From: yschin@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Yu-Shin Chin)
Subject: Re: Cars and suburbs
Organization: University of Manitoba, Canada
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 00:05:56 GMT

In article <C1AvEr.8MB@quake.sylmar.ca.us>, brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
|> In article <21JAN199323271566@pearl.tufts.edu> ddeocamp@pearl.tufts.edu (DANIEL M. DEOCAMPO) writes:
|> >In article <2936740077.1.p00004@psilink.com>, p00004@psilink.com (Michael Smith) writes...


|> Actually, I don't think that cars are the best way of getting around...far
|> better than some stupid government-transit system.  I think most people
|> racognize this since they volunatrily choose to buy cars while the government
|> has to forcce people into trains.  Would you care to defend this idea of 
|> yours that suburban living and cars are pathological?  Even if you 
|> find some arguments to support your contention, who are you to force your
|> opinion on others?

Suburban sprawl usually result in people living farther away from their place of work.  Thus they have to travel farther to go to work.  The method of travel is generally by cars.  If people lived closer to their place of employment, such as in an urban environment.  They would be discouraged from owning a vehicle because of limiting parking and since they live close to work, they would also view cycling and public transportation as a viable alternative to driving to work. 

 
|> >>the transit facility gets paid ticket-by-ticket. What has to be 
|> >>discouraged is car *ownership*; use will follow.
|> 
|> Why can't you mind your own business and stop trying to make people's
|> lives more miserable?  I LIKE my car, I don't care what you think.
|> 
|> >Are there no realistic ideas for a mode of transportation which caters to the
|> >individual while avoiding serious environmental harm?  
|> 
|> Well, modern internal combustion cars fit this bill quite well.

Are you claiming that cars don't harm the environment?  That is a fairly stupid statement, if it is so clean, why don't you shove the tailpipe into your mouth and see how long you can live!  I think that the most realistic idea for private transportation, for shorter commutes to work - under 20 km, would be by bicycle.




|> >Even solar cars have serious costs (mining,
|> >production, etc.).  

These same costs are also associated with the production of internal combustion vehicles.


|> They also don't work in any practical way.  Why do you thing that fuel is
|> such a terribly important issue?  Far more important is overall operating
|> cost and actual performance.  Do you know how much acceleration you
|> could get from a solar-powered car assuming full bright light and
|> 100% efficient collectors covering 100% of the car driving a 100% efficient
|> motor running on a 100% efficient suspension?
|> 
|> Do you know how fast it would go at night?
|> 
|> >What I believe is probable, however, is that the costs of
|> >technology such as solar and zero-emission vehicles will be deemed acceptable. 
|> 
|> I suggest you consult any introductory physics text and do a few back of the
|> envelope calculations.  Solar-powered cars make absolutely no sense and
|> never will.  You can't change the laws of physics.


|> 
|> >Perhaps they are, especially in the face of the combustion engine.
|> 
|> But IC engines are a really good means for getting around!  Too bad
|> solar car's can't cut it.  Even if you could somehow manage to get a solar
|> car to work, what about driving at night?  Would we all just have to give
|> it up?

I agree that IC engines are a good means for getting around if you are travelling a long distance because of the amount of energy stored per volume of gasoline.  However, most people don't drive more than 50-100 km per day.  This short distance can be fueled by electircity stored in a battery.  I understand that Nissan is working on an electric vehicle which can be recharged within one hour.  Solar power alone would not be a good fuel source for a vehicle, but combine it with a battery(some sort of energy 


storage) and it would be able to operate at night or cloudy days.  I think that the main problem against using a solar this type of vehicle is that we don't have an efficient method of storing energy.  It's only a matter of time until technology solves this problem.  

You shouldn't be too skeptical about solar power, since oil is a limited resource and we will need an alternative fuel source.  I don't think that too many people would be interested in Nuclear.  Alchol is not feasible because it would require too much of our food source to supply our energy requirements.  

If you have any idea for an alternative fuel, I'd like to hear about it.  
Newsgroups: sci.environment