Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 4, 2011 -> 09:17 AM) So what happens when you have to replace all those batteries that lose the ability to hold charge over time? Better question for these other guys. I have no idea. I assume you could just replace them like you would an engine part?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 4, 2011 -> 09:04 AM) The in-house 240 V charging stations which can charge the Volt in about 3 hours and the Leaf in about 8 hours cost on the order of $1000-2000 if you need to have them fully installed. If you happen to already have 240 V wiring available near your garage, for example, to run your dishwasher, the price goes down a lot. The Leaf also comes with a cable that can plug into a standard 120 V outlet, but it takes about 18 hours for a full charge. However, if you don't deplete the battery fully, this will work just fine. I could run this from my outlet right now and use a Leaf as my standard transportation and this cable would be able to charge my battery fully every day. The 480V, 30 minute Leaf fast chargers are considerably more expensive and are only available to commercial operators. However, governments and private businesses are starting to buy these (and they'll clearly buy more as more EV's get on the road). The reason to buy one is...you've got me at your shop for a guaranteed 30 minutes. I'm at your McDonalds, or your Kroger, or your Truck Stop, for 30 minutes. With current electricity rates, you're effectively paying somewhere in the range of $.50 to $1.00 a gallon, depending on how you drive. Could be less if you owned your own solar panels or wind generator as well. The Leaf's eco-mode would probably cut that even farther. Yeah these were the numbers I was looking for. I assumed it would be a lot less, but .50-1.00 would be great. Guess we'll see what happens. I'm still surprised that they only sold that amount in 2 months.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 4, 2011 -> 08:58 AM) This is not a problem of infrastructure for the Volt. You can plug it in at home with a normal outlet or a faster one, and its a hybrid engine after the 40 miles of electric-only kick out. The only reason infrastructure is an issue for the Volt is on long distance trips, like road trips of multiple hours, which are rare for most people. Now for all-electrics like the Leaf and the Tesla cars, yes, its an infrastructure problem. The research you are asking for has been done. The companies publish information about charging times, and mileage ratings used typical electricity rates to compare. Not sure how you see this as cart before the horse, and furthermore, if you had the infrastructure with no cars, everyone would complain it was a waste of money. They need to grow together, and they are. I assumed the Volt was like the other electric cars that required a station, not just a typical outlet. But you still need some sort of infrastructure in place or people won't by the car, waste of money or not. Why would I buy one of these cars if I couldn't re-power it except at home? It's not like there's a random outlet somewhere in the city I can plug my car into.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 4, 2011 -> 07:45 AM) Yes. You might be right, but I find that hard to believe. If Chevy is going to make a serious effort, they would have made more than 800 or whatever Volts. I think the bigger problem is that the infrastructure is not there yet to support these vehicles. It's slowing getting there, but so far downtown i've only seen one charging station, and it's stuck in a 10 dollar an hour parking garage. Getting back to the financial aspect of the thread, anyone read any studies about the cost of these electric vehicles? Obviously you're not paying gas, but what's the cost in electricity you're going to use to charge the car? How much do those charging stations cost (and how long does it take?) I feel like in this respect the industry really put the cart before the horse.

Hopefully this has a good explanation: http://i.green.autoblog.com/2011/03/01/gm-...issan-67-leafs/

More of those damn Republicans using charged political language to prove a point I personally don't care about this crap, and i think if Repubs and Dems want to use blood/fighting/guns/whatever language to prove their point that's their prerogative. I don't believe for a second that anyone actually condones violence when using that language. It got me laughing about how f***ed up this country is though. We're the obese, middle aged house wife watching Oprah and infomercials all day people of the world. We spent 2 weeks (or more) talking about this issue and obviously it's now an afterthought. But I just read a fantastic SI article about Rose and it was all about his "killer" instinct and drive. It begins: "A killer was born in a game of cutthroat." Not a peep about how terrible it is to use that language and to expose that kind of thinking to children. Shocking.

Uhh, what?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 2, 2011 -> 09:06 PM) Where are you getting this? What company is making that choice? I'm saying that would be the situation. Why would BP/Chevron/Conoco and others simply stop their oil/gas businesses for alternative energy? They currently have a highly prized commodity that makes them a ton of money every year. Whether or not they get assistance from the government doesn't matter, the fact is if the country switches to electric cars, wind power, etc only then they're out of business (at least in the US). They have no incentive to do this, regardless of whether public demand for it is growing. They currently pay for probably every politician in Washington, so it's not like the country is suddenly going to shift gears tomorrow.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Mar 3, 2011 -> 08:35 AM) Their huge wins on TNT over the Heat and Spur suggest that they are ready for primetime, but have difficulty getting up for those lesser road games that don't get them as pumped (Hawks/Raptors since the All-Star Break). You can't lose the ones you are supposed to win and expect to land the 1-2 seeds. Which is so strange because all the press coming out of the Wizards game the night before was how they realize that these s*** games actually matter and that Thibs has coached them to want to destroy teams, not just beat teams. They were up like 18 in the 2nd quarter. How on earth did they lose. Also, thank god the bulls didn't sign joe johnson. What a waste of money that guy is.

Rose having a bad game. Missing lots of open looks and making some bad turnovers.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 2, 2011 -> 04:30 PM) The value is at least partially based on ignoring a lot of externalities and government subsidies. I think this also highlights that's what in the best interest of multi-billion dollar multinational corporations may not be in the best interest of the citizens of any given country. I agree with both statements, but unfortunately they pay for the government we have so...again, the incentive isn't really there yet.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 2, 2011 -> 04:11 PM) LOL at the bolded, come on dude, at least try to make an effort here. Hybrids, plug-ins and electrics have continued to grow quickly every year. They are still far too low, but to say its not a real alternative for another decade is missing the fact that its already an alternative today. And by the way, saying hybrids aren't cost effective doesn't make much sense to me, unless I am misunderstanding you. I bought a Ford Escape Hybrid in Jan of 2008, and between the tax incentive and the miles I drove with the difference in mileage, I made up the cost in a year. Without the tax break, it would be 2.5 years. And that number keeps going down as the tech matures and as gas prices increase. I suppose if you plan to buy a new car every year, then maybe it doesn't make sense yet, as much so anyway. Also worth noting, I cannot believe how well this car is retaining value. Its 3 years old with 40k+ miles on it, and the blue book mid-value on it is still 70% of what I paid for the car. More than that if you consider the tax rebate into the equation. That is way above normal, I wasn't even expecting that benefit, but apparently demand is still quite high even for a 3 year old hybrid. What's wrong with the analogy? Why would a company that owns such a valuable product be so willing to throw it away and put themselves out of business? Hybrid sales are 2-3% of total new car sales max. Plug-ins/electric cars are even less than that. Obviously those numbers will grow, but it's still not even a significant number of people, so yeah, I think a least a decade before a major chunk of the country jumps over, if not more. We all had this same discussion 2-3 years ago when gas prices were at this point and higher. Some people will jump because of the increase in price, but until we're at 5-6 bucks a gallon it's just gonna be a slow and steady increase, but not a major jump. And I have no idea how you saved with the hybrid unless you drive a ton more than I do. I bought a new ford escape 2010 over a year ago. When i ran the numbers it was going to take me something like 6.5 or 7.5 years to get my money back on the extra 14-15k in cost of getting the hybrid model. I can't remember, but I think the credit you got expired and/or went down, because that was never a significant reduction in the amount of years it was going to take.

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Mar 2, 2011 -> 03:56 PM) Welcome to MLB The Show 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011. What? 09 and 10 you pitched with the X button, at least I always did. I'm sure you can opt out of the new controls if you want to. Edit: sorry, nm. I see what you meant now.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 2, 2011 -> 03:01 PM) I'd be in for that, as long as its actually both, and not just oil subsidies and then a small pittance for the actual future-oriented stuff. Bolded just not true. Alternatives have become more and more attractive and will continue to do so. But here is the main problem. Societies often tend to not adapt to changing resource situations fast enough - food, water, energy - and this has been the downfall of more than a few civilizations. We have to be smarter than that, and not allow the country to continue plowing down a road that will end in disaster. Ok, "more attractive" but not enough to make any serious change. Take away the subsidies on wind/solar power and they wouldn't operate without a loss right? Hybrids have been around for 4-5 years at this point, and it's not like everyone drives them (and they're still not cost effective). I'm interested to see how the electric car thing works out, but again that's a decade or more away before that's a real alternative. I just don't see it. This is like the NFL right now saying, screw working on a new agreement, the future is arena football, so let's switch. They'd never do that, because they make a s*** ton of money producing the NFL. Why would oil-gas based companies suddenly decide it's time to change unless there's a motivation ($$) to do it? The demand is simply not there and really they hold most of the bargaining chips with the government on this issue. Now, that's not to say that the government shouldn't be finding other technologies. I'm in full support of a man-to-the-moon style shift to finding that. Let's do it. But in the meantime, let's make use of the available oil resources we have.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 2, 2011 -> 02:44 PM) Limited resources/economic motivation. As long as we keep subsidizing oil, alternatives are less attractive. Alternatives are ALWAYS going to be less attractive, otherwise it would have happened 30-40 years ago. IMO it's not going to be like flipping a switch. We're not going to go to bed one night and wake up with a completely new energy infrastructure. So why not plan in the short term to supplement our oil reserves and become less dependent on crazy middle eastern tyrants, while at the same time offering investments, money and incentives to other transportation technologies.

Why can't we do both?

well, here's to hoping they win against IU, maybe get a win in the first round of the BTT, get an 8-10 seed with a decent match-up where you don't get ridiculous homer calls like @ purdue and make a small run. My "goal" for this team was the 2nd weekend of the tournament. Probably won't happen, but here's to stupid blind hope.

nice hand check foul on davis.

well, nice to see illinois play with some balls and not roll over like they did in champaign.

oh, ok, now that you've let 6 pts roll off the board you're going to "control" the game. f***ing refs

lol, and then two quick ones on tisdale

christ. tisdale gets taken down and no call

dakich is such a tool. 2 feet isn't establishing position on the court??

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Mar 1, 2011 -> 07:04 PM) Considering what's at stake and being a 10 pt. road underdog, he definitely should have brought him back to try and slow down the home momentum. I agree about Crandall, definitely looks like he can be a playmaker in the future. I don't know if it's just the #4 jersey, but he totally reminds of his brother already. the way he runs, dribbles, jumps...everything. same body movements it seems.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Mar 1, 2011 -> 07:54 AM) It sure didn't take the Booyah's long to jump on the Knicks bandwagon. Mike & Mike have been debating who is better... Carmelo Anthony or Lebron James for about half an hour. They had "expert" Stuart Scott on who leaned toward Carmelo because of the "way he finishes" and the "way he can hit the 18 foot jumper". Get the f*** out of here, ESPN. Apparently the Knicks are a title contender too: http://espn.go.com/nba/