🚀 go-pugleaf

will1000@ix.netcom.com (Will Stewart ) wrote:

>I
>Who is the 'WE'?  There are batteries in development that have shown to
>have ranges over 200 miles for Taurus-sized vehicles.  Recharges are
>also shown to be less that 90 minutes with many batteries.

Oh, knock it off.  Yes, on a test sled in warm weather over a flat
test course with no accessories, give us a break.  If 200 mile range
EV's with 90min refuel time were commonly available we would see them
on the road if they cost less than an Italian import. You say that
they are "in development". I have news: Most things "in development"
never get developed.

>>It is not reasonable either to expect a battery which
>>cost per driven mile be acceptable, considering that it worth not less
>>than $2,500 and cannot be expected to last much longer than a year or
>>two. 

>Acceptable is in the mind of the acceptor.  We will assume you speak
>for yourself.

Do you talk to a psychic to do all this seeing of the future?

>>Besides, as soon as the battery is more than a few months old, you
>>can no longer rely on any device to appreciate, at a given time, how
>>many miles can be driven before running out of power. 

>This sentence is a little unclear; what are you claiming here?

Most batteries weaken significantly over several discharge/charge
cycles. The performance will not improve with age, is what I think he
ment.

>The amount of pollution they give off in the city environment is
>negligible compared to ICEVs.

Prove it.

>What are your sources?  What pollutants do you think are emitted by an
>ICE? A coal-fired plant?  

A natural gas ICV with catalytic converter (might actually be
unneccessary) would produce CO2 and water. A 1996 gasoline vehicle
does produce a couple ppm of CO but a woodstove is much worse.

>Please provide your references ('I read it in a news post' does not
>count for much).

But you rarely produce references to back YOUR claims.

George Bonser
grep@cris.com