local guy builds electric geo metro!!

Quote from the article - '"We all want our high-powered cars. We all want to go zero to 100 mph in less than 5 seconds, and that's the biggest problem," he said.'

I think the biggest problem with electric cars is the limited mileage between charging, which is why I'm not fan of electric powered vehicles. I drive a metro, as do all of us on this forum, who obviously, are not concerned with race cars. Although I do also own a 96 caprice with a big old V8 LT1 that is quite peppy, I mostly drive my metro. Our battery technology has not afforded us the capacity of decent range, and while regenerative braking and such are available with hybrids, a purely electric car really isn't practical for the majority of people which is why I don't think electricity is the answer. Definitely a notable and noble endeavor however, and kudos to the man.

MechanicMatt

My old, used, banged up '93 three banger Geo Metro who's engine I rebuilt myself
(I am so proud of myself!) gets 49.5 miles per gallon of regular gas.

No hybrid can beat that! Electricity may be be a "buzz word" these days of Media
assininity, but the pollution from Coal Power Plants in making electricity and the efficiency loss
of making electricity and then the loss in power transmission plus the
loss in efficiency of charging up the vehicle's huge, expensive lead batteries
makes Electric Hybrids ridiculous!

If my old Geo Metro can squeeze 50 mpg out of plain old regular gas, what is all this Bullcrud about hybrids ?

Why not put all that Federal Money into eeking better mileage out of
gasoline or Ethanol or Peanut Oil - instead of farting around with Hydrogen and
big heavy Lead Acid batteries...!?

You know, the world today doesn't make any sense to me!

Funny, my Dad used to say the same thing.....

Religious idiots killing people for reasons that no-one but they know, criminals let go for "compassionate" reasons,
political hacks espousing idiotic statements (Jimmy Carter), Laws being enacted
while identical laws on the books are not enforced, entertainers doing things
that animals wouldn't do....

Give me a break!

DoctorBill

Anytime the 'Hydrogen Economy' is mentioned, in your mind please substitute 'the Nuclear Economy,' as that's the ONLY form of electrical generation the people who run the show will support. They have the interests of their sponsors to promote, you see. In order to create enough H2 to fuel the millions of H2-fuel-cell cars our economy would require, the electrical generating capacity of this nation would need to be *doubled.*

If renewables were subsidized the way fossil fuel and nukes have been over the last 30 years, we'd be in much better shape by now. But that doesn't make money for the 'right' people...

Efficiency has to be one KEY element of any energy policy, regardless of how energy industry insiders like our VP like to marginalize or mock it's role.
Our '96 Metro 3-cyl. is plenty frugal. Our Golf TDI is equally so (50 MPG hwy), and it can burn biodiesel.
The rest of the national fleet has a ways to go to catch up to our household's average fuel efficiency. Maybe $5/gal. will change some more people's behavior (but then again, I thought that about $4/gal.).

Doc, you're quite right about coal-fired power plants and EVs, however, some folks *can* make very good use of limited-range EVs: people who already make their own power (PV or Wind).

The nuclear facility will never be able to power vehicles. The US has 104 operating nuclear facilites, pumping out a whopping 3 percent of the nations current electrical use. Do some math and you will figure quite quickly that the amount of plants just to light our homes is impossible, never mind factoring in cars. The technologies that can power our cars and homes without creating pollution and greenhouse gases have been around, and continue to exist. The companies who profit from petroleum extraction have been known to buy these technologies, but you wouldn't know that from the revolutionary products made with these great alternatives. Myself, I have plans in my hands to build an electrolysis device that converts water into hydrogen and oxygen which goes straight into the throttle body of any na car. Some rust-proofing is required, but little else. I'll let you all know when this starts.

Laws are made by people who have affiliation with the most powerful companies in the land. A look at who donates the most to both the Republicans and the Democrats will help you to understand how and why laws are made.

It's not that it doesn't make any sense, it's just that it only makes sense from an elitist point of view. Those who have the power prefer to keep it that way. These are the people who I trust the least.

If you would like to know where I get these ideas, check out such films as "Who killed the Electric Car" distributed by Sony pictures, and "The End of Suburbia" there is also a sequel to this movie which I haven't seen yet. You can also check out http://globalpublicmedia.com which has links to Julian Darley's website which has lot's of information about how to exist in a "post-carbon world" it's called the post carbon institute at http://www.postcarbon.org/

Jai

"The nuclear facility will never be able to power vehicles. The US has 104 operating nuclear facilites, pumping out a whopping 3 percent of the nations current electrical use."

If it's only at 3% wouldn't there exist a desire to ramp this up? Sounds like un-tapped growth potential to me for a 'special' industry with 'special' friends that thinks it deserves 'special' help.

Not gonna happen as long as the Environmentalists have their way...

All the Oil in Alaska just sits there because we might "disturb" some Carabou...

The Hell with us Human beings! Owls and moths and Snail Darters are much
more important.

If we could just stop making so many more of us!

I'm for keeping the environment clean, but the environmentalists (as usual)
have gone off the deep end and would like all humans to disappear (except of
course themselves 95% of whom probably drive SUV's and have huge homes).

Nuclear is the cleanest - except when the Nuclear Engineers run assinine "Tests"
like they did in Chernoble....

Besides - it is so neat being able to run tests for mutations and odd growth
of creatures in highly radioactive areas! Like in the movie "Godzilla" with the
"worm guy".

Do we control squat? The earth has had high CO2 levels before. High Methane
levels before - comes out of Volcanos in the zillions of metric tons annually.

It is stored in Methane Clathrates in the Ocean bottoms. CO2 is stored in
Biomass - we just have to stop cutting trees down and plant some more.

Fun topic to discuss - only problem is - we live in the experiment!

Just thought I'd toss my 2 cents in...now somebody start yelling at me!

Where are Al Gore and Michael Moore to call me names?

Off collecting their money and going to the bank in their SUV's driven by chaufers
along with the hypocrite Congressfolk who talk the talk but don't walk the walk?

DoctorBill

Nuclear is no 'cleaner' than carbon-fuels. Both cause us to leave unpleasant problems (toxic spent fuel with a LONG half-life, or emissions) for future generations to deal with.

More people not taking their role as consumers of all forms of energy seriously is simply a matter of energy not being *expensive enough* yet. The Europeans decided in 1973 that they could encourage energy efficiency through taxing energy (fuel & power) heavily. We did not. Nor did we even elect to continue to save energy by keeping lower speed limits when the price of oil dropped in the 1980's. Every Administration & Congressional majority since 1980 dropped the ball on this. Why we expect cheap energy to be something akin to an American birth-right is quite a mystery to me.

People in the EU now have *lots* of 50+ MPG car choices, high-efficiency appliance choices, and more-efficient industrial processes, whereas we have far fewer. I do, of course, disagree with the heavy use of nuclear power in Europe (France, Switzerland, UK).

nuclear power plants supply 20% of americas power, not 3%. not sure why your so against it. no one in the US has ever died from working in a nuclear power plant. how many die each year from mining coal for power plants? the only major disaster was in russia and that was from a poorly run badly designed plant that failed when the goverment over there was collapsing. with the rules and regulations in place here and with the new technology we would never have a accident like that. if it is designed and run properly it is a clean safe source of power

I think a lot of the opposition to Nuclear Power stems from almost complete
ignorance of the science and engineering.

It is an "in thing" for environmentalists - Soccer Mom mentality.

Yes - compare the death rate for Nuclear versus Oil and Coal.

BURNING any fuel produces CO2.

Using Nuclear produces no emissions.

The more we use Nuclear, the better we will become at it.

If we were 100% Nuclear, we could stop paying oil money to Islamic countries
who's only goal is to kill all of us infidels....

DoctorBill

I'm against it, because the Price-Anderson Act is a sham, externalizing the industry's risk onto the American taxpayer. We were once told nuclear power would be 'too cheap to meter.' That's obviously not the case, when one considers what it would cost to insure a plant for liability *without* cost-externalization provided by the P-A Act.

If the nuclear industry is _SO_ convinced of the safety of their plant-designs, they ought to be able to convince their insurers that they ought to be able to purchase liability insurance on the safety merits.

Nothing I've read or heard makes me believe they have *any* intention of rejecting the blanket liability waver and showing how they can be cost-competitive with other methods of power generation (Wind, Natural Gas, 'Clean' Coal). Quite the opposite, they want more protection from the market's taking all of the costs they generate into consideration, along a further round of deregulation of the industry.

"I think a lot of the opposition to Nuclear Power stems from almost complete
ignorance of the science and engineering."

Doc,
Since you're one of the 'non-ignorant' ones (nuclear proponents), I assume your enthusiasm translates into being willing to live next to, or work at a nuke plant, waste-processing plant, or long-term waste storage facility.

I would have no problem doing any of those things.....

In fact, I would consider myself lucky, right now, if I could get a job working
at a Nuclear Waste Site.

Nuclear is one of the MOST regulated and inspected industries that there is!
Every single fart is sampled, tested, inspected, analysed and regulated.

There are several hundred Nuclear power plants in the USA....you don't even hear
about them unless some Media group want to fill empty pages of their papers
or some TV station has a paucity of "news" to run on the nightly broadcast.

Now I will ask you two questions

1 - would you be willing to live near a Coal Fired energy plant?

Look up what "stuff" comes out of coal burning electrical plants.
Mercury, heavy metals, soot, CO2 by the millions of tons -
like living downwind of a Volcano!

2 - what do you do for a living (your job)? Would it be dangerous if you didn't
know what you were doing? Could someone complain about your profession as
dangerous to us citizens? Just asking.....

Now the environmentalist are bitching about the windmills used to generate power
in some of the East Coast States.....bothers "some" birds, for God's sake!

I wonder what they'll have to moan about when we have large banks of
photoelectric cells to make power - doesn't allow the grass to grow!
Make the ants unhappy....

Environmentalists make noises like a cloud of mosquitos near your ear....

I never hear environmentalists espousing the one thing they should preach -
Birth Control! ALL of our problems arise, essentially, from our high world population!

Old Mother Earth can't have so many of us pooping and eating so darned much!

We need "Mr. Fusion" like in the end of the movie "Back to the Future".

Imagine what we'd do if each person had essentially unlimited power available...
Talk about an orgy of waste!

DoctorBill

"There are several hundred Nuclear power plants in the USA....you don't even hear about them unless some Media group want to fill empty pages of their papers or some TV station has a paucity of "news" to run on the nightly broadcast."

Really? I guess the goings-on at Indian Point are just a figment of people's imagination:
"The Nuclear Regulatory Commission downgraded its safety assessment of the Indian Point No. 3 nuclear reactor on Friday, hours after a transformer fire forced the plant's second shutdown in a week and the fourth in the last 12 months..." (NYT, April 7, 2007) Shove 'unplanned shutdown' into a search engine and see what you get. All lies, I'm sure...

I stated an assumption, Doc. I did not ask you a question. But since you ask:
"1 - would you be willing to live near a Coal Fired energy plant?"
I already do, as many people in my state do. Less than 5 miles away. I do agree that they aren't clean, especially when the companies building them want to do it as cheaply as possible. Clean air ain't free. I'd much prefer wind, solar or biomass energy generation. Conservation and efficiency are operative assumptions in ANY national energy policy

"2 - what do you do for a living (your job)? Would it be dangerous if you didn't
know what you were doing? Could someone complain about your profession as
dangerous to us citizens?"
I test software, but why is that relevant? Dangerous if I did not know what I was doing? No. It would impact my company's bottom line if I did not find bugs. Dangerous to U.S. citizens? I doubt it.

Today is the 100th anniversary of the birth of Rachel Carson, the marine biologist and author credited for launching the modern environmental movement. I'd urge you to consider the state of the environment when she did her best to raise consciousness with her publication of 'Silent Spring' in 1962.

Are you suggesting that the movement she started wasn't worthwhile, and that people who care about the purity of the food they eat, the air they breath and the water they drink are just a bunch of whiners?
It ended up hurting petrochemical manufacturer's bottom lines (gasp!).

I completely agree with you on zero population growth.

A transformer fire has nothing to do with the plant being Nuclear.....

Would you critisize automobile engineering because of a flat tire?

And it did shut down - it didn't go "China Syndrome!"

I asked about your job hoping maybe it was something inherently dangerous
to make my point that many dangerous jobs are not at all dangerous if you
do the job correctly and don't screw around. Therefore, that industry shouldn't
be condemned because it uses or produces dangerous materials.

If we continue making electricity via fuel consumption, we "may" cause bad
global consequences. Nuclear power plants make heat as a byproduct.
We can deal with the "waste" nuclear material if we do it right.

We didn't do it right in the past. Making bombs from the nuclear waste is like
making bombs from fertilizer - nitrates... Not the Nitrates' fault.

I am tired of the Stop Nuclear mantra sung by what I consider fools who adopt
a "Cause" and don't know of what they speak - like PETA for instance.
Soccer Mom's with little to do and adopt a cause to keep occupied.

"Don't worry - be happy" song....

DoctorBill (Who? Me? Opinionated? Ha!)

Permanently solve the nuclear waste issue (unsolved to-date) and stop externalizing the nuclear industry's risk onto American taxpayers (this won't happen), and then I'll reconsider my position.

What is the Nuclear Waste Issue? Where to put it?

You don't want much - just everything to be perfect or NOTHING!

People can't be against EVERYTHING!

Meanwhile, the cat's in the cradle!

What will you use use for power...?

If Gore has his way, we'll stop burning "Fuel" to make electricity and run our
vehicles - however, the Chinese, Indians, Russians, Africans, Latin Americans won't.

How are you going to make Hydrogen if we go that route?
The environmentalists are already saying that a Hydrogen Economy will use up scarce water in desert areas.
THE most negative folks I have ever heard of....

Everybody is complaining and nobody is doing anything. We argue and fight and
the media has a ball publicising it and nothing gets done.

As to Hydrogen - not enough wind or solar energy devices available to make sufficient Hydrogen.

You'll freeze to death in winter and starve to death in both summer and winter.

Nope - Nuclear is our only hope if we have to stop burning fuel - or do we?

Either that, or 90% of us have to go (die).

Not a simple answer. Waving signs and saying silly mantras won't solve the
problem. Everything runs on MONEY. Those who own the fuel have us by
the short exhaust pipe. You cannot ignore that fact.

I don't know. I think things will just get worse. Worse and worse and worse.
Until we have a big war or famine or plague and only 10% of us are left -
then the problem is solved until we overpopulate again - a nice closed loop.

I feel sorry for our kids and their kids. We will leave them one Hell of a mess.

But then again, someone usually comes up with a solution if things get bad enough.

How about all those neat energy patents that the Oil Corporations are supposed
to have bought up to keep the oil flowing ($$$$)?

DoctorBill

PS - Global Warming (us or natural?) What makes us think we can do squat to stop it?
What if we do something and what we do is wrong and we make it worse?!
Do we know 1% of anything? Personally - I doubt it.

they are building a nuclear plant spent fuel storage facility inside a mountain. think its called yucca mountain or something like that. its in the desert and it get no anual rainfall so there will be no ground water polution, the waste will be sealed in stainless drums then cased in steel reinforced concrete then the whole thing sealed and encased in a cave with more concrete, supposed to go online in a few years. its been under construction for about 10 years. will handle all the spent fuel for the next 75 years and can be expanded if needed. no one lives near it and even in case of a earthquake the containers are designed not to rupture. the containers and encasing are designed to last at least 10000 years

Doc,

It's interesting that you mention Al Gore in the context of nuclear power. A recent article ties him to the interests who push for more nuclear. Bet you didn't see THAT one coming! Makes you wonder why he doesn't sprinkle a few promotional words about nukes into his talks about global warming, if it's the only solution he'll push. We'll see.

http://www.creators.com/opinion/alexander-cockburn/who-are-the-merchants-of-fear.html

Another factor to consider before we commit this nation to expanding the nuclear sector is the availability of nuclear fuel:
http://in.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2007-03-21T200658Z_01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_India-291820-1.xml&archived=False

Yes, storage is the issue, especially the short-term storage that is *currently* being done at nuclear facilities around the country (rather than a secure location, like Yukka Mtn. for arguments' sake). Talk about a ready-made dirty bomb just waiting for an evil person to exploit our risky behavior. The stuff is nasty enough to require processing in a manner that makes it harmless, even in the wrong hands.

I noticed you did not seem to object to the massive subsidies taxpayers are subjected to in the form of the Price-Anderson Act. Free marketeers ought to screaming from the rooftops about how these subsidies distort the market. Instead, all I hear on the subject is... < crickets >

Had to look up what the Price-Anderson Act is....

I understand that. It cost gozillions to build a nuclear plant, with all the
safety issues and equipment, environmental paperwork and studies.

If something does go wrong, as it was destined to in the beginning - all new technology has problems...,
you can't allow lawsuits to destroy the industry! Lawyers must be lined up for hundreds of
miles slobbering over potential lawsuit profits from people who want to
screw with the system - for profit or just nastiness.

We are a litigious people. Somebody would sue the Nuclear Power Plant
for causing bad dreams! And our current judges would be in their favor.
It is a set-up for Lawyers to suck it dry.

I read that gasoline is so government subsidized that if it weren't for that, the
cost of a gallon of gas would be $10. We pay at the pump or we pay thru taxes.

Then add federal and state sales tax...!

We have it good here! Gas is taxed to death in other countries. Go to Europe
and see what a liter (about 1/4 gallon) of gas costs.

In Latin America it is crazy!

Back on track - we must have Nuclear Power. Too many of us and we
are not willing to go back to living w/o power and our goodies.

More wind generators - stifle the environmentalists over birds being disturbed!
Stuff a sock in their mouths!

Cover the deserts with banks of Photoelectric Cells. Make mirror steam
generators to power electrical generation.

Face it, if we stop burning Carbon Fuel to stop a supposed human caused
Global Warming, just what will we do for power? No more philosophical
psychobabble grunting - WHAT will we do for power?

AND - how do we stop China, Latin America, India, Russia, Africa etc from
continuing burning fossil fuel while we cool our heels with nothing?

Why do our own environmentalist attack American consumption and very obviously
ignore all the rest of the world burning fuel like there is no tomorrow?

In any case - all this falderal is going nowhere anyway...nobody is going to
stop using fuel! Are you? I'm not.

Al Gore will see to it that we pay higher taxes to supposedly inhibit us from
using fuel...while he lives in his huge house and uses private aircraft.
The government will give that tax money to illegal aliens so they won't sue
us for infringement of their "civil rights." - an oxymoron.

It would be so funny if it weren't so bad...a Saturday Night Live comedy.

DoctorBill

Doctorbill and Mike Van,
I really enjoyed reading your dialogue and was impressed how neither of insulted the other directly, nor did you cuss-out one another. I'm kind of sad to see the dialogue has ceased. As a science teacher in the public schools this is an issue that must continue to be discussed, then, more importantly, acted upon in good faith by an allegiant world citizenry. When catastrophy strikes people put aside their differences (race, demography, religion, bias,...) and engage in survival. Why as humans do we postpone the inevitable until it becomes severe? Greed? Selfishness?
I'm fifty years old and don't want to leave behind a polluted planet. Blame my mother for instilling that value in me. Air, water, ground. I hope our kids sue us in courts around the world for infringing on their rights to a safe clean planet with no radioactive time-bombs lingering underground with half-lives of tens-to-hundreds of thousands of years or pollutants in the water that have yet to be descovered much less existing pollutants that to date can not be extracted from the water. Yes the atmosphere has had many times the current levels of methane and carbon-dioxide gasses than now present. And, yes ocean levels may rise, yet again, and cover many urban centers around the world, but let it be of natural occurance and not caused by humans who did little or nothing to correct a problem. A problem that all educated people are aware of. Some don't like to admit it, but they still know it is true. And, truth is truth, whether ignored or not. Changes need to be made. Everyone should admit it. Admitting it is the first step to recovery. Sound familiar?
Inquiring minds.... will find out.














c

Nuclear enegry is clean, initially. Until a whopping 5% (0.05 - decimal) of a fuel rod is spent and the remaining 95% (0.95 - decimal) has to be meticulously STORED and cared for because it was rendered useless because it shat all over itself. This is okay though, because we only have to walk on egg shells around this STORED nuclear plutonium for 50,000 years (25k year half-life) how old is christianity? judaism? buddhism? human civilization? hmmmmm.

What volume facility will we need to house all this crap? What happens if there's a breech? What happens when we mine the earth clean of plutonium!! When we can only use 5% of it in the first place it's utterly rediculous to think that nuclear energy is the answer.

Hydrogen is the only way - its the most abundant element, emits water. The only problem RIGHT NOW is that it is too expensive, but that will get fixed with technology.

Population is, as has been astutely stated, our biggest problem. Stop F**King multiplying people!

-MechanicMatt

PS - Doc, I love your new quotes.

Everybody bitches and complains.....

But just let the power run out and watch what happens.

No oil, no coal, no nuclear - no wood burning, nothing.....

Dark Ages.

THE only solution is to drop our world population down by 90%.....

I am skeptical enough to think like Mulder in the X-Files.....the technology has probably
been discovered but kept suppressed by those who would lose by its use.

Low cost non-polluting energy would put the Oil Industry (ARABS, Islam, Corporations)
out of business.

They would kill to stop that....no question about it.

Just wait until the oil is near to gone.

Watch how we miraculously 'discover' new technology to make power available
using Hydrogen or stuff we haven't even conceived of yet !

And guess who will have the 'rights' to that new technology....?

DoctorBill

METHANE!!

There you have it. If methane is one of our problem greenhouse gases, then why don't they bottle it up and burn it. You only need 19th century technology to spin a generator. The Lusitania and Mauritania, which were launched in 1907, had the finest steam tecnology of the time. With the huge steam turbines and four props, these 785 foot steel ocean liners booked at 28 knots across the Atlantic.

As I was recently told, methane burns almost as hot as propane and it would surely be be hot enough to run a boiler and steam turbine. With heating tubes running through the boilers, that should help heat things up a bit. Now, attach that steam turbine to a generator motor.

Methane is cheap to create. It will need a real good filtering system, but what the heck, that can't be too tough to do.

All pig farmers and dairy farmers should be able to capitalize on the poop pretty good, if they can build a powerplant, the size of a burger joint. :lol:

Kill two birds with one stone. Clean up the air, by the ozone layer and produce power. "Hey, there's an idea."

As far as accidents with nuclear and fossil fuel plants go, I would have to say they are both victimized by the same faults. Lousey maintainance and other work related screw-ups. Our refineries have had their troubles in the past. And yes Doctor Bill, we do need to stifle these crazy environmentalists. Wind and solar are also two good alternatives.

True methane is about 15 times more harmful as a greenhouse gas compared to carbon-dioxide, but CO2 is already a problem. They are both problems, but burning the methane which produces CO2 is the lesser of the two evils.
I just hate it when I run out of options and am forced to choose between two evils. It's kinda like voting for politicians.

I'm sure for buzzing around town an electric car would be great. But for the places that I like to go I would end up being stuck out in the middle of nowhere with a dead car. Now who wants to make the hike back out to the nearest road with people, to get a ride into cell range, to be able to call the tow truck so they can come and get you and your car? No Thanks. I'll gladly stick with my little gas burner. In the long run it will be far cheaper to drive it around than worry about mapping out how far I can go before I have to recharge.

There is a problem with an electric car,takes too long to charge.Fifth gear, a tv show on the BBC did a test on one and it ran out of power most of the time when testing it.It took about 13 hours to charge the batteries up.Some powerplants are powered by methane from landfills and one was shown on Penn and Teller: BS.

Agreed, it's no big deal for me to drive 250 miles in one day, electric just doesn't cut it. Plus, the manufacture and disposal of the batteries is an environmental disaster in and of itself.

Doctor Bill wrote:
"My old, used, banged up '93 three banger Geo Metro who's engine I rebuilt myself
(I am so proud of myself!) gets 49.5 miles per gallon of regular gas. No hybrid can beat that! "

While I agree with your position on most things, my Honda Civic Hybrid was getting 52.5 MPG before Honda changed the programing to save the batteries. It now gets about 47 MPG with an automatic transmission and the air conditioner running. That is at 70 MPH and morning commute traffic. 5 years old, 100k miles, and still running well. It is also much more comfortable, quieter, and roomier than the Metro.

My 93 Metro with an automatic transmission never got above about 38 MPG.

My champion was my 5 speed Chevy Sprint that got 55 mpg.

However, it is time to bring back the Metro with only about 75k miles on it. It has not run for about 10 years and I will soon get a chance to work on it in the new house.