GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post - Who Killed The Electric Car...Movie exposes the truth

booker · 05-29-2006, 09:18 PM

Good questions Xplicit.. some of the general answers I've heard include:

The effect of everyone needing to recharge wouldn't be that great. The charging process doesn't require a lot of current, because it is merely reversing the chemical process that took place within the battery. The alternator on your IC engine car does the same thing now.

The average demand would go up. However, there wouldn't be a spike. The reason for this is that most people will recharge at night, when many other demands for electricity aren't being used (lights, washer/dryer, etc.)

Hence, the delivery structure (grid) would be able to handle the increased average demand, because there are no major spike periods.

I don't know whether they can supply enough to replace gas right away, but I don't think anyone is saying we should transition right away. It's a phased approach, reducing the number of new fossil fuel cars and increasing the alternatives. Personally I'm a fan of laws mandating that manufacturers produce a certain number of hybrid/electric/alternative vehicles before they are able to produce limited numbers of SUVs and sports cars that are relatively fuel inefficient. Likewise, provide tax benefits to those manufacturers for doing so, to offset the costs of redesign and retooling to get their alternative fuel production lines up to speed.

The govt is in the business of providing incentives, a glance at our tax code, particularily for real estate, is evidence of this. The govt wants people to invest in real estate because the govt. is so bad at providing housing on its own. Therefore, they provide huge tax "loopholes" for real estate investors.

Generation of electricity, even if nothing changed, would of course produce more CO2. However, that CO2 is produced at the power plant, where it is treated all together. It isn't a huge difference, but it is a difference, opposed to a billion cars all putting out a little CO2. If piss poor decisions hadn't been made over the last 20 years, perhaps we would have safe, reliable nuclear power across the nation providing gobs of electricity.

As a side note.. with all the nuclear plants we do have, isn't it odd that "terrorists" decide to wage their Jihad attack against... the world trade center?? Meanwhile, a major argument against new nuclear plants is vulnerability to terrorist attack? Something isn't right.

I don't know all the answers, but that's some of what I've heard and read.

05-29-2006, 09:18 PM
booker Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Baltimore Posts: 1,370	Good questions Xplicit.. some of the general answers I've heard include: The effect of everyone needing to recharge wouldn't be that great. The charging process doesn't require a lot of current, because it is merely reversing the chemical process that took place within the battery. The alternator on your IC engine car does the same thing now. The average demand would go up. However, there wouldn't be a spike. The reason for this is that most people will recharge at night, when many other demands for electricity aren't being used (lights, washer/dryer, etc.) Hence, the delivery structure (grid) would be able to handle the increased average demand, because there are no major spike periods. I don't know whether they can supply enough to replace gas right away, but I don't think anyone is saying we should transition right away. It's a phased approach, reducing the number of new fossil fuel cars and increasing the alternatives. Personally I'm a fan of laws mandating that manufacturers produce a certain number of hybrid/electric/alternative vehicles before they are able to produce limited numbers of SUVs and sports cars that are relatively fuel inefficient. Likewise, provide tax benefits to those manufacturers for doing so, to offset the costs of redesign and retooling to get their alternative fuel production lines up to speed. The govt is in the business of providing incentives, a glance at our tax code, particularily for real estate, is evidence of this. The govt wants people to invest in real estate because the govt. is so bad at providing housing on its own. Therefore, they provide huge tax "loopholes" for real estate investors. Generation of electricity, even if nothing changed, would of course produce more CO2. However, that CO2 is produced at the power plant, where it is treated all together. It isn't a huge difference, but it is a difference, opposed to a billion cars all putting out a little CO2. If piss poor decisions hadn't been made over the last 20 years, perhaps we would have safe, reliable nuclear power across the nation providing gobs of electricity. As a side note.. with all the nuclear plants we do have, isn't it odd that "terrorists" decide to wage their Jihad attack against... the world trade center?? Meanwhile, a major argument against new nuclear plants is vulnerability to terrorist attack? Something isn't right. I don't know all the answers, but that's some of what I've heard and read. __________________ Xanadu024 (aim) or 286785389 (icq) "Hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work hard."