I'm really not that dense. But you do have options when it comes to road trips - gasoline rental cars. For the amount of money you would save by not buying gasoline the rest of the year, you would have more than enough to rent a gasoline car for a few days several times a year.

You would probably make the argument that the money you save by not buying gas would go towards the new electric car's monthly payment, in which case I would ask how you can justify buying a new gasoline car (making new gasoline car payments), and also buying gas.

How much would you save? I have no idea. Depends on how much you spend on gasoline now. But here's some worst-case scenario numbers for you:

To charge the Leaf, it takes: 120 volts * 15 amp draw (on a 20 amp circuit) = 1800W/h * 8 hour charge time = 14.4 kW/h. ...Assuming 12 cents per kW/h, that's $1.73 a day, * 30 days = $52 a month.

So, if you spend more than $52 per month on gasoline, and as I stated before, if you drive less than 100 miles per day in your commute, this car could work for you. If your electricity costs more, substitute in the proper amount and do the math.

We have to go to the POTUS for that? Wow. You would think the people discovering the problem would notify the manufacturers of the equipment involved, and the manufacturers would notify the end-user. That's how it's worked for years, and it works. The relationships between government users and equipment manufacturers is *tight.* Perhaps the channels of communication could use some streamlining, but I don't understand why the POTUS has to be made into a link in that chain.

Also, it would be fantastic if

I think the scrutiny required of finding a virus before it blows its wad into major systems would be overwhelming. No one would know what they were looking for until it was too late. I think the better way to prevent that scenario is to have a "clean room" approach - any computer that gets attached to critical infrastructure at any point in its lifetime cannot face any other network whatsoever. It would help isolate problems before they got out of control, and it would help eliminate sloppy human errors.

I think you need to read the whitepaper on Stuxnet.

It used exploits in Windows to be sure, but the development of this virus depended on much more than just some Windows exploits. A great deal of research and energy went into creating Stuxnet - that same research could be put towards finding exploits in virtually any SCADA system, or any OS. As we all know, the exploits are out there in _nix or Win or OS/X... it's just that no one has had the ambition to search for them yet.

Stuxnet was not introduced to a nuclear processing facility directly from the internet. Very few idiots in the world would connect major infrastructure directly to the internet. Stuxnet required being installed on thousands of computers directly from the internet, where it did espionage to determine if that computer WAS part of the intended target, and once it reported back that it was, it received files that it would later try to install on a Siemens PLC network. Stuxnet required a "go-between" laptop - a machine that was on the internet part of the time, and on a Siemens PLC network part of the time. That's the only reason why it was successful.

The problem with shutting down the gateways into the US is that by the time you realize you've got a problem and you shut it down, it's too late - your systems are infected. The only way to be sure is to shut down the gateways indefinitely, and that'll go over like a lead balloon.

Lead acid? I would bet it costs less than 10% of the price of a new battery. Anything more and it wouldn't be profitable. Obviously it's profitable, you can by all types and sizes on a shelf at Wal-Mart. In case you didn't browse that section today, that's around $6.

Other chemistries are new, and have R&D costs to go with them. Suppliers are few. Raw materials come from other countries. They're inherently more expensive... this year. Just like with any emerging technology (like the flat-screen TV you park your ass in front of every day), the price will come down as supply and competition increases.

The problem is that a standard household receptacle simply cannot handle replenishing the energy you consume by driving. The "nonsense" you refer to is there for a reason, usually safety: if you were to try to draw as much amperage as your car could take, the circuit breaker in your breaker box would trip; if you bypassed it, the copper wires in your wall would literally melt. Even at the single-phase 240v 30a rate, it will still take several hours to replenish the energy consumed by driving.

Now, if you worked at an office building or a factory where three-phase 480v was available, you could probably charge your car in an hour or maybe a little more, assuming the battery could remove the heat fast enough. Why can't you get that power at your residence? Ask the utilities providers, many of which are still stuck with an infrastructure that was developed in the 1950s. That's why we talk about how the grid "won't take it," and "the last mile" is usually the worst, just like in the communications field.

(You may be able to get that high voltage power if you live in a large apartment building, btw...)

The traffic in DC grinds to a halt twice a day, every day (sometimes more). It probably has more to do with the horrible infrastructure and the imbeciles of bygone planning committees than it does with the POTUS going somewhere.

If someone filled your gasoline car while you slept every night, would you really have to worry about stopping somewhere during your commute to fill up?

Let me pose the question another way: Do you drive more than 100 miles round-trip every day? If not, then an electric car could work for you.

So do I, and I'm not nearly as worried.

Battery technology is ancient, and IMHO more R&D goes into battery chemistry than it does for any other part of the battery. When most people think of a "car battery," they envision a 50 lb. box of lead with two posts on top. The only thing separating the sulfuric acid from the cold is a thin layer of plastic. It doesn't have to be that way.

Imagine a 120-volt battery where each cell is monitored and charged by an individual piece of hardware; a battery that has it's own heating and ventilation system, insulated from the cold. It takes energy to keep a battery warm, couldn't that energy come from the battery? (It also gives off some heat during charging just from the chemical reaction, but I'm talking about when it's parked and not charging.) I postulate that the energy consumed creating heat to keep a well-insulated battery warm and at peak efficiency would more than offset the energy loss due to the cold weather.

Do you have a better solution to controlling the masses of sheeple?

Only the idiot panicy screaming passenger. How many of them would open the rear door after the plane had ditched in an attempt to get out?

I think I would've given you modpoints if I had any. I was thinking along the same lines you were, though I don't know if I'd agree that it would necessarily be impractical.

FTFY.

I have no problems defending myself on land, air, or sea. I would rather take the risk of being blown up by a bomb while living in a free country then having no risks whatsoever while living in ... whatever this form of government is. I mean, I thought this was America. I've been told there once was a time where you handed someone cash and got on an airplane. Half the people flying probably carried pocket knives or water or some other item that is restricted these days.

I find it amusing that a hundred years ago, the overwhelming majority of people would have agreed THIS was the "bad idea."