Redstate

I'll have to look it up.

It's a good one.

I don't know if you ever watched Top Gear, I should have emphasised that it is a show about supercars. The only thing they are serious about is Speed, really. The more gas a car uses, the more they like it, haha. The rest of the show is goofy, toung-in-cheek type of stuff...like comparing the gas mileage of a 450 HP M3 to a Prius. They use a pro race driver to push the Prius to it's absolute limit around their test track, just like they do with every single car they showcase.

I wasn't bashing the Prius at all...it was more a way of seing things in a different light. If I had to commute long distances I'd most likely buy one myself.

I enjoy my 265 HP Ecllipse Spyder that I have to fill with 93 octane. But then it does spend most of its time parked at the airport waiting for me to fly home. :)

Kidding aside, I have no problem with people wanting a more fuel efficient car. I just have some trouble with people telling me what I have to drive.

"If they were merely incompetent, then at least SOME of their actions would have been to the benefit of the country."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaWoo82zNUA

This is why people want to break our addiction to Oil!

Gimme

"If they were merely incompetent, then at least SOME of their actions would have been to the benefit of the country."

Day after we bought it I was tell my wife that it was weird, you would get on the freeway, think you were going 75 look down and would be going 100. She told me I was full of crap. Next day she was driving it on I-95, not paying attention, I told her to look and see how fast she was going. We were at 105.

I shudder to think what it is like in something like an M3 or an AMG.

"If they were merely incompetent, then at least SOME of their actions would have been to the benefit of the country."

Anyone that can manage 105 on 95 is a goddess. The best anyone makes it down Miami way is about 20.

I-95 is pretty empty much of time, except when the snowbirds are commuting from the blue states and Canada.

"If they were merely incompetent, then at least SOME of their actions would have been to the benefit of the country."

You wouldn't notice any real shimmy at all before about 80 mph.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

Just go to a track and run a couple of races.

Of course, with the percentage difference between regular unleaded and premium anymore, why not?

"Once within the maw of Leviathan, degree of digestion is irrelevant." - Michael Fisk

Sells 100 octane, but I'm not ready to pay $9/gallon yet.

"If they were merely incompetent, then at least SOME of their actions would have been to the benefit of the country."

Where Clarkson says that it matters much more "how you drive" than "what you drive".

As far as it goes, though, you can have it. If gas gets so expensive that my WRX has to stay parked, I'll be riding a bicycle to work instead of driving a car.

--
This too shall pass.

but I'm 6'3", 270, and my two sons are both around 6'2". My wife is the small one - she's only 5'5". We all 4 fit in the Prius comfortably. There's not really room for much luggage in the hatch - maybe 4 duffels that would work for a couple nights' clothing...that's really where the Prius compromises on space. But for going around town or taking a trip with just 2 people, it's plenty big.

I'm about 6'2", 245, although I have short legs (and the torso of somebody closer to about 6'8"). I usually have to duck or slouch in any small car (and even some large cars if they're designed poorly in this regard... the Pontiac Grand Prix comes to mind).

I haven't seen the more recent Priuses, but I've heard that they have redesigned them somewhere along the line (hopefully that made a difference). It's only a matter of time before a small car comes along that I feel okay sitting in, however, as it seems as though the car makers are trying a little harder in this regard with the demand for smaller cars spiking up (I was surprised by, to use an example, the Chevy Aveo... and no, I'm not using that as penance for slagging GM in the previous paragraph).

As for me, though... can't really afford any car at the moment (being a poor grad student), but I like the so-called "land yachts".

"Once within the maw of Leviathan, degree of digestion is irrelevant." - Michael Fisk

If you can afford to pay the outrageous price, why not drive something nice.

I have a 4WD Tacoma, but I don't drive that much, so it's worth it for me to keep it instead of buying something new. Plus I like to drive around in the winter without worrying.

Good advice for someone who wants to save some gas money. Buy an old Honda Accord or something like that. They get great gas mileage, they cost next to nothing to maintain, they run forever, the insurance is cheaper, and the money you save in car payments plus insurance can be more than what your gas bill is.

still get a good 40+ mpg. Good commuting car for anyone who doesn't need to take other people and stuff with them for most of their driving.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

If we truly had better batteries, we could fuel our cars with coal, nuclear, water, wind, solar, or any other kind of power plant we wanted.

To me the big problem with McCain's proposal is that it's not over the top enough. The reward should be in the billions if we're serious.

HTML Help for Red Staters

There is a very real possibility that we have reached a limit in battery technology. There are no truly viable rechargable technologies on the horizon that will increase the erg/lb ratio of LION. Focus on battery life is as much of a problem of "putting all eggs in one basket" as is focusing on solar/wind while ignoring drilling/nukes.

Hybrid technology is actually a better bet until there is a viable fuel cell option. There are many technical solutions available to extend the efficiency of hybrid technologies by pushing the efficiency of gasoline engines augmented with rechargable batteries. The truly electric car is unlikely to be viable in the US because of the average round trip distances.

The most likely future situation is that most families will have 2 cars, a fuel cell car for commuting that is refueled by a refrigerator sized device in the garage, and a longer range second vehicle using hybrid technology still using gasoline. The refueling of the fuel cell will require electricity, meaning the development of nukes and/or clean coal will be necessary.

"If they were merely incompetent, then at least SOME of their actions would have been to the benefit of the country."

I also think the various new capacitor technologies would as well.

If I had to place a bet here though I would definitely go fuel cell with auxiliary batteries.

(perhaps poorly) is that the underlying technical limitation on capacity of battery technology is at a hard limit right now, and there aren't promising technologies on the horizon (like LION was when we were using NiMH). This doesn't preclude improve engineering to find clever ways to fit more battery capacity inside a vehicle, or find ways to make the discharge slower through higher efficiency. Lots of work being done now into shaped batteries that would allow them to be placed in unused locations inside a car.

Fuel cells are traditionally not considered a battery, since they run on a fuel (hydrogen) and can not be recharged through the application of a polarity change. You might as well call a gasoline engine a battery too, since you "recharge" it when you pull into the gas station. Fuel cells have the same limitation as gasoline, once you run out of hydrogen, you are out.

The signifiant problem with fuel cells is where do you get the hydrogen. It is available from only two common sources, water and methane. Recovery from water requires electricity, which means a shift of the petroleum dependence toward power plants instead of direct use in a vehicle. Methane is a little easier to recover from, but since it is also a petroleum byproduct, there is a big question whether we get any benefit? We could end up in the same situation we are in with ethanol where the costs outweigh the benefits.

However, the big benefit of a fuel cell is that it has only one waste product, water. This is generally harmless, unless the cars expel it as water vapor, which is also a greenhouse gas (assuming GHGs are an environmental concern, an argument for another place).

"If they were merely incompetent, then at least SOME of their actions would have been to the benefit of the country."

In 2005, the average commute was around 16 miles one-way. Now it may have increased since then, but I'll bet you that with gas prices and the increase in telecommuting, etc., that number may have even dropped since then. People are going to start moving closer to their jobs than they have been.

At a commute of that distance, electric quasi-hybrids ("range extender") like the Chevrolet Volt or the (speculation) forthcoming plug-in Priuses*, etc., an all-electric commute is by no means out of the question. The Volt is expected to deliver 40 miles of all-electric driving on one charge, and then run hybrid past that. And Nissan is saying that they expect that the range of electrics will be up to 400km by 2015, and even 300km by 2012. That pretty much wipes out range issues for anything except long-distance travel.

* - the plug-in Prius, as it's discussed right now, won't give huge distances, but it supposedly raises the in-town mileage substantially over/above what it is today. Right now it only runs a mile or so on battery, and only at 30MPH or below...its effectiveness is in it's hybrid behavior.

It already runs up to 220 miles on a single charge....

if you have $100K for an electric car... :-)

lesterblog.blogspot.com

that bugs me is that the vast majority of America(square mile-wise NOT population-wise) cannot use an electric car. I am talking about areas that have low poulation and lots of miles between areas of civilization.

You say the average commute is only 16 miles. But most people are bunched up in cities,the rural areas cover vast land with minimal people. Most cities have mass transit alternatives if you can't afford gas...few rural areas have mass transit.

What about snow-prone areas? I'd like to see someone try and make a 4WD Hybrid that costs less than a 85 ford F-150 to operate a snowplowing buisness. Or a Farm tractor that can be plugged in. Or a train that doesn't run on fossile fuels. When the first hybrid that can pull as much wieght as a tractor trailer comes out I will be fully convinced that hybrids have a chance to be more than enviro-guilt equivalent of prozac or a long-distance commuter's favorite.

IMHO hybrid cars have been pushed to the front before the technology is fully mature. I like the idea of them, but I don't like the the guilt trip I see getting handed out when someone says they don't like a Prius.

Trains that don't use fossil fuels have been here since the early 1900s. :) But even there you are right, we don't bother with electrification of the western railroad lines because the traffic to milage density is too low to make it worthwhile.

Besides those diesel trains get something insane like 100 mpg.

"If they were merely incompetent, then at least SOME of their actions would have been to the benefit of the country."

Subways and city trains use electricity. But that kind of helps my point. Not many rural areas have electric people movers.

OH! and I almost forgot. A plug-in 747 would be quite a sight.

The Acela from NY to Washington DC runs 100% electric. But electrification of the railroads is in the Northeast and Europe. That is why it is 2 hours from NY to DC, but overnight from DC to Florida.

"If they were merely incompetent, then at least SOME of their actions would have been to the benefit of the country."

Not so much now but it was great. I first took it because I had damaged my ear diving and couldn't fly. Trains are probably the most pleasant way to travel aside from cruise liners.

I didn't know, thanks. I'd like to try it someday! Thats pretty fast.

It takes closer to three hours and is often more expensive than the U.S. Air shuttle (i don't think it is now). If you want to see a fast train go from Tokyo to Osaka on the bullet train - that is impressive.

The Eurostar from London to Paris through the chunnel is pretty impressive too. One of the things on my list to do someday. I've seen them in the station, but haven't ridden one.

"If they were merely incompetent, then at least SOME of their actions would have been to the benefit of the country."

Averages about 90 for the whole trip with a top cruising speed around 150. Beautiful looking train too (if you are into trains).

"If they were merely incompetent, then at least SOME of their actions would have been to the benefit of the country."

Personally, I don't give a flying flip if people don't like my car. That's their/your prerogative. I've had several discussions here about it with my colleagues. What I don't like is when people blatantly misrepresent the facts, which is what the video you posted does. Now your explanation of the nature of that show explains why they might conduct such a "test." But the conclusion that they attempt to imply with respect to mileage is ludicrous. No one except a street racer would push a Prius like that. 99.99% of drivers are going to drive the thing in the city or highway, at normal speeds, and at that design point, the Prius gets substantially better gas mileage than most vehicles on the market today, including a BMW M3 (14/20 EPA rating).

Are electric cars or hybrids for everyone? Nope. But we're talking 80/20 rule here (90/10?). The vast majority of the population of the US is in urban areas that require relatively short trips. Heck, even my in-laws who live out on the farm, 75 miles from a city larger than 10,000, live about 5 miles from their closest town, so their normal drive is only 5-10 miles a day. Yeah, there are people like those up in Achance's territory (Alaska) who have abnormal distance requirements. And they'll need something else...for now.

That hybrids would be pretty effective in rural communities for travel that doesn't involve moving heavy loads from point A to point B. Long trips over back roads that don't support 70 MPH travel, but also don't require stopping often is really in the sweet spot for a hybrid.

Hybrids are problems when you need or want horsepower for either moving heavy loads, or because you are a speed enthusiest and like 0 to 60 in short timespans. If the Prius just wasn't so butt ugly. ;)

"If they were merely incompetent, then at least SOME of their actions would have been to the benefit of the country."

Who travel to catch a train to work.

I hated it each and every day. I'm not personally fond of being treated like a sardine.

"If they were merely incompetent, then at least SOME of their actions would have been to the benefit of the country."

I really suppose it depends on the competence of the people running the trains. Down here we have the tri-rail. A train system that was built for no purpose and as far as I can tell was meant to fail. Case and point, now that gas prices are high and people actually want to use the the thing they don't have sufficient parking space.

New York had great trains. The subway once it got cleaned up was excellent transportation. (Just wish they didn't buy the new cars from Japan (Seats too narrow)). The PATH was much the same. Metro North and the LIRR were very pleasant rides and a fine way to travel. AMTRAK which was how I got to work (I actually left from Penn Station to head out to what was nominally suburbia) was pleasant and reliable.

But yes I do understand not everyone shares my enthusiasm for rail. As the saying goes "Thats why there are 31 flavors"

The Video just shows that when a M3 drives at the top speed of a Prius, the M3 gets better gas mileage...atleast on a test-track while going all-out Prius speed. That is really no use to anyone at all who wants to save gas. But if you can afford to buy a M3, you don't really care what your gas mileage is!

Thats a fact.

because some might balk at guests recharging their cars without any surcharge.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

HTML Help for Red Staters

I work on satellite systems, battery technology happens to be particularly important to us.

However, you do have a good point. Innovation tends to come from unexpected directions. We are more likely to significantly advance the erg/lb problem from a completely unexpected direction, than batteries. It is just as likely to be high density biomass that grows through photosynthesis as it is a breakthrough in batteries.

Important to keep an open mind on all possible directions instead of focusing on one.

"If they were merely incompetent, then at least SOME of their actions would have been to the benefit of the country."

For most of us (and surely including Senator McCain when he made his proposal) it means something pretty broad, and includes new technologies.

HTML Help for Red Staters

A blog discussion I posted a few years back when arguing with some liberals about energy policy. Can't recall all of it, but I outlined about 8 areas that need to be adressesed to deal with the country's energy needs. One of them was drilling, which received an immediate response from the Californians, "I don't want to see wells ruining my view" (I guess some people still think the earth is flat).

Another point I made is that one of the biggest things we can do has nothing to do with transportation or energy efficiency in cars. It is a cultural shift toward telepresence, removing the need for physical proximity to perform work. A great deal of our energy use is related to the commute to work, which also is a large drain on productivity. Many jobs do not require physical access to industrial equipment and can be performed in the home.

The innovation that licks the problem could come from Cisco just as easily as from General Motors.

"If they were merely incompetent, then at least SOME of their actions would have been to the benefit of the country."

My life runs on telepresence but it is a tough sell. I know more than a few managers who think they are the reincarnation of Simon Legree. For them it is not enough to have a glass window looking out onto peoples desks they will install overhead camera bubbles.

That it is a cultural problem to be overcome more than a technical one. Not that I am a fan of government mandates, but I'd bet that a mandate that all workers capable of doing so must telecommute 2 days a week would be more effective than the CF lightbulbs. There is even an argument to be made that the productivity gain would offset the cost (not to mention fuel savings). That is an argument though, not going to try to defend it as fact.

"If they were merely incompetent, then at least SOME of their actions would have been to the benefit of the country."

If homes that are empty during the day with lights, air conditioning, computer, and all that off, now have all that turned on, that's going to have a cost, too.

It would reduce *petroleum* use, but I don't know if it'd reduce *overall energy* use, which is the goal of the Communist light bulb plan.

HTML Help for Red Staters

But it happens.

In an office environment the AC isn't going to run more because of one person, and for a bunch of people nor are the lights (unless you have your own private office) and computers (hey, if you're managing a big network, backups and deployments off-hours are pretty important, so you have to leave those workstations on).

HTML Help for Red Staters

believe me it will. The best business decisions I ever made were shoving people out of the office reducing my rent and utilities, then shifting my office space to a house I bought and renting it from myself.

And yes if people weren't there everything got turned off. I had even bought a portable ac (Stand alone single room) so the central unit wouldn't have to be turned on.

For lights and airconditioning. :) Besides, my home isn't empty during the day. Even if it was, most home electricity goes to heating/air conditioning, and most people don't modify the temp when they go to work.

I'll concede the point though, I really only talking about oil dependency, and I'm a big believer in the need to move the electrical production to nuclear.

"If they were merely incompetent, then at least SOME of their actions would have been to the benefit of the country."

because too many people would rather submit to new laws than act independently, yet we always get our best innovations and trends when people act on their own. One good thing you can say about the AGW movement is that it motivated some people to do things that were smart for numerous other reasons independent of global warming hysteria.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

I was trying to compare it to the CF lightbulb mandate, not advocating mandates as good policy.

"If they were merely incompetent, then at least SOME of their actions would have been to the benefit of the country."

my initial draft of my comment. I was going to say something about how I plan to have all LED lighting in my home but would still appreciate having incandescent bulbs available over the counter for film/video and other particular uses and not have to think about stockpiling before time runs out.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

but at this point I might as well keep hoping. I guess it takes extremities sometimes to move the inertia of old promises forward.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

I've been working from home (when not traveling all over the country) for years now. I could basically live and work from anywhere I want to in North America. I chose to move back home to God's Country in Missouri.

My only problem will come into play when/if video conferencing ever takes off. Then I can't wear my fuzzy bunny slippers and SpongeBob robe to work any more... ;-)

lesterblog.blogspot.com

I'd love to see your contribution to any thread that talks about ion engines :)

lesterblog.blogspot.com

a discussion of Hall Effect thrusters? ;)

"If they were merely incompetent, then at least SOME of their actions would have been to the benefit of the country."

We may know the same people btw. I used to work at a certain company in princeton junction.

because I know ion engines have been used for positional maneuvering of satellites for a long time now and we're barely invested in deep space ion-propelled systems, although the old Popular Science cover story about interplanetary vehicles was what first captured my imagination many years ago.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

The thing that kills satellites is they run out fuel for station keeping. (And solar flares but we seem stuck in a minimum).

I've always thought of Hall Effect as being the closest physics comes to magic. :)

Propultion without a reaction mass, just mind boggling.

"If they were merely incompetent, then at least SOME of their actions would have been to the benefit of the country."

Great for orbit raising, as long as you have a long time to wait. But not all that great for stationkeeping.

"If they were merely incompetent, then at least SOME of their actions would have been to the benefit of the country."

The effective limit on satellite life would be battery life.

will be politically uncool for orbital systems for a long time yet.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

The Mass/Power ratio for putting a reactor in orbit makes that pretty much an impossibility *laugh*. EELVs are good, but not THAT good.

"If they were merely incompetent, then at least SOME of their actions would have been to the benefit of the country."

But then again they had to. They had crappy electronics virtually nothing in micropower tech. There was also the ongoing rumor they had a power hungry synthetic aperture radar that could track boomers. Never believed that myself because if they did I would of bet the satellites would have been having collisions and their own actions would have been considerably more provocative.

of a plutonium-powered Soviet satellite, actually. The Soviets themselves decided it was best to acknowledge that it made for bad politics.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

in how the Russians became the best at docking procedures and deorbiting, because so many of their projects were more like managed crises.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

Why we REALLY care about battery technology. See how it all comes neatly back in a circle to the beginning?

"If they were merely incompetent, then at least SOME of their actions would have been to the benefit of the country."

Is with Boeing in El Segundo, CA. Heading back out for my next 3 week stint tomorrow.

"If they were merely incompetent, then at least SOME of their actions would have been to the benefit of the country."

yes, that would be great :)

lesterblog.blogspot.com