>Damn those Republicans! I cant believe anyone would try to stop all cars
>from being forced to be electric. That would be great. Could I get a
>remote control for it too. You just go right ahead and drive one. When
>you see a red SS/T fly past you at 100 mph after driving for 8 hours,
>while you are plugged up to someones wall... Have fun.
Cute, but if you'd actually been paying attention to the post, even the
Chrysler test Intrepid would be passing you if you could actually do 100mph
for 8 hours. On a standard 22 gal Intrepid gas tank at 70 mpg, simple math
says that he's got a 1540 mile range: how's yours? Even if he sucked down to
50mpg for doing 100 mph like you are theorhetically doing, you've still had to
fill your tank 4 times. Now this is an easily producable car, already
prototyped. These are real numbers.
If you want to continue assuming this is about the environment, feel free,
but it's not. The thread title says what it's all about. The simple reality
is, there are way better methods of powering vehicles now. It's nothing new.
As has been said, locomotives have been doing it for decades. We've been
sucking on the oil tit for so long that we can't even see simpler solutions
anymore.
Car companies don't want these cars because they require nearly no
maintenance. Most of the money car companies and dealerships make is from the
service drive (go figure). It's obvious why oil companies don't want these
things running around, it would cut their product demand in half if not
obliterate it because going to hydrogen (a cheaper and more readily available
fuel: no need for drilling rigs and all the "locating" staff to find the stuff
since it's part of 75% of the earths surface) becomes incredibly feasible.
BTW, I am a Republican, and part of the tenet's of the party is to reduce
waste... I'm only doing my part to reduce waste. I'm through wasting time and
space on the list with logic.
Shaun H.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:10:59 EDT