Hybrid cars...anybody got one?

[Robert Martellaro]

"As national policy, we must protect the U.S. economy from interruptions in the supply of such a critical commodity—whether those interruptions are related to natural or political causes. I believe that the appropriate aim is to strengthen our ability to adjust to such changes—to strengthen our energy resilience. We can do that by increasing our reliance on electricity." -Andy Grove

http://www.american.com/archive/2008/july-august-magazine-contents/our-electric-future

[fjpod]

There is something wrong with only thinking in terms of left and right. And categorizing your friends as left or right. Or choosing your religion based on left or right. Or deciding which president you are loyal to based on left or right. Damn it, we're all in this together.

Now back to cars.

[Uncle Fester]

Now back to cars.

Page 8? This car has long left the garage!

What we need is a big breakthrough in battery technology. But I fear it will come at great environmental cost.

[fjpod]

If you're looking for a city/suburban commuter car that has a range of 75-100 miles, is fairly light weight, the batteries are here now. If you're looking for a seven seater crossover that you can pack the wife and kids into and drive to disneyland with only one stop for refueling, you'll be waiting a lonnnnnnngg time.

different cars for different situations...Just so everybody knows,...besides my Prius which is my daily commuter car, I have a Dodge Journey crossover, and GMC Safari Van. Each one fits a different need. When I want to feel like a commie-liberal, I drive my Prius. When I want to be a caution-be-damned conservative, I drive the Safari. If I'm feeling non-committal, I drive the Dodge crossover with the four-banger.

[Uncle Fester]

I think the charge time is the biggest problem keeping the small electric car from the proletariat. Aren't we close to a portal on the car that will let us plug in a new/pre-charged cell? If it only takes the same amount of time as a fill-up I think they'll become much more popular.

[MasterCrafter]

Sheeshhh...there goes my hybrid thread. we're talking cars here not politics.

The reality is Liberals are the ones who politicized cars.

I am fine driving my internal combustion engine.

Why is that "evil" ??

Fjpod.. cars are polarized in this country now. So any time you talk about electric cars you are pushing a left leaning idea.

For one - where are we going to get all that electicity from?

[fjpod]

The reality is Liberals are the ones who politicized cars.

I am fine driving my internal combustion engine.

Why is that "evil" ??

Fjpod.. cars are polarized in this country now. So any time you talk about electric cars you are pushing a left leaning idea.

For one - where are we going to get all that electicity from?

Sorry, I don't buy that. You've heard the expression?? "If Bulls$$it were electricity, you'd be a powerhouse"?
Please don't be offended, I just thought it was funny. My father often used to use this expression.

The sun produces more energy in one minute than the entire world can use in one year. I feel safer using sunshine than sucking oil out of the ground. One of these days, we're all going to fall into a giant sinkhole.

[shanbaum]

The reality is Liberals are the ones who politicized cars.

I am fine driving my internal combustion engine.

Why is that "evil" ??

Fjpod.. cars are polarized in this country now. So any time you talk about electric cars you are pushing a left leaning idea.

For one - where are we going to get all that electicity from?

I think you're right; you can thank liberals for seat belts, air bags, emission controls and the resulting cleaner air, bumpers that withstand minor impact, steering columns that don't impale, and increased fuel efficiency. All that gubmint interference in the "free market."

As far as from where all that electricity will come, it will come mostly from (domestically-produced) natural-gas-fired power plants, which are far more efficient, and cleaner, than internal-combustion engines.

[MasterCrafter]

I think you're right; you can thank liberals for seat belts, air bags, emission controls and the resulting cleaner air, bumpers that withstand minor impact, steering columns that don't impale, and increased fuel efficiency. All that gubmint interference in the "free market."

Yea, but those same libs want to put us all in smart cars... how safe are those?

As far as from where all that electricity will come, it will come mostly from (domestically-produced) natural-gas-fired power plants, which are far more efficient, and cleaner, than internal-combusion engines.

Sounds great.... but until that day is here.. don't punish us in the meantime. Besides most green people do not like natural gas as it is a "fossil fuel". Hence it is bad. These are the same people that told us how clean ethanol was and that the squiggly light bulb was going to save the planet. Now they know ethanol is worse than gas and the squiggly light bulb is a haz mat nightmare.

I mean Al Bore runs around lecturing us all on our carbon footprint. In the meantime his CF is HUGE

Chip: I hear you. It's like beating your head against a wall. They have all these great idea's about how they wanna spend "other peoples" money, and tell everyone how to live thier lives. Lets face it.. the man made global warming movement is about controlling people.

Sorry Fjpod.... Cars and politics are married now

[shanbaum]

There is no support for the proposition that "libs want to put us in smart cars".

It's not clear why you think that burning oil in an inefficient manner, of which, regardless of the US government's energy policy, the overwhemling preponderance will be produced in foreign and frequently antagonistic countries, is preferable to burning domestic gas or coal to power electric vehicles. The fact that "liberals" might not be happy about burning those fuels does not support your position in any way. And it's worth noting that ethanol subsidies, while introduced by Democrats, were supported and expanded by both parties over the ensuing 40 years.

The "man made global warming movement", as you put it, is in fact about a general consensus in the relevant scientific community. Neither you nor I are members of that community. We have to rely on what we read. What do you read?

[fjpod]

Burning natural gas is better than burning oil or coal, especially if you live near a powerplant like I do. Unless you live in a city, you have no idea what car and truck exhaust does to the air. Burning the dirtiest coal to power 1000 electric cars is still cleaner than 1000 small internal combustion engines running around burning gasoline.

So, do I have a right to ask my government, or my fellow Americans to use a car that minimizes pollution? I think I do, just like we ask that you obey speed limits, or stay on the right side of the road, or get your car inspected for safety. So unless you live in a vacuum somewhere, you are going to be asked to do things you sometimes would rather not bother with....like chem tempering the glass lenses you sell. But it has nothing to do with being a liberal or a conservative.

Why all this finger pointing at liberals? Is it because we have a President, your Commander-in-Chief, that is perceived to be liberal?...too much talk radio.

[Uncle Fester]

These are the same people that told us how clean ethanol was and that the squiggly light bulb was going to save the planet.

Passed December 18 2007 and signed into law by-------Bush!


Squiggily light bulb law-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Independence_and_Security_Act_of_2007

[MasterCrafter]

There is no support for the proposition that "libs want to put us in smart cars".

It's not clear why you think that burning oil in an inefficient manner, of which, regardless of the US government's energy policy, the overwhemling preponderance will be produced in foreign and frequently antagonistic countries, is preferable to burning domestic gas or coal to power electric vehicles. The fact that "liberals" might not be happy about burning those fuels does not support your position in any way. And it's worth noting that ethanol subsidies, while introduced by Democrats, were supported and expanded by both parties over the ensuing 40 years.

The "man made global warming movement", as you put it, is in fact about a general consensus in the relevant scientific community. Neither you nor I are members of that community. We have to rely on what we read. What do you read?

Well I know I read the "climategate" emails. Those guys have ben fudging the numbers for years just to get the research money. They know if there is no "man made global warming" then there is no grant money.

Remember when the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said that the himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035. That was wrong. They are actualy growing!!

I rely on what the Earth has been doing for millions of years. Warming then cooling, warming then cooling. It is not caused by man nor do we have the ability to stop it.

So if we are in a warming cycle it is not caused by man. In the early 70's they were crying about a new ice age coming.

These so called scientists are basing thier readings on a snapshot of the last 100 years. That in it self is not good science. They take 100 years out of hundreds of millions? Then they "threw out" all the raw data that has been collected.

Why did the earth heat up and cool so many times before? Why are there ice ages? Were cavemen driving cars around?

The EPA listed carbon dioxide as a "dangerous greenhouse gas". Yea right, they are trying to say air humans exhale is a dangerous gas? That sounds like CONTROL

All I know is the tree's sure like it.

Here is a video of Jon Stewart spoofing climategate-- pretty funny

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-december-1-2009/scientists-hide-global-warming-data

[MasterCrafter]

Passed December 18 2007 and signed into law by-------Bush!


Squiggily light bulb law-


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_...ty_Act_of_2007

He was probably taking Nancy Pelosi's advise... "we have to pass the bill to find out what's in it"

[fjpod]

mastercrafter...you don't think there is the slightest chance that sucking resources out of the ground and burning them in the atmosphere is any different than what cavemen were doing? There's not the slightest possibility in your mind that today we are doing this on such a large scale that the balance of nature may be compromised? But in your mind, anybody that has an opinion different than yours is cheating, obfuscating or heavans, no...LIBERAL?

I think climatology is only beginning to be understood. I'm not ready to hold to my belief that the earth is flat. I'm willing to listen to a variety of experts, regardless of what their political leaning is.