The Electric Car, Why it makes sense.

Currently We are burning 150 Billion gallons of gasoline* per year in the United States. We are noticing a significant changes in our weather patterns, which most reputable scientists think is being caused by greenhouse gases (Carbon-Dioxide.)

In California and Europe, individuals and several small companies have been experimenting with electric cars for commuting. Some of the high end vehicles rival sports cars in performance and still have a range of 150 miles. Mostly these vehicles though have ranges of 40 – 65 miles with a top speed somewhere in the area of 50 – 65mph. The ones I have read about the most are former gas powered vehicles that have been converted to electric. Apparently the favorite vehicle to convert is the Ford Ranger Pickup (plenty of room for batteries and a heavy duty suspension system to take the weight of the batteries.)

Currently, most driving involves short drives to and from work, mostly under 50 miles per day. According to a recent Internet Story (Seen on MSN News, Yahoo News and CNN) the average commute in this country is 16 miles, unfortunately they didn’t provide a standard deviation which would have made the information more valuable.

Therefore, I suggest that the following strategy should be followed:

1. Pressure GM & Ford to manufacture a commuting vehicle powered by electricity. They should go for a design that would minimize it original cost, while maximizing the range and shoot for cruising speed somewhere in the range of 50 – 65 mph.
2. Upgrade the electric grid, so that it can handle the extra stress of recharging all of these cars on a nightly basis.
3. Start a long term project to downsize the current coal and oil generation of electricity and replace it with a combination of renewable and nuclear generating plants. It will do very little good to replace gasoline in our cars with coal or oil in our energy plants. Be aware that we will need considerably more electricity under these situations then we are using now.

Long Term benefits:

1. The Environment, even though it will probably take a long time to repair the current damage.
2. The trade deficit would be wiped clean and we would probably have a trade surplus.
3. The oil that we need for other uses will probably drop in price.
4. Al Qaida funding will drop. Most of their income is coming out of the oil we are buying from the Middle East and this could very likely put them out of business. It would also shut up both Iran and Venezuela, which are both causing us all kinds of foreign policy problems. I might add the recent war between Israel and Hezbollah was funded by Iran, which got all of those Petro Dollars from us the Industrialized World.

Negatives:

1. Convenience. Right now we can jump in our cars and drive anywhere we want within reason. I believe most consumers would settle on owning an Electric for most of their personal needs and then rent a gas powered vehicle for longer trips.
2. For certain consumers, the Electric will never be an economically feasible vehicle. Take for example the agriculture industry, who have a constant need to haul heavy loads. Also salesman, who are on the road for several hundred miles every work day.


*** Warning, Warning *** You are now entering the Rant Zone!

Probability of this happening: Nil!

Unfortunately, the Republican Party is in bed with the Oil Companies (Who will fight this Foot, tooth and nail,) and the Democrats are in bed with the Environmentalists. The Environmentalists will fight using Nuclear Energy Foot, tooth and nail. To the Environmentalists, let me point out a simple fact. If we keep going as we are today, our environment will implode. 100% guarantee! The risks of using nuclear energy are far less (10% at the worst.) And the American Public will not accept going back to 19th century as a life style.

Our current politicians are doing what is best for their party over what is best for the country (and YES, I mean BOTH parties.) We desperately need a third party, a pragmatic and centrist party with limited ties to big business, to make these tough decisions.

* Scientific American, 9/2006, page 60.

The Check is in the Mail

Or the Power of the Discovered Check

Played on FICS August 26th, I was white.

1.d4 e6 2.c4 d5
3.Nc3 dxc4
4.e4

Queens Gambit Accepted. I have a lot of fun with this line.

4. ... Bb4
5.Bxc4 Bxc3+
6.bxc3 Bd7
7.Nf3 Bc6

I decided to trade off pawns in the center. I felt I would still control the center and my opponent would have to do something with his Bishop. Otherwise I would gain at least a tempo.
8.d5 exd5
9.exd5 Bd7
10.0-0 Ne7
11.Re1

There are several reasons for this move:
1. Rooks want to control open files.
2. It is a central file and it really strengthens my center.
3. It is a pin. Pins are usually only temporary advantages, but ...

11. ... 0-0

He or she castles out of check, breaking the pin.
I have decided to re-pin and I have 2 good choices:
1. Ba3 pin the Night against his Rook.
2. Bg5, pinning the Night against his queen.

I chose option 2, because it sets up either a very nice attack or a sneaky discovered check.

12.Bg5 f6

This was the move I had hoped for. It sets up a discovered check on his King and an attack on Knight simultaneously and it ends up winning a Knight and a rook for the price of a pawn. For black, Re8 would have been a much better move.


13.d6+ Kh8
14.dxe7 Qe8
15.exf8Q+ Qxf8

Black should have resigned at this point. He is down almost a whole Queen, but he played on for a while. The game after this point is uninteresting, but I am posting it anyway for your viewing pleasure.

16.Be3 Bc6
17.Nd4 a6
18.Nxc6 Nxc6
19.Be2 Rc8
20.Bg4 Rd8
21.Qb3 b5
22.Rad1 Rxd1
23.Rxd1 Ne5
24.Be6 c5
25.Bf4 c4
26.Qb4 Nd3
27.Qxf8# 1-0