Who Killed The Electric Car. They Save Energy But Detroit Makes Sure They Don't Get Made

[KittyWampus]

Fact is, an entire fleet of fully elecric cars were built and then destroyed when proven successful. Batteries already exist for cars and they ultimately do save on energy when charged at night.

Please stop reguritating false information about fully electric cars without getting all the information.

Who Killed The Electric Car is a movie made about this subject.

from Wikipeda:

The film ... mostly focusing on the General Motors EV1, which was made available for lease in Southern California, after the California Air Resources Board passed the ZEV mandate in 1990, as well as the implications of the events depicted for air pollution, environmentalism, Middle East politics, and global warming.

The film details the California Air Resources Board's reversal of the mandate after suits from automobile manufacturers, the oil industry, and the George W. Bush administration. It points out that Bush's chief influences, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, and Andrew Card, are all former executives and board members of oil and auto companies.

EV1s crushed by General Motors shortly after production
A large part of the film accounts for GM's efforts to demonstrate to California that there was no demand for their product, and then to take back every EV1 and dispose of them. A few were disabled and given to museums and universities, but almost all were found to have been crushed; GM never responded to the EV drivers' offer to pay the residual lease value ($1.9 million was offered for the remaining 78 cars in Burbank before they were crushed). Several activists are shown being arrested in the protest that attempted to block the GM car carriers taking the remaining EV1s off to be crushed.

The film explores some of the reasons that the auto and oil industries worked to kill off the electric car. Wally Rippel is shown explaining that the oil companies were afraid of losing out on trillions in potential profit from their transportation fuel monopoly over the coming decades, while the auto companies were afraid of losses over the next six months of EV production. Others explained the killing differently. GM spokesman Dave Barthmuss argued it was lack of consumer interest due to the maximum range of 80–100 miles per charge, and the relatively high price.

Do you want more sources?

www.SherryBoschert.com
www.PluggedInAmerica.com

[Jackpine Radical]

1. I saw the movie.

Our county Democratic Party showed it to the public this spring. It was very well done & worth seeing.

[TreasonousBastard]

2. Who cares who killed the EV1? It was...

an interesting experiment at a time when there was little actual demand for a ridiculously expensive piece of shit appealing to a small cult when gas was cheap and abundant.

I know it's heresy around here to admit that car companies, like all other companies, exist to make a profit. But, that's what they exist for, and that's what they do. Although private industry has rarely been as efficient in bringing new and good stuff to market as Ayn Rand liked to think, the electric car will happen when market forces congeal around it.

Unless something better comes along in the meantime.

[zeemike]

5. Then it will never happen

Until the market forces have sold us all the gas and oil they have to sell
And by that time we will have polluted ourselves and destroyed the world to where transportation is moot.
Corporations and Those that have Faith in market forces put there trust in a beast with no soul or heart, like the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

[TreasonousBastard]

8. Nonsense! This isn't about faith in the market or anything...

like that-- it's simply the observation that rarely does anything get done unless there's a buck in it. Personally, I find the "market" to kill off as many decent things as it promotes because it's never a real market and is always manipulated to some degree. But, like the sea, it simply exists and is not good or bad by itself-- just has good and bad effects.

Notice all those companies going green lately? Well, surprise, surprise, there's now enough money in green to make it worthwhile, maybe even more in green than in the old polluting ways. Even enough money in green cars to make some good ones.

And don't just blame those evil corporations for all the mess-- just who is it they're selling stuff to? If anyone seriously complains about them it should be from someone living in a cabin built with hand tools and farming with an ox-drawn plow.

Sitting in a nicely heated or cooled house or office and using a computer built in China with significant amounts of toxicity in both manufacture and disposal, plugging it into an electric socket, and going online using telecommunications networks to complain about the corporations that gave us all these things is a bit ironic, nu?

[Tyler Durden]

14. Maybe it's time to make being a wasteful asshole ILLEGAL.

Not that it will happen, mind you.

But maybe, just maybe, unless we're planning to hand the whole garbage pile over to the rats and other scavengers in 100 years or so, It's a good idea whose time has come.

[TreasonousBastard]

24. That'd be nice...

but, yeah, never happen.

The interesting thing is that our entire existence is one of competing with the rest of the planet-- we make more people and they have to be fed, housed, entertained, and employed. It's a vicious cycles, and the current economic theories all call for "growth" which plays right into the profiteers' hands.

So, it appears that the end of the game is for us to pretty much destroy everything in our way and try to figure out how to still "grow" with nothing left but a dead planet.

A pessimistic view? Yeah, I'd say that's pretty pessimistic.

[Tyler Durden]

33. Might be pessimistic, but sounds about right to me.

Nobody said we as a species were guaranteed top of the heap status, or even survival.

In fact it looks less likely all the time.

[Javaman]

18. If you honestly believe that the "market" still demands things,

I have a bridge to sell you.

Read fast food nation and then decide how the "market" is manipulated to demand things.

We don't demand anything anymore, they (the corps) saturate us with bullshit into making us demand things.

[TreasonousBastard]

27. Did you actually read what I wrote? n/t

[Javaman]

31. Naaa, I just look at the pictures. nt

[zeemike]

51. I see your point

But I guess that it gives comfort to the enemy of change. It just helps them explain away all the past behavior, )not just the EV but to mass transit systems)
It has been almost 40 years sense National Geographic published a comprehensive plan for a mas transit system that would have revolutionized transportation and cut our use of energy by more than half...but did you or anyone here ever hear about it? Does it exist only in my memory and in that old copy of National Geographic?

No at some point we have to question this free market thing and acknowledge the harm it has done to true progress just for the profit.
Corporations, Businessmen. and entrepreneurs in the future must be given a heart and a soul and realize that short term profit at the expense of progress is the theft of wealth from there children and the generations to follow us.

[zeemike]

63. Well it is not like the sea, that it just exists

The market place was created by us with our mind and can be changed or modified at any time by the same process.
And it is unfair to say that the good it has given us trumps common sense and is there fore above criticism and not subject to change by the will of man.
Did the Autobahn and the Volkswagen justify the Nazi?

[TreasonousBastard]

66. That's not exactly what I'm saying...

although it would be difficult to clarify it in a few posts here.

Yes, the "market" is our creation, but it is more than simply something we invented. It is partly intentional, but largely driven by actions that we can individually control, but find it extremely difficult to control on a macro or group level.

There are many forces at play and I call all of them together the "market." No, the lasting inventions of Nazi Germany don't justify Nazi Germany, but Nazi Germany set up the conditions for invention. One doesn't need Nazis to be inventive, of course, as many other civilizations, and Germany itself in happier times have shown.

Anyay, my experience has been that there are currents of money, knowledge, and other things floating around, and when times are just right, a good salesman makes a pitch and the world changes just a bit. Problem is, it rarely changes for the better.

[INDIA]

67. Treason, usually I would have agreed with you.

Then I saw the movie. I would usually be a little embarassed to have let a documentary change my opinion so radically, but this movie, and the situation it documents are unbelieveable.

You really must check it out.

[Canuckistanian]

25. I care, because it's a micro-example of what's wrong with our corporate culture

For a brief period, the power of the auto and oil cartels was made apparent.

You want to talk about profits vs. the 'right thing to do'?

Just look at every major positive innovation in automotive design - pollution control, seatbelts, crash-worthiness, airbags, fuel efficiency. In EVERY one of those cases, the auto companies had to be dragged, kicking and screaming to make those changes. Laws had to enacted. And the car makers furiously lobbied government to AVOID these changes. And they're STILL furiously fighting better fuel efficiency mandates.

And yes, the EV1 was not profitable. But, considering that each car was practically hand-made at the rate of ONE per day, it wasn't surprising. Automation and mass production could easily have made it profitable.

The EV1 WAS an experiment. And hugely successful, given the scope of the experiment. The car performed admirably. The owners LOVED them. Drawbacks were few for the average driver. And the benefits for the environment had been proven.

But, in my opinion, the car's "fatal flaw" was maintenance. It simply didn't need any. And, considering that a major source of revenue for car companies and their dealers is the lucrative parts and repair sector, they stood to lose a bundle.

So, in the case of the EV1, that "market force" was killed in it's crib. And in the most bizarre and brutal fashion. The complete and utter destruction of every single car was telling.

It was obvious that whole experiment had been stopped and all evidence of it's success wiped off the map.

[TreasonousBastard]

37. You do bring up an interestingf point that I've been making...

for a long time-- that unlike the whining of the rightwing about regulation, it often increases jobs, real growth, and other good stuff besides solving a problem that the market didn't see fit to solve by itself.

Other than that, yeah, a lot of what's being done to make a buck is useless bullshit and I've known a lot about that long before the current crop of complainers popped up. I was even a part of it for years.

My only point about that is simply that there is not a whole hell of a lot we can do about it. There's a lot we should do about it, but that requires a massive reorganization of society that ain't gonna happen without a serious catalyst.

It's my corollary to Gresham's Law which states that cheap, shoddy, and convenient will always beat the crap out of expensive, quality, and some effort on our part.

[Clark2008]

58. And some of THOSE inventions are more dangerous to some of US.

As a very short woman, I wish to God I could get rid of my airbag.

But, without paying a ton or money and jumping through all sorts of federal hoops, I can't.

Why can't we be trusted to make SOME decisions on our own based on our PERSONAL needs?\

Can't there be a happy medium?

[trekbiker]

64. no one forced Toyota to develop Hybrid technology...

and no one is forcing the auto companies in thier race to develop Lithium battery technology.

as for the EV1, it's fatal flaw was its battery. It's range was too limited to ever become a commercial success. Hybrid technology is where the near term future lies. But a true all-electric car that is commercially viable will show up in a few years once the battery technology is there.

[gravity]

35. Consumer demand killed the EV1

No one once to pay $40k for an economy size car that only has a range of 100 miles and takes 4 hours to charge. You are paying more for less.

It would just be better to force people to drive normal economy cars since it would still save significant amounts of fuel, while still offering the range and price of convectional cars.

[Canuckistanian]

61. That $40k price would rapidly decrease with large scale production

And who needs to drive more than 100 miles/day? Studies show that most people drive 60 miles or less.

And that 100 mile range? That's what was available 10 years ago. New battery and motor technologies can double that range today.

And what's wrong with a four hour charge? Don't you sleep? And even those charge times are going down.
New "quick charge" technologies can bring that down to 1 hour or less.

Any other objections, other than the tired, old, stale ones?

See the movie. It addresses ALL your concerns and more.

[gravity]

68. It was a POS

There isn't some conspiracy behind it, it was too expensive and was completely impractical compared to the average car. It would have been a complete business failure if they did tried to sell it to the public, so GM cut it's losses with the 1 billion dollar project.

Other car companies made prototype electric cars too, but decided not to produce them for the same reason. Maybe you could blame GM's bad management for turning down an profitable opportunity, but it's just stupid to think other companies like Toyota would be able to exploit the profits of electric cars.

Electric cars just can't supply the needs of the average driver at a decent price, so car companies are using the technology to make hybrids instead to get the best out of both technologies.

We live in a capitalists society, and if someone thought that producing an electric car would be profitable, they would exploit it.

[Captain Hilts]

3. Actually, the oil companies have bought up a lot of this technology. nt

[Solo_in_MD]

9. Proof of this, or does this belong on Scopes...

Clue: Was it patented? If so the knowledge is available publicly. Tnere are no secret patents except those controlled by the DoD.

If there is really stuff out there, it would have been *rediscoverd* and found it way to the media.

[zeemike]

4. I saw the movie also

And I highly recommend it to those that are still under the illusion that electric cars are not a solution.
Most of the story told by this movie has never been seen in the press and so most people know nothing about it.
Rent it today.

[ThomWV]

6. They do not "save" energy. They use it just like any other vehicle.

This is pure nonsense. Electric vehicles do not save any energy at all, they simply draw it from a different source - one that is generally unseen so ignored.

This is just like the separation in people's minds between hamburger and cows. When people can't see the source of the power doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The power that moves that vehicle, if its running in this country, in all likelihood came from burning coal. So the carbon, mercury, NOx, SOx, and a myriad of other compounds that the electric car lovers gleefully exclaim their pets do not spew actually gets blown into the air before the electric vehicle purrs to life - the pollution is no less, its just a few miles away.

[bryant69]

7. I take it your plan is for there to be no cars?

At any rate it is a matter of efficiency; proponents of the Electric car claim that it is more efficient. Of course to get people from one place to another is always going to take some energy. Even if you walk, you still have to eat to provide your body with the energy to make walking possible.

On the other hand, the Combustion Engine may well not be the most efficient way of accomplishing the goal of getting from point A to point B. If the Electrical Car is more efficient - i.e. it requires less energy to accomplish the same task, than it might be superior.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Javaman]

20. In 50 years, there will be no more cars anyway. nt

[bryant69]

21. What will there be? n/t

[Javaman]

28. Foot power. it's the latest thing. try it sometime. it's not just a fad. nt

[bryant69]

32. So you are a luddite

Say how do you suppose the grow that food I use to produce the energy to walk? I hope no energy is wasted making that food.

Wait . . . .

Bryant

[Javaman]

39. Define the energy you use to grow your food?

Mine is grown with water and sun. I have a huge garden and my cantaloupes are about 3 weeks from being picked.

Once you understand that everything we do, everything we eat, everything we use is based upon oil, then you will understand that we will go back to hand work again.

Are you aware that a gallon of gas is equal to 30 hours manual labor?

When gas gets so high that we can't run the tractors to grow the biofuel crops or to harvest our "organically grown" crops, what will happen then?

foot power, mule power, oxen power.

Sorry for this "luddite" to burst your bubble but how exactly do think we are going to power things when oil runs out?

[bryant69]

40. I'm not a scientist and don't have an answer

But since your answer inevitably leads to a lot of starvation and death, I hope we come up with a better one.

Bryant

[Javaman]

46. Check out www.energybulletin.com

it will open your eyes.

The reality is, yes there will be a lot of starvation.

Oil has provided the world with energy the likes of which we will never see again.

You can directly match the population explosion to the start of the industrial revolution.

You remove oil from the equation and we would have had a lot less people on the earth.

Next time you go to the produce section of your store, notice where the fruits and veggies come from. Now think if there was no oil, would it be possible to get half of those items or even a third.

Then extrapolate that to the general population and the food needs people require.

over the past 30 years in this country the food stocks have declined. Not because the ability to grow more has gone down but because of population growth.

Prior to 1945 65-70% of the population worked on farms, now it's less than 5%. The amount of farmable acreage has decreased due to an explosion in building.

In 1950 the U.S. population was 150 million. It took us roughly 400 years to get to that point.

In 50 years, the population has doubled. 300 million.

The same can be said for the rest of the world.

In 1900 the world pop was roughly 2 billion people. 100 years later it is now 6.5 billion.

and at the current rate of consumption it will be 9 billion by 2030.

How are we going to feed everyone when oil goes away or becomes so outrageously expensive that no one can afford to buy food?

[Tyler Durden]

11. They draw LESS of it. THAT is the issue.

for your viewing pleasure:

[karlrschneider]

26. Your point is legitimate but the figures are apparently pretty old.

It's been many years since the brake mean efficiency of a car engine was that low. It's certainly true that -overall-
a fleet of electric vehicles will consume less power, calculated from the initial conversion point but even if they turn out to be -twice- as efficient, that still represents a huge amount of energy required. See my other post for another comment.

[Tyler Durden]

36. Don't worry about the "brake mean efficiency"

Worry about the engine efficiency. 62.8% off the top is pretty much a minimum if you study the thermodynamics of it. When a system starts with only 37.2% energy transfer and goes downhill from there, well you draw your own conclusions.

[karlrschneider]

48. Brake mean efficiency (more accurately brake specific fuel consumption)

IS engine efficiency. I merely point out that subtracting 17% for "idling/standby" has nothing to do with the engine's thermodynamic efficiency...it does affect the final miles-travelled-per-gallon figure, obviously.

[Tyler Durden]

52. Excuse me, I'm very, very ill.

Shouldn't be out of bed truth be known.

But the 62.8% reduction leaving 37.2% of energy input available to the drive train is pretty much a peak. I can't see a Carnot Cycle based engine getting any better than that, and you'll never get rid of the other factors.

[karlrschneider]

54. Well take care of yourself. I agree that's about the right figure.

Diesels can be 7 or 8% better. The various cycles would be a lot better if we could achieve infinite compression ratios and isentropic expansion...but it ain't likely. :-)

[Tyler Durden]

65. Hack, hack.

Tank oo berry mush.

snort.

[Solo_in_MD]

12. Ahh, the do help in some way

Yes energy is being consumed for transportation. However, power plant created power can be better controlled in terms of polution, CO2, etc.

[karlrschneider]

16. A mid-size car needs about 10 KW of power to cruise at normal speed.

(That's about 13 horsepower)

So how many cars are running at any given time? I imagine that even in a small city, say around 30000 population
it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume there are about a thousand vehicles being driven, on average. So that's
ca. 10 Megawatts of power that, as you say, has to come from somewhere. Like a -much- bigger generating plant.
Most single-family homes don't use that much power.

[Occulus]

29. Which is why

We need a new power source.

Dr. Bussard's fusion reactor is ready to prototype full-size; he needs $200 million to do it. Don't take my word for it... watch his lecture instead.

No, really, PLEASE watch his lecture. It's long, very technical, and utterly convincing. This guy's the real deal, a very well-known member of the 'old guard' of physicists alive today. His fusion research appears to be sound and all he needs at this point is the money. Maybe that's why he was giving the talk to Google employees...

[greenman3610]

49. common misconception.

very important to understand -
electric cars will be charging mostly at night
during offpeak times.
This will replace petroleum with electricity
that is currently being wasted - a great first
step.
the next level will be that utilities will use
electric vehicles as a storage medium to shave
peak loads and stabilize the grid, allowing the
storage of wind and solar power that may
be available during times of low demand.
This "vehicle to grid" system holds the potential,
to increase the amount of wind and solar a
utility can safely rely on from 25 to 50 percent, and
by attacking Co2 demand at the 2 leading points,
transportation and electric demand, to reduce
Co2 output by up to 2/3.

for more:
http://www.calcars.org/calcars-news/724.html?http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-03-30-austincars_N.htm?http://www.edn.com/blog/1470000147/post/1170007917.html?http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/04/pge_demonstrate.html?http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/09/the_plugin_and_.html

[Tyler Durden]

10. Thought you might like this: Efficiency diagram; internal combustion.

[Solo_in_MD]

13. Some of that is also true for electrics and there are other inefficiencies unique to them

However, I believe overall they are more efficient. WHat I haven't seen is a lifecycle analysis that factors in generation and manufacturings impacts that appears credible.

[Tyler Durden]

17. Note especially the Idle and engine percentages.

When you're not running the engine when you're not moving, plus drawing away heat on purpose from an engine the operates on heat to keep it from melting...

Well you get the picture.

60% efficiency (to throw out a figure) sure beats the living shit out of 12% (to be generous).

[Solo_in_MD]

42. Be careful with some of the electrics claims, there are heat losses unique to them

The key metric is cost per mile including amortized purchase and disposal costs. Batteries are the key there.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

19. Nice diagram, now, if we can tap some losses

For example, use generators for brakes during "normal" braking, put some of that energy back in the battery instead of heat in the atmosphere.

I'd guess that aerodynamie drag is not constant, that it increases with speed. Accessories, driveline, rolling resistance are probably more constant.

And it looks like your car is powered by an old Harley engine. So you have to add losses due to oil leaks.
:rofl:

[Tyler Durden]

23. It's not the rest that are so lousy...

It's the 62%+ from the engine itself before you figure in gears, drive train, tire condition....

Those are just about at minimum now: they ain't gettin' any better.


"C'mon, squeeze the 'weeze,' many people like to!" Barney the Bozo.

[karlrschneider]

34. Yes, drag increases by the square of velocity.

Double speed = 4x drag
triple = 9x and so on

D=Cd * q * s

Cd drag coefficient (less than 0.5 is quite good)
q is dynamic pressure (air density * velocity squared)
s is drag surface area

[Tyler Durden]

38. The system STARTS a being 37.8% efficient.

That's a PEAK. And after over 100 years of engineering, it's about the best you can get with internal combustion.

[Solo_in_MD]

45. Yep, the carnot cycle is a bitch...

[Tyler Durden]

50. That's why electricity is the answer.

Sure it still uses energy to generate, but it's not as bad as internal combustion.

Think of what a 20-30% savings would do related to cars...

[Solo_in_MD]

55. However, ECs are not really quite ready from an economic perspective

and credible lifecycle cost analysis based on large scale use are non-existent.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

62. The infrastructure is not there for "normal" use

You can't pull into a filling station and "fill" a battery in a couple of minutes. Or expect a battery exchange (like we can do with small propane tanks today). So unless the cars carry a motor and generator on board, the use is practically limited to local short hauls.

[cureautismnow]

15. Tesla Motors - Solar powered for 50 miles a day?

"Tesla plans to offer home roof mounted solar-photovoltaic systems through Solar City that will offset power used by the home charger, allowing 50 miles (80 km) of travel per day without burdening the power grid, thus making the package "energy positive" for a driver whose average daily mileage is less than that."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Motors

If only they could mass produce these babies in the 20-30K retail range, instead of 50-90K. :dreaming:

[LeftHander]

22. GM killed electric street cars as well...

And passenger trains....

They bought all the coach building companies and shut them down or converted the factories into bus and car building, forcing people into cars.

[IChing]

30. Hitler's Carmaker: From War Profiteering to Undermining Mass Transit

Excellent book on line by a reputable award winning author.



Hitler's Carmaker: The Inside Story of How General Motors Helped Mobilize the Third Reich (Part 1)
http://hnn.us/articles/37935.html


Hitler's Carmaker: As the Nazis Amassed Power, What Did GM Know and When? (Part 2)
http://hnn.us/articles/38255.html


Hitler's Carmaker: From War Profiteering to Undermining Mass Transit (Part 3)
http://hnn.us/articles/38526.html

Hitler's Carmaker: How Will Posterity Remember General Motors' Conduct? (Part 4)
http://hnn.us/articles/38829.html

[Solo_in_MD]

43. Historically true, but not possible today

[petgoat]

41. Maybe somebody should just start building electric cars

instead of whining because GM isn't doing it for us.

The junkyards are full of perfectly good cars--even
their installed gasoline engines are perfectly good.
They just ran up against some inconvenient mechanical
problems and some lazy or life-challenged owners.

I wish I had time mess around with electric cars.
Unfortunately the Constitutional Crisis precludes
such play.

[Solo_in_MD]

44. Its not economical at this point to do that EC hobbyist do just that,

EC hobbyist do just that, but even they admit its not really practical.

[petgoat]

59. EC hobbysists never achieve any economies of scale, they tend

to pay top dollar for black box controllers and exotic
batteries, and they hire expensive craft labor for welding
instead of learning to do it themselves.

[Solo_in_MD]

60. The EC hobbyists I know do almost all their own work, and its still hard to break even

in terms of cost per mile. They also user lower cost items including lead acid batteries.

[Gregorian]

47. This topic again?

Of course it's true. The big companies have stalled and killed lots. This topic is about battery technology. But there is a bigger picture.


However, the big picture seems to be getting missed. The electric car is not going to solve our problem. It's energy. Until we can generate electricity in a sustainable way, the electric car does nothing for us. There are a few people who have their own generation. But we're talking about millions, if not billions of people.

And I need to add that there's a lot more to consider here. Our problems are far more vast than the car. First, even electric cars need bearings, body parts, controllers, and a vast array of materials and processes which are involve energy intensive. Just building a car takes around 10% of the entire amount of energy that car will use over it's lifetime. And driving it takes just as much energy as it takes to drive the cars we're in today. That just physics. And half of the petroleum we are using does not go toward combustion. We need oil. In a big way. Which leads to what the real problem is. Because even if we do start generating power and storing it in a sustainable way, we are still living way way out of equilibrium with nature. What does it take to get people to realize this problem is due to our numbers! This is more about how many there are using resources than anything. But for some reason most people refuse to see. I cannot figure out the blindness. But I'll keep posting. And I'll keep getting flamed. Because for some reason bringing it up is like some offensive thought.

[Yavin4]

53. The Larger Problem Is That We Build Communities Where You Have To Drive A Car

I posted a thread the other day asking people for a list of places in all of the U.S. where you can live without owning a car, and I got a list of about 10 places, all of which are extremely expensive places to live.

We build communities wherein people are forced into driving whether they want to or not. This not only creates a major energy drain, but it's also a major contributing factor to our obesity problem.

[karlrschneider]

56. There might come a day when the Amish will point and say

"SEE? SEE? WE TRIED TO TELL YOU"

:silly:

[Solo_in_MD]

57. The problem is that the place where you do not need a car are decaying toxic cesspools

and no place to rear children. Were we to create new cites and plan it ahead of time, the carless option would be much more viable.