecast the future
> power demand fairly accurately and then have to finance those projects.
> That's why most of these power are being built with some government
> incentives to alleviate the risk or by giant private utility companies like
> in Japan.  It was not quite like that years ago in the U.S. for example.
> Look what happened in the U.S. reactor market in the last few decades.  Non
> built.  Now the Bush Administration is talking about building more nuke
> plants, now that they figured that they cannot divert the oil from Iraq
> (just kidding :-).

Maybe you are but I think it's only a matter of time.

> I cannot authoritatively say this but if the licensing requirements for nuke
> plants come down reasonably even a bit, the cost of electricity from them
> could come down by at least 30%.  Then electric powered vehicles could
> become a feasible proposition.

I can't see a feasible alternative to nuclear power at the moment but a 
lot more thought needs to go into planning before the public will accept 
nuclear power stations in their back yard.  Or we have a few heat- and 
light- less winters due to fuel shortages.  Then they will be _demanded_.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

RE: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[Bob W]

> Accessing above will automatically download the Word file 
> titled "Aircraft
> Crash Impact Analyses Demonstrate Nuclear Power Plant¹s Structural
> Strength".
> 
> I have not read this through but it seems to be describing 
> the re-evaluation
> of the existing primary containment structures in the wake of 
> 9/11, and
> utility companies are pretty confident that the structures 
> still withstand
> the Boeing 747 impact.  In my days, this was the definite 
> requirements (it
> was one of the most ridiculed and complained requirements by utility
> companies at the time) but might have been relaxed a bit until 9/11.
> On page 5, it is showing the relative size of WTC bldgs, Pentagon
and
> typical reactor building.  You can almost intuitively tell 
> that the reactor
> building with special structure designed specifically for the 
> aircraft crash
> and seismic requirements would withstand the crash (and it is 
> probably hard,
> if not impossible to precisely target these relatively small 
> structures).
> 
> Just for your reading amusement :-).
> 
> Ken

The World Trade Centre was also built to withstand the impact of a
commercial airliner.

The world is also full of the crumbled ruins of buildings designed to
withstand earthquakes, but which collapsed when the earthquakes
actually happened. Either because the design was wrong, or because
they were built by corrupt contractors who bribed the politicians and
inspectors, or all of the above.

Regards
Bob


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[K.Takeshita]

On 11/26/06 3:55 PM, "Kostas Kavoussanakis", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>> An accident, as you say, is unlikely; but after 9/11 that does not seem
>> like an unneeded safety feature.
> 
> I think that the impact is so great that, even without the increased
> probability, you cannot ignore the risk.

I do not wish to litter the list with this OT, but just googled to see if
anything had changed since I left the industry, and found this:

http://www.stpnoc.com/EPRI%20study.doc

Accessing above will automatically download the Word file titled "Aircraft
Crash Impact Analyses Demonstrate Nuclear Power Plant¹s Structural
Strength".

I have not read this through but it seems to be describing the re-evaluation
of the existing primary containment structures in the wake of 9/11, and
utility companies are pretty confident that the structures still withstand
the Boeing 747 impact.  In my days, this was the definite requirements (it
was one of the most ridiculed and complained requirements by utility
companies at the time) but might have been relaxed a bit until 9/11.
On page 5, it is showing the relative size of WTC bldgs, Pentagon and
typical reactor building.  You can almost intuitively tell that the reactor
building with special structure designed specifically for the aircraft crash
and seismic requirements would withstand the crash (and it is probably hard,
if not impossible to precisely target these relatively small structures).

Just for your reading amusement :-).

Ken


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[K.Takeshita]

On 11/26/06 3:53 PM, "mike wilson", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> The (at least) two that we've already had don't count, then?  I know
> farmers in Wales still affected after Chernobyl, twenty years ago.  Nor
> the fire in the graphite core at Windscale that spread radioactive
> particles over most of western England?  It's not the frequency that
> matters, it's the magnitude.

Yes, I was almost referring to these :-).
But those two were badly designed examples.  Soviet one did not even have
sufficient core cooling capability.  Graphite core reactors also are usually
obsolete.  Most modern power reactors are light water (ordinary H2O) based
or some heavy water based (Canadian ones).  Their records, in spite of a
couple of accidents, are excellent.  No China Syndrome. Last time I worked
on those was 20 years ago but the technologies advanced.
The over-engineering problems and very strict regulatory requirements almost
drove away investors.  Regulatory clearance/environmental hearing alone
takes several years before obtaining the license to build one of those nuke
plants, and they take another several years of construction before the
actual power generation, with billions of dollars of fund required.
With this long lead time, the power company still has to forecast the future
power demand fairly accurately and then have to finance those projects.
That's why most of these power are being built with some government
incentives to alleviate the risk or by giant private utility companies like
in Japan.  It was not quite like that years ago in the U.S. for example.
Look what happened in the U.S. reactor market in the last few decades.  Non
built.  Now the Bush Administration is talking about building more nuke
plants, now that they figured that they cannot divert the oil from Iraq
(just kidding :-).

I cannot authoritatively say this but if the licensing requirements for nuke
plants come down reasonably even a bit, the cost of electricity from them
could come down by at least 30%.  Then electric powered vehicles could
become a feasible proposition.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[K.Takeshita]

On 11/26/06 3:28 PM, "graywolf", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> An accident, as you say, is unlikely; but after 9/11 that does not seem
> like an unneeded safety feature.

Indeed.
But hope those bad guys know that it would be a waste of their lives to
Kamikaze into one of those concrete structures :-).

Ken


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[mike wilson]

K.Takeshita wrote:
> On 11/25/06 6:57 PM, "Adam Maas", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> 
>>The solution to the environmental issue is to outlaw coal power and push
>>through nukes (Which are very safe and the disposal issue for spent fuel
>>is far less of an actual issue than anti-nuke luddites insist that it is).
> 
> 
> Let me chime in on this OT :-).
> Before immigrating to Canada, I worked for the power reactor programmes in
> Japan for many years.
> 
> 1. The coal burning plants are generally bad but the ones of latest
> technologies significantly reduced the emission level (i.e., fairly clean
> burning).  But generally in North America, let alone here in Ontario, fossil
> fueled plants are old and worst polluters (and possibly much lower thermal
> efficiencies, lower than that of very vehicles they will be charging).  If
> many cars become electric and start using grid power, it would be a huge
> demand, and environmental or the efficiency concerns all come back to those
> of the power plants.
> 
> 2. Re nuclear (sometimes termed "unclear" :-), it does not burn anything and
> the fuel is more abundant (power density is extremely high).  Country like
> Japan has no choice but going nuclear which they are.
> The problem is the cost.  It is designed and built against almost unreal
> safety criteria which is making the cost of nuclear power plants billions of
> dollars/plant, requiring 7 to 10 years lead time to complete.  This is
> because of public pressure for the environment/safety, often undue, unfair
> and unscientific, 
> I can give you two easy-to-understand examples.
> 
> A). One of the most feared accidents is the break of piping in the primary
> steam loop (radioactive).  Design criteria is that the pipe break always has
> to be the clean guillotine break (total circumferential cut) which occurs
> only in theory.  On top of that, once the guillotine break occurs, the pipe
> ends wildly dance around (pipe whip) and break other piping and structures.
> Therefore, all these pipes, some of them are really large, have to be
> restrained by big anchors, which are very expensive.
> 
> B). The 2ndary containment structure (usually a dome type concrete structure
> you see from outside) which contains the primary containment which is a
> massive steel enclosure, has to be designed to withstand an unobstructed
> crash of a commercial jet liner directly hitting the containment structure.,
> That's why the thickness of the concrete is usually in metres, with tons of
> reinforcing bars, which again is  extremely expensive structure.
> Now, what the real probability of a commercial jet liner flying directly
> over a nuke plant, somehow gets into trouble and makes a direct hit on the
> structure.  There is a figure for that probability (Rasmussen Report) but it
> is on the order of the one over several million (or probably much less, I do
> not remember).
> 
> These are just two simplified examples but our life would be so much easier
> if the cost of nuke plants could be reduced significantly (but reasonably).
> There is always a variety of different level of risks in any industrial
> products but nuke plants IMO are very safe. Usually, failure occurs in
> conventional part, not radioactive part.   But it is very difficult to
> properly educate and have them understand the general public about the nuke
> plant safety.   Unfortunately, their often unfounded fear must be justified
> in our life time.  It is always psychologically tied to nuke bomb.
> It is also like an airplane crash.  It seldom happens but when it does, the
> consequence is usually devastating.  But the possibility of the China
> Syndrome type catastrophic failure of a nuke plant is almost none.

The (at least) two that we've already had don't count, then?  I know 
farmers in Wales still affected after Chernobyl, twenty years ago.  Nor 
the fire in the graphite core at Windscale that spread radioactive 
particles over most of western England?  It's not the frequency that 
matters, it's the magnitude.

> 
> In any case, the fully electric vehicles have to be evaluated in terms of
> true power source, the power plants, its environmental impact and the
> efficiency etc.
> 
> Ken
> 
> 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[Kostas Kavoussanakis]

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006, graywolf wrote:

> An accident, as you say, is unlikely; but after 9/11 that does not seem
> like an unneeded safety feature.

I think that the impact is so great that, even without the increased 
probability, you cannot ignore the risk.

Kostas

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[graywolf]

Your comments about the infrastructure of grid power are pretty 
accurate. Hugh Norton, the late owner of Grandfather Mountain, said that 
there are 7 coal fired power plants in North Carolina that were 
grandfathered in so they do not need to meet the environmental 
regulations, and that each of them produces more pollution than all the 
cars in the state.

Now Hugh was one of the leading environmentalists in the state, but one 
who was actually knowledgeable enough to sort out the real from the 
imaginary. Unfortunately most are not, their cures are usually worse 
than the problems. And worse yet is the politicians who jump on the 
bandwagon with laws that make those kooks happy. I guess thinking that 
we pay them to sort out the real from the imaginary and to do something 
about the real problems in the country is pretty naive.

--graywolf



K.Takeshita wrote:

> 
> In any case, the fully electric vehicles have to be evaluated in terms of
> true power source, the power plants, its environmental impact and the
> efficiency etc.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[graywolf]

An accident, as you say, is unlikely; but after 9/11 that does not seem 
like an unneeded safety feature.

--graywolf



K.Takeshita wrote:

"Now, what the real probability of a commercial jet liner flying 
directly over a nuke plant, somehow gets into trouble and makes a direct 
hit on the structure.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[Adam Maas]

You're telling me that a country (Say China, which has the most advanced 
space and missile program after the 4 countries I mention) which cannot 
reliably put a can with a guy in it into LEO (About 100 miles up) will 
be able to hit a device the size of a large car at Geosync (22,700 or so 
miles up)?

Sorry, ICBM's are easy compared to that. Even LEO ASAT missions are easier.

-Adam



P. J. Alling wrote:
> Dreamer.
> 
> Adam Maas wrote:
>> Not all that vulnerable at geosync. LEO is easy and vulnerable, Geosync 
>> is not (Essentially, the Russians, US, French and Japanese are the only 
>> people who could currently cause trouble at geosync).
>>
>> -Adam
>>
>>
>> P. J. Alling wrote:
>>   
>>> Orbital solar power stations would be wonderful, but very vulnerable.  
>>> This would truly lead to a militarization of space, either with some 
>>> kind of international policing force or more likely national aerospace 
>>> forces or space navies or all three.  This would be almost as 
>>> unacceptable as nuclear power in some quarters, maybe even more so.
>>>
>>> Adam Maas wrote:
>>>     
>>>> William Robb wrote:
>>>>   
>>>>   
>>>>> - Original Message - 
>>>>> From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi"
>>>>> Subject: Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Technically, I don't think your reservations about the batteries in
>>>>>> cold climates are that big a deal (block heaters are regularly used
>>>>>> for ICEs in such environments, no reason you couldn't do the same for
>>>>>> a battery
>>>>>>   
>>>>>>   
>>>>> All that does is change where the emissions are being generated, and 
>>>>> takes away most if not all of the environmental advantages of the hybrid 
>>>>> technology.
>>>>> A block heater doesn't take more than a few hundred watts of power. I 
>>>>> expect that keeping several hundred pounds of batteries 40-50 degrees 
>>>>> above ambient temperature would take quite a bit of power, many amps at 
>>>>> least.
>>>>> Most commuter vehicles aren't allowed to plug in more than a block 
>>>>> heater in daytime parking because of loading on the electrical grid.
>>>>> All this would put more load on the power generating infrastructure, 
>>>>> which at some point creates the need to build more power generating 
>>>>> stations, generally at the expense of the environment.
>>>>>
>>>>> William Robb 
>>>>>
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> The solution to the environmental issue is to outlaw coal power and push 
>>>> through nukes (Which are very safe and the disposal issue for spent fuel 
>>>> is far less of an actual issue than anti-nuke luddites insist that it is).
>>>>
>>>> And even better long-term solution is Solar Power Satellites, which have 
>>>> a serious lead time to get active, but make solar power a viable option 
>>>> for power (as opposed to a good method for supplementing power). The 
>>>> basic technology was worked out and proven 30 years ago.
>>>>
>>>> -Adan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>   
>>> 
>>
>>   
> 
> 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[K.Takeshita]

On 11/26/06 5:28 AM, "Cotty", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> With modern terrorism, I would guess that the figures will be changing
> with reassessment ongoing.

Yeah, I did not think of it :-).

Ken


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[Cotty]

On 25/11/06, K.Takeshita, discombobulated, unleashed:

>Now, what the real probability of a commercial jet liner flying directly
>over a nuke plant, somehow gets into trouble and makes a direct hit on the
>structure.  There is a figure for that probability (Rasmussen Report) but it
>is on the order of the one over several million (or probably much less, I do
>not remember).

With modern terrorism, I would guess that the figures will be changing
with reassessment ongoing.



-- 


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On the original battery pack, it was about 60 miles.
On the second and third generation battery packs, it ran to 125-130  
miles.
GM blocked distribution of the battery packs that would have given it  
250-300 mile range.

G

On Nov 25, 2006, at 11:35 AM, Kenneth Waller wrote:

> FWIW, I read somewhere that in real life, the GM electrics got  
> somewhat less
> than 100 miles on a charge.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[P. J. Alling]

Dreamer.

Adam Maas wrote:
> Not all that vulnerable at geosync. LEO is easy and vulnerable, Geosync 
> is not (Essentially, the Russians, US, French and Japanese are the only 
> people who could currently cause trouble at geosync).
>
> -Adam
>
>
> P. J. Alling wrote:
>   
>> Orbital solar power stations would be wonderful, but very vulnerable.  
>> This would truly lead to a militarization of space, either with some 
>> kind of international policing force or more likely national aerospace 
>> forces or space navies or all three.  This would be almost as 
>> unacceptable as nuclear power in some quarters, maybe even more so.
>>
>> Adam Maas wrote:
>> 
>>> William Robb wrote:
>>>   
>>>   
>>>> - Original Message - 
>>>> From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi"
>>>> Subject: Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> Technically, I don't think your reservations about the batteries in
>>>>> cold climates are that big a deal (block heaters are regularly used
>>>>> for ICEs in such environments, no reason you couldn't do the same for
>>>>> a battery
>>>>>   
>>>>>   
>>>> All that does is change where the emissions are being generated, and 
>>>> takes away most if not all of the environmental advantages of the hybrid 
>>>> technology.
>>>> A block heater doesn't take more than a few hundred watts of power. I 
>>>> expect that keeping several hundred pounds of batteries 40-50 degrees 
>>>> above ambient temperature would take quite a bit of power, many amps at 
>>>> least.
>>>> Most commuter vehicles aren't allowed to plug in more than a block 
>>>> heater in daytime parking because of loading on the electrical grid.
>>>> All this would put more load on the power generating infrastructure, 
>>>> which at some point creates the need to build more power generating 
>>>> stations, generally at the expense of the environment.
>>>>
>>>> William Robb 
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> The solution to the environmental issue is to outlaw coal power and push 
>>> through nukes (Which are very safe and the disposal issue for spent fuel 
>>> is far less of an actual issue than anti-nuke luddites insist that it is).
>>>
>>> And even better long-term solution is Solar Power Satellites, which have 
>>> a serious lead time to get active, but make solar power a viable option 
>>> for power (as opposed to a good method for supplementing power). The 
>>> basic technology was worked out and proven 30 years ago.
>>>
>>> -Adan
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>>   
>> 
>
>
>   


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[Adam Maas]

Not all that vulnerable at geosync. LEO is easy and vulnerable, Geosync 
is not (Essentially, the Russians, US, French and Japanese are the only 
people who could currently cause trouble at geosync).

-Adam


P. J. Alling wrote:
> Orbital solar power stations would be wonderful, but very vulnerable.  
> This would truly lead to a militarization of space, either with some 
> kind of international policing force or more likely national aerospace 
> forces or space navies or all three.  This would be almost as 
> unacceptable as nuclear power in some quarters, maybe even more so.
> 
> Adam Maas wrote:
>> William Robb wrote:
>>   
>>> - Original Message - 
>>> From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi"
>>> Subject: Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>>> Technically, I don't think your reservations about the batteries in
>>>> cold climates are that big a deal (block heaters are regularly used
>>>> for ICEs in such environments, no reason you couldn't do the same for
>>>> a battery
>>>>   
>>> All that does is change where the emissions are being generated, and 
>>> takes away most if not all of the environmental advantages of the hybrid 
>>> technology.
>>> A block heater doesn't take more than a few hundred watts of power. I 
>>> expect that keeping several hundred pounds of batteries 40-50 degrees 
>>> above ambient temperature would take quite a bit of power, many amps at 
>>> least.
>>> Most commuter vehicles aren't allowed to plug in more than a block 
>>> heater in daytime parking because of loading on the electrical grid.
>>> All this would put more load on the power generating infrastructure, 
>>> which at some point creates the need to build more power generating 
>>> stations, generally at the expense of the environment.
>>>
>>> William Robb 
>>>
>>> 
>> The solution to the environmental issue is to outlaw coal power and push 
>> through nukes (Which are very safe and the disposal issue for spent fuel 
>> is far less of an actual issue than anti-nuke luddites insist that it is).
>>
>> And even better long-term solution is Solar Power Satellites, which have 
>> a serious lead time to get active, but make solar power a viable option 
>> for power (as opposed to a good method for supplementing power). The 
>> basic technology was worked out and proven 30 years ago.
>>
>> -Adan
>>
>>
>>   
> 
> 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[David Savage]

On 11/26/06, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Adam Maas"
> Subject: Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy
> >>
> >
> > The solution to the environmental issue is to outlaw coal power and
> > push
> > through nukes (Which are very safe and the disposal issue for spent
> > fuel
> > is far less of an actual issue than anti-nuke luddites insist that it
> > is).
>
> Absolutely.
> I heard the other day that France is something like 90% nuclear, and
> they don't seem to be having any problems with their reactors.
> Is Pickering still running?
> There are also political issues surrounding nuclear which attempt to
> limit who can have it.
> We are dallying with wind power generation out here, but I don't know
> how viable it is for large population densities, how long it takes to
> amortize the environmental liabilities associated with making the
> turbines.

They (the state government) just recently brought online a 45
gigalitre desalination plant here to help with the water shortage
problem (aside: stable fresh water supplies are going to be a bigger
issued than the world running out of oil IMHO).

Anyone familiar with the reverse osmosis process knows that the large
electric pumps needed consume huge amounts of electricity. So they
built a wind farm to power it & any surplus goes back into the grid.

Dave

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Adam Maas"
Subject: Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy
>>
>
> The solution to the environmental issue is to outlaw coal power and
> push
> through nukes (Which are very safe and the disposal issue for spent
> fuel
> is far less of an actual issue than anti-nuke luddites insist that it
> is).

Absolutely.
I heard the other day that France is something like 90% nuclear, and
they don't seem to be having any problems with their reactors.
Is Pickering still running?
There are also political issues surrounding nuclear which attempt to
limit who can have it.
We are dallying with wind power generation out here, but I don't know
how viable it is for large population densities, how long it takes to
amortize the environmental liabilities associated with making the
turbines.

>
> And even better long-term solution is Solar Power Satellites, which
> have
> a serious lead time to get active, but make solar power a viable
> option
> for power (as opposed to a good method for supplementing power). The
> basic technology was worked out and proven 30 years ago.
>

I recall hearing many years ago that the Russions were playing with
power transmission without using power lines, and I heard an item on As
It Happens the other day where a fellow (or group) had come up with a
method of recharging small device batteries using a wireless
transmission method.

William Robb



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[P. J. Alling]

Tesla designed this stuff at the turn of the last century,  nothing much 
has changed, broadcast power is very inefficient, narrow cast isn't much 
better.

William Robb wrote:
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Adam Maas"
> Subject: Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy
>   
>> The solution to the environmental issue is to outlaw coal power and
>> push
>> through nukes (Which are very safe and the disposal issue for spent
>> fuel
>> is far less of an actual issue than anti-nuke luddites insist that it
>> is).
>> 
>
> Absolutely.
> I heard the other day that France is something like 90% nuclear, and
> they don't seem to be having any problems with their reactors.
> Is Pickering still running?
> There are also political issues surrounding nuclear which attempt to
> limit who can have it.
> We are dallying with wind power generation out here, but I don't know
> how viable it is for large population densities, how long it takes to
> amortize the environmental liabilities associated with making the
> turbines.
>
>   
>> And even better long-term solution is Solar Power Satellites, which
>> have
>> a serious lead time to get active, but make solar power a viable
>> option
>> for power (as opposed to a good method for supplementing power). The
>> basic technology was worked out and proven 30 years ago.
>>
>> 
>
> I recall hearing many years ago that the Russions were playing with
> power transmission without using power lines, and I heard an item on As
> It Happens the other day where a fellow (or group) had come up with a
> method of recharging small device batteries using a wireless
> transmission method.
>
> William Robb
>
>
>
>   


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[K.Takeshita]

On 11/25/06 6:57 PM, "Adam Maas", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> The solution to the environmental issue is to outlaw coal power and push
> through nukes (Which are very safe and the disposal issue for spent fuel
> is far less of an actual issue than anti-nuke luddites insist that it is).

Let me chime in on this OT :-).
Before immigrating to Canada, I worked for the power reactor programmes in
Japan for many years.

1. The coal burning plants are generally bad but the ones of latest
technologies significantly reduced the emission level (i.e., fairly clean
burning).  But generally in North America, let alone here in Ontario, fossil
fueled plants are old and worst polluters (and possibly much lower thermal
efficiencies, lower than that of very vehicles they will be charging).  If
many cars become electric and start using grid power, it would be a huge
demand, and environmental or the efficiency concerns all come back to those
of the power plants.

2. Re nuclear (sometimes termed "unclear" :-), it does not burn anything and
the fuel is more abundant (power density is extremely high).  Country like
Japan has no choice but going nuclear which they are.
The problem is the cost.  It is designed and built against almost unreal
safety criteria which is making the cost of nuclear power plants billions of
dollars/plant, requiring 7 to 10 years lead time to complete.  This is
because of public pressure for the environment/safety, often undue, unfair
and unscientific, 
I can give you two easy-to-understand examples.

A). One of the most feared accidents is the break of piping in the primary
steam loop (radioactive).  Design criteria is that the pipe break always has
to be the clean guillotine break (total circumferential cut) which occurs
only in theory.  On top of that, once the guillotine break occurs, the pipe
ends wildly dance around (pipe whip) and break other piping and structures.
Therefore, all these pipes, some of them are really large, have to be
restrained by big anchors, which are very expensive.

B). The 2ndary containment structure (usually a dome type concrete structure
you see from outside) which contains the primary containment which is a
massive steel enclosure, has to be designed to withstand an unobstructed
crash of a commercial jet liner directly hitting the containment structure.,
That's why the thickness of the concrete is usually in metres, with tons of
reinforcing bars, which again is  extremely expensive structure.
Now, what the real probability of a commercial jet liner flying directly
over a nuke plant, somehow gets into trouble and makes a direct hit on the
structure.  There is a figure for that probability (Rasmussen Report) but it
is on the order of the one over several million (or probably much less, I do
not remember).

These are just two simplified examples but our life would be so much easier
if the cost of nuke plants could be reduced significantly (but reasonably).
There is always a variety of different level of risks in any industrial
products but nuke plants IMO are very safe. Usually, failure occurs in
conventional part, not radioactive part.   But it is very difficult to
properly educate and have them understand the general public about the nuke
plant safety.   Unfortunately, their often unfounded fear must be justified
in our life time.  It is always psychologically tied to nuke bomb.
It is also like an airplane crash.  It seldom happens but when it does, the
consequence is usually devastating.  But the possibility of the China
Syndrome type catastrophic failure of a nuke plant is almost none.

In any case, the fully electric vehicles have to be evaluated in terms of
true power source, the power plants, its environmental impact and the
efficiency etc.

Ken


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[P. J. Alling]

Orbital solar power stations would be wonderful, but very vulnerable.  
This would truly lead to a militarization of space, either with some 
kind of international policing force or more likely national aerospace 
forces or space navies or all three.  This would be almost as 
unacceptable as nuclear power in some quarters, maybe even more so.

Adam Maas wrote:
> William Robb wrote:
>   
>> - Original Message - 
>> From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi"
>> Subject: Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>> Technically, I don't think your reservations about the batteries in
>>> cold climates are that big a deal (block heaters are regularly used
>>> for ICEs in such environments, no reason you couldn't do the same for
>>> a battery
>>>   
>> All that does is change where the emissions are being generated, and 
>> takes away most if not all of the environmental advantages of the hybrid 
>> technology.
>> A block heater doesn't take more than a few hundred watts of power. I 
>> expect that keeping several hundred pounds of batteries 40-50 degrees 
>> above ambient temperature would take quite a bit of power, many amps at 
>> least.
>> Most commuter vehicles aren't allowed to plug in more than a block 
>> heater in daytime parking because of loading on the electrical grid.
>> All this would put more load on the power generating infrastructure, 
>> which at some point creates the need to build more power generating 
>> stations, generally at the expense of the environment.
>>
>> William Robb 
>>
>> 
>
> The solution to the environmental issue is to outlaw coal power and push 
> through nukes (Which are very safe and the disposal issue for spent fuel 
> is far less of an actual issue than anti-nuke luddites insist that it is).
>
> And even better long-term solution is Solar Power Satellites, which have 
> a serious lead time to get active, but make solar power a viable option 
> for power (as opposed to a good method for supplementing power). The 
> basic technology was worked out and proven 30 years ago.
>
> -Adan
>
>
>   


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[Adam Maas]

William Robb wrote:
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi"
> Subject: Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy
> 
> 
> 
>> Technically, I don't think your reservations about the batteries in
>> cold climates are that big a deal (block heaters are regularly used
>> for ICEs in such environments, no reason you couldn't do the same for
>> a battery
> 
> All that does is change where the emissions are being generated, and 
> takes away most if not all of the environmental advantages of the hybrid 
> technology.
> A block heater doesn't take more than a few hundred watts of power. I 
> expect that keeping several hundred pounds of batteries 40-50 degrees 
> above ambient temperature would take quite a bit of power, many amps at 
> least.
> Most commuter vehicles aren't allowed to plug in more than a block 
> heater in daytime parking because of loading on the electrical grid.
> All this would put more load on the power generating infrastructure, 
> which at some point creates the need to build more power generating 
> stations, generally at the expense of the environment.
> 
> William Robb 
> 

The solution to the environmental issue is to outlaw coal power and push 
through nukes (Which are very safe and the disposal issue for spent fuel 
is far less of an actual issue than anti-nuke luddites insist that it is).

And even better long-term solution is Solar Power Satellites, which have 
a serious lead time to get active, but make solar power a viable option 
for power (as opposed to a good method for supplementing power). The 
basic technology was worked out and proven 30 years ago.

-Adan


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[Adam Maas]

First versions got about 60 miles, the secopnd version did about twice that.

-Adam


Kenneth Waller wrote:
> FWIW, I read somewhere that in real life, the GM electrics got somewhat less 
> than 100 miles on a charge.
> 
> Kenneth Waller
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> Subject: Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy
> 
> 
>> Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>>> On Nov 24, 2006, at 9:58 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
>>>
>>>> Note that GM didn't want to build the thing in the first place.
>>> They didn't. They fought the concept all the way, even though the
>>> EV-1 was an exceptionally good car. I did drive a couple of them. It
>>> was stable, handled beautifully, was quick and comfortable. Given
>>> that the infrastructure for their use was put in place (and is still
>>> in place !!!), even the 125 mile range per charge was not a big deal.
>>> Even long commute folks here run average mileages that make it quite
>>> reasonable to run to work and do incremental charging during the day
>>> when parked.
>> 125 mile range is useful only as a commuter, and even that's iffy in
>> many places (125 mile commutes aren't unheard of here in Southern
>> Ontario). That essentially makes it a second car (As people will want to
>> drive longer distances in one go). a 250 mile range would make it far
>> more useful, but still limited.
>>
>>> Do you spend two to three hours a day driving? Few people do. 125
>>> miles represents about three to four hours of use per day. 250-300
>>> miles represents five to six hours driving every day. No, it doesn't
>>> satisfy *all* needs. But it satisfies enough for a viable vehicle for
>>> about 90% of the market.
>>>
>>>> The fact that a much later product from another company worked
>>>> better is
>>>> irrelevant to the discussion,
>>> Sure it is. The EV-1 worked just as well as the RAV4 EV. The
>>> technology involved is quite similar.
>> Similar, but the RAV4's are a generation newer, with better battery
>> tech. And based on a production platform unlike the EV1, which makes
>> them a lot cheaper to build and support.
>>
>>>> as is the fact that GM didn't support a
>>>> 3rd party who made a powerplant replacement.
>>> A company developed a battery package specifically applicable to the
>>> electric cars. GM bought the company and refused to release the
>>> batteries for use in EV-1. That's not "refusing to support a third
>>> party company products", that's quashing the technology.
>> Ah, didn't know that. I agree.
>>
>>>> GM's in the business of selling cars. If they thought EV1's were
>>>> viable
>>>> products, they wouldn't have killed it.
>>> Guess you never heard of politics, eh?
>> Oh, I know politics. Politics is what stuck GM with the EV1 in the first
>> place.
>>
>>>> Part of the issue is that unless
>>>> battery technology changes dramatically, Electric Vehicles simply will
>>>> not be viable in much of the US (California being a major exception).
>>>> Batteries simply don't hold a charge well in sub-zero centigrade
>>>> weather.
>>> Not entirely false, but not entirely true either. And who said that
>>> they would have to produce ONLY electric cars? If you had ever driven
>>> one, you'd be much better informed about why people felt so
>>> passionately about them.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, this conversation is beginning to approach typical
>>> "film vs digital" debate levels ..
>>>
>>> Godfrey
>>>
>>>
>> I'll just note that a car that's essentially warm weather only would
>> have a very restricted market in the First World (essentially the
>> southern US, Southern Europe and maybe New Zealand). One that's a
>> commuter and warm weather only has an even smaller market. I think
>> electric cars are a nice idea,and a niche product that will eventually
>> find a (small) market, but the hybrid solves most of the same problems
>> with far fewer downsides.
>>
>> I'm expecting hybrids to move more towards electrics with onboard
>> charging as battery capacity increases though.
>>
>> -Adam
>>
>> -- 
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML@pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net 
> 
> 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[Adam Maas]

Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> On Nov 25, 2006, at 9:06 AM, Adam Maas wrote:
> 
>>> BTW: if you are really spending 5-6 hours per day continuous in a
>>> passenger car just to go about your daily business of just getting to
>>> and from work, well, you have other problems in my opinion. !! :-)
>> Just a note, but with 100kph limits on the 400 series highways,  
>> that's a
>> little less than 4 hours, 2 each way, not 5-6 hours. There's a
>> relatively large difference there.
> 
> Not that I think a 2 hour commute is sensible but ...
> 
> So let's say you have a 2 hour one-way commute @ 100kph average  
> speed, and you'll be at your turnabout waypoint for 2 hours. That's  
> about 125 miles, 2 hours charging time while there (enough time for a  
> half charge), add another hour driving for side trips (grocery, bank,  
> etc), and another 125 miles for homeward drive at which point the car  
> goes back on the charger.
> 
> if you've got 250 miles range on a full charge, that means you have  
> reserve capacity for about double your daily need at any given time.  
> The issue is not total capacity or range, it's infrastructure to  
> support the incremental charging required to support this typical use  
> model. That was the point of the California initiative which included  
> charging station infrastructure, not just the cars.
> 
> And, as I said before, it doesn't solve the long distance, continuous  
> use needs for trips of great duration. That's a different problem  
> that the hybrid electric design solves. A plug-in hybrid would  
> achieve both solutions as well, or a revolution in battery/charging  
> technology to allow very fast charging while at typical duration rest  
> stops about every 60-90 minutes, which seems to be most people's long  
> distance driving behavior judging by what I saw crossing the US last  
> week.
> 
> Godfrey
> 

I agree entirely (including the silliness of a 2 hour commute, but I 
know quite a number of people who do such things).

-Adam

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[Kenneth Waller]

FWIW, I read somewhere that in real life, the GM electrics got somewhat less 
than 100 miles on a charge.

Kenneth Waller

- Original Message - 
From: "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Subject: Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy


> Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>> On Nov 24, 2006, at 9:58 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
>>
>>> Note that GM didn't want to build the thing in the first place.
>>
>> They didn't. They fought the concept all the way, even though the
>> EV-1 was an exceptionally good car. I did drive a couple of them. It
>> was stable, handled beautifully, was quick and comfortable. Given
>> that the infrastructure for their use was put in place (and is still
>> in place !!!), even the 125 mile range per charge was not a big deal.
>> Even long commute folks here run average mileages that make it quite
>> reasonable to run to work and do incremental charging during the day
>> when parked.
>
> 125 mile range is useful only as a commuter, and even that's iffy in
> many places (125 mile commutes aren't unheard of here in Southern
> Ontario). That essentially makes it a second car (As people will want to
> drive longer distances in one go). a 250 mile range would make it far
> more useful, but still limited.
>
>>
>> Do you spend two to three hours a day driving? Few people do. 125
>> miles represents about three to four hours of use per day. 250-300
>> miles represents five to six hours driving every day. No, it doesn't
>> satisfy *all* needs. But it satisfies enough for a viable vehicle for
>> about 90% of the market.
>>
>>> The fact that a much later product from another company worked
>>> better is
>>> irrelevant to the discussion,
>>
>> Sure it is. The EV-1 worked just as well as the RAV4 EV. The
>> technology involved is quite similar.
>
> Similar, but the RAV4's are a generation newer, with better battery
> tech. And based on a production platform unlike the EV1, which makes
> them a lot cheaper to build and support.
>
>>
>>> as is the fact that GM didn't support a
>>> 3rd party who made a powerplant replacement.
>>
>> A company developed a battery package specifically applicable to the
>> electric cars. GM bought the company and refused to release the
>> batteries for use in EV-1. That's not "refusing to support a third
>> party company products", that's quashing the technology.
>
> Ah, didn't know that. I agree.
>
>>
>>> GM's in the business of selling cars. If they thought EV1's were
>>> viable
>>> products, they wouldn't have killed it.
>>
>> Guess you never heard of politics, eh?
>
> Oh, I know politics. Politics is what stuck GM with the EV1 in the first
> place.
>
>>
>>> Part of the issue is that unless
>>> battery technology changes dramatically, Electric Vehicles simply will
>>> not be viable in much of the US (California being a major exception).
>>> Batteries simply don't hold a charge well in sub-zero centigrade
>>> weather.
>>
>> Not entirely false, but not entirely true either. And who said that
>> they would have to produce ONLY electric cars? If you had ever driven
>> one, you'd be much better informed about why people felt so
>> passionately about them.
>>
>> On the other hand, this conversation is beginning to approach typical
>> "film vs digital" debate levels ..
>>
>> Godfrey
>>
>>
>
> I'll just note that a car that's essentially warm weather only would
> have a very restricted market in the First World (essentially the
> southern US, Southern Europe and maybe New Zealand). One that's a
> commuter and warm weather only has an even smaller market. I think
> electric cars are a nice idea,and a niche product that will eventually
> find a (small) market, but the hybrid solves most of the same problems
> with far fewer downsides.
>
> I'm expecting hybrids to move more towards electrics with onboard
> charging as battery capacity increases though.
>
> -Adam
>
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi"
Subject: Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy



>
> Technically, I don't think your reservations about the batteries in
> cold climates are that big a deal (block heaters are regularly used
> for ICEs in such environments, no reason you couldn't do the same for
> a battery

All that does is change where the emissions are being generated, and 
takes away most if not all of the environmental advantages of the hybrid 
technology.
A block heater doesn't take more than a few hundred watts of power. I 
expect that keeping several hundred pounds of batteries 40-50 degrees 
above ambient temperature would take quite a bit of power, many amps at 
least.
Most commuter vehicles aren't allowed to plug in more than a block 
heater in daytime parking because of loading on the electrical grid.
All this would put more load on the power generating infrastructure, 
which at some point creates the need to build more power generating 
stations, generally at the expense of the environment.

William Robb 



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Nov 25, 2006, at 9:06 AM, Adam Maas wrote:

>> BTW: if you are really spending 5-6 hours per day continuous in a
>> passenger car just to go about your daily business of just getting to
>> and from work, well, you have other problems in my opinion. !! :-)
>
> Just a note, but with 100kph limits on the 400 series highways,  
> that's a
> little less than 4 hours, 2 each way, not 5-6 hours. There's a
> relatively large difference there.

Not that I think a 2 hour commute is sensible but ...

So let's say you have a 2 hour one-way commute @ 100kph average  
speed, and you'll be at your turnabout waypoint for 2 hours. That's  
about 125 miles, 2 hours charging time while there (enough time for a  
half charge), add another hour driving for side trips (grocery, bank,  
etc), and another 125 miles for homeward drive at which point the car  
goes back on the charger.

if you've got 250 miles range on a full charge, that means you have  
reserve capacity for about double your daily need at any given time.  
The issue is not total capacity or range, it's infrastructure to  
support the incremental charging required to support this typical use  
model. That was the point of the California initiative which included  
charging station infrastructure, not just the cars.

And, as I said before, it doesn't solve the long distance, continuous  
use needs for trips of great duration. That's a different problem  
that the hybrid electric design solves. A plug-in hybrid would  
achieve both solutions as well, or a revolution in battery/charging  
technology to allow very fast charging while at typical duration rest  
stops about every 60-90 minutes, which seems to be most people's long  
distance driving behavior judging by what I saw crossing the US last  
week.

Godfrey

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[Adam Maas]

Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> On Nov 25, 2006, at 8:12 AM, Adam Maas wrote:
>
> 
> BTW: if you are really spending 5-6 hours per day continuous in a  
> passenger car just to go about your daily business of just getting to  
> and from work, well, you have other problems in my opinion. !! :-)
> ..
> 
> Godfrey
> 

Just a note, but with 100kph limits on the 400 series highways, that's a 
little less than 4 hours, 2 each way, not 5-6 hours. There's a 
relatively large difference there.

-Adam

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Nov 25, 2006, at 8:12 AM, Adam Maas wrote:

> 125 mile range is useful only as a commuter, and even that's iffy in
> many places (125 mile commutes aren't unheard of here in Southern
> Ontario). That essentially makes it a second car (As people will  
> want to
> drive longer distances in one go). a 250 mile range would make it far
> more useful, but still limited.

Different needs. The quashed 250-300 mile per charge batteries would  
have solved most of that problem, along with the incremental charging  
infrastructure that was put in place through out populated portions  
of California.

The only area where the mix of adequate charge capacity and  
incremental charging infrastructure really doesn't work is when  
you're looking at a long trip, due to charging time needed. I think  
most people, with an adequate infrastructure of charge stations,  
could deal with a 250 mile range per full charge. People who set out  
on a 1500 mile trip, however, have to budget 5 several hour charge  
stops at least. That's where a hybrid electric design gets its  
legs ... you carry the charging station along with you.

> Similar, but the RAV4's are a generation newer, with better battery
> tech. And based on a production platform unlike the EV1, which makes
> them a lot cheaper to build and support.

GM *could* have built the car on a production platform too. They  
*chose* not to. Who's fault is that? The drive system technology,  
although different by patents, turned out to be almost the same.

> I'll just note that a car that's essentially warm weather only would
> have a very restricted market in the First World (essentially the
> southern US, Southern Europe and maybe New Zealand). One that's a
> commuter and warm weather only has an even smaller market. I think
> electric cars are a nice idea,and a niche product that will eventually
> find a (small) market, but the hybrid solves most of the same problems
> with far fewer downsides.

Technically, I don't think your reservations about the batteries in  
cold climates are that big a deal (block heaters are regularly used  
for ICEs in such environments, no reason you couldn't do the same for  
a battery): the Prius routes part of the climate controlled airflow  
into the battery compartment to maintain its working environment for  
just this reason, Toyota offers a block heater for its ICE as well.  
Since you would normally have an electric car plugged in to charge  
when at rest, there's no reason the battery's environment can't be  
properly maintained rather than letting it cold soak to -40 F. NASA  
has been dealing with these sorts of issues in spacecraft design for  
many years, the solutions for a planetary battery are much less  
expensive as the environment is nowhere near as harsh.

BTW: if you are really spending 5-6 hours per day continuous in a  
passenger car just to go about your daily business of just getting to  
and from work, well, you have other problems in my opinion. !! :-)

> I'm expecting hybrids to move more towards electrics with onboard
> charging as battery capacity increases though.

I know Toyota has announced that they will have a plug-in version of  
the Synergy Drive system on the market within 24-48 months. I think  
the battery technology is ready for it, it's just the rest of the  
engineering and the manufacturing costs, which come down through  
volume production, that have to be dealt with.

All in all, it seems a far far better thing than the hydrogen fuel  
cell technology that is currently the development favorite sponsored  
by the auto and oil industry. That just swaps one noose for another  
in my opinion.

I happened upon a magazine on the rack yesterday, a projection of  
2007 automobiles with a big "good and bad" listing based on owner  
surveys of similar 2004-2006 model year cars. In the family car  
category, the satisfaction/"buy another" rating for the Prius was  
92%, the next nearest rating was 87%. Across all other categories,  
87-88% was the maximum. It also got very high marks in the  
reliability/low frequency of repairs ratings.

Looking at the survey, it didn't seem to highlight anything that  
would bias the ratings on the basis of drive system. Seems to me that  
the Prius is simply a good car that does the job it was designed to  
do well. And that's the bottom line: a gasoline, diesel, hybrid- 
electric or electric car should simply have to do well what it is  
designed to do. Not all things are possible with any one design.

Just like with cameras ...

Godfrey

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[Adam Maas]

Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> On Nov 24, 2006, at 9:58 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
> 
>> Note that GM didn't want to build the thing in the first place.
> 
> They didn't. They fought the concept all the way, even though the  
> EV-1 was an exceptionally good car. I did drive a couple of them. It  
> was stable, handled beautifully, was quick and comfortable. Given  
> that the infrastructure for their use was put in place (and is still  
> in place !!!), even the 125 mile range per charge was not a big deal.  
> Even long commute folks here run average mileages that make it quite  
> reasonable to run to work and do incremental charging during the day  
> when parked.

125 mile range is useful only as a commuter, and even that's iffy in 
many places (125 mile commutes aren't unheard of here in Southern 
Ontario). That essentially makes it a second car (As people will want to 
drive longer distances in one go). a 250 mile range would make it far 
more useful, but still limited.

> 
> Do you spend two to three hours a day driving? Few people do. 125  
> miles represents about three to four hours of use per day. 250-300  
> miles represents five to six hours driving every day. No, it doesn't  
> satisfy *all* needs. But it satisfies enough for a viable vehicle for  
> about 90% of the market.
> 
>> The fact that a much later product from another company worked  
>> better is
>> irrelevant to the discussion,
> 
> Sure it is. The EV-1 worked just as well as the RAV4 EV. The  
> technology involved is quite similar.

Similar, but the RAV4's are a generation newer, with better battery 
tech. And based on a production platform unlike the EV1, which makes 
them a lot cheaper to build and support.

> 
>> as is the fact that GM didn't support a
>> 3rd party who made a powerplant replacement.
> 
> A company developed a battery package specifically applicable to the  
> electric cars. GM bought the company and refused to release the  
> batteries for use in EV-1. That's not "refusing to support a third  
> party company products", that's quashing the technology.

Ah, didn't know that. I agree.

> 
>> GM's in the business of selling cars. If they thought EV1's were  
>> viable
>> products, they wouldn't have killed it.
> 
> Guess you never heard of politics, eh?

Oh, I know politics. Politics is what stuck GM with the EV1 in the first 
place.

> 
>> Part of the issue is that unless
>> battery technology changes dramatically, Electric Vehicles simply will
>> not be viable in much of the US (California being a major exception).
>> Batteries simply don't hold a charge well in sub-zero centigrade  
>> weather.
> 
> Not entirely false, but not entirely true either. And who said that  
> they would have to produce ONLY electric cars? If you had ever driven  
> one, you'd be much better informed about why people felt so  
> passionately about them.
> 
> On the other hand, this conversation is beginning to approach typical  
> "film vs digital" debate levels ..
> 
> Godfrey
> 
> 

I'll just note that a car that's essentially warm weather only would 
have a very restricted market in the First World (essentially the 
southern US, Southern Europe and maybe New Zealand). One that's a 
commuter and warm weather only has an even smaller market. I think 
electric cars are a nice idea,and a niche product that will eventually 
find a (small) market, but the hybrid solves most of the same problems 
with far fewer downsides.

I'm expecting hybrids to move more towards electrics with onboard 
charging as battery capacity increases though.

-Adam

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[Digital Image Studio]

On 25/11/06, Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I had one of those a couple of years ago - it was one of the most
> enjoyable cars to drive I've ever had. It was like an eager little
> puppy, really wanted to go out all the time, was fast, responsive,
> economical - just a great car I thought.

If you get a chance to test drive one with the DSG 6 speed auto try
it, you'll smile for a bit after :-)

-- 
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[mike wilson]

> 
> From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2006/11/24 Fri PM 11:32:47 GMT
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
> Subject: Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy
> 
> 
> - Original Message ----- 
> From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi"
> Subject: Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy
> 
> 
> 
> > I agree, however, that the hybrid electric drive system is a better
> > concept for a "one vehicle does everything well" at the present time.
> 
> Do they work at -40?

Try to buy one locally.  That should give you the answer. 


-
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software 
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

RE: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[mike wilson]

> From: "Bob W" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2006/11/24 Fri PM 08:27:38 GMT
> To: "'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'" 
> Subject: RE: OT - Prius Fuel Economy
> 
> >  That would be like 
> > going back to "mixture" and "advance and retard" levers on 
> > infernal combustion engines. 
> 
> to indicate to the engine management system what kind of driver you
> are?
> 

Too subtle.  Management systems that provide that already just give you a 
button to swap between "aggressive git" and "trundling slug".


-
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software 
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

RE: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[Bob W]

I had one of those a couple of years ago - it was one of the most
enjoyable cars to drive I've ever had. It was like an eager little
puppy, really wanted to go out all the time, was fast, responsive,
economical - just a great car I thought.

--
 Bob
 
> 
> > You definitely won't want to see this clip ;-)
> >
> > 
> 
> Har, J is right about the diesel Golf though, I had a new 2L TDI
with
> the new 6 speed DSG box a couple of weeks ago, the thing goes like a
> cut snake and is so much fun to drive you end up tramping it
> constantly. After a few days of solid lead-foot driving in city
> traffic it had averaged out at 6.5l/100km (or 36mi/USG), I'd love to
> see what it would get if driven economically.
> 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Nov 24, 2006, at 9:58 PM, Adam Maas wrote:

> Note that GM didn't want to build the thing in the first place.

They didn't. They fought the concept all the way, even though the  
EV-1 was an exceptionally good car. I did drive a couple of them. It  
was stable, handled beautifully, was quick and comfortable. Given  
that the infrastructure for their use was put in place (and is still  
in place !!!), even the 125 mile range per charge was not a big deal.  
Even long commute folks here run average mileages that make it quite  
reasonable to run to work and do incremental charging during the day  
when parked.

Do you spend two to three hours a day driving? Few people do. 125  
miles represents about three to four hours of use per day. 250-300  
miles represents five to six hours driving every day. No, it doesn't  
satisfy *all* needs. But it satisfies enough for a viable vehicle for  
about 90% of the market.

> The fact that a much later product from another company worked  
> better is
> irrelevant to the discussion,

Sure it is. The EV-1 worked just as well as the RAV4 EV. The  
technology involved is quite similar.

> as is the fact that GM didn't support a
> 3rd party who made a powerplant replacement.

A company developed a battery package specifically applicable to the  
electric cars. GM bought the company and refused to release the  
batteries for use in EV-1. That's not "refusing to support a third  
party company products", that's quashing the technology.

> GM's in the business of selling cars. If they thought EV1's were  
> viable
> products, they wouldn't have killed it.

Guess you never heard of politics, eh?

> Part of the issue is that unless
> battery technology changes dramatically, Electric Vehicles simply will
> not be viable in much of the US (California being a major exception).
> Batteries simply don't hold a charge well in sub-zero centigrade  
> weather.

Not entirely false, but not entirely true either. And who said that  
they would have to produce ONLY electric cars? If you had ever driven  
one, you'd be much better informed about why people felt so  
passionately about them.

On the other hand, this conversation is beginning to approach typical  
"film vs digital" debate levels ..

Godfrey


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[Adam Maas]

William Robb wrote:
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi"
> Subject: Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy
> 
> 
> 
>> I agree, however, that the hybrid electric drive system is a better
>> concept for a "one vehicle does everything well" at the present time.
> 
> Do they work at -40?
> 
> William Robb 
> 

Hybrids will. Electrics won't.

-Adam


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[Adam Maas]

Note that GM didn't want to build the thing in the first place. They 
were forced to, lost a bunch of money on it that they saw no way of 
recovering and did everything they could to kill it.

The fact that a much later product from another company worked better is 
irrelevant to the discussion, as is the fact that GM didn't support a 
3rd party who made a powerplant replacement.

GM's in the business of selling cars. If they thought EV1's were viable 
products, they wouldn't have killed it. Part of the issue is that unless 
battery technology changes dramatically, Electric Vehicles simply will 
not be viable in much of the US (California being a major exception). 
Batteries simply don't hold a charge well in sub-zero centigrade weather.

-Adam


Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> re: who killed the electric car
> 
> I don't want to get into all the bullshit that GM spews about the  
> EV-1. Saying "lawsuits" is ridiculous. Saying they were too expensive  
> to make and didn't meet enough market need despite heavy advertising  
> is bullshit ... if you tried to buy an EV-1 (I did ...) you were met  
> with barrier after barrier, filled out a barrage of paperwork, and  
> then the bastards said "No!" 9 times out of 10. Hell of an  
> "aggressive marketing plan".
> 
> And when they would let you have one because you were a celebrity or  
> whatever, they would lease it and not allow any option to renew or  
> extend the lease, buy it out, etc. They quashed the makers of the  
> batteries that would have given the car a 300 mile range.
> 
> And let's imagine that there were real, sensible, intelligent reasons  
> why the cars were not viable for use. Sure, collect them post-leasing  
> and dispose of the ones that you don't otherwise put to good use for  
> further research and development. Leave a few around in museums and  
> such for historical purposes ... which they did ...
> 
> But why destroy the control system that would allow them ever to be  
> run again? That's what they did. It's like Ford saying "Well,  
> Smithsonian Institute, you can have the very last Model T for  
> posterity but we're taking out the camshaft and connecting rods  
> because you should never be able to demonstrate it."
> 
> And they were not alone in this heinous behavior. I don't blame GM  
> alone, although they were the worst offenders.
> 
> BTW: The City of Sunnyvale and City of San Jose both operate still a  
> fleet of Toyota RAV4 EVs. They're nearing the end of their five year  
> lease and will likely be collected up and crushed soon. I know  
> several of the folks that use them daily. With the third generation  
> battery they were fitted with about a year after they were leased,  
> they're getting 250 miles per charge. Not a single one has required  
> any maintenance other than tires and brake pads, in 70,000 plus miles  
> of service. The people who use them love them. For an 11 month  
> period, Toyota offered a buy out option on the lease which many  
> people who had one took advantage of. I know three of those people.  
> The cars are running beautifully, with 90,000 plus miles on the clock  
> on average, and still have only required tires and brakes, a couple  
> of normal suspension components. Yeah, they'll crush and shred them,  
> the manufacturers don't want people to know how good these vehicles  
> are ... they don't make enough money on service with them, that's the  
> real problem.
> 
> I'd gotten over the anger once before. Seeing this movie made me  
> angry once again.
> 
> I agree, however, that the hybrid electric drive system is a better  
> concept for a "one vehicle does everything well" at the present time.  
> I think it has good legs ... the future possibilities of plug-in  
> recharging, alternative fuel ICEs to mate with the electrics, etc  
> pose a viable way forward. The Prius has, in my opinion, validated  
> this drive system concept very satisfactorily, and we're happily  
> still in the early infancy of its deployment. Innovation can still  
> make a difference...
> 
> Godfrey
> 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Nov 24, 2006, at 5:13 PM, William Robb wrote:

 I agree, however, that the hybrid electric drive system is a better
 concept for a "one vehicle does everything well" at the present
 time.
>>>
>>> Do they work at -40?
>>
>> I have no idea. It doesn't concern me ... I don't work at -40, nor
>> would I want to drive a passenger car in such conditions. If I needed
>> a vehicle for such conditions, I'd do some research and determine if
>> this was the right one. I know a lot of cars and motorcycles that
>> would not be appropriate for such conditions.
>
> Temperatures in the -40 range are very much part of what a vehicle  
> needs
> to tolerate here.
> Hence my question.

You made me curious so I did a search on the PriusChat forum for  
"cold weather" and found several people driving them in Alaska and  
other extreme cold weather environments so it seems they do just fine  
in such weather. Toyota sells a block heater accessory for the  
extreme cold climate users too.

Godfrey

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[P. J. Alling]

That one GM probably won.

Kenneth Waller wrote:
> IIRC, there was a lawsuit, by a lessee, to force GM to sell him the car he 
> leased.
>
> Kenneth Waller
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "keith_w" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy
>
>
>   
>> P. J. Alling wrote:
>>
>> 
>>> Lawsuits.
>>>   
>> I'm certain you nailed it, P.J.
>>
>> keith whaley
>>
>> 
>>> Charles Robinson wrote:
>>>   
>>>> On Nov 24, 2006, at 13:09, Kenneth Waller wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>>>> It was made by someone who used to own one of the GM "EV-1" cars
>>>>>> 
>>>>> My understanding is that GM owned those vehicles. They were leased
>>>>> to the customer @ a great loss.
>>>>>   
>>>> You are correct, they were leased.  I didn't feel like getting into
>>>> all of the details.
>>>>
>>>> GM does talk about "at a great loss" and all that, but it still
>>>> doesn't explain the logic of rounding them all up, crushing them, and
>>>> shredding them.
>>>>
>>>>   -Charles
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Charles Robinson
>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> 
>> -- 
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML@pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net 
>> 
>
>
>   


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[P. J. Alling]

Now that's cool.

Cotty wrote:
> On 24/11/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
>   
>> I'd gotten over the anger once before. Seeing this movie made me  
>> angry once again.
>> 
>
> You definitely won't want to see this clip ;-)
>
> 
>
>   


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Paul Stenquist" 
Subject: Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy


> Of course. The GM electrics were doomed by their scarcity. Leaving  
> them in circulation would only have hurt GMs reputation long term.

Like they need any help with that...

William Robb


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[Paul Stenquist]

Of course. The GM electrics were doomed by their scarcity. Leaving  
them in circulation would only have hurt GMs reputation long term.
Paul
On Nov 24, 2006, at 7:24 PM, Kenneth Waller wrote:

>> You can buy every part for a Model T from aftermarket suppliers.
>> That's true of many old cars. I can buy all the parts for my 55 Chevy
>> as well.
> Same goes for the original VW bug.
>
> It one thing to set up aftermarket parts for out of production,  
> long run
> production vehicles & quite something else to support what, a few  
> hundred GM
> electric vehicles which were essentially prototypes & hand built (I  
> think).
>
> Kenneth Waller
>
> - Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Stenquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy
>
>
>> You can buy every part for a Model T from aftermarket suppliers.
>> That's true of many old cars. I can buy all the parts for my 55 Chevy
>> as well. The only things I'd have to look for used would be head
>> castings or blocks. Every other part is available new or restored. I
>> purchased a restored (rather than rebuilt) carburetor for it. All the
>> throttle plate bores were plugged and rebored. The body was replated
>> with the original bronzing. All of the internal parts are new. It
>> runs beautifully.
>> Paul
>> On Nov 24, 2006, at 3:40 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
>>
>>> Charles Robinson wrote:
>>>> On Nov 24, 2006, at 13:49, Kenneth Waller wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Lack of support also.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are a lot of discontinued/unsupported cars out on the road -
>>>> Model T's, even!
>>>>
>>>> I don't recall Ford going out and pulling all of them off of the
>>>> road.
>>>>
>>>>   -Charles
>>>>
>>>
>>> There's a big difference between maintaining a car which was
>>> actually sold and was supported for a time, with a number of
>>> aftermarket parts options and/or other cars to scrap for parts and
>>> a vehicle which the maker considered it uneconomical to sell &
>>> support even when brand new.
>>>
>>> -Adam
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>>> PDML@pdml.net
>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML@pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>
>
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[Paul Stenquist]

Kudos for Jeremy. Someone had to do it:-)
Paul
On Nov 24, 2006, at 6:53 PM, Cotty wrote:

> On 24/11/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
>> I'd gotten over the anger once before. Seeing this movie made me
>> angry once again.
>
> You definitely won't want to see this clip ;-)
>
> 
>
> -- 
>
>
> Cheers,
>   Cotty
>
>
> ___/\__
> ||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
> ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
> _
>
>
>
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi"
Subject: Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy


>
> On Nov 24, 2006, at 3:32 PM, William Robb wrote:
>
>>> I agree, however, that the hybrid electric drive system is a better
>>> concept for a "one vehicle does everything well" at the present 
>>> time.
>>
>> Do they work at -40?
>
> I have no idea. It doesn't concern me ... I don't work at -40, nor
> would I want to drive a passenger car in such conditions. If I needed
> a vehicle for such conditions, I'd do some research and determine if
> this was the right one. I know a lot of cars and motorcycles that
> would not be appropriate for such conditions.

Temperatures in the -40 range are very much part of what a vehicle needs 
to tolerate here.
Hence my question.

William Robb 



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[Digital Image Studio]

On 25/11/06, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> You definitely won't want to see this clip ;-)
>
> 

Har, J is right about the diesel Golf though, I had a new 2L TDI with
the new 6 speed DSG box a couple of weeks ago, the thing goes like a
cut snake and is so much fun to drive you end up tramping it
constantly. After a few days of solid lead-foot driving in city
traffic it had averaged out at 6.5l/100km (or 36mi/USG), I'd love to
see what it would get if driven economically.

-- 
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Nov 24, 2006, at 3:53 PM, Cotty wrote:

> On 24/11/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
>> I'd gotten over the anger once before. Seeing this movie made me
>> angry once again.
>
> You definitely won't want to see this clip ;-)
>
> 

LOL ... saw that when I was researching the Prius. It's funny as  
hell. Reminds me of an old friend who used a high powered rifle as  
his way to render data on old hard drives unretrievable... ;-)

Godfrey

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[Kenneth Waller]

> You can buy every part for a Model T from aftermarket suppliers.
> That's true of many old cars. I can buy all the parts for my 55 Chevy
> as well.
Same goes for the original VW bug.

It one thing to set up aftermarket parts for out of production, long run 
production vehicles & quite something else to support what, a few hundred GM 
electric vehicles which were essentially prototypes & hand built (I think).

Kenneth Waller

- Original Message - 
From: "Paul Stenquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy


> You can buy every part for a Model T from aftermarket suppliers.
> That's true of many old cars. I can buy all the parts for my 55 Chevy
> as well. The only things I'd have to look for used would be head
> castings or blocks. Every other part is available new or restored. I
> purchased a restored (rather than rebuilt) carburetor for it. All the
> throttle plate bores were plugged and rebored. The body was replated
> with the original bronzing. All of the internal parts are new. It
> runs beautifully.
> Paul
> On Nov 24, 2006, at 3:40 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
>
>> Charles Robinson wrote:
>>> On Nov 24, 2006, at 13:49, Kenneth Waller wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Lack of support also.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There are a lot of discontinued/unsupported cars out on the road -
>>> Model T's, even!
>>>
>>> I don't recall Ford going out and pulling all of them off of the
>>> road.
>>>
>>>   -Charles
>>>
>>
>> There's a big difference between maintaining a car which was
>> actually sold and was supported for a time, with a number of
>> aftermarket parts options and/or other cars to scrap for parts and
>> a vehicle which the maker considered it uneconomical to sell &
>> support even when brand new.
>>
>> -Adam
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML@pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>
>
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[Kenneth Waller]

IIRC, there was a lawsuit, by a lessee, to force GM to sell him the car he 
leased.

Kenneth Waller

- Original Message - 
From: "keith_w" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy


> P. J. Alling wrote:
>
>> Lawsuits.
>
> I'm certain you nailed it, P.J.
>
> keith whaley
>
>> Charles Robinson wrote:
>>> On Nov 24, 2006, at 13:09, Kenneth Waller wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> It was made by someone who used to own one of the GM "EV-1" cars
>
>>>> My understanding is that GM owned those vehicles. They were leased
>>>> to the customer @ a great loss.
>
>>> You are correct, they were leased.  I didn't feel like getting into
>>> all of the details.
>>>
>>> GM does talk about "at a great loss" and all that, but it still
>>> doesn't explain the logic of rounding them all up, crushing them, and
>>> shredding them.
>>>
>>>   -Charles
>>>
>>> --
>>> Charles Robinson
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[Cotty]

On 24/11/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed:

>I'd gotten over the anger once before. Seeing this movie made me  
>angry once again.

You definitely won't want to see this clip ;-)



-- 


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Nov 24, 2006, at 3:32 PM, William Robb wrote:

>> I agree, however, that the hybrid electric drive system is a better
>> concept for a "one vehicle does everything well" at the present time.
>
> Do they work at -40?

I have no idea. It doesn't concern me ... I don't work at -40, nor  
would I want to drive a passenger car in such conditions. If I needed  
a vehicle for such conditions, I'd do some research and determine if  
this was the right one. I know a lot of cars and motorcycles that  
would not be appropriate for such conditions.

Mine has worked fine from overnight cold soaks out in an open parking  
lot at temperatures in the sub 20 degree F range, however.

Godfrey

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi"
Subject: Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy



> I agree, however, that the hybrid electric drive system is a better
> concept for a "one vehicle does everything well" at the present time.

Do they work at -40?

William Robb 



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

re: who killed the electric car

I don't want to get into all the bullshit that GM spews about the  
EV-1. Saying "lawsuits" is ridiculous. Saying they were too expensive  
to make and didn't meet enough market need despite heavy advertising  
is bullshit ... if you tried to buy an EV-1 (I did ...) you were met  
with barrier after barrier, filled out a barrage of paperwork, and  
then the bastards said "No!" 9 times out of 10. Hell of an  
"aggressive marketing plan".

And when they would let you have one because you were a celebrity or  
whatever, they would lease it and not allow any option to renew or  
extend the lease, buy it out, etc. They quashed the makers of the  
batteries that would have given the car a 300 mile range.

And let's imagine that there were real, sensible, intelligent reasons  
why the cars were not viable for use. Sure, collect them post-leasing  
and dispose of the ones that you don't otherwise put to good use for  
further research and development. Leave a few around in museums and  
such for historical purposes ... which they did ...

But why destroy the control system that would allow them ever to be  
run again? That's what they did. It's like Ford saying "Well,  
Smithsonian Institute, you can have the very last Model T for  
posterity but we're taking out the camshaft and connecting rods  
because you should never be able to demonstrate it."

And they were not alone in this heinous behavior. I don't blame GM  
alone, although they were the worst offenders.

BTW: The City of Sunnyvale and City of San Jose both operate still a  
fleet of Toyota RAV4 EVs. They're nearing the end of their five year  
lease and will likely be collected up and crushed soon. I know  
several of the folks that use them daily. With the third generation  
battery they were fitted with about a year after they were leased,  
they're getting 250 miles per charge. Not a single one has required  
any maintenance other than tires and brake pads, in 70,000 plus miles  
of service. The people who use them love them. For an 11 month  
period, Toyota offered a buy out option on the lease which many  
people who had one took advantage of. I know three of those people.  
The cars are running beautifully, with 90,000 plus miles on the clock  
on average, and still have only required tires and brakes, a couple  
of normal suspension components. Yeah, they'll crush and shred them,  
the manufacturers don't want people to know how good these vehicles  
are ... they don't make enough money on service with them, that's the  
real problem.

I'd gotten over the anger once before. Seeing this movie made me  
angry once again.

I agree, however, that the hybrid electric drive system is a better  
concept for a "one vehicle does everything well" at the present time.  
I think it has good legs ... the future possibilities of plug-in  
recharging, alternative fuel ICEs to mate with the electrics, etc  
pose a viable way forward. The Prius has, in my opinion, validated  
this drive system concept very satisfactorily, and we're happily  
still in the early infancy of its deployment. Innovation can still  
make a difference...

Godfrey

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[P. J. Alling]

Apparently in spite of heavy advertising GM was only able to lease about 
800 EV1 cars total during the entire production run.  This is hardly 
enough to support an after market There are probably more 55 Chevy's on 
the road today than EV1s in existence, ever.

Paul Stenquist wrote:
> You can buy every part for a Model T from aftermarket suppliers.  
> That's true of many old cars. I can buy all the parts for my 55 Chevy  
> as well. The only things I'd have to look for used would be head  
> castings or blocks. Every other part is available new or restored. I  
> purchased a restored (rather than rebuilt) carburetor for it. All the  
> throttle plate bores were plugged and rebored. The body was replated  
> with the original bronzing. All of the internal parts are new. It  
> runs beautifully.
> Paul
> On Nov 24, 2006, at 3:40 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
>
>   
>> Charles Robinson wrote:
>> 
>>> On Nov 24, 2006, at 13:49, Kenneth Waller wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>   
 Lack of support also.

 
>>> There are a lot of discontinued/unsupported cars out on the road -
>>> Model T's, even!
>>>
>>> I don't recall Ford going out and pulling all of them off of the  
>>> road.
>>>
>>>   -Charles
>>>
>>>   
>> There's a big difference between maintaining a car which was  
>> actually sold and was supported for a time, with a number of  
>> aftermarket parts options and/or other cars to scrap for parts and  
>> a vehicle which the maker considered it uneconomical to sell &  
>> support even when brand new.
>>
>> -Adam
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML@pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>> 
>
>
>   


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[Paul Stenquist]

You can buy every part for a Model T from aftermarket suppliers.  
That's true of many old cars. I can buy all the parts for my 55 Chevy  
as well. The only things I'd have to look for used would be head  
castings or blocks. Every other part is available new or restored. I  
purchased a restored (rather than rebuilt) carburetor for it. All the  
throttle plate bores were plugged and rebored. The body was replated  
with the original bronzing. All of the internal parts are new. It  
runs beautifully.
Paul
On Nov 24, 2006, at 3:40 PM, Adam Maas wrote:

> Charles Robinson wrote:
>> On Nov 24, 2006, at 13:49, Kenneth Waller wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Lack of support also.
>>>
>>
>>
>> There are a lot of discontinued/unsupported cars out on the road -
>> Model T's, even!
>>
>> I don't recall Ford going out and pulling all of them off of the  
>> road.
>>
>>   -Charles
>>
>
> There's a big difference between maintaining a car which was  
> actually sold and was supported for a time, with a number of  
> aftermarket parts options and/or other cars to scrap for parts and  
> a vehicle which the maker considered it uneconomical to sell &  
> support even when brand new.
>
> -Adam
>
>
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[P. J. Alling]

There are some that have already been so modified.

Charles Robinson wrote:
> On Nov 24, 2006, at 14:19, Adam Maas wrote:
>
>   
>> The Documentary on the subject (Who Killed The Electric Car)  
>> essentially ignores the real issues in favour of a love-in for what  
>> was at best a second vehicle for rich people.
>>
>> 
>
> I know it's biased... but it is still interesting viewing!
>
>   
>> You'll note that automakers are jumping on the Hybrid bandwagon as  
>> fast as they can. With essentially unlimited range and much better  
>> performance than an EV1, hybrids are a breakout success, although I  
>> would like to see the capability to charge them from the mains as  
>> well as from the engine.
>>
>> 
>
> The so-called "plug-in hybrid" seems to be the best combination so  
> far, when it comes.
>
>   -Charles
>
> --
> Charles Robinson
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Minneapolis, MN
> http://charles.robinsontwins.org
>
>
>
>   


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[P. J. Alling]

Lots of cars exist with lack of support, however let a shade tree 
mechanic get electrocuted fiddling around with a high voltage high 
amperage system...

Kenneth Waller wrote:
> Lack of support also.
>
> Kenneth Waller
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy
>
>
>   
>> Lawsuits.
>>
>> Charles Robinson wrote:
>> 
>>> On Nov 24, 2006, at 13:09, Kenneth Waller wrote:
>>>
>>>   
>>>   
>>>>> It was made by someone who used to own one of the GM "EV-1" cars
>>>>>   
>>>>>   
>>>> My understanding is that GM owned those vehicles. They were leased  
>>>> to the
>>>> customer @ a great loss.
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> You are correct, they were leased.  I didn't feel like getting into  
>>> all of the details.
>>>
>>> GM does talk about "at a great loss" and all that, but it still  
>>> doesn't explain the logic of rounding them all up, crushing them, and  
>>> shredding them.
>>>
>>>   -Charles
>>>
>>> --
>>> Charles Robinson
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Minneapolis, MN
>>> http://charles.robinsontwins.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>>   
>> -- 
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML@pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>> 
>
>   


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[keith_w]

P. J. Alling wrote:

> Lawsuits.

I'm certain you nailed it, P.J.

keith whaley

> Charles Robinson wrote:
>> On Nov 24, 2006, at 13:09, Kenneth Waller wrote:
>>
>>   
 It was made by someone who used to own one of the GM "EV-1" cars

>>> My understanding is that GM owned those vehicles. They were leased  
>>> to the customer @ a great loss.

>> You are correct, they were leased.  I didn't feel like getting into  
>> all of the details.
>>
>> GM does talk about "at a great loss" and all that, but it still  
>> doesn't explain the logic of rounding them all up, crushing them, and  
>> shredding them.
>>
>>   -Charles
>>
>> --
>> Charles Robinson
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[Adam Maas]

Charles Robinson wrote:
> On Nov 24, 2006, at 14:19, Adam Maas wrote:
> 
> 
>>The Documentary on the subject (Who Killed The Electric Car)  
>>essentially ignores the real issues in favour of a love-in for what  
>>was at best a second vehicle for rich people.
>>
> 
> 
> I know it's biased... but it is still interesting viewing!
> 
> 
>>You'll note that automakers are jumping on the Hybrid bandwagon as  
>>fast as they can. With essentially unlimited range and much better  
>>performance than an EV1, hybrids are a breakout success, although I  
>>would like to see the capability to charge them from the mains as  
>>well as from the engine.
>>
> 
> 
> The so-called "plug-in hybrid" seems to be the best combination so  
> far, when it comes.
> 
>   -Charles
> 

The plug-in idea is quite good, but it will actually increase pollution 
anywhere that uses a fair amount of coal power (which is incredibly dirty, 
especially if eastern coal is used [which can be rather radioactive])/

-Adam


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[Adam Maas]

Charles Robinson wrote:
> On Nov 24, 2006, at 13:49, Kenneth Waller wrote:
> 
> 
>>Lack of support also.
>>
> 
> 
> There are a lot of discontinued/unsupported cars out on the road -  
> Model T's, even!
> 
> I don't recall Ford going out and pulling all of them off of the road.
> 
>   -Charles
> 

There's a big difference between maintaining a car which was actually sold and 
was supported for a time, with a number of aftermarket parts options and/or 
other cars to scrap for parts and a vehicle which the maker considered it 
uneconomical to sell & support even when brand new.

-Adam


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[Charles Robinson]

On Nov 24, 2006, at 13:49, Kenneth Waller wrote:

> Lack of support also.
>

There are a lot of discontinued/unsupported cars out on the road -  
Model T's, even!

I don't recall Ford going out and pulling all of them off of the road.

  -Charles

--
Charles Robinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Minneapolis, MN
http://charles.robinsontwins.org



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[Charles Robinson]

On Nov 24, 2006, at 14:19, Adam Maas wrote:

>
> The Documentary on the subject (Who Killed The Electric Car)  
> essentially ignores the real issues in favour of a love-in for what  
> was at best a second vehicle for rich people.
>

I know it's biased... but it is still interesting viewing!

> You'll note that automakers are jumping on the Hybrid bandwagon as  
> fast as they can. With essentially unlimited range and much better  
> performance than an EV1, hybrids are a breakout success, although I  
> would like to see the capability to charge them from the mains as  
> well as from the engine.
>

The so-called "plug-in hybrid" seems to be the best combination so  
far, when it comes.

  -Charles

--
Charles Robinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Minneapolis, MN
http://charles.robinsontwins.org



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

RE: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[Bob W]

>  That would be like 
> going back to "mixture" and "advance and retard" levers on 
> infernal combustion engines. 

to indicate to the engine management system what kind of driver you
are?

Bob


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[Adam Maas]

Charles Robinson wrote:
> On Nov 24, 2006, at 13:09, Kenneth Waller wrote:
> 
> 
>>>It was made by someone who used to own one of the GM "EV-1" cars
>>
>>My understanding is that GM owned those vehicles. They were leased  
>>to the
>>customer @ a great loss.
>>
> 
> 
> You are correct, they were leased.  I didn't feel like getting into  
> all of the details.
> 
> GM does talk about "at a great loss" and all that, but it still  
> doesn't explain the logic of rounding them all up, crushing them, and  
> shredding them.
> 
>   -Charles
> 

GM was forced to make them, forced to lease them and got rid of the things the 
moment they could. They were not a successful experiment, despite a certain 
group of people who liked them as a 'car about town'.

With a 60 mile range on the original version, around 100 miles on the final 
version, they weren't a viable platform for sales, and the income from selling 
them was exceeded by the costs of warrantying them. And GM didn't want to be 
liable for any issues with the (rather flaky) vehicles.

The Documentary on the subject (Who Killed The Electric Car) essentially 
ignores the real issues in favour of a love-in for what was at best a second 
vehicle for rich people.

You'll note that automakers are jumping on the Hybrid bandwagon as fast as they 
can. With essentially unlimited range and much better performance than an EV1, 
hybrids are a breakout success, although I would like to see the capability to 
charge them from the mains as well as from the engine.

-Adam



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[Kenneth Waller]

Lack of support also.

Kenneth Waller

- Original Message - 
From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy


> Lawsuits.
> 
> Charles Robinson wrote:
>> On Nov 24, 2006, at 13:09, Kenneth Waller wrote:
>>
>>   
>>>> It was made by someone who used to own one of the GM "EV-1" cars
>>>>   
>>> My understanding is that GM owned those vehicles. They were leased  
>>> to the
>>> customer @ a great loss.
>>>
>>> 
>>
>> You are correct, they were leased.  I didn't feel like getting into  
>> all of the details.
>>
>> GM does talk about "at a great loss" and all that, but it still  
>> doesn't explain the logic of rounding them all up, crushing them, and  
>> shredding them.
>>
>>   -Charles
>>
>> --
>> Charles Robinson
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Minneapolis, MN
>> http://charles.robinsontwins.org
>>
>>
>>
>>   
> 
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[P. J. Alling]

Lawsuits.

Charles Robinson wrote:
> On Nov 24, 2006, at 13:09, Kenneth Waller wrote:
>
>   
>>> It was made by someone who used to own one of the GM "EV-1" cars
>>>   
>> My understanding is that GM owned those vehicles. They were leased  
>> to the
>> customer @ a great loss.
>>
>> 
>
> You are correct, they were leased.  I didn't feel like getting into  
> all of the details.
>
> GM does talk about "at a great loss" and all that, but it still  
> doesn't explain the logic of rounding them all up, crushing them, and  
> shredding them.
>
>   -Charles
>
> --
> Charles Robinson
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Minneapolis, MN
> http://charles.robinsontwins.org
>
>
>
>   


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[Charles Robinson]

On Nov 24, 2006, at 13:09, Kenneth Waller wrote:

>> It was made by someone who used to own one of the GM "EV-1" cars
> My understanding is that GM owned those vehicles. They were leased  
> to the
> customer @ a great loss.
>

You are correct, they were leased.  I didn't feel like getting into  
all of the details.

GM does talk about "at a great loss" and all that, but it still  
doesn't explain the logic of rounding them all up, crushing them, and  
shredding them.

  -Charles

--
Charles Robinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Minneapolis, MN
http://charles.robinsontwins.org



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[Kenneth Waller]

> It was made by someone who used to own one of the GM "EV-1" cars
My understanding is that GM owned those vehicles. They were leased to the 
customer @ a great loss.

Kenneth Waller

- Original Message - 
From: "Charles Robinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy


> On Nov 24, 2006, at 8:52, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>> This is a new technology vehicle. The technology is not yet well
>> understood by the service industry and the people conjecturing about
>> it on web pages and in the industry press. I expect that
>> understanding to change as the benefits *and* fallabilities of the
>> drive system become better known,  the problems it might have advance
>> from myth to commonsense, and as the volume of vehicles in  use built
>> around it increases. I do expect that we'll see a lot more of it as
>> time goes on as I feel the benefits are substantial.
>>
>
> All this discussion about batteries and new technology cars reminds
> me to share information about an interesting movie I watched a few
> days ago: "Who Killed The Electric Car?"
>
> It was made by someone who used to own one of the GM "EV-1" cars, and
> it clearly has a bias  BUT - it is still quite interesting to see
> the story about how electric cars were rolled out in California and
> then slowly killed off (removed from the road and destroyed).
>
> Some sad/funny/interesting stuff in that movie.  Those of you in the
> U.S. who have Netflix, I recommend adding it to your queue!
>
>  -Charles
>
> --
> Charles Robinson
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Minneapolis, MN
> http://charles.robinsontwins.org
>
>
>
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[Charles Robinson]

On Nov 24, 2006, at 8:52, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> This is a new technology vehicle. The technology is not yet well
> understood by the service industry and the people conjecturing about
> it on web pages and in the industry press. I expect that
> understanding to change as the benefits *and* fallabilities of the
> drive system become better known,  the problems it might have advance
> from myth to commonsense, and as the volume of vehicles in  use built
> around it increases. I do expect that we'll see a lot more of it as
> time goes on as I feel the benefits are substantial.
>

All this discussion about batteries and new technology cars reminds  
me to share information about an interesting movie I watched a few  
days ago: "Who Killed The Electric Car?"

It was made by someone who used to own one of the GM "EV-1" cars, and  
it clearly has a bias  BUT - it is still quite interesting to see  
the story about how electric cars were rolled out in California and  
then slowly killed off (removed from the road and destroyed).

Some sad/funny/interesting stuff in that movie.  Those of you in the  
U.S. who have Netflix, I recommend adding it to your queue!

  -Charles

--
Charles Robinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Minneapolis, MN
http://charles.robinsontwins.org



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

Toyota designed the control system to maximize battery life. That's  
all you need to know. The energy display is entertaining and  
distracting, but fun to look at occasionally when the traffic is  
light and you're bored. Crossing the US on the interstates is a  
driving situation when turning it on to glance at the battery state  
once in a while is utterly innocuous and poses no risk.

My curiosity about it was noting when (at what loads and speeds) the  
control system held the battery in about the half charge state vs the  
higher charge states on the display, and how quickly it transitioned  
in different driving situations. I'm technically curious about the  
car, unlike the average driver... I found it curious for a while and  
came to what I thought was a reasonable conjecture about the workings  
of the control system vis-a-vis energy flow. Passengers I've had in  
the car seem to enjoy the display for about ten minutes and then  
totally ignore it.

Most of the time, most people I know with a Prius turn on the fuel  
economy display for daily driving, which is a sticky setting ... the  
car wakes up with it. This provides more useful information and is  
easy to understand without distraction. It's what I normally leave on  
the display (MFD) when I'm driving and have it turned on at all.

The batteries are easily recyclable, and desirable to do so as they  
are expensive. There will be partial cost recovery for owners of high  
mileage cars as they have salvage value. At the moment, the volumes  
of hybrid electric cars on the market make buying a 7 year old  
example with 100,000 miles a theoretically risky proposition but  
since there aren't any it's a moot point. On the other hand, by the  
time there *are* 7 to 10 year old examples with 100,000 miles or more  
available, I predict the aftermarket and information ecology of the  
marketplace will have changed significantly.

How the battery warranty might transfer I'm not concerned with.  
However in the US warranties on emissions/environmental control  
system durability and performance are regulated by the Environmental  
Protection Agency, not linked to any specific ownership of the  
vehicle, and the batteries are likely considered as part of the  
emissions/environmental control package.

This is a new technology vehicle. The technology is not yet well  
understood by the service industry and the people conjecturing about  
it on web pages and in the industry press. I expect that  
understanding to change as the benefits *and* fallabilities of the  
drive system become better known,  the problems it might have advance  
from myth to commonsense, and as the volume of vehicles in  use built  
around it increases. I do expect that we'll see a lot more of it as  
time goes on as I feel the benefits are substantial.

Godfrey


On Nov 24, 2006, at 2:58 AM, mike wilson wrote:

> I read it yesterday and quoted from memory, which was, of course,  
> wrong.  It's between 45 and 75%, 60% being the optimum state of  
> charge.  If you google (advanced) with "prius" as "exact phrase"  
> and "battery replacement" as "all these words" you will get the  
> list I got.  Can't imagine the battery state will have any user  
> input.  That would be like going back to "mixture" and "advance and  
> retard" levers on infernal combustion engines.  Too much  
> distraction.  I get worried enough when Godfrey talks about  
> watching the display to see what's going on. 8-)


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[mike wilson]

> From: keith_w <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2006/11/24 Fri AM 10:19:33 GMT
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List 
> Subject: Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy
> 
> mike wilson wrote:
> >> From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 2006/11/24 Fri AM
> >> 01:32:14 GMT To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List  Subject:
> >> Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy
> >> 
> >> William Robb wrote:
> >> 
> >>> From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi"
> >>>> On Nov 23, 2006, at 10:31 AM, mike wilson wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> You had better be prepared to keep it.  Resale value when it
> >>>>> needs $4-5k of batteries (at today's prices) will not be
> >>>>> good.
> 
> >>>> Drive batteries are fully warranteed for 8 years/100,000 miles
> >>>> in the United States. By the time you need new batteries, a)
> >>>> they'll likely be a lot cheaper, b) the replacements will be
> >>>> even better, and/or c) you'll want a new car anyway.
> >>> More likely, the life expectancy of the car will be when the
> >>> batteries go flakey out of warranty.
> >> I think Godfrey's right about the batteries being improved. They're
> >>  already rumoured to be using LiIon in next year's model.
> >> Replacement of the current (NiMH) battery is around $1500-2000.
> 
> 
> > Toyota's take on battery charging is interesting.  The vehicle aims
> > to keep the cells in the region of 60 to 75% charge, as this manner
> > of use extends battery life.  So the display is only monitoring this
> > level of charge.  "Empty" is really 60% and "full" is 75% of real
> > capacity.
> 
> Where did that bit of info come from, Mike?
> Not being "Prius-conversant" I must also ask, is the state of the 
> battery charge "user-controllable" or is it automatic?

http://auto.consumerguide.com/Articles/index.cfm/act/featuredarticles/article/FA_hybrid_batteries.html

I read it yesterday and quoted from memory, which was, of course, wrong.  It's 
between 45 and 75%, 60% being the optimum state of charge.  If you google 
(advanced) with "prius" as "exact phrase" and "battery replacement" as "all 
these words" you will get the list I got.  Can't imagine the battery state will 
have any user input.  That would be like going back to "mixture" and "advance 
and retard" levers on infernal combustion engines.  Too much distraction.  I 
get worried enough when Godfrey talks about watching the display to see what's 
going on. 8-)

> 
> A standard lead-acid car battery's charge status is fundamentally a 
> factor of the design by the factory.
> Over the life of the battery, it's all automatically controlled, and the 
> display in the driver's compartment is merely for monitoring the general 
> health of the electrical system. Only if something goes wrong will the 
> driver be made aware that intervention is required.
> Is it the same with the Prius?

Anything else would seem to be a backward step.


-
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software 
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[keith_w]

mike wilson wrote:
>> From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 2006/11/24 Fri AM
>> 01:32:14 GMT To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List  Subject:
>> Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy
>> 
>> William Robb wrote:
>> 
>>> From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi"
>>>> On Nov 23, 2006, at 10:31 AM, mike wilson wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> You had better be prepared to keep it.  Resale value when it
>>>>> needs $4-5k of batteries (at today's prices) will not be
>>>>> good.

>>>> Drive batteries are fully warranteed for 8 years/100,000 miles
>>>> in the United States. By the time you need new batteries, a)
>>>> they'll likely be a lot cheaper, b) the replacements will be
>>>> even better, and/or c) you'll want a new car anyway.
>>> More likely, the life expectancy of the car will be when the
>>> batteries go flakey out of warranty.
>> I think Godfrey's right about the batteries being improved. They're
>>  already rumoured to be using LiIon in next year's model.
>> Replacement of the current (NiMH) battery is around $1500-2000.


> Toyota's take on battery charging is interesting.  The vehicle aims
> to keep the cells in the region of 60 to 75% charge, as this manner
> of use extends battery life.  So the display is only monitoring this
> level of charge.  "Empty" is really 60% and "full" is 75% of real
> capacity.

Where did that bit of info come from, Mike?
Not being "Prius-conversant" I must also ask, is the state of the 
battery charge "user-controllable" or is it automatic?

A standard lead-acid car battery's charge status is fundamentally a 
factor of the design by the factory.
Over the life of the battery, it's all automatically controlled, and the 
display in the driver's compartment is merely for monitoring the general 
health of the electrical system. Only if something goes wrong will the 
driver be made aware that intervention is required.
Is it the same with the Prius?

keith whaley


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

RE: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[Antti-Pekka Virjonen]

Cotty wrote:
> Sorry about the pic, you know these Canons are crap...
> 
> 

That sure is a good one Cotty! Congrats!
(The Car, not the pic...).

Antti-Pekka


Antti-Pekka Virjonen

Computec Oy
R&D Turku
Fiskarsinkatu 7 D
FIN-20750 Turku Finland

Puh. +358 20 7908 300
GSM +358 500 789 753
Telefax +358 20 7908 319

Y-tunnus 1974184-5
Kotipaikka Helsinki

www.computec.fi


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[mike wilson]

> From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2006/11/24 Fri AM 01:32:14 GMT
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List 
> Subject: Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy
> 
> William Robb wrote:
> 
> >From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi"
> >>
> >> On Nov 23, 2006, at 10:31 AM, mike wilson wrote:
> >>
> >>> You had better be prepared to keep it.  Resale value when it needs
> >>> $4-5k of batteries (at today's prices) will not be good.
> >>
> >> Drive batteries are fully warranteed for 8 years/100,000 miles in the
> >> United States. By the time you need new batteries, a) they'll likely
> >> be a lot cheaper, b) the replacements will be even better, and/or c)
> >> you'll want a new car anyway.
> >
> >More likely, the life expectancy of the car will be when the batteries 
> >go flakey out of warranty.
> 
> I think Godfrey's right about the batteries being improved. They're 
> already rumoured to be using LiIon in next year's model. Replacement of 
> the current (NiMH) battery is around $1500-2000.

Toyota's take on battery charging is interesting.  The vehicle aims to keep the 
cells in the region of 60 to 75% charge, as this manner of use extends battery 
life.  So the display is only monitoring this level of charge.  "Empty" is 
really 60% and "full" is 75% of real capacity.


-
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software 
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[mike wilson]

> 
> From: "Digital Image Studio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2006/11/24 Fri AM 01:49:29 GMT
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
> Subject: Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy
> 
> On 24/11/06, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > I think Godfrey's right about the batteries being improved. They're
> > already rumoured to be using LiIon in next year's model. Replacement of
> > the current (NiMH) battery is around $1500-2000.
> 
> Are there any environmental levies or battery disposal cost in addition?
> 

Given the world price of nickel (one of the reasons for going to LiIon) the 
owners should be paid for dead batteries.


-
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software 
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[Cotty]

On 24/11/06, David Savage, discombobulated, unleashed:

>You could have saved yourself a lot of money and bought an original Series 
>II or III.

I have owned everything except a Series III in the past 25 years. Sadly,
I will be putting about 25,000 miles a year on it, so want something
that will last about 6 years. Of course, it will last a lot longer than
that, but in business use it isn't feasible in my game. It has to start
up every day required, and run in any conditions, or no grocery vouchers...

-- 


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[mike wilson]

> From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2006/11/24 Fri AM 01:16:00 GMT
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
> Subject: Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy
> 
> 
> - Original Message ----- 
> From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi"
> Subject: Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy
> 
> 
> >
> > On Nov 23, 2006, at 10:31 AM, mike wilson wrote:
> >
> >> You had better be prepared to keep it.  Resale value when it needs
> >> $4-5k of batteries (at today's prices) will not be good.
> >
> > Drive batteries are fully warranteed for 8 years/100,000 miles in the
> > United States. By the time you need new batteries, a) they'll likely
> > be a lot cheaper, b) the replacements will be even better, and/or c)
> > you'll want a new car anyway.
> >
> >
> 
> More likely, the life expectancy of the car will be when the batteries 
> go flakey out of warranty.

I've been looking for warranty specs.  Would be interesting to know how many 
owners the warranty can pass through.  Toyota will be quite good on warranty 
claims (allegedly none, so far) at the moment but, once the vehicles gat to any 
age, I suspect the mileage claims will be scutinised most carefully.  Pity the 
poor devil whose battery croaks at 99,000+ miles in about seven years time.


-
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software 
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[mike wilson]

> 
> From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2006/11/24 Fri AM 12:50:02 GMT
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List 
> Subject: Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy
> 
> 
> On Nov 23, 2006, at 10:31 AM, mike wilson wrote:
> 
> > You had better be prepared to keep it.  Resale value when it needs  
> > $4-5k of batteries (at today's prices) will not be good.
> 
> Drive batteries are fully warranteed for 8 years/100,000 miles in the  
> United States. By the time you need new batteries, a) they'll likely  
> be a lot cheaper, b) the replacements will be even better, and/or c)  
> you'll want a new car anyway.
> 
> Current series cars (2004 and up) are already clocking  
> 240,000-260,000 miles with no degradation of the original batteries.
> 
> This is a non-issue.

Only to new buyers who will not be keeping the vehicle for an extended period.  
Which rather negates the "eco-friendly" tag.


-
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software 
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy (was: Flash voltage for K10D)

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Scott Loveless"
Subject: Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy (was: Flash voltage for K10D)


>>
> Nissan doesn't offer the X-trail in the States.  As far as I know,
> they don't offer the Xterra outside the US.  But that's really good
> mileage for an SUV.  Our 2000 Protege doesn't do that well.

I'm pretty sure we get the Xterra here.
I'm not sure if I would call the X-Trail an SUV, though it is a very 
nicely sized little car.

>
> My uncle owns a Dodge Ram 2500 with the Hemi.  Gets 9mpg running
> empty.  For the final phase of our move east I rented a 17' U-haul and
> a dolly to tow the car.  The van they gave me was a ford econoline
> chassis with the triton V10.  Fully loaded and towing a car we
> averaged 11mpg.  I called my uncle from the road to rub it in.  
> He had some choice words for me!

The Dodge boys that I know are all crying about their fuel economy. They 
cry a little more when I tell them what my Nissan gets, and that it has 
more torque than their girlyboy Hemi.

William Robb 



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy (was: Flash voltage for K10D)

[Scott Loveless]

On 11/23/06, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "cbwaters"
> Subject: Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy (was: Flash voltage for K10D)
>
>
> > That's about what we got with the old Xterra...
> > For fun, try pulling a camper like PDML West.  You'll LONG for 16mpg
> > ;)

I pulled a 4500 lb enclosed cargo trailer from St. Louis, MO to
central PA a couple years ago with ours.  We averaged 13mpg until we
hit eastern Hell, er, Ohio.  Hills and mountains the rest of the way -
11mpg.  Normally I get about 17-18mpg around town, and between 18 and
21 on the highway.  I still haven't figured out why we got 16mpg over
four tanks of fuel.

>
> My wife's X-Trail turns in close to 45mpg when averaging 75mph. This
> would be closer to 36mpg in your gallons.
> Not bad for a small 4wd.
> My Titan gets about 10 to the gallon (8 US) when hauling the home away
> from home, which is a 25' Jay Flight.
>
Nissan doesn't offer the X-trail in the States.  As far as I know,
they don't offer the Xterra outside the US.  But that's really good
mileage for an SUV.  Our 2000 Protege doesn't do that well.

My uncle owns a Dodge Ram 2500 with the Hemi.  Gets 9mpg running
empty.  For the final phase of our move east I rented a 17' U-haul and
a dolly to tow the car.  The van they gave me was a ford econoline
chassis with the triton V10.  Fully loaded and towing a car we
averaged 11mpg.  I called my uncle from the road to rub it in.  
He had some choice words for me!


-- 
Scott Loveless
http://www.twosixteen.com
Burn more dinosaur bones!

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

[Adam Maas]

William Robb wrote:
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Paul Stenquist"
> Subject: Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy (was: Flash voltage for K10D)
> 
> 
>> Full Hybrids like the Toyota Prius, the Ford Escape and the Mercury
>> Mariner deliver their best mileage in city driving. That's because
>> the gas engine shuts off completely every time yuo stop. Their urban
>> warriors. The New York Times reviewed the Mariner last week. I think
>> they got something like 37 city from this rather spacious SUV.
> 
> No one is really flogging the hybrids around here yet.
> Do they have problems when it is REALLY cold outside?
> 
> William Robb 
> 

Toyota can't keep up with demand in the major urban centres. I doubt 
they're even sending many demos to smaller cities, let alone rural areas.

The Prius seems to sell itself.

-Adam


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy (was: Flash voltage for K10D)

[Paul Stenquist]

Full Hybrids like the Toyota Prius, the Ford Escape and the Mercury  
Mariner deliver their best mileage in city driving. That's because  
the gas engine shuts off completely every time yuo stop. Their urban  
warriors. The New York Times reviewed the Mariner last week. I think  
they got something like 37 city from this rather spacious SUV.
Paul
On Nov 23, 2006, at 10:57 PM, William Robb wrote:

>
> - Original Message -
> From: "cbwaters"
> Subject: Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy (was: Flash voltage for K10D)
>
>
>> That's about what we got with the old Xterra...
>> For fun, try pulling a camper like PDML West.  You'll LONG for 16mpg
>> ;)
>
> My wife's X-Trail turns in close to 45mpg when averaging 75mph. This
> would be closer to 36mpg in your gallons.
> Not bad for a small 4wd.
> My Titan gets about 10 to the gallon (8 US) when hauling the home away
> from home, which is a 25' Jay Flight.
>
> William Robb
>
>
>
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net