Biden uses massive 85-car motorcade

[BehindBlueI's]

When somebody pointed out to me that in the 1800's we had electric cars that would go 40 and 80 miles on a charge, that was an oh yeah moment. So here we are two or three world wars later, force fed technological innovation and progress out the yang yang and oh guess what...

It's a pretty interesting history. I'm not an expert, but I've read a decent amount on the subject and visited some pretty cool museums over the years. Early electric vehicles had some pretty impressive specs (for the day) for both speed and range, but they had a few issues that eventually pushed them out of the marketplace. Price being the biggest.

Steam was the early winner due to the ready availability of water and coal/charcoal/biomass energy sources. You didn't need electricity or refined fuels, and it was a proven technology. The downside was it took awhile to get the car ready to drive. And they weren't terribly cheap.

Electric cars were next up. They were more popular than gasoline cars when cars were rich people toys. There was no electricity outside major urban areas early on and battery recharging was a problem (sort of like now, the infrastructure must support the idea). They didn't require any start up procedure (remember the early internal combustion vehicles had to be hand cranked to start) to drive, and they were relatively silent (didn't scare horses, you could talk to passengers, etc) I've got photos of some in the Petersen museum that are like little living rooms on wheels. The seats are a curved sofa with a chair for the driver. The driver steered with a rudder like device and sat with his left shoulder facing the windscreen so that he could face the conversation as he drove... They were, however, limited to the city and they were expensive.

Internal combustion didn't really catch on until two things: The Model T and the electric starter. The Model T simply undercut the prices of early electrics, by a factor of roughly 10 once Ford got the whole thing going. The market responded, cars became not just a rich people toy, the electric starter made the car more accessible and easier to use, infrastructure sprung up...internal combustion wins the marketplace wars.

 

[NKBJ]

It's a pretty interesting history. I'm not an expert, but I've read a decent amount on the subject and visited some pretty cool museums over the years. Early electric vehicles had some pretty impressive specs (for the day) for both speed and range, but they had a few issues that eventually pushed them out of the marketplace. Price being the biggest.

Steam was the early winner due to the ready availability of water and coal/charcoal/biomass energy sources. You didn't need electricity or refined fuels, and it was a proven technology. The downside was it took awhile to get the car ready to drive. And they weren't terribly cheap.

Electric cars were next up. They were more popular than gasoline cars when cars were rich people toys. There was no electricity outside major urban areas early on and battery recharging was a problem (sort of like now, the infrastructure must support the idea). They didn't require any start up procedure (remember the early internal combustion vehicles had to be hand cranked to start) to drive, and they were relatively silent (didn't scare horses, you could talk to passengers, etc) I've got photos of some in the Petersen museum that are like little living rooms on wheels. The seats are a curved sofa with a chair for the driver. The driver steered with a rudder like device and sat with his left shoulder facing the windscreen so that he could face the conversation as he drove... They were, however, limited to the city and they were expensive.

Internal combustion didn't really catch on until two things: The Model T and the electric starter. The Model T simply undercut the prices of early electrics, by a factor of roughly 10 once Ford got the whole thing going. The market responded, cars became not just a rich people toy, the electric starter made the car more accessible and easier to use, infrastructure sprung up...internal combustion wins the marketplace wars.

And the world cannot use "alternative" energy until a certain dynasty sells off it's fossil fuel holdings, at which time global governance pontificates from on high that we all have to do it immediately. That's how the marketplace works.

 

[Leadeye]

Internal combustion was what I like to call an advance in the great race to condense power. The ratio of power to weight/size in a useful range drives everything. A steam locomotive could pull a lot more weight than horses, but you could never have a steam powered airplane because it was too big/heavy to fly at the required power levels. Electricity/batteries have been coming along well and that's been good to see, but I suspect much of the tech has been around longer than people think. Act can correct me on this but I recall reading something about lithium battery powered torpedoes back as early as the 60s.

I think we'll see a diverse set of power producing engines continue in the future as the various technologies find their market spot.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Internal combustion was what I like to call an advance in the great race to condense power. The ratio of power to weight/size in a useful range drives everything. A steam locomotive could pull a lot more weight than horses, but you could never have a steam powered airplane because it was too big/heavy to fly at the required power levels. Electricity/batteries have been coming along well and that been good to see, but I suspect much of the tech has been around longer than people think. Act can correct me on this but I recall reading something about lithium battery powered torpedoes back in the 60s.

I think we'll see a diverse set of power producing engines continue in the future as the various technologies find their market spot.

I've been beating the drum for awhile that Musk doesn't run a car company, he runs a battery company that happens to use cars as a proof of concept. The technological advances isn't so much in how much power a battery can store (although that's part of it) but the speed at which you can recharge the battery and the longevity of the battery.

 

[1DOWN4UP]

A Important guy like him without Important things to do?
COME ON!

 

[Cameramonkey]

I've been beating the drum for awhile that Musk doesn't run a car company, he runs a battery company that happens to use cars as a proof of concept. The technological advances isn't so much in how much power a battery can store (although that's part of it) but the speed at which you can recharge the battery and the longevity of the battery.

That is the show stopper for me. When You can recharge the car's batteries to full in under 10 minutes, call me.

And I'm being generous. I can refill a 16 gallon tank in well under 5 at some stations. I know some of you bigger truck guys can take 10 with those big tanks. I could be convinced to compromise and go electric.

 

[Cameramonkey]

When somebody pointed out to me that in the 1800's we had electric cars that would go 40 and 80 miles on a charge, that was an oh yeah moment. So here we are two or three world wars later, force fed technological innovation and progress out the yang yang and oh guess what...
The world cannot use "alternative" energy until a certain dynasty sells off it's fossil fuel holdings, at which time global governance pontificates from on high that we all have to do it immediately or we'll all die like the lab rats they think we are.
Our creator gave us a world 70% covered in recyclable fuel and a star to provide the power to process it but oh no, we mustn't use that!
Gaahhh!

OK, I'm going to go have a nice cup of coffee and throw a paper ball for the cat.

apples and oranges. We could make our cars go MUCH farther. Exponentially farther. But today silly drivers want stupid things like speed, and creature comforts like an enclosed cabin, carpet, seats, heaters, AC, etc. If you put today's tech in an 1800s style chassis and forced them to slow down to the 1800s speeds (15-20mph as I recall) , You could probably make these cars go for thousands and thousands of miles on a charge.

 

[KittySlayer]

Unintended consequences?

Just like little thought was given to the environmental impact of fossil fuels centuries ago, little is mentioned of the environmental consequences of “green” energy.

• Mining of raw materials for batteries.
• Safe/responsible Disposal of “dead” batteries and all their chemicals.
• Scrapped cars? How many electric cars will still be running in Cuba fifty years from now?
• Nuclear waste with never ending half lives.
• Disposal of dead solar panels.
• Dead windmills either rotting on the landscape or buried away.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Yep. and in the testimony the other day, fossil fuel execs admitted with the crackdowns in the new bills, if they keep pushing EVs we will have no choice but to fall back to burning coal again.

That's right boys and girls. Coal burning cars. REEEEEEEEAL clean and efficient.

 

[NKBJ]

apples and oranges. We could make our cars go MUCH farther. Exponentially farther. But today silly drivers want stupid things like speed, and creature comforts like an enclosed cabin, carpet, seats, heaters, AC, etc. If you put today's tech in an 1800s style chassis and forced them to slow down to the 1800s speeds (15-20mph as I recall) , You could probably make these cars go for thousands and thousands of miles on a charge.

Apples and oranges because of 130 years of technological changes channeled in the wrong directions. We could be cracking water for fuel if it was allowed.
Looks to me as though the end of relying on petroleum, the end of relying on the petrodollar, is part of the plan for the reset.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Apples and oranges because of 130 years of technological changes channeled in the wrong directions. We could be cracking water for fuel if it was allowed.
Looks to me as though the end of relying on petroleum, the end of relying on the petrodollar, is part of the plan for the reset.

It is "allowed" and there was quite the push for it about 10-15 years ago. California tried it, and the DoE had a public/private partnership to roll out infrastructure. Several major manufacturers, both domestic and foreign, participated. The market rejected it. Fast forward and battery EVs surpassed hydrogen power as both cheaper and more efficient.

 

[NKBJ]

It is "allowed" and there was quite the push for it about 10-15 years ago. California tried it, and the DoE had a public/private partnership to roll out infrastructure. Several major manufacturers, both domestic and foreign, participated. The market rejected it. Fast forward and battery EVs surpassed hydrogen power as both cheaper and more efficient.

The sun will come up tomorrow.
Waiting for you to say it won't.

 

[JCSR]

It gets worse......

10,000 mile return trip that'll generate 2.2 MILLION pounds of carbon to attend CLIMATE CHANGE​

 

[BehindBlueI's]

The sun will come up tomorrow.
Waiting for you to say it won't.

It probably will. That still doesn't change your full of **** with your claim that we'd be "cracking water for fuel if it was allowed".

 

[NKBJ]

It probably will. That still doesn't change your full of **** with your claim that we'd be "cracking water for fuel if it was allowed".

OK, have it your way.

 

[KittySlayer]

It gets worse......

10,000 mile return trip that'll generate 2.2 MILLION pounds of carbon to attend CLIMATE CHANGE​

I’m worried about how much deadly carbon will be coming out of Biden’s mouth. Far more dangerous than me driving my gas powered truck.

 

[JCSR]

I’m worried about how much deadly carbon will be coming out of Biden’s mouth. Far more dangerous than me driving my gas powered truck.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

OK, have it your way.

Called "reality", thanks.

"Cracking water" is just using electricity or high heat to make hydrogen. It is not economically viable, and has been tried multiple times. It's not just free energy. Some energy source has to make the electricity or heat, the anode and cathode are consumable items, etc.

California has been pushing it for years:

Hydrogen Vehicles & Refueling Infrastructure

The California Energy Commission is supporting the adoption of zero-emission hydrogen fuel cell electric cars by expanding California’s network of hydrogen refueling stations throughout the state. The Energy Commission is investing in an initial network of 100 public hydrogen stations across...

www.energy.ca.gov

Feds have been pushing it since at least 2013:

H2@Scale

H2@Scale is a concept that explores the potential for wide-scale hydrogen production and utilization in the United States.

www.energy.gov

Hydrogen cars have big tax incentives to buy, and have since the Bush era (Mission Accomplished Bush, not Read My Lips Bush).

And your tax dollars have been financing research for "water cracking" improvements:

Hydrogen Production: Electrolysis

Electrolysis is the process of using electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. The reaction takes place in a unit called an electrolyzer.

www.energy.gov

But, yes, not allowed for some reason apparently due to a "dynasty family" having holding in oil that controls multiple world governments and multi-national corporations. As stated, you are full of ****.

 

[1DOWN4UP]

Hell on catalytic converters

 

[Sylvain]