steveo wrote:

"Day Brown" <daybrown@artelco.com> wrote in message
news:TuKQe.2515$mu7.75857951@typhoon.cei.net...

Raymond Arritt wrote:

Day Brown wrote:

Bret Cahill wrote:

We need to be funding fusion and batterys several hundred billion a
year or we will soon have BIG problems, not just silly crap hyped by
the corp. boss ***** media.

The worst possible use for oil is energy.

Agreed. but it aint upta us. How do you plan to survive the economic
crash we will use instead to reduce our consumption?

http://www.ei2025.org

How the ***** do you expect to get a mandate thru the smoke screen of
the transnational media who really know how to pander to the couch
potatos, and not challenge them like your advocated position does?

I like your program too, but let's be realistic.

You don't have to convince everyone. What you have to do is convince one
billionaire with a sense of history and a good helping of ego to fund a
good project.

I dont know any, doubt he does either. They must be swamped with spam.
Maybe there are good ideas, but there's a sea of bullschitt to wade
thru. Diamond writes of Tokugawa, and there are other examples in
history where a leader steps forth with vision the people lack just
as there are examples where leaders are blind to all visions by their
own. But I dont see any billionaires that this culture has created
with the kind of open mind that's required, to either have an idea,
or listen to one, that'd make much difference.

If it is a good product, and it is marketed well (marketing is much more
than promotion [advertising]), it _will_ sell. Examples: recycling,
EV/hybrid, green power.

Which are nice ideas but lacking support; they dont 'sell', and the
sheeple aint buying.

If your idea is that of a crackpot, or is so fantastical that only the
clinically insane see your logic or want it, well, there is not much hope
for it.

And who gets to decide if its insane or visionary?

Looking at your website, it would seem that responsible and intelligent
people are needed in our government to make energy independence and
ecological preservation a reality. I agree. However, I would focus on
getting these types of people into government and have that be the end,
because these people would, by their very nature, address these and other
important issues in an effective, creative, and sustainable way.

Well, for instance, Jim Lendall, Green party, Little Rock, has
announced he's running for governor. He dont even have a website up yet.

Many speak of the media as an enemy or some monolithic force out to
malignantly destroy humankind because it is... gasp... EVIL, but it is
really just a simple creature. It has only two needs: sustenance (money)
and companionship (observers). Treat it as such, and you will have
success.

Agreed what its needs are, but it dont care how I treat it any more than
an elephant cares what an ant thinks. Even making an impact on local
politics is hamstrung by the closed mindedness of the lawyers, realtors,
and developers who now run things.

<> We need EVs that can be easily converted to hybrids by adding a gen
set
<> -- a small hybrid engine + generator + fuel tank.

<> You can commute up to 80 miles each week day in your battery only EV
--
<> a glorified golf cart -- charging off the grid only. In commuter
mode
<> you have more space and less weight without the hybrid engine.

< Not really enough to be worthwhile.

The engine-generator-tank is several cu feet -- a lot on a small car.
Generators are heavy. The extra weight cuts into miles per
kilowatt-hour, even with regenerative braking.

< Since the grid doesn't run on
< nuclear or magic alternatives, the tradeoff is questionable.

It's cleaner, even when you burn coal and account for the 10% lost in
transmission lines. Less NOx. If it comes to sequestering CO2 --
admittedly as pipe dreamish as a democratic Iraq -- the power plant is
the only place to do it.

Better idea: get the morons in Congress to fund fusion. I have no
reason to doubt the claims of the conventional fusion people.

< Not that I think all electric is a bad idea if you can do it right.

No motor oil. One moving part per wheel. Much higher reliability. En
masse, much cheaper.

The article had the automaker start off with a hybrid and they
essentially made it more EV.

<> And when you need to drive cross country you can drop in a small gas

<> engine/generator/fuel tank set.

. . .

<> If you need to haul something you rent a larger gas engine/gen set.

< But you would have to rent larger brakes and suspension and so
< on---towing big things with a light car is not a good idea.

I heard about the Japanese making a three wheel EV. Maybe a 4th
wheel/traction motor/brake/engine/generator/fuel tank rig could be
bolted on.

This would effectively increase control by 33%.

< There's something called zip cars ? where you can do everything on
line

< and pick up a local small car if you live in a city. But what would
be

< really good would be the same idea for pickup trucks, vans and so on.

I'm surprised the truck idea didn't come first. That just shows you
how few people really need large vehicles.

People want something sitting in front of their house for
"emergencies." Same as the gun nuts. They like a gun "just in case."
We both know this is ignorant as hell but that's how people think. I'm
just trying to offer options that will sell, not wage an educational
campaign.

Better idea: Pay by day auto insurance.

You have your car registered and you have a policy but you never pay
for insurance as long as it sits in the driveway. You take the bus or
cycle to work.

When it rains or you need to haul some groceries you contact the
insurance company. The company will charge more on a per day basis but
overall it would be big savings for a lot of motorists.

Except for about 14 weeks in the winter I only use my vehicle three
times a month if that. The insurance is several times more expensive
than what I pay in fuel.


Bret Cahill