subject:"RE\: OT \- Prius Fuel Economy"

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

2006-11-26 Thread 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

2006-11-26 Thread 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

2006-11-26 Thread 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

2006-11-26 Thread 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

2006-11-26 Thread 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

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

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

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

2006-11-26 Thread 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

2006-11-26 Thread 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

2006-11-26 Thread 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

2006-11-26 Thread 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

2006-11-26 Thread 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

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

2006-11-26 Thread 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

2006-11-26 Thread 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

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

2006-11-26 Thread 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: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

2006-11-26 Thread 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

2006-11-25 Thread 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 ;-)
 
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MY3z70MlCI
 
 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

2006-11-25 Thread mike wilson

 From: Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Date: 2006/11/24 Fri PM 08:27:38 GMT
 To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' pdml@pdml.net
 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

2006-11-25 Thread mike wilson

 From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Date: 2006/11/24 Fri PM 11:32:47 GMT
 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
 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

2006-11-25 Thread 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

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

2006-11-25 Thread 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

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

2006-11-25 Thread 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

2006-11-25 Thread 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

2006-11-25 Thread 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

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

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

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

2006-11-25 Thread 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

2006-11-25 Thread 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

2006-11-25 Thread 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

2006-11-25 Thread 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

2006-11-25 Thread 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

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

2006-11-25 Thread 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

2006-11-25 Thread 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

 From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Date: 2006/11/24 Fri AM 12:50:02 GMT
 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
 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

 From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Date: 2006/11/24 Fri AM 01:16:00 GMT
 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
 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

2006-11-24 Thread 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

 From: Digital Image Studio [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Date: 2006/11/24 Fri AM 01:49:29 GMT
 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
 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

 From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Date: 2006/11/24 Fri AM 01:32:14 GMT
 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
 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

2006-11-24 Thread Antti-Pekka Virjonen

Cotty wrote:
 Sorry about the pic, you know these Canons are crap...
 
 http://www.cottysnaps.com/snaps/spare6.html

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

Antti-Pekka


Antti-Pekka Virjonen

Computec Oy
RD 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

2006-11-24 Thread 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 pdml@pdml.net 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

From: keith_w [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2006/11/24 Fri AM 10:19:33 GMT
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
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 pdml@pdml.net 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

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

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

 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

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

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

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

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

2006-11-24 Thread 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

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

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 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 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

2006-11-24 Thread 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

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

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

2006-11-24 Thread 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

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

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

2006-11-24 Thread 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


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

2006-11-24 Thread 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 ;-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MY3z70MlCI

-- 


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

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

 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


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 ;-)

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MY3z70MlCI

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

2006-11-24 Thread Digital Image Studio

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

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

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MY3z70MlCI

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

2006-11-24 Thread 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

2006-11-24 Thread 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 ;-)

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MY3z70MlCI

 -- 


 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

2006-11-24 Thread 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

2006-11-24 Thread 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

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 ;-)

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MY3z70MlCI

   


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

Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy

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


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

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

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