watch me pull a rabbit outa my hat
Jul. 5th, 2007 03:58 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ceagleI can hear it already in the voice of Rocky the Flying Squirrel, "Now here's something I'll bet you thought you'd never see...!"
The No Emissions Car
is this for real?
(thanks to![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
winchell for the link!!) *hugs*
The No Emissions Car
is this for real?
(thanks to
winchell for the link!!) *hugs*
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-07-05 01:33 pm (UTC)"Real" for countries that still burn dung for cooking fuel (India, among other Asian and African 3rd world countries) and coal oil to power many of their IC vehicles.
And "real" for societies that put nearly zero value on their citizens' lives---since the flyweight buggies that can actually USE such a "powerplant" give literally ZERO crash protection to their occupants.
Actually, that's exactly what the "greens" here in the US will likely have all of us driving Real Soon Now. Zero emissions, tiny "physical footprint"---and NO occupant safety whatsoever. (The last "minor detail" can no doubt be fixed a couple of generations down the road. MOST important is the zero emissions part, so let's make THAT happen NOW...)
When they make a practical (read: efficient and affordable to those other than the BillyGates billionaires of the world) "zero emissions" engine that can reasonably power a loaded-up Ford Expedition (pulling a big camping trailer or nice boat) climbing Rocky Mountain passes---or long stretches of scorching desert, while running the A/C---
THEN I'll consider warmly embracing trees and fluffy bunnies (although I have to admit, I'm allergic to pollen and bunny fur...) };-)
no subject
Date: 2007-07-05 09:57 pm (UTC)And as for your specs, I don't need a vehicle that can haul trailers up the rockies with the A/C on for my daily driver.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-06 01:51 am (UTC)Just jaded by decades of "mongering" by various nannies, telling people how they know better what's good for us, despite logic and economic realities saying their Pollyanna "solutions" won't fly.
Despite all the elitist AlGore-isms about how everybody ELSE should conserve and drive little "wheezers" (while Big Al tootles around in his mega-SUV), the cold reality is that the laws of physics say when you compete for highway space, the little "toy" vehicles are nowhere as safe as the bigger, heavier vehicles. Freight trucks and buses aren't going to vanish; they're necessary for our economic and social survival. Mix them in with cute little "Smart" cars (and their clones) and the folks in the little cars LOSE when the two classes of vehicles tangle. I saw this kind of thing countless times "up close and personal", and once seen, it's not something you easily forget.
That's not to say "Smart" cars and similar little wheezers don't have a place in traffic; just not anywhere where they can tangle with anything LARGER than themselves.
And FYI, I drive a little Ford Focus wagon, complete with a high-tech PZEV-rated engine. The PZEV technology added a mere $100 to the cost of the car---and it WORKS. The car actually CLEANS big-city air (!!) and gets an honest 32-36mpg on the open highway at 72mph, and low to mid-20s around town in stop & go traffic while doing it.
And yet I'd *love* to have something that got substantially BETTER gas mileage, but not at the expense of becoming a grease stain on the road because the car I drive is too light---or WAY too expensive for me to afford to buy---to give me reasonable protection should I tangle with someone in a full-size pickup truck. My chances in the Focus (even with its side airbags) is no more than "marginal" should such a crash happen; in something the size (and light-weight construction) of a micro-car---regardless of how many air bags and cushions and "computer-designed crush zones" it has---I wouldn't have a snowball's chance in Hell...
no subject
Date: 2007-07-06 02:19 am (UTC)Jussa few comments... as you noted, some things could class the vehicles on our streets at too far of extremes, making for dangerous situations.
It's hard to argue than any one car is right for every situation, yep.
On the one hand one can say It's Far Too light And Dangerous, and the nannies want us to drive such Polyanna solutions.
On the other hand, one could say we want the nannies to make us wear seat belts and be safe.
It's hard to say which of the nanny approaches deserve to be espoused, when it seems both have extremes to them.
I like having lots of choices, and hopefully this would just be one of many out there, without having any of the extremes forced upon us exclusively ^V^
no subject
Date: 2007-07-06 01:46 pm (UTC)Do I like *mandatory* seat belt usage? Nope! Do I think they save lives? You bet! Seen it with my own eyes countless times, where *before* they were required (here in Florida) a high-speed Interstate crash---*especially* a roll-over---was an automatic fatality.
But NOT after wide-spread belt usage started.
Same with motorcycle helmets. WITH them, yes, there were frequent head injuries. WITHOUT them...almost every crash is a *fatality*. Do the math.
Do I *like* being told to wear them? Nope! I rode with 'em for decades (quit riding 10 years ago) and now that the law was repealed, if I rode again---I'd *still* wear one. MY choice, not "Big Brother".
Same with little gas-sipper cars. Those who WANT them should have the choice to BUY and DRIVE them. Those who, for WHATEVER reason, want to drive a big, hulking SUV/TRUCK/Porsche/etc.---should have that choice, and not be *required* to drive a little tiddler-mobile just because some bureaucracy *demands* that they only drive what IT says they can.
And it's time for me to trade UP to a larger car, even though it'll require giving UP a few mile-per-gallon in economy. I'm getting old(er), and my back is getting *tired* of cramped, rough-riding little cars. };-)
Ciao!
8>
Date: 2007-07-07 12:57 pm (UTC)with you both, on many (if not most) of your points. My *main* beef is
having the "nanny state" REQUIRE us to do things (be they belts, helmets,
no-trans-fat cooking oil---whatever!) that go against OUR personal
interests or beliefs. Do I like *mandatory* seat belt usage? Nope! Do I think they save lives? You bet!"
Sir purr!
That is preCISEly how I feeels... ^V^ *waggle*
...and the NEXT kooky thing they are dreaming up for us? Mandatory Neuter/Spay of ALL animals in the state. What geeeenius dreamed THAT one up? ;P
Re: 8>
Date: 2007-07-07 04:45 pm (UTC)And once THAT'S passed, look for the "mandatory neuter/spay" of all *less-than-ideal* CITIZENS (not, of course, the illegal aliens---that wouldn't be "politically correct", donchaknow). First this would affect those in prison, then it would be extended to those in "long-term care facilities" (nursing homes, mental hospitals, orphanages once the kids reach "breeding age", etc.) Think it can't happen "in America"? Take a GOOD look at how badly our Constitution's been gutted recently...and then try saying "it'll never happen HERE".
Big Brother's already gotten his "camel nose" completely inside "the tent" (our homes and personal lives), and once we allowed that to happen, we lost the ability to stop the avalanche of "nanny state" laws. }:-/
It's gonna be "interesting" when the State tries to enforce neutering of BIRDS--- }:-O
no subject
Date: 2007-07-06 04:02 am (UTC)Your point vis a vis lorrie vs SMART makes a good case that the smart is NOT a highway vehicle. But on the subject of crash protection, I think a GOOD weight/power ratio is at least as valuable as armor. If you can zip out of harm's way, you stand a better chance.
There are engineering problems here that I think are worth approaching. Fossil fuels generally and petroleum particularly are not good for national security. What can we do about the Iranians, the Saudis, the Russians, or for that matter the Venezuelans when we depend on them for our ability to wage war against them? It's a conundrum, and the only way I see out is developing fuels at the surface, from biomass, from solar, from wind, etc.
One of the appeals of this compressed air vehicle is that its emissions can be controlled by exercising care with its inputs. Same with plug-in hybrids and electric cars. But we have to care enough to make those choices too.
ooo yesh!
Date: 2007-07-06 04:11 am (UTC)I'd forgotten to mention that if safety was always an issue, we'd outlaw bicycles, skateboards, skis, etc..
There has to be a happy medium, and plenty of choices, a bit of regulation, and a lot of liberty, or we might as well be a police/nanny state 8|
*wingfluffs*
Re: ooo yesh!
Date: 2007-07-06 01:50 pm (UTC)Hmmm... I once knew a "happy medium".
After dating her a few months she told me there was no future in our relationship...
(Ducking and running for cover!) }:-D
no subject
Date: 2007-07-06 04:12 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-05 05:28 pm (UTC)The actual car look... horrid
XD
no subject
Date: 2007-07-06 02:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-05 09:48 pm (UTC)It takes energy to compress air. Jim points out above where some of that energy might be coming from. Even if it belches nothing but air out its tailpipe, there is a strong possibility that the compressor that compressed that air was fired off of a coal or oil burning electrical plant.
In this country, Ethanol is a shining star, and it's enemies point out that it takes more BTU's in than we get out. But, and this is key, if those inputs are non-fossil, it's an improvement, if not then its a worsening.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-05 10:25 pm (UTC)Give me a Tesla motors roadster :)
no subject
Date: 2007-07-06 02:24 am (UTC)I was trying to be careful not to be unclear in that regard.
Every such thing takes energy, and every use of energy is slightly (more or less) inefficient.
Even if we have a 90 mile-range electric car we plug in our own garage, somewhere something is generating the electricity for that, in the big picture.
What we're talking with vehicles themselves, is whether they generate any further pollutants to any great degree, by the operating them in and of themselves. *peep* :9
no subject
Date: 2007-07-06 01:55 pm (UTC)Hey, nothing wrong with that!
BTW, there's a new battery technology I read about last month (Popular Science magazine, or perhaps Popular Mechanics) that claims a 5-10 minute recharge (for automotive use) and 150 or so mile range. If/when THAT comes to market---at a *realistic* price and durability---I'd say we're *almost* "home free".
Keep your fingers (or claws or wings...) crossed that it works!
no subject
Date: 2007-07-05 10:26 pm (UTC)Biodiesel, Ethanol and Hydrogen is where the future is :)
no subject
Date: 2007-07-06 02:27 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-06 06:23 am (UTC)