‘morning Poirot,

I did ask the question, “So who is peddling “narrow-minded junk-science” now Madame Poirot?”

You have answered that question.

I do acknowledge that you have obviously spent since 11:00 am Friday 8th, swatting up on these junk links and your efforts are to be commended. Sad about the content.

motherjones? wikipedia? Rubbish Poirot, you can do better then this.

I made five points, all quotes from your original article and its links. If you don’t like what your own links had to say then it’s simple, read your own links FIRST.

Thanks, over and out.

spindoc,

You're almost not worth bothering with...and boy-oh-boy you appear to think I've thought of nothing but replying to your blather since - when was it?...

"I do acknowledge that you have obviously spent since 11:00 am Friday 8th, swatting up on these junk links..."

Lol!...as if!

I woke up early this morning and noted runner's usual vacuous banter, so I thought I'd chuck a comment his way - and as an aside I spent ten minutes grabbing a little something to throw your way while I was at it.

Don't flatter yourself, matey, that I'm particularly bothered or interested in your "let's ignore the history of developmental subsidies to fossil fuel" outlook - I'm not.

It's obvious that you and your ilk can't digest that modern technologies will usurp the old fossil fuel technologies - and while the industry is of course concentrating on preserving the status quo and impeding the advance of more clever technology...you can't hold back the tide forever.

Luddites unite, eh....?

you are really a joke Poirot. Just because you write pages of huff and puff to hide your hatreds does not equate to substance. Again nothing of substance let alone truth to write.

Thanks, runner...for providing a classic example of one of your run-by specials.

Exhibit 1:

"you are really a joke Poirot. Just because you write pages of huff and puff to hide your hatreds does not equate to substance. Again nothing of substance let alone truth to write."

Bazz I really have no feeling about methods of propulsion or power. I use batteries for torches, outdoor lighting, starting my cars, & to fly remote control aircrafts. If they ever do a reasonable job of propelling cars I will also happily also use them.

I have idly wondered why my ride on lawn mower has a 15 horsepower petrol engine, rather than electric power, & can only assume that without the ridiculous subsidies electric cars attract, petrol power is more economic to produce.

I do however object to seeing our taxes thrown away subsidising some cause. The electric car, like the wind power & solar cell con job is a concept developed by the academic fraternity to feather their nest with research grants. It has since been picked up by the bureaucrats & the politicians. Thus we have the whole thing promoted by the most naïve, impractical people on earth.

When General Motors was in bankruptcy the US government made their agreement to build the things mandatory to giving them the assistance to stay afloat. Thus we have the Volt. Each one costs the US taxpayer & General motors combined more than a consumer pays for the stupid thing. I say stupid thing, because nothing that costs so much for so little can be anything else.

As for practicality, most people could use a golf cart for the jobs they use an electric car for quite happily. Not only cheaper to buy & run, they don't need heaps of exotic [& flammable] batteries, & would take much less road & parking lot space.

So Bazz I believe they are, at least in their present state of development, the most ridiculous waste of materials. The time to market them will come, when someone actually develops a truly practical, economic version, or inner city commuters embrace the golf cart, with a little embellishment perhaps, but still a golf cart.

Continued

Continued.

The Hybrid is not much, if at all better.

Toyota developed their thing to take advantage of a fool Californian forecast law to require lower fuel consumption from the combined fleet of any manufacturer if they wished to sell cars in the state. The idea was to produce one car with very low consumption to make their average better.

Like more than a few things Californian, the impractically when examined rationally meant the law was never introduced. However Toyota had spent so much money in development work, they had to try to recoup some of it. They developed a very good marketing strategy, [con job], & thus the Prius was born.

Granted they may actually be of some use as inner city taxis, & can be used in their petrol mode for normal people to travel far enough to get out of sight on a foggy night, but they never live up to that advertising, [con] job.

Neighbours of ours, [we are 25 kilometres from a supermarket] were horrified to find their new Prius actually used more fuel than the Ford Focus they had traded on the thing, or my ladies aging Mazda 2 she had at the time. They had spent a lot of money, & were suffering much greater depreciation, while burning more petrol.

I know for a fact nothing would ever induce them to buy another Toyota, such is their disgust at having been told a pile of lies.

So mate, do excuse me if I can't help laughing at those foolish enough to buy any of the current crop of electric or hybrid cars. When someone had produced a successful electric ride on lawn mower, I will look at them again, provided they no longer have to be subsidised by the long suffering taxpayer.