+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14

Thread: 250 mpg car?

  1. #11

    Default

    You load sixteen tons, and what do ya get?

    It only costs me $520.00 to fill my tanks. And I get a whopping 5-5.5 mpg.

  2. #12

    Default

    RW here,

    Not to gloat or anything, but when it gets too bad I'll fall back on plan B.

    PLAN B: There are 43 lakes and ponds in my county alone here in Maine. I can just about fall out my back door and get wet. In my local area there are three nice trout streams I really don't fish enough. It's a short walk to one of them.

    If it really gets bad, and I'm almost broke (not likely) I'll just park my truck in the second bay of my two car garage and forget I even have it.

    Later, RW

    ------------------
    "We fish for pleasure; I for mine, you for yours." -James Leisenring on fishing the wet fly-




    [This message has been edited by Royal Wulff (edited 20 August 2005).]
    "The value of trout is simply that they exist" <Frank Weisbarth>

  3. #13

    Default

    Silvertop,

    Getting back to the 250 mpg car...

    One of the things that gets dismissed when talking about such cars as the one in the article is the cost of using the extra batteries the owner put in his car. Two things pop to mind:

    1.) the extra electricity needed from power plants, specifically coal fired plants (a significant source of electricity in the US). The pollution from these plants is significant, and can lead to other wide reaching problems (acid rain for example)

    2.) the cost in environmental impact of disposing of the extra batteries. That's a lot of batteries that will end up in our landfills.

    Now these are environmental concerns... I'm conviently ignoring the political costs/benefits.

  4. #14
    Guest

    Default

    Hextall, I couldn't agree with you more!!! That's why I keep harping on the need for new Atomic Generators. Wind Power and Solar Power are also high on my list too of course. The problem with the wind and solar generators is that the cost of production, particularly the solar collectors, is still too high to be considered cost effective.

    This country has got to get with it!! Enough of the NIMBYs, enough of the I'M SCAREDs, enough of hugging the wrong tree, we have got to face the reality of the moment and seek; 1) more alternate source generated electricity, such as atomic, wind & solar plus, 2) more of our own domestically produced low sulpher crude oil.

    OK gang, trash at me if you will.

    ------------------
    Snow on the roof but with fire still in the hearth

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts