100 mpg car - Page 2 - New England Patriots Forums

***patsfan13*** · 06-11-2008, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wotan_the_Wanderer

Tesla Motors is already producing an electric roadster that goes 0-60 in 3.7 seconds and has a 200+ mile range between charges. I'm sure the price tag is hefty, but the technical know-how has emerged and hopefully will be reflected in price tags of the mass produced cars of the future.

As far as the bullet train is concerned, it's something we in the US is sorely lacking. Anyone who's been on one of these or who's even been on the Eurorail I think will attest that it's the best, most comfortable way to travel. And the thing that makes some of the bullet trains so impressive is that they rely of massive magnetic force for propulsion and stabilization. It's big science and I'm not sure why we got left behind given that big science is what Americans do best.

The Electricity for these cars comes mostly from coal burning plants...

and with the 2nd law of thermodynamics...

more nukes for our electric cars anyone.

BTW Hydrogen is a storage mechanism for energy not a fuel source. The energy consumed producing the H is > the energy stored by H... pesky 2nd law again. Oil is essentially stored sunlight we are using.

otis p. driftwood · 06-11-2008, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wotan_the_Wanderer

Tesla Motors is already producing an electric roadster that goes 0-60 in 3.7 seconds and has a 200+ mile range between charges. I'm sure the price tag is hefty, but the technical know-how has emerged and hopefully will be reflected in price tags of the mass produced cars of the future.

As far as the bullet train is concerned, it's something we in the US is sorely lacking. Anyone who's been on one of these or who's even been on the Eurorail I think will attest that it's the best, most comfortable way to travel. And the thing that makes some of the bullet trains so impressive is that they rely of massive magnetic force for propulsion and stabilization. It's big science and I'm not sure why we got left behind given that big science is what Americans do best.

We've already had the discussions about the bullet train in the US. It's much more practical in Europe than it is here. It's too fast for a commuter train and not quick enough to replace flying (unless it could be really really cheap).

Wotan_the_Wanderer · 06-11-2008, 04:01 PM

^When's the last time you flew into NYC or even Newark for that matter. If I need to go into Manhattan, it's just as fast driving in from Boston than it is flying. But it's true that flying to LA from the EC would be faster than taking a bullet train though I don't think the difference is a great as you're suggesting.

Wotan_the_Wanderer · 06-11-2008, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

The Electricity for these cars comes mostly from coal burning plants...

Solar, geothermal, hydro, bio mass and wind all offer electricity and this these are sectors that are on the upswing so the effectiveness and the economy with which we derive electricity from these sources will improve. But you're right. As of now, coal burning does represent the bulk of US electricity supply.

Said, this I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Are you suggesting we should not change our habits and stick petrol combustible engines?

Quote:

and with the 2nd law of thermodynamics...

more nukes for our electric cars anyone.

You're a bit of a sensationalist I take it.

PatriotsReign · 06-11-2008, 04:17 PM

If you really want to see some amazing information on some incredible technology that has been kept from the general public, check out these links;

http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/223/

***patsfan13*** · 06-11-2008, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wotan_the_Wanderer

Solar, geothermal, hydro, bio mass and wind all offer electricity and this these are sectors that are on the upswing so the effectiveness and the economy with which we derive electricity from these sources will improve. But you're right. As of now, coal burning does represent the bulk of US electricity supply.

Said, this I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Are you suggesting we should not change our habits and stick petrol combustible engines?

You're a bit of a sensationalist I take it.

We need to have energy to sustain us until there are viable alternatives. I have posted quite a bit about alternatives. The sources you cited can currently contribute
only a small amount of our total energy requirements.

So we need both a short term (drilling our won oil, we have more than the ME why are we importing?) and longer term (the stuff you referenced along with nuke).