Dark Side of Hybrid Vehicles

Elle wrote:
> I know a couple who drive _two_ SUVs with Kerry/Edwards stickers still on
> them. I don't know how they can call themselves the liberals they claim to
> be!

LOL. Liberal = "I can drive any unsafe gas-guzzling ststus symbol I want"?

In article >, jim beam
> wrote:

> Abeness wrote:
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Abeness > wrote:
> >>
> >>> You missed my point, which is that plugging in to charge is not
> >>> viable for long trips.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I can travel about as far as I want with my hybrid, with the 450 mile
> >> stops
> >> for gasoline. If I could plug in while at home, my local travels
> >> would be
> >> more efficient, maybe close to all-electric. If I went on the road, I
> >> would be more efficient than a gas-only vehicle, and need no additional
> >> infrastructure.
> >
> >
> > Yes, of course. But the immediate subject here is a wholly alternative
> > fuel source that does not involve gasoline, for the time when we run out
> > of oil--or gas gets too expensive for all but the very rich to afford.
>
> wasn't a lot of the bleating about diminishing reserves done to get tax
> write-offs? wasting asset status?
>
> personally. i doubt reserves will be seriously pinched any time soon.
> or even during our grand kids lifetimes. and then we can just switch to
> biomass solutions. fuels that are liquid at normal temps/pressures are
> by far the easiest solution.

One of the local newspapers mentioned some people that are now making use
of recycled french fry oil that they get for free from restaurants. I seem
to recall that country singer Willie Nelson makes use of it in his bus.
The owner of one of those vehicles that burn it said that the only problem
is that it makes the car smell like french fries so his kids are always
asking him to stop at MacDonalds so they can order some french fries.
Jason

--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 14:21:37 GMT, Elle > wrote:
> "user" > wrote
> snip
>> Not to mention that the "benefits" of SUV's touted by so many just
> don't
>> seem to pan out, in real life. Here in Upstate NY, for example, we get
>> a fair bit of snow. There have been days when I keep track of which
>> vehicles have slid/been driven off the road while driving to work. The
>> vast majority of the time, the SUV's far outnumber the conventional
> vehicles
>> when it comes to forlorn looking people waiting in the ditch for
>> the tow truck. It verges on the hilarious.
>
> The New Yorker had a great report a couple of years ago on the testing of
> SUVs, proving positive that they are unsafer.
>

I'm not so sure that I'd even agree that they're relatively unsafe.
The problem I see is that, barring mini-SUV's like the Subaru Legacy,
they are trucks, and need to be driven like trucks - you need
to account for the larger mass, higher center of gravity, generally
longer stopping distances in wet/snowy conditions, and so on. But
when the average nut climbs into his Ford Behemoth with the leather
seats, climate control, and a ride as soft as a Buick Century, they
*think* they're still driving a car. Until they end up in the ditch. ;-)
Honestly, when it comes down to it, nearly any vehicle can
be driven safely as long as it has a decent suspension, and appropriate
tires for the conditions. It's just that most people don't.


>> And then there are all the people who complain that they need cargo
>> space. As a family who takes 4 people - including a toddler and a 4
>> year old, with all the extra stuff they need - on week long vacations
>> where we have to bring our own towels, bed linens ( which take up a LOT
>> of room ), portable crib, etc, in a 4 door Civic, all I can say is,
>> "Why haven't you learned how to pack?" :-) Sometimes we have to
>> use a roof bag, but buying as huge vehicle for activities that happen
>> just a couple times a year is simply insane.
>>
>> For some reason, people keep asking me if I REALLY am a
>> conservative Republican. ;-)
>
> Ha.
>
> I know a couple who drive _two_ SUVs with Kerry/Edwards stickers still on
> them. I don't know how they can call themselves the liberals they claim to
> be!
>

Being a liberal doesn't mean you're an enviromentalist, just like
being a conservative doesn't mean you can't belong to the Sierra Club and
ACLU. ;-)

- Rich

"user" > wrote
E wrote
> > The New Yorker had a great report a couple of years ago on the testing
of
> > SUVs, proving positive that they are unsafer.
> >
>
> I'm not so sure that I'd even agree that they're relatively unsafe.
> The problem I see is that, barring mini-SUV's like the Subaru Legacy,
> they are trucks, and need to be driven like trucks - you need
> to account for the larger mass, higher center of gravity, generally
> longer stopping distances in wet/snowy conditions, and so on.

The New Yorker article would really be worth any interested person's time,
IMO.

Like you imply, certain (many?) SUVs are in fact some top contraption that
looks like a truck top but thrown onto literally a passenger car chassis.

But
> when the average nut climbs into his Ford Behemoth with the leather
> seats, climate control, and a ride as soft as a Buick Century, they
> *think* they're still driving a car. Until they end up in the ditch. ;-)
> Honestly, when it comes down to it, nearly any vehicle can
> be driven safely as long as it has a decent suspension, and appropriate
> tires for the conditions. It's just that most people don't.

When it comes down to it, one has to consider the psychology behind people's
driving habits.

So you don't give a testosterone laden 16-year-old boy a muscle car, period.

> >> And then there are all the people who complain that they need cargo
> >> space. As a family who takes 4 people - including a toddler and a 4
> >> year old, with all the extra stuff they need - on week long vacations
> >> where we have to bring our own towels, bed linens ( which take up a LOT
> >> of room ), portable crib, etc, in a 4 door Civic, all I can say is,
> >> "Why haven't you learned how to pack?" :-) Sometimes we have to
> >> use a roof bag, but buying as huge vehicle for activities that happen
> >> just a couple times a year is simply insane.
> >>
> >> For some reason, people keep asking me if I REALLY am a
> >> conservative Republican. ;-)
> >
> > Ha.
> >
> > I know a couple who drive _two_ SUVs with Kerry/Edwards stickers still
on
> > them. I don't know how they can call themselves the liberals they claim
to
> > be!
> >
>
> Being a liberal doesn't mean you're an enviromentalist,

It does to me. It also means you don't try to keep up with the Joneses.

In fact, this couple I know are otherwise huge recyclers and
environmentalists.

> just like
> being a conservative doesn't mean you can't belong to the Sierra Club and
> ACLU. ;-)

You are simply naming exceptions to the rule, and huge ones at that.

I suspect anyone who isn't a Democrat who belongs to either the Sierra Club
or ACLU is far more likely to say he's a moderate this or that, or an
Independent. It's highly unlikely they're self-described "conservatives."

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 15:42:52 GMT, Elle > wrote:
> "user" > wrote
> E wrote
>> > The New Yorker had a great report a couple of years ago on the testing
> of
>> > SUVs, proving positive that they are unsafer.
>> >
>>
>> I'm not so sure that I'd even agree that they're relatively unsafe.
>> The problem I see is that, barring mini-SUV's like the Subaru Legacy,
>> they are trucks, and need to be driven like trucks - you need
>> to account for the larger mass, higher center of gravity, generally
>> longer stopping distances in wet/snowy conditions, and so on.
>
> The New Yorker article would really be worth any interested person's time,
> IMO.
>
> Like you imply, certain (many?) SUVs are in fact some top contraption that
> looks like a truck top but thrown onto literally a passenger car chassis.
>
> But
>> when the average nut climbs into his Ford Behemoth with the leather
>> seats, climate control, and a ride as soft as a Buick Century, they
>> *think* they're still driving a car. Until they end up in the ditch. ;-)
>> Honestly, when it comes down to it, nearly any vehicle can
>> be driven safely as long as it has a decent suspension, and appropriate
>> tires for the conditions. It's just that most people don't.
>
> When it comes down to it, one has to consider the psychology behind people's
> driving habits.
>
> So you don't give a testosterone laden 16-year-old boy a muscle car, period.
>

Uh oh, I was a testosterone laden 17 year old boy who bought a 5L
Mustang. ;-) Which was, if I may say, absolutely the worst possible
car to drive in the snow. Ever. Even with excellent tires.


>> >> And then there are all the people who complain that they need cargo
>> >> space. As a family who takes 4 people - including a toddler and a 4
>> >> year old, with all the extra stuff they need - on week long vacations
>> >> where we have to bring our own towels, bed linens ( which take up a LOT
>> >> of room ), portable crib, etc, in a 4 door Civic, all I can say is,
>> >> "Why haven't you learned how to pack?" :-) Sometimes we have to
>> >> use a roof bag, but buying as huge vehicle for activities that happen
>> >> just a couple times a year is simply insane.
>> >>
>> >> For some reason, people keep asking me if I REALLY am a
>> >> conservative Republican. ;-)
>> >
>> > Ha.
>> >
>> > I know a couple who drive _two_ SUVs with Kerry/Edwards stickers still
> on
>> > them. I don't know how they can call themselves the liberals they claim
> to
>> > be!
>> >
>>
>> Being a liberal doesn't mean you're an enviromentalist,
>
> It does to me. It also means you don't try to keep up with the Joneses.
>
> In fact, this couple I know are otherwise huge recyclers and
> environmentalists.
>

It really depends on how you're using "liberal" - if it's the classic
political definition, then a liberal could very easily be the owner
of, say, a fleet of SUVs that leak oil like, well, my old Mustang. ;-)
The sound-bite definition of a liberal is closer to what you describe,
even if it's really an unholy combination of a political view with
enviromental and other attitudes.

>> just like
>> being a conservative doesn't mean you can't belong to the Sierra Club and
>> ACLU. ;-)
>
> You are simply naming exceptions to the rule, and huge ones at that.
>
> I suspect anyone who isn't a Democrat who belongs to either the Sierra Club
> or ACLU is far more likely to say he's a moderate this or that, or an
> Independent. It's highly unlikely they're self-described "conservatives."

I guess I'll be the exception that proves the rule, then, as a
self-described conservative who is members of both those organizations, and
until recently, the NRA, as well. ;-)

ObHonda: If anyone has gotten this far - any recommendations for
a decent roof rack that fits a 2002 Civic?

- Rich

"user" > wrote
E wrote

> >> Being a liberal doesn't mean you're an enviromentalist,
> >
> > It does to me. It also means you don't try to keep up with the Joneses.
> >
> > In fact, this couple I know are otherwise huge recyclers and
> > environmentalists.
> >
>
> It really depends on how you're using "liberal" - if it's the classic
> political definition,

This is from the "Libertarian's Guide to Language Abuses--Vote
Libertarian!," right?

I prefer the real world.

snip
> > I suspect anyone who isn't a Democrat who belongs to either the Sierra
Club
> > or ACLU is far more likely to say he's a moderate this or that, or an
> > Independent. It's highly unlikely they're self-described
"conservatives."
>
> I guess I'll be the exception that proves the rule, then, as a
> self-described conservative who is members of both those organizations,
and
> until recently, the NRA, as well. ;-)

For whom have you voted in the past six Presidential elections?

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 16:03:33 GMT, Elle > wrote:
> "user" > wrote
> E wrote
>
>> >> Being a liberal doesn't mean you're an enviromentalist,
>> >
>> > It does to me. It also means you don't try to keep up with the Joneses.
>> >
>> > In fact, this couple I know are otherwise huge recyclers and
>> > environmentalists.
>> >
>>
>> It really depends on how you're using "liberal" - if it's the classic
>> political definition,
>
> This is from the "Libertarian's Guide to Language Abuses--Vote
> Libertarian!," right?
>
> I prefer the real world.
>

Ewwww, don't even get me started about the Libertarian party.

> snip
>> > I suspect anyone who isn't a Democrat who belongs to either the Sierra
> Club
>> > or ACLU is far more likely to say he's a moderate this or that, or an
>> > Independent. It's highly unlikely they're self-described
> "conservatives."
>>
>> I guess I'll be the exception that proves the rule, then, as a
>> self-described conservative who is members of both those organizations,
> and
>> until recently, the NRA, as well. ;-)
>
> For whom have you voted in the past six Presidential elections?

Unfortunately, they don't allow children in Middle School to vote. ;-)
But in the ones I was able to legally vote in, I voted for Bush Sr,
Clinton, Bush Jr, and Kerry - at least if you count a vote against
Bush as a vote for Kerry. Local elections are totally mixed,
depending on who happens to be running.

- Rich

"user" > wrote
> On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 16:03:33 GMT, Elle
> > "user" > wrote
> > E wrote
> >
> >> >> Being a liberal doesn't mean you're an enviromentalist,
> >> >
> >> > It does to me. It also means you don't try to keep up with the
Joneses.
> >> >
> >> > In fact, this couple I know are otherwise huge recyclers and
> >> > environmentalists.
> >> >
> >>
> >> It really depends on how you're using "liberal" - if it's the
classic
> >> political definition,
> >
> > This is from the "Libertarian's Guide to Language Abuses--Vote
> > Libertarian!," right?
> >
> > I prefer the real world.
> >
>
> Ewwww, don't even get me started about the Libertarian party.

Ha. :-)

Seems like the only people who ever try to invoke secondary meanings of
"liberal" in political discussions are Right-leaning folk (which in my
experience includes certain self-described Libertarians).

> > snip
> >> > I suspect anyone who isn't a Democrat who belongs to either the
Sierra
> > Club
> >> > or ACLU is far more likely to say he's a moderate this or that, or an
> >> > Independent. It's highly unlikely they're self-described
> > "conservatives."
> >>
> >> I guess I'll be the exception that proves the rule, then, as a
> >> self-described conservative who is members of both those organizations,
> > and
> >> until recently, the NRA, as well. ;-)
> >
> > For whom have you voted in the past six Presidential elections?
>
> Unfortunately, they don't allow children in Middle School to vote. ;-)
> But in the ones I was able to legally vote in, I voted for Bush Sr,
> Clinton, Bush Jr, and Kerry - at least if you count a vote against
> Bush as a vote for Kerry. Local elections are totally mixed,
> depending on who happens to be running.

I wouldn't call you a conservative at all. To me, you're obviously an
Independent.

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 16:48:50 GMT, Elle > wrote:
> "user" > wrote
>> On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 16:03:33 GMT, Elle
>> > "user" > wrote
>> > E wrote
>> >
>> >> >> Being a liberal doesn't mean you're an enviromentalist,
>> >> >
>> >> > It does to me. It also means you don't try to keep up with the
> Joneses.
>> >> >
>> >> > In fact, this couple I know are otherwise huge recyclers and
>> >> > environmentalists.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> It really depends on how you're using "liberal" - if it's the
> classic
>> >> political definition,
>> >
>> > This is from the "Libertarian's Guide to Language Abuses--Vote
>> > Libertarian!," right?
>> >
>> > I prefer the real world.
>> >
>>
>> Ewwww, don't even get me started about the Libertarian party.
>
> Ha. :-)
>
> Seems like the only people who ever try to invoke secondary meanings of
> "liberal" in political discussions are Right-leaning folk (which in my
> experience includes certain self-described Libertarians).
>

It would be pedantic of me to point out that the definition of
liberal I used has been historically the primary meaning, so I won't. ;-)
But yes, my experience with Libertarians has been that they generally
attempt to prove to anyone who will listen that they're actually
Libertarians, but just haven't been educated enough to realize it yet.
Which, to me, is extraordinarily annoying.


>> > snip
>> >> > I suspect anyone who isn't a Democrat who belongs to either the
> Sierra
>> > Club
>> >> > or ACLU is far more likely to say he's a moderate this or that, or an
>> >> > Independent. It's highly unlikely they're self-described
>> > "conservatives."
>> >>
>> >> I guess I'll be the exception that proves the rule, then, as a
>> >> self-described conservative who is members of both those organizations,
>> > and
>> >> until recently, the NRA, as well. ;-)
>> >
>> > For whom have you voted in the past six Presidential elections?
>>
>> Unfortunately, they don't allow children in Middle School to vote. ;-)
>> But in the ones I was able to legally vote in, I voted for Bush Sr,
>> Clinton, Bush Jr, and Kerry - at least if you count a vote against
>> Bush as a vote for Kerry. Local elections are totally mixed,
>> depending on who happens to be running.
>
> I wouldn't call you a conservative at all. To me, you're obviously an
> Independent.

Again, definitions. My experience is that people who are declared
Independents tend to mostly be leftists who occasionally vote
to the right in local elections - but almost always go left
in the nationals. I call myself a conservative because I tend
to prefer political policies that pretty much leave me to
my own devices, whether it involves launching loud and
noisy rockets in the desert, or marrying a box turtle. But I'm
happy to pay taxes for clean water, to give a helping hand to
people who have had problems ( just not TOO much of a hand ;-) ),
and to pay for public sculptures whose purpose and meaning I
can't even begin to fathom. But hey, that's OK, as long as my
industry gets big tax breaks so I stay employed. ;-)

- Rich

jim beam wrote:
> Abeness wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Abeness > wrote:
>>>
>>>> You missed my point, which is that plugging in to charge is not
>>>> viable for long trips.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I can travel about as far as I want with my hybrid, with the 450 mile
>>> stops
>>> for gasoline. If I could plug in while at home, my local travels
>>> would be
>>> more efficient, maybe close to all-electric. If I went on the road, I
>>> would be more efficient than a gas-only vehicle, and need no additional
>>> infrastructure.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, of course. But the immediate subject here is a wholly alternative
>> fuel source that does not involve gasoline, for the time when we run
>> out of oil--or gas gets too expensive for all but the very rich to
>> afford.
>
>
> wasn't a lot of the bleating about diminishing reserves done to get tax
> write-offs? wasting asset status?
>
> personally. i doubt reserves will be seriously pinched any time soon. or
> even during our grand kids lifetimes. and then we can just switch to
> biomass solutions. fuels that are liquid at normal temps/pressures are
> by far the easiest solution.

I agree that they are certainly easier now, but I can easily imagine a
future time when another solution could become equally easy, once its
technical hurdles have been ironed out and it goes into mass-production.
It mostly comes down to how important people decide that it is to make a
change, and the energy invested in finding solutions.

It is pretty much impossible to get accurate figures about reserves. See
this interesting piece: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4681935.stm
.. If OPEC countries can pump more if they have greater reserves and they
therefore inflate reported reserves, if they don't allow outside
auditing, and if estimated reserves have remained unchanged in 20 years,
we're basically without real information. Never mind the difficulties of
mapping what's actually deep underground. Then there are the
difficulties estimating future demand. It's a morass made deeper by the
vast industries/sums riding on the info.

For the sake of discussion, however, let's take an OPEC 2003 estimate of
1 trillion barrels world reserves and the ~77.75 million barrels/day
world consumption (from the BBC article): the reserves would last a bit
over 35 years if consumption were to remain the same. Consumption is
certain to increase, as China, etc. become more industrialized, however.
35 years ain't that far off.

And then there's the geological question of what happens to the planet
as that volume of matter is removed from the crust. One 42-US gallon
barrel = 5.6146 cubic feet, or 0.145 metric tons. I can't be bothered
to figure out an estimate of how much crude has been extracted to date
to come up with a volume. Per day it's currently 436.54 million cubic
feet. That equates to 159.34 billion cubic feet per year, or 1.082 cubic
*miles*/year.

That kind of volume is miniscule considering the scale we're dealing
with, granted--the earth's total volume is ~260 *billion* cubic
miles--but crude is removed from the earths crust, which apparently
ranges from ~3 miles thick in much of the ocean to avg. 19-28 miles
thick on the continents surveyed at
http://mahi.ucsd.edu/Gabi/rem.dir/cr...st2a.thick.gif.
How is that volume distributed? Is it simply replaced by water (I've
seen examples of oil wells atop water)? How does it impact on plate
tectonics? Could we end up with monstrous sinkholes where oil is being
extracted? What other potential problems do we face? I'm no expert, and
simply don't know.