Electric 944
01-02-2004, 02:11 PM
#1
Racer
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Harvest, AL
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Electric 944
This is a first. Check out this one.
http://www.jstraubel.com/944EV/EVproject.htm
Never thought I would see this.
http://www.jstraubel.com/944EV/EVproject.htm
Never thought I would see this.
01-02-2004, 02:25 PM
#2
Race Car
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Costa Mesa, California
Posts: 3,781
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This comes around every so often. If the idea of an electric car is so much better than a gas powered car this envira-nut wouldn't have a pusher donkey car with an engine behind the 944EV.
Could have just left the engine in the 944.
Could have just left the engine in the 944.
01-03-2004, 12:04 AM
#5
Race Car
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Costa Mesa, California
Posts: 3,781
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by trebor_quitman
Yeah, but his gas mileage is better.
Yeah, but his gas mileage is better.
The envira-nuts argument for electric cars is that the electric motor is more efficient in conversion of energy to motive force. It is. But they leave out the loss when charging the batteries.
Another envira-nut argument is that the vehicle is emissions free. Again they don't tell you about the smoke stack emissions. Or the emissions/environmental costs of making the lead acid batteries. There is also their disposal in four years or less.
01-03-2004, 11:27 AM
#7
Pro
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After seeing his fuel tank location, anyone want to guess whether or not he has ever seen a trailer jump off the ball? And with safety chains, he can drag the little fireball around with him.
Maybe he's trying to prove that even electric 944s can have engine fires.
Maybe he's trying to prove that even electric 944s can have engine fires.
Trending Topics
01-03-2004, 07:15 PM
#11
Administrator - "Tyson"
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Originally posted by SoCal Driver
Not really when you analyse the energy use as BTU's. Actually takes more energy to charge the batteries per mile that it would if a comparable performing engine were in the car. Produces more NOx too. Few electrical generating plants have CATs on their stacks.
The envira-nuts argument for electric cars is that the electric motor is more efficient in conversion of energy to motive force. It is. But they leave out the loss when charging the batteries.
Another envira-nut argument is that the vehicle is emissions free. Again they don't tell you about the smoke stack emissions. Or the emissions/environmental costs of making the lead acid batteries. There is also their disposal in four years or less.
Not really when you analyse the energy use as BTU's. Actually takes more energy to charge the batteries per mile that it would if a comparable performing engine were in the car. Produces more NOx too. Few electrical generating plants have CATs on their stacks.
The envira-nuts argument for electric cars is that the electric motor is more efficient in conversion of energy to motive force. It is. But they leave out the loss when charging the batteries.
Another envira-nut argument is that the vehicle is emissions free. Again they don't tell you about the smoke stack emissions. Or the emissions/environmental costs of making the lead acid batteries. There is also their disposal in four years or less.
"Our house is now also purchasing 100% green energy from the Palo Alto Municipal Utility (for a 3 cent/kwh premium) so the car is truly a zero emission vehicle being recharged by some mix of wind, small hydro, and geothermal energy"
01-03-2004, 07:35 PM
#12
Race Car
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Costa Mesa, California
Posts: 3,781
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Hacker-Pschorr
I'm no electric car junkie or tree hugger (CATS are off my 928) but assuming he's not full of sh*t, he did address this on the site:
"Our house is now also purchasing 100% green energy from the Palo Alto Municipal Utility (for a 3 cent/kwh premium) so the car is truly a zero emission vehicle being recharged by some mix of wind, small hydro, and geothermal energy"
I'm no electric car junkie or tree hugger (CATS are off my 928) but assuming he's not full of sh*t, he did address this on the site:
"Our house is now also purchasing 100% green energy from the Palo Alto Municipal Utility (for a 3 cent/kwh premium) so the car is truly a zero emission vehicle being recharged by some mix of wind, small hydro, and geothermal energy"
That is another BS statement too. When you look at the "green" electrical sources their actual costs are from double to triple that of a "regular" generating plant using natural gas or 4 Corners coal.
Why?
The equipment investment is from three to ten times the cost per kilowatt per equipment life time verses conventional electrical generation plants.
You and I are paying them a subsidy through hidden taxes on our natural gas and electrical bills to build these "green" sources and build and drive the electric cars. Each GM electric car received almost $10,000 in subsidies.
Also the natural gas and electric/battery cars do not pay the per gallon state and federal tax that builds and maintains roads.
As this web side has been up a long time it does not reflect the crash of the California electrical market and the discontinuation of many of these so called "green" sources.