 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / November 2009Falacy of the Electric Car
There is no free lunch. The proponents of Electric Cars haven't got a clue or are just trying to feather their pockets. It takes the same amount of energy to move x vehicle regardless of that form of energy. There are many jokes about everybody plugging in at the same time but it is no joke. Take Southern California where the this lunacy is at it's zenith. If one tenth of the vehicles become electric and plug in to recharge, after a long commute, on a hot August day, there is going to be a brown out and possibly a collapse of the grid. Of course they are going to eliminate big screen tv's and turn off their air conditioning etc except at times when no one wants to use them, so maybe that will make uo the difference. NOT Turning energy into electricity by fossil fuel means or nuclear, which is a bad word, and isn't going to be allowed in Southern California, uses three or four watts to make and transmit one watt. The joke is true. Cities will have to turn off everything to recharge the cars so to speak. Hybrids will have to be plugged in too unless the commute is long enough for the fossil fueled engine to kick in and charge the batteries. Part of the electric car energy cost is the frequent replacement of expensive battery packs. The cost of electric vehicles will be far greater than gasoline engines and far dirtier as producing the electricity uses far more fuels for the same equivalent energy. > There is no free lunch. The proponents of Electric Cars haven't got a > clue or are just trying to feather their pockets. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > and far dirtier as producing the electricity uses far more fuels for the > same equivalent energy. The next phase of the electric development is to have the car charge itself. Why not? The standard car today already charges it's own battery. Why can't an electric do the same thing? One vehicle I saw recently, the owner swapped the lead acid batteries for lithium-ion ones. Doing so decreased the weight and improved the horsepower. There is development in progress of power sources outside the standard power company. Localized fuel cell stations could supply power for an entire block of homes. Every home in the country could literally produce it's own required power. What you'd have left would never result in even one little "brown out", any where. > The next phase of the electric development is to have the car charge > itself. Why not? The standard car today already charges it's own battery. > Why can't an electric do the same thing? Is that not the definition of hybrid, richard? Or are you envisioning some system where a full-electric car recharges itself from some non-existant energy source - i.e. it creates it's own energy by magic? > > There is no free lunch. The proponents of Electric Cars haven't got a > > clue or are just trying to feather their pockets. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > itself. Why not? The standard car today already charges it's own battery. > Why can't an electric do the same thing? How would it do this? Magic. The energy still has to come from somewhere.. > One vehicle I saw recently, the owner swapped the lead acid batteries for > lithium-ion ones. Doing so decreased the weight and improved the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > it's own required power. What you'd have left would never result in even > one little "brown out", any where. Again, the energy comes from...  SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> >> There is no free lunch. The proponents of Electric Cars haven't got a >> clue or are just trying to feather their pockets. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >> and far dirtier as producing the electricity uses far more fuels for the >> same equivalent energy. >The next phase of the electric development is to have the car charge >itself. Why not? The standard car today already charges it's own battery. >Why can't an electric do the same thing? it's call a hybrid, dumbass Last time on rec.autos.driving, elmer <e@f.udd> said: >There is no free lunch. The proponents of Electric Cars haven't got a >clue or are just trying to feather their pockets. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >after a long commute, on a hot August day, there is going to be a brown >out and possibly a collapse of the grid. Solution: don't charge your car during periods of peak demand. A simple timer will allow it to be charged late at night when demand is lowest and supply is more than ample. >The joke is true. The joke is you and your ridiculous post. >Cities will have to turn off everything to recharge >the cars so to speak. Even if a grain of your hyperbole were true, a couple of solar panels on the garage roof would solve the problem. OBTW, if you're going to present a fallacious argument, you should at least learn how to spell the word. >Last time on rec.autos.driving, elmer <e@f.udd> said: >>There is no free lunch. The proponents of Electric Cars haven't got a >>clue or are just trying to feather their pockets. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>after a long commute, on a hot August day, there is going to be a brown >>out and possibly a collapse of the grid. >Solution: don't charge your car during periods of peak demand. A >simple timer will allow it to be charged late at night when demand is >lowest and supply is more than ample. Only until electric cars become more common. At which point, charge-time becomes peak-time. Keep in mind that e.g. a Tesla draws 70A from a 240V outlet for a period of 3.5 hours on fast-charge. That's roughly 60 kWh. Much more than a residence (other than Al Gore's) would consume over 24 hours. In fact, it's about 9 times as much as I use. In less than one sixth of the day. i.e. the rate of power consumption (and required generation) is around 60 times higher than my average domestic electricity consumption. I couldn't even fast-charge a Tesla because the utility pole outside the house has a 60A fuse. What do electric cars mean for electricity supply grid? Can it supply power at a rate 60 times higher than at present? No way. Transmission lines can't meet such a demand. Substations can't without huge, expensive upgrades. Nor are the power stations capable of being ramped up to charge a substantial fleet of electric cars overnight. It's much, much more than supplying spinning baseload. Work it out! A scale analysis quickly shows that grid-charged electric vehicles are not practical without substantial, fundamental changes to the way in which electricity is generated and distributed. >>Cities will have to turn off everything to recharge >>the cars so to speak. >Even if a grain of your hyperbole were true, a couple of solar panels >on the garage roof would solve the problem. Do the scale analysis. You'd have to be a millionaire to be able to afford the solar panels to run an electric car. The "couple of solar panels" would have to cover an area of well over 30 square metres and store the energy for night-time car-charging. Recovery losses will be significant. Extended cloudy periods, and periods where one can't clean snow/dust/bird-droppings off the solar collectors will also diminish how far one can drive on solar power. Even with 30 square metres of solar cells (PV), it is very likely that the majority of charge for the car bettery will have to come from the supply grid. Probably a coal-fired power station. Then, there's the finite battery life to keep in mind. I wouldn't bank on more than 1000 cycles. That's less than 3 years. Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Those who can make you believe absurdities X against HTML mail | can make you commit atrocities. / \ and postings | -- Voltaire Last time on rec.autos.driving, Bernd Felsche <berfel@innovative.iinet.net.au> said: >>Last time on rec.autos.driving, elmer <e@f.udd> said: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Only until electric cars become more common. At which point, >charge-time becomes peak-time. Only when electric cars suck more juice than a pair of 5-ton air conditioners. >Keep in mind that e.g. a Tesla draws 70A from a 240V outlet for a >period of 3.5 hours on fast-charge. That's roughly 60 kWh. Much more [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >generation) is around 60 times higher than my average domestic >electricity consumption. Assuming your figures are correct, why would you fast-charge a car that's going to be sitting unused in the garage all night? As for your figures themselves, ISTR that the numbers quoted for the Chevy Volt are a lot lower. >What do electric cars mean for electricity supply grid? Can it >supply power at a rate 60 times higher than at present? Sounds suspiciously like a strawman argument. There were thousands of EV-1s on the road in CA (land of the Rolling Blackout) for several years and yet somehow there were no power disruptions caused by charging those vehicles, nor did their owners complain about their electric bills being 60 times higher than normal. > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Bernd Felsche > <berfel@innovative.iinet.net.au> said: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Only when electric cars suck more juice than a pair of 5-ton air > conditioners. Again, people will want their electric vehicles to become useful again as soon as they can... > >Keep in mind that e.g. a Tesla draws 70A from a 240V outlet for a > >period of 3.5 hours on fast-charge. That's roughly 60 kWh. Much more [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > charging those vehicles, nor did their owners complain about their > electric bills being 60 times higher than normal. You really think you're making an argument with a few thousand vehicles? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> said: >You really think you're making an argument with a few thousand vehicles? Oddly enough, the FUD story to which I am responding apparently assumes that all the hundreds of millions of registered vehicles in the US will be replaced with electrics overnight. The truth is, the changeover will happen slowly by attrition, and the grid will have time to adapt. So save your LOLOLOLOL responses for the fear-mongers. > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> > said: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > grid will have time to adapt. So save your LOLOLOLOL responses for the > fear-mongers. I had no idea a little thought on the subject would cause fear. >> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> >> said: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> the fear-mongers. > I had no idea a little thought on the subject would cause fear. it's not "fear",it's thinking in PRACTICAL terms,not Utopian wishful dreaming. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> > said: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > grid will have time to adapt. So save your LOLOLOLOL responses for the > fear-mongers. Sorry, but you're the one who suggested that the fact that a few thousand cars out of literally *millions* meant something. SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> >Last time on rec.autos.driving, Bernd Felsche ><berfel@innovative.iinet.net.au> said: >>>Last time on rec.autos.driving, elmer <e@f.udd> said: >>>>There is no free lunch. The proponents of Electric Cars haven't got a >>>>clue or are just trying to feather their pockets. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>>>after a long commute, on a hot August day, there is going to be a brown >>>>out and possibly a collapse of the grid. >>>Solution: don't charge your car during periods of peak demand. A >>>simple timer will allow it to be charged late at night when demand is >>>lowest and supply is more than ample. >>Only until electric cars become more common. At which point, >>charge-time becomes peak-time. >Only when electric cars suck more juice than a pair of 5-ton air >conditioners. Since when is the mass of an airconditioning system indicative of power consumption? Is that what you have at your mansion? My airconditioner weighs in at less than 50kg. It runs for about 4 months of the year. >>Keep in mind that e.g. a Tesla draws 70A from a 240V outlet for a >>period of 3.5 hours on fast-charge. That's roughly 60 kWh. Much more [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>generation) is around 60 times higher than my average domestic >>electricity consumption. >Assuming your figures are correct, why would you fast-charge a car >that's going to be sitting unused in the garage all night? You don't have to assume. I checked the figures shortly before posting. >As for your figures themselves, ISTR that the numbers quoted for the >Chevy Volt are a lot lower. The range is a lot shorter. >>What do electric cars mean for electricity supply grid? Can it >>supply power at a rate 60 times higher than at present? >Sounds suspiciously like a strawman argument. There were thousands of >EV-1s on the road in CA (land of the Rolling Blackout) for several Thousands? Only 1200 were ever made. >years and yet somehow there were no power disruptions caused by >charging those vehicles, nor did their owners complain about their >electric bills being 60 times higher than normal. Read again what I wrote. The power consumption (rate of energy flow) is 60 times higher than the average in my household. The amount of energy to (fully) charge the battery is 9 times greater than the amount of energy consumed in the household during the day. You do understand the difference between power and energy, don't you? The EV-1 battery capacity varied, depending on model, from one quarter (16.5 kWh) to about a half (26.4) of the capacity of the Tesla's (53 kWh). The range of the EV-1 limited it to being strictly a commuter car ... less than 100 miles (initially just 55 miles). The Tesla is supposed to go more than 200 miles (when new). If onehowever makes the mistake of driving the roadster like a sports car for a significant period, then you lose perhaps 50% of the range. The manufacturers rate the battery system to have 70% of original capacity after 5 years of "typical" use. i.e. the range is down to about 140 miles. Having battery systems that require power to keep them safe to use in typical road conditions is a major handicap for electric vehicles. The lithium-based battery system in the Tesla Roadster can only supply power when it remains cool enough ... definitely below 55 degrees C. What's the on-tarmac temperature under CA sun? I can tell you that it's around 60 degrees C in this southern part of Australia. Automotive temperature range for vehicle components is generally up to 85 degrees C. Therein lies another fundamental problem of battery systems used for traction power on roads. LiFePO4 seems to be an appropriate technology in terms of operating temperatures. They squeak in at the top end. But their energy density is significantly lower than Li-Poly used in the Tesla. So a LiFePO4 system to store the same amount of energy would be larger and heavier. There are apparently material limits that impose a barrier to electrolytes; in terms of being able to take an electrical charge, holding it, and releasing it in a controlled manner. Lithium chemistry seems to be fairly close to those physical limits. One rational option is to seek to produce chemical bonds in materials to produce a stable, synthetic compound; i.e. efficiently put the energy into a compound from a convenient energy source (e.g. nuclear). Then put that compound into the vehicle (a liquid is easiest to handle) and then to collect the energy as the chemical bonds are released, as required by the vehicle. Two parts of that cycle already exist. The last stage is a fuel cell. The first part needs to do that process backwards. Such a cycle is the least-disruptive in terms of existing infrastructures. Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Those who can make you believe absurdities X against HTML mail | can make you commit atrocities. / \ and postings | -- Voltaire Last time on rec.autos.driving, Bernd Felsche <berfel@innovative.iinet.net.au> said: >>Assuming your figures are correct, why would you fast-charge a car >>that's going to be sitting unused in the garage all night? > >You don't have to assume. I checked the figures shortly before >posting. Why would you fast-charge a car that's going to be sitting unused in the garage all night? >>As for your figures themselves, ISTR that the numbers quoted for the >>Chevy Volt are a lot lower. > >The range is a lot shorter. It's also a lot more typical of what the first electrics will be like in terms of power consumption. Of course, it doesn't help your fear-mongering agenda to note that very few people will be plugging in $100,000++ sports cars and most will be plugging in Volt-like cars where each charge takes 6.5 hours and costs $0.80 worth of electricity. Source: http://gm-volt.com/chevy-volt-faqs/ >Last time on rec.autos.driving, Bernd Felsche ><berfel@innovative.iinet.net.au> said: >>>Assuming your figures are correct, why would you fast-charge a car >>>that's going to be sitting unused in the garage all night? >> >>You don't have to assume. I checked the figures shortly before >>posting. >Why would you fast-charge a car that's going to be sitting unused in >the garage all night? Because "fast" means that it's charging for half the night anyway. A slow charge takes 14 hours. FOURTEEN. >>>As for your figures themselves, ISTR that the numbers quoted for the >>>Chevy Volt are a lot lower. >>The range is a lot shorter. >It's also a lot more typical of what the first electrics will be like >in terms of power consumption. Of course, it doesn't help your >fear-mongering agenda to note that very few people will be plugging in No fear-mongering. It's a scale analysis. It's what responsible Engineers do to test the viability of concepts. >$100,000++ sports cars and most will be plugging in Volt-like cars The Tesla Roadster is demonstrably NOT a sports car. >where each charge takes 6.5 hours and costs $0.80 worth of >electricity. Electricity is measured in kWh, not dollars and cents. >Source: http://gm-volt.com/chevy-volt-faqs/ That car is a hybrid. The stated range of the car without the on-board generator kicking in, is 40 miles. Less than the range of an EV-1. Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Those who can make you believe absurdities X against HTML mail | can make you commit atrocities. / \ and postings | -- Voltaire On Oct 31, 9:28 pm, Bernd Felsche <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote: > Because "fast" means that it's charging for half the night anyway. > A slow charge takes 14 hours. FOURTEEN. Widespread production model electric cars would charge much faster. >On Oct 31, 9:28=A0pm, Bernd Felsche <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Widespread production model electric cars would charge much faster. Through what, the power of positive thinking? There's only so fast you can dump charge into a battery, and even if you can greatly increase that limit, only so much power you can get on residential or commercial service. Fix the battery problem, and upgrade the distribution network so every home gets the equivalent of 440 3-phase industrial service, and then maybe you can charge cars much faster. SignatureThe problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need. >> On Oct 31, 9:28=A0pm, Bernd Felsche <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > network so every home gets the equivalent of 440 3-phase industrial > service, and then maybe you can charge cars much faster. Wonder how much 1000 Amp wiring at 440 Volt wiring in the car will weight. There might be some exaggeration there, but I suspect the wiring is the limit on charge-rate. Not to mention cooling and gas extraction expense. SignatureRequiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml >>>> Because "fast" means that it's charging for half the night anyway. >>>> A slow charge takes 14 hours. FOURTEEN. >>> Widespread production model electric cars would charge much faster. You arguing against slow charging? Nice snip of RELEVANT context. I'd previously demonstrated that fast charging is not viable for rapid-charging a large population of electric vehicles because of electricity grid distribution limits. And a fine demonstration of how scaling technology doesn't work. >> Through what, the power of positive thinking? There's only so >> fast you can dump charge into a battery, and even if you can [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> equivalent of 440 3-phase industrial service, and then maybe you >> can charge cars much faster. >Wonder how much 1000 Amp wiring at 440 Volt wiring in the car will >weight. There might be some exaggeration there, but I suspect the >wiring is the limit on charge-rate. >Not to mention cooling and gas extraction expense. Heating from internal resistance. If the same chemistry were to be used, the battery would have to be much larger to allow for the heat to be dissipated at the higher rate by an active cooling system. The total energy required to charge a battery to the same state of charge increases with the charge rate. i.e. the efficiency decreases. If one then needs to actively remove heat because of explosion hazards; and to provide for a even a short battery life, then the nett efficiency of charging the battery under those circumstances is _dismal_. Li-Poly is unsuited to automotive environments anyway. It can't supply or take energy when temperatures exceed 40 degrees C without permanent damage. Continued, high-current density operations result in premature cell failure, even when the temperatures remain within the nominaloperational limits. LiFePO4 is the only lithium chemistry that so far approaches suitability for general automotive traction power applications. But the storage density is lower. The significant advantage over e.g. NiMH is the higher recovery efficiency and the (potential for) longer cell life. But like other batteries, the rated capacity is significantly higher than the capacity that can actually be delivered if one is to achieve the rated number of charge-discharge cycles. Roughly 40% "capacity" has to be lugged around all the time so that they other 60% can be drawn upon readily. i.e. if one estimates 10 kWh as a daily electrical energy requirement for traction power, then a 16.7 kWh battery must be used to "ensure" that range. Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Politics is the art of looking for trouble, X against HTML mail | finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly / \ and postings | and applying the wrong remedies - Groucho Marx >>>>> Because "fast" means that it's charging for half the night anyway. >>>>> A slow charge takes 14 hours. FOURTEEN. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > rapid-charging a large population of electric vehicles because of > electricity grid distribution limits. I'm not arguing for aor against any thing, actually. Not here. (If I was, I'd argue against the total uselessness of golf-cart vehicles here during the winter, even in the summer for most of the places I go that I can't walk-to. Especially if the mission is 2 bales of hay and a couple of hundred pounds of feed. > And a fine demonstration of how scaling technology doesn't work. Thanks, but it was somebody upstream that did that pruning. I must have been lazy for nor pruing the whole thing off. >>> Through what, the power of positive thinking? There's only so >>> fast you can dump charge into a battery, and even if you can [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > then the nett efficiency of charging the battery under those > circumstances is _dismal_. The tone seems to be saying that you are areguing with me somehow, but your words support my point in detail. A machine that I can use to go to work (23 miles one-way), come home, go vote (13 miles one way), come home, go to to the store 7 miles a third way (times several trips to carry the load), then to church (7 miles a forth way) is going to require charging rates several times faster than I can imagine. And yes that kind of pattern is repeated just about every day with some of the destination tasks chqanging, but the destination points pretty constant. And none of the destinations are or will be equipped for recharging. I expect the plugs provided for block heaters will all be removed. Or equipped with 2-amp circuit breakers. > Li-Poly is unsuited to automotive environments anyway. It can't > supply or take energy when temperatures exceed 40 degrees C without [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > daily electrical energy requirement for traction power, then a 16.7 > kWh battery must be used to "ensure" that range. While capacity is interesting, the un-talked-about limitation on utility is recharge rate. Electric fork lifts are practical if you have a large fleet of them and a room set aside for recharging batteries and the means of quickly swapping packs out. SignatureRequiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml >> Heating from internal resistance. If the same chemistry were to be >> used, the battery would have to be much larger to allow for the heat [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> then the nett efficiency of charging the battery under those >> circumstances is _dismal_. >The tone seems to be saying that you are areguing with me somehow, but Tone? Sorry. I do agree on that point. A wished to expand/elucidate. >your words support my point in detail. A machine that I can use to go to >work (23 miles one-way), come home, go vote (13 miles one way), come >home, go to to the store 7 miles a third way (times several trips to >carry the load), then to church (7 miles a forth way) is going to >require charging rates several times faster than I can imagine. Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Politics is the art of looking for trouble, X against HTML mail | finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly / \ and postings | and applying the wrong remedies - Groucho Marx Last time on rec.autos.driving, russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) said: >>On Oct 31, 9:28=A0pm, Bernd Felsche <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> >>wrote: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Through what, the power of positive thinking? Through the "magic" of improved technology. > Last time on rec.autos.driving, russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew > Russotto) said: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Through the "magic" of improved technology. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJiUVp890TY (NSFW) > In article > <e143bf00-79c3-4e04-ae6f-2d84cc920d9d@t2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > network so every home gets the equivalent of 440 3-phase industrial > service, and then maybe you can charge cars much faster. Beyond all that, the batteries are reported to be Li-Ion. There have been known incidents of a single/small Li-Ion battery pack exploding (before the recall and defect fix) and that's on a small item like a mobile phone. I'd hate to see the catastrophic effect of a large electric car Li-Ion battery cell arrangment if that exploded during charge or during use. > Beyond all that, the batteries are reported to be Li-Ion. There have > been known incidents of a single/small Li-Ion battery pack exploding > (before the recall and defect fix) and that's on a small item like a > mobile phone. I'd hate to see the catastrophic effect of a large > electric car Li-Ion battery cell arrangment if that exploded during > charge or during use. I used to drive a Citicar and one of the things always on my mind was that I was sitting on the batteries. Lotta miles on the marching band's golf cart--same problem. SignatureRequiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml Last time on rec.autos.driving, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." <dwrousejr@nethere.comNOSPAM> said: >Beyond all that, the batteries are reported to be Li-Ion. There have been >known incidents of a single/small Li-Ion battery pack exploding (before the >recall and defect fix) and that's on a small item like a mobile phone. I'd >hate to see the catastrophic effect of a large electric car Li-Ion battery >cell arrangment if that exploded during charge or during use. Gas tanks explode too. What's your point? >Last time on rec.autos.driving, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." ><dwrousejr@nethere.comNOSPAM> said: >>Beyond all that, the batteries are reported to be Li-Ion. There >>have been known incidents of a single/small Li-Ion battery pack >>exploding (before the recall and defect fix) and that's on a small >>item like a mobile phone. I'd hate to see the catastrophic effect >>of a large electric car Li-Ion battery cell arrangment if that >>exploded during charge or during use. >Gas tanks explode too. Mainly in Hollywood. >What's your point? Li-Ion/Li-Poly is inherently unstable. Every cell of the battery needs to be monitored and have its state of charge managed individually for safety and durability. There are 6831 cells in the battery of the Tesla, IIRC. When a lithium cell catches fire, it's not possible to put it out by conventional means. You just stand back and watch it burn until there's nothing left; avoiding breathing in any combustion products. Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Politics is the art of looking for trouble, X against HTML mail | finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly / \ and postings | and applying the wrong remedies - Groucho Marx > Last time on rec.autos.driving, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." > <dwrousejr@nethere.comNOSPAM> said: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > What's your point? Gas tanks can explode on impact, in vehicles with such a hazard. However, Li-Ion batteries can overheat within their battery pack and explode. Or, Li-Ion batteries can overheat during charging and explode. No impact is actually necessary to cause a Li-Ion battery to explode, if there is a manufacturing defect in the battery used by the electric car or its charging regulator. >Beyond all that, the batteries are reported to be Li-Ion. There have been >known incidents of a single/small Li-Ion battery pack exploding (before the >recall and defect fix) and that's on a small item like a mobile phone. I'd >hate to see the catastrophic effect of a large electric car Li-Ion battery >cell arrangment if that exploded during charge or during use. They don't really explode, they puff up and catch fire, or they "vent with flame". Nearly always during charge, not discharge, though physical damage can do it too. Not that this helps much; the result will be that the car catches fire. The LiFePO4 chemistry doesn't do this, though... unfortunately it has a poorer mass to energy ratio than the usual LiCoO. SignatureThe problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need. In article <e143bf00-79c3-4e04-ae6f-2d84cc920d9d@t2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, > On Oct 31, 9:28 pm, Bernd Felsche <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Widespread production model electric cars would charge much faster. Why? You think battery technology isn't already well understood? SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> > > > Because "fast" means that it's charging for half the night anyway. > > > A slow charge takes 14 hours. FOURTEEN. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You think battery technology isn't already well understood? Do we have electric cars today? No, we do not. Everybody knows that. Arguing against the present state of affairs is foolish. Claiming the current state of affairs will exist in the future is foolish as well, as many posters are doing. Battery technology has a long way to go. When it is perfected, the entire economic and technical model will change. I can't help suspect that some people so upset about even the idea of an electric automobile has a personal vested interest in the current technology. In article <44bfab26-43db-4598-bb64-c27cb946bc95@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, > > > > Because "fast" means that it's charging for half the night anyway. > > > > A slow charge takes 14 hours. FOURTEEN. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > an electric automobile has a personal vested interest in the current > technology. LOL SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> Last time on rec.autos.driving, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com said: >> > > Because "fast" means that it's charging for half the night anyway. >> > > A slow charge takes 14 hours. FOURTEEN. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Do we have electric cars today? Yes. >Battery technology has a long way to go. Based on what? Certainly not on anode-cathode potential. Batteries have had two centuries to step up to the plate. But their practicality hasn't been convincing over carrying fuel to burn since the 1920's. >When it is perfected, the >entire economic and technical model will change. Wishful thinking. Apparently without any basis in fact. >I can't help suspect that some people so upset about even the idea of >an electric automobile has a personal vested interest in the current >technology. Yeah. Sure. There must be vested interests, or a conspiracy. Or maybe they simply have a grip on reality. Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Politics is the art of looking for trouble, X against HTML mail | finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly / \ and postings | and applying the wrong remedies - Groucho Marx On Nov 11, 8:57 pm, Bernd Felsche <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote: > >Battery technology has a long way to go. > Based on what? > Certainly not on anode-cathode potential. > Batteries have had two centuries to step up to the plate. Sophisticated calculating machines have been around for centuries, too. But only in the last few decades have powerful units, along with sophisticated communications links, been cheap enough for recreational use in the home. The same applies to any science or technology. > >I can't help suspect that some people so upset about even the idea of > >an electric automobile has a personal vested interest in the current > >technology. > > Yeah. Sure. There must be vested interests, or a conspiracy. > \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | ASCII has been around since 1963. Why weren't we communicating from home in 1963? >On Nov 11, 8:57=A0pm, Bernd Felsche <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> >wrote: >> >Battery technology has a long way to go. >> Based on what? >> Certainly not on anode-cathode potential. >> Batteries have had two centuries to step up to the plate. >Sophisticated calculating machines have been around for centuries, >too. But only in the last few decades have powerful units, along with >sophisticated communications links, been cheap enough for recreational >use in the home. >The same applies to any science or technology. So why don't commercial airlines fly at Mach 8? Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Politics is the art of looking for trouble, X against HTML mail | finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly / \ and postings | and applying the wrong remedies - Groucho Marx On Nov 15, 1:37 am, Bernd Felsche <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote: > hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > >On Nov 11, 8:57=A0pm, Bernd Felsche <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > So why don't commercial airlines fly at Mach 8? Why don't they still use DC-3s? In article <0f3b898a-7124-4da6-87da-dccb9e059fbb@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, > On Nov 15, 1:37 am, Bernd Felsche <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Why don't they still use DC-3s? Answer his question. You claim that there aren't limits on technology, so answer his question. SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> >In article ><0f3b898a-7124-4da6-87da-dccb9e059fbb@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >You claim that there aren't limits on technology, so answer his question. In fact, there used to be airlines flying at over Mach 2. There are currently none which exceed Mach 1. Technology must be regressing. SignatureThe problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need. > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Bernd Felsche > <berfel@innovative.iinet.net.au> said: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Why would you fast-charge a car that's going to be sitting unused in > the garage all night? Because -- unlike an IC vehicle -- the only way to ensure that the electric car is available, should you discover you need it, is to charge it as soon as and as quickly as you can. SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> > Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan@yahoo.com> wrote: > ... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > My airconditioner weighs in at less than 50kg. > It runs for about 4 months of the year. It is to laugh. You're criticizing a statement when you don't have the slightest idea what the statement says. In north america, "ton" refers to a/c capacity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ton, about 1/2 way down. It's 12,000 btu, or if you prefer, 3517 watts. FloydR >> Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>Only when electric cars suck more juice than a pair of 5-ton air >>>conditioners. >> >> Since when is the mass of an airconditioning system indicative of >> power consumption? >> Is that what you have at your mansion? >> My airconditioner weighs in at less than 50kg. >> It runs for about 4 months of the year. >It is to laugh. You're criticizing a statement when you don't >have the slightest idea what the statement says. In north america, >"ton" refers to a/c capacity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ton, about >1/2 way down. It's 12,000 btu, or if you prefer, 3517 watts. I admit that I was ignorant of such obtuseness. I was trained in the civilised world where a SI units are fundamental to Engineering practice. "A "ton of refrigeration" is defined as the cooling power of one short ton (2000 pounds or 907 kilograms) of ice melting in a 24-hour period." The USA seems to hold the world record for non-use of an adopted measurement system. No wonder you miss small a planet with a probe. Hey look mom, I can lift this 2-ton airconditoner! Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Those who can make you believe absurdities X against HTML mail | can make you commit atrocities. / \ and postings | -- Voltaire > >> Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan@yahoo.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > civilised world where a SI units are fundamental to Engineering > practice. I'm sorry about your handicap. > The USA seems to hold the world record for non-use of an adopted > measurement system. No wonder you miss small a planet with a probe. OK, tell me about all the important inventions that came from your nation during the 20th century, and about the times that people from your nation walked on the moon. Perhaps you wouldn't live in such a backwards place if your countrymen would adopt standard American units and drive on the proper side of the road. -john- Signature====================================================================== John A. Weeks III 612-720-2854 john@johnweeks.com Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com ====================================================================== > I admit that I was ignorant of such obtuseness. I was trained in the > civilised world where a SI units are fundamental to Engineering [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The USA seems to hold the world record for non-use of an adopted > measurement system. No wonder you miss small a planet with a probe. Would have made a great deal of sense to use the intuitive "British Thermal Unit" -- I mean, who in the world can visualize the effect of a ton of ice melting? SignatureRequiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml > "Floyd Rogers" <fbloogyuds@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan@yahoo.com> wrote: My criticism was warranted, my sarcasm wasn't. I'm just *really* tired of un-informed, un-thinking, science- deprived posts by idiots and "right"-and-"left"-thinking fools. I actually agree with the main thesis of the OP: there isn't enough electricity. Everyone thinks that the smart grid will solve all the problems related to energy and global warming. It won't. Take away the 50% generated by coal, and the 20% or so by other hydro-carbon burning (natural gas, etc.). Where are you going to get the replacement? (AFAIK OZ is actually in worse shape than the US in this regard.) The options are nuclear, wind and photo-voltaic, in that order. All are expensive and have major hurdles to cross. The one thing the smart grid hopefully will be able to do is to balance the load into non-peak times, and that will help push load into wind-power peaks (in Texas, the wind blows at night). And adding additional powerlines to better utilize existing energy sources. But it doesn't help when people make foolish claims and non-tenable arguments that depend upon bad science and assumptions. TANSTAAFL. FloydR "Floyd Rogers" <fbloogyuds@hotmail.com> wrote in news:hZCdna-h_6- HJXDXnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@posted.palinacquisition: >> "Floyd Rogers" <fbloogyuds@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > options are nuclear, wind and photo-voltaic, in that order. > All are expensive and have major hurdles to cross. Nuclear is expensive because of the excessive gov't red tape and lack of standardization;in essence,each nuclear plant is a new design. Instead,build one design and add units for more capacity. Nuclear is the best option we have for energy. Also,Obama is blocking new nuke plants "until safe storage facilities are available",but he also cut funding for Yucca Mountain Repository,so there are and will be no safe storage sites;that effectively kills nuclear power. Because Obama wants energy prices to rise drastically,so he can implement his socialist agenda.He's said so.(in one of his books,IIRC) He wants -us- to lower our standard of living.(but not him and his pals) wind and photovoltaic are of limited use,and actually bad for the ecology. Wind kills birds,solar requires stripping the land of vegetation.A recent local news segment was bragging about their new solar PV field and how they had to strip the land bare.Can't have vegetation blocking the light or hampering maintenance.Solar PV also needs WATER to rinse off the panels. > The one thing the smart grid hopefully will be able to do is to > balance the load into non-peak times, and that will help > push load into wind-power peaks (in Texas, the wind blows > at night). And adding additional powerlines to better utilize > existing energy sources. note the econuts in California protested against new power line construction,ISTR that they stopped one project. > But it doesn't help when people make foolish claims and > non-tenable arguments that depend upon bad science and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > FloydR SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com Last time on rec.autos.driving, "Floyd Rogers" <fbloogyuds@hotmail.com> said: >I actually agree with the main thesis of the OP: there isn't >enough electricity. Everyone thinks that the smart grid will >solve all the problems related to energy and global warming. >It won't. Such a pessimist. Tell me, how much electrical generating capacity existed in the US in 1850? That's right, ZERO. Yet somehow our generating capacity grew to support the enormous demand we have today - a level of demand that Samuel Insull never even dreamed of. What makes you think that the generating capacity of the grid will remain stagnant despite new demand, whether it be from electric cars, or an influx of population, or any othe reason? What makes you think that battery, solar, wind, hydro, and other power technologies will also remain stagnant and never improve? It will be YEARS before electric cars are in use in sufficient numbers to tax even today's electric grid; by then, the grid will have grown and adapted to service the new demand. > Last time on rec.autos.driving, "Floyd Rogers" > <fbloogy...@hotmail.com> said: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > to tax even today's electric grid; by then, the grid will have grown > and adapted to service the new demand. I generally agree... no one want to end up with a grid with widespread brown outs/black outs.. so when the utility companies say we need more generating capacity - we're not going to say "no". but the bigger question is - how will they provide it - and so far.. it's going to be with coal - it's the easiest and cheapest and much easier to get permitted than nukes. right now.. the energy world is so dynamic and so chaotic in terms of technologies and potential energy sources that investment money is uncertain where to go.... if you put money on a path that doesn't pan out - you lose. > What makes you think that the generating capacity of the grid will > remain stagnant despite new demand, whether it be from electric cars, > or an influx of population, or any othe reason? What makes you think > that battery, solar, wind, hydro, and other power technologies will > also remain stagnant and never improve? The political factor. That's what didn't exist before. Now everything regarding power generation must go through our wise leaders. Bringing new generation plants of any kind online could take decades of regulatory and court battles. >Last time on rec.autos.driving, "Floyd Rogers" ><fbloogyuds@hotmail.com> said: >>I actually agree with the main thesis of the OP: there isn't >>enough electricity. Everyone thinks that the smart grid will >>solve all the problems related to energy and global warming. >>It won't. >Such a pessimist. >Tell me, how much electrical generating capacity existed in the US in >1850? That's right, ZERO. Yet somehow our generating capacity grew to >support the enormous demand we have today - a level of demand that >Samuel Insull never even dreamed of. >What makes you think that the generating capacity of the grid will >remain stagnant despite new demand, whether it be from electric cars, >or an influx of population, or any othe reason? What makes you think >that battery, solar, wind, hydro, and other power technologies will >also remain stagnant and never improve? Because the Government prevents it in line with "green" policies. Politics (aka collaborative stupidity) triumphs over technology. Notwithstanding that, electrolyte electrical storage systems appear to have hit the wall in terms of storage density and the suitability for traction power. The most likely process to power electric cars in future is not from the battery, charged from the grid, but from a fuel cell, with energy stored by synthesis of a stable (probably liquid) fuel. Solar and wind power are both too diffuse and unreliable to collect sufficient energy for traction power. Germany can't even reliably power the grid with a wind power nameplate capacity sometimes 50 times higher than what it actually delivers. Making most of the landscape look like this: <http://www.wilfriedheck.de/norddeutsche_Landschaft.jpg> and this: <http://nature2000.tripod.com/naturstrom/Windparklandschaft.jpg> and producing SFA: <http://nature2000.tripod.com/naturstrom/Gesicherte_Leistung2008.htm> Quarter-hourly feed-in from wind power generators for 2008. The bottom blue line above the axis is the "ensured power delivery" - 6% of nominal "installed capacity" (of around 22 GW). And there are long periods when it fails to deliver even the 6% trickle, identified by the yellow bars and totalled for each month. And solar? <http://nature2000.tripod.com/naturstrom/Solar_Kollektor_Schnee.jpg> >It will be YEARS before electric cars are in use in sufficient >numbers to tax even today's electric grid; by then, the grid will >have grown and adapted to service the new demand. Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Those who can make you believe absurdities X against HTML mail | can make you commit atrocities. / \ and postings | -- Voltaire > Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan@yahoo.com> wrote: >>Last time on rec.autos.driving, "Floyd Rogers" said: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > power the grid with a wind power nameplate capacity sometimes 50 > times higher than what it actually delivers. Wow. I knew that the German govt had heavily subsidized their wind and solar installations. But the wind-power utilization is horrid. Shows what happens to good things when over-subsidization happens. FloydR > >>Last time on rec.autos.driving, "Floyd Rogers" said: > >> ... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > and solar installations. But the wind-power utilization is horrid. Shows > what happens to good things when over-subsidization happens. there's an issue here involving efficiency - at the site that power is being produced - from coal, nukes, winds, solar and then further efficiency issues in the transmission of electricity no matter how it is generated at it's source. Wind and Solar don't HAVE TO BE generated remotely in every case. In fact, the case can be made in some (if not all) situations that local siting of solar/wind can .. recoup some lost efficiencies in the distribution. Solar panels on the roof and integrated into siding on the south wall of structures - as well as places like the land inside of interchanges...power line and highway and pipeline rights-of-ways.. perhaps even bridge structures... could.. essentially convert to local- site power source some things that currently consume power via distribution via remote generation sources. I'm not sure I've ever seen a study comparing the pros and cons of using a remote mega solar generation site that feeds into the grid verses allocating out the equivalent solar power generation to on-site generation and use. sometimes in all of this discussion about our "options", I feel that common sense sometimes gets overlooked... I know that GOOGLE has built car ports with solar roofs. You could do this for a shopping center - and kill two birds with one stone in that not only would you get local site power - but you would improve water quality by shielding the parking from rain wash that puts contaminates into the local streams. A solar panel covered parking lot would function not unlike a parking garage in terms of sequestering oil, anti-freeze, etc on a surface that will not receive rainfall and have subsequent runoff issues. I'm not sure how smart we are sometimes.. when we talk about "smart grids" but overlook the issue of local solar site generation verses generating solar power like we do coal-power generation. There is a reason why we don't site coal plants near where the power is consumed. That is not a valid reason for solar so what is the reason for siting solar or wind remote from where they will be used in the first place and saying that we really cannot do this until we have a "smart grid". How "smart" is that? >> Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>Last time on rec.autos.driving, "Floyd Rogers" said: >> Solar and wind power are both too diffuse and unreliable to collect >> sufficient energy for traction power. Germany can't even reliably >> power the grid with a wind power nameplate capacity sometimes 50 >> times higher than what it actually delivers. >Wow. I knew that the German govt had heavily subsidized their wind >and solar installations. But the wind-power utilization is horrid. Shows >what happens to good things when over-subsidization happens. Politics doesn't have a good record at picking technological winners. Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Politics is the art of looking for trouble, X against HTML mail | finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly / \ and postings | and applying the wrong remedies - Groucho Marx Last time on rec.autos.driving, Bernd Felsche <berfel@innovative.iinet.net.au> said: >>What makes you think that the generating capacity of the grid will >>remain stagnant despite new demand, whether it be from electric cars, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Because the Government prevents it in line with "green" policies. >Politics (aka collaborative stupidity) triumphs over technology. Politicians serve limted terms, and political winds shift. Remember the "electricity crisis" in California a few years ago? Suddenly we went from no new power plants in decades to several new plants being brought online at once, including a plant in Hanford, CA, that came online in only 88 days. It seems that when the rolling blackouts hit, the green ideology flies out the window somewhat. >Notwithstanding that, electrolyte electrical storage systems >appear to have hit the wall in terms of storage density and the >suitability for traction power. The most likely process to power >electric cars in future is not from the battery, charged from the >grid, but from a fuel cell, with energy stored by synthesis of a >stable (probably liquid) fuel. Maybe. Or maybe it will come in ways nobody expects. Not long ago a group of grade school kids created an induction-powered model car for a science project. Their model car received its motive power from the lamp posts. The point is, you can't judge the viability of future electric cars based on today's technology and political conditions. > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Bernd Felsche > <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> said: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > The point is, you can't judge the viability of future electric cars > based on today's technology and political conditions. you make a good point - about technology in general. ten years ago.. maybe 15.. if you asked folks about the emerging technologies of cell phone and car GPS systems... a lot of folks would have not predicted what eventually came to be. Technology moves very, very quickly now days.. and in fact.. it moves so quickly that investment money has become more timid because committing money to one technology over another may lose you your money. ask Blockbuster video about investing in the wrong technology... or Kodak or Polaroid or other kinds of recording media... all replaced with "bits"... transponders .. now complimented with pattern-recognition cameras that allow not only tolling without a transponder but allow service stations to use it to recognize your vehicle.. police in their cruisers moving down the road... "reading" license plates and getting an audible warning when they get a "hit" on their database. People cannot deal with the firehouse nature of technology changes these days. >> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Bernd Felsche >> <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> said: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >> >> Maybe. Or maybe it will come in ways nobody expects. >> The point is, you can't judge the viability of future electric cars >> based on today's technology and political conditions. >you make a good point - about technology in general. But misses the mark on how I and other Engineers do initial evaluations of ideas. >ten years ago.. maybe 15.. if you asked folks about the emerging >technologies of cell phone and car GPS systems... a lot of folks would >have not predicted what eventually came to be. Bollocks. Unless you're talking about people with no imagination; people who've never seen Star Trek, or the like. >Technology moves very, very quickly now days.. and in fact.. it moves >so quickly that investment money has become more timid because >committing money to one technology over another may lose you your >money. >ask Blockbuster video about investing in the wrong technology... or >Kodak or Polaroid or other kinds of recording media... all replaced >with "bits"... That's just a matter of businesses becoming too big and entrenched in one technology to move with the times. There are paradigm-shifting technologies that have been working up to a critical mass for YEARS. But it's not the industry that lags, it's the customers; who are hesitant to change; in part because what the "new technologies" have delivered since the mid-1980's has largely been crap. >transponders .. now complimented with pattern-recognition cameras that >allow not only tolling without a transponder but allow service >stations to use it to recognize your vehicle.. police in their >cruisers moving down the road... "reading" license plates and getting >an audible warning when they get a "hit" on their database. Ha. Back around 1978, we were toying with pattern recognition at the university computer club. The big motivation for plate-recognition is that "they" want to charge people for road-usage. It's not enough for them to tax the fuel. Governments want to penalise you for going about the exercise the freedom of movement in your pursuit of happiness. It's a VERY big business. With high margins and highly dubious records of performance as well as (in)secure record keeping. >People cannot deal with the firehouse nature of technology changes >these days. Those are FASHION changes. Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Politics is the art of looking for trouble, X against HTML mail | finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly / \ and postings | and applying the wrong remedies - Groucho Marx On Nov 9, 12:07 pm, Bernd Felsche <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote: > >> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Bernd Felsche > >> <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> said: [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > >People cannot deal with the firehouse nature of technology changes > >these days. right now - across the technology spectrum there is investment money waiting until there is a breakthrough.. in battery technology or solar panel efficiency or carbon sequestration or ways to produce hydrogen with a net energy gain. A good example of this is hybrid cars which could be hybrids combined with gasoline, diesel, natural gas or propane and yet there is no real consensus about which of these might ultimately become the standard. In fact, when folks discuss these they often go to the next step which is plug-ins which are really hybrids powered by an ICE (with gasoline, diesel,CNG, or LPG) with an ADDITIONAL battery. even the hybrids engines themselves are different kinds - none of which seems to have progressed to be the standard. If you are an investor and you put your money on one of these paths.. and things end up on another path.. you lose.. and I think in such an environment - there is money "waiting" and not in play - yet. Last time on rec.autos.driving, Larry G <gross.larry@gmail.com> said: >right now - across the technology spectrum there is investment money >waiting until there is a breakthrough.. Heh - then those investors are going to miss the boat. The way to make money is to invest in the technology *before* it breaks through, when the shares are actually affordable. The people who buy the stock after the IPO usually miss the biggest part of the runup. > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Larry G <gross.la...@gmail.com> said: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > who buy the stock after the IPO usually miss the biggest part of the > runup. agree... but sometimes when there are too many possible directions people get timid. > On Nov 9, 12:07 pm, Bernd Felsche <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] > and I think in such an environment - there is money "waiting" and not > in play - yet. What's energy source to produce the electrical energy? how much loss is there in the distribution? That's what it is about. A Watt out a watt and half in. >> That's just a matter of businesses becoming too big and entrenched in >> one technology to move with the times. >right now - across the technology spectrum there is investment money >waiting until there is a breakthrough.. in battery technology or solar >panel efficiency or carbon sequestration or ways to produce hydrogen >with a net energy gain. Breakthrough not evident. Sequestration requires, as best I can tell, about 30% more primary energy than normal, efficient, clean power generation, just to separate and condense the CO2. That means that 30% more coal needs to be dug up to deliver the same amount of energy to the consumer. Seems like a good idea if you're selling coal. Hydrogen is difficult to contain in practice. i.e. you can't keep it bottled up indefinitely. That, and the need for complicated materials handling systems makes hydrogen little more than interesting. Note that much of the hydrogen being used as a fuel comes from the oil/gas industry; i.e. as a "fossil fuel". Because it's the cheapest way to get hydrogen. >A good example of this is hybrid cars which could be hybrids combined >with gasoline, diesel, natural gas or propane and yet there is no real >consensus about which of these might ultimately become the standard. >In fact, when folks discuss these they often go to the next step which >is plug-ins which are really hybrids powered by an ICE (with gasoline, >diesel,CNG, or LPG) with an ADDITIONAL battery. These are, by there nature, an efficiency compromise for general applications. Hybrid systems work OK in urban or even sub-urban environments; but their overall cost is inevitably much higher than efficient, ICE-only cars. And that fact alone makes them a poor investment. >even the hybrids engines themselves are different kinds - none of >which seems to have progressed to be the standard. >If you are an investor and you put your money on one of these paths.. >and things end up on another path.. you lose.. >and I think in such an environment - there is money "waiting" and not >in play - yet. "sub-prime" investment ?? Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Politics is the art of looking for trouble, X against HTML mail | finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly / \ and postings | and applying the wrong remedies - Groucho Marx >Bernd Felsche said: >>>What makes you think that the generating capacity of the grid will >>>remain stagnant despite new demand, whether it be from electric cars, >>>or an influx of population, or any othe reason? What makes you think >>>that battery, solar, wind, hydro, and other power technologies will >>>also remain stagnant and never improve? >>Because the Government prevents it in line with "green" policies. >>Politics (aka collaborative stupidity) triumphs over technology. >Politicians serve limted terms, and political winds shift. Remember >the "electricity crisis" in California a few years ago? Suddenly we >went from no new power plants in decades to several new plants being >brought online at once, including a plant in Hanford, CA, that came >online in only 88 days. It seems that when the rolling blackouts hit, >the green ideology flies out the window somewhat. >>Notwithstanding that, electrolyte electrical storage systems >>appear to have hit the wall in terms of storage density and the >>suitability for traction power. The most likely process to power >>electric cars in future is not from the battery, charged from the >>grid, but from a fuel cell, with energy stored by synthesis of a >>stable (probably liquid) fuel. >Maybe. Or maybe it will come in ways nobody expects. Anode/cathode potentials are at the limit of known substances; for batteries that you don't mind sitting on. >Not long ago a group of grade school kids created an >induction-powered model car for a science project. Their model car >received its motive power from the lamp posts. Inefficient and impractical ... but Tesla (the man) would be proud. >The point is, you can't judge the viability of future electric cars >based on today's technology and political conditions. I judge based on first-principles. First-principles of physics that are evident in the everyday, natural world. Conservation of Energy (outside of nuclear reactions). Conservation of Mass (ditto). Entropy Newton's Laws (usable approximation for most cases). Laws of thermodynamics. Ohm's Law etc. All of these can be used to apply simple tests of viability, by looking at the boundary conditions that have to be satisfied. Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Politics is the art of looking for trouble, X against HTML mail | finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly / \ and postings | and applying the wrong remedies - Groucho Marx [snip...] > I admit that I was ignorant of such obtuseness. I was trained in the > civilised world where a SI units are fundamental to Engineering [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The USA seems to hold the world record for non-use of an adopted > measurement system. No wonder you miss small a planet with a probe. The problem with SI units is that they are totally impractical for every day use because nearly every conversion from conventional to SI is not a whole number. Consider the following... I can put my index finger and middle finger together, measure in between two lines on paper or two objects placed apart from each other, and roughly estimate that as close to 1 inch. I can verify that estimate using a ruler, and it's relatively close to one inch. In SI units, I have to call that 2.54 centimeters--certainly not a nice whole number, and introduces the whole significant digits issue in paper and pencil plus calculator math, or floating point issues when using a computer to calculate. Same goes for a foot. If someone has a foot measurement of 12 inches, they can easily estimate distance with just their foot. The conversion is once again not a whole number in SI units (it's 12 x 2.54 cm = 30.48 cm). A yard vs. a meter. A yard is a nice even 36 inches. A meter is once again not a whole number in the conversion (1 yard = 39.37 cm). While the mile is 5280 feet, that's still a whole number. Something like a 5k, that works out to 3.2 miles so yet another case of a non-whole number. If I want to measure the freefall of an object, the non-SI measurement is 32 ft/s^2. For some reason, SI once again uses non whole numbers, 9.8 m/s^2 for gravity. Liquid measure: 8 fluid ounces is a cup, 2 cups makes a pint, 2 pints makes a quart, 2 quarts makes one half gallon, 4 quarts is a gallon. Nice simple whole numbers, all divisible by two for doubling or halving a quantity. SI unit conversions... forget about whole numbers, the popular 2 Liter bottle is 67.6 fluid ounces. Solid weight measure, where the kilogram is based on some weight in an international lab--that's not something I can use as an everyday estimate, and since 2.2 kilograms is the conversion for 1 pound it's not a whole number once again. Yet, I can find any boxed product that says net weight 1 lb (16 oz) and that's a good everyday estimate for one pound. A Ton is 2000 of those pounds. Somehow, despite all the disparaging of the US conventional system vs. SI, the US conventional system managed to keep the numbers whole, or use easy fractions in most cases (e.g., x/4, 1/2, x/3, x/8, x/16). In some cases, it is possible that the kilogram measurement may also be a whole number (see 2000 lbs is 907 kg above) but in the majority of cases, the conversion will not be a whole number. You get the idea. SI units may be required for engineering purposes (yeah, I had to deal with all that in Physics classes), but the translation from conventional units used in the USA to SI units is always fractional, so will always have some error due to rounding or truncation when respecting significant digits. In terms of every day, non-engineering use, nice whole numbers are always preferable to quantities with fractional amounts. So in terms of discussion, one must expect to hear 1 inch instead of 2.54 cm, 1 yard instead of 39.37 cm, and so on. Others may vary, of course. I prefer to use whole numbers as much as possible for non-engineering type calculations, which is why I avoid using SI units--it means less chance for error due to rounding, truncation, or even some sort of floating point math bug with the device or program doing the calculation. > "Bernd Felsche" <berfel@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote >> I admit that I was ignorant of such obtuseness. I was trained in the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > day use because nearly every conversion from conventional to SI is not a > whole number. Consider the following... I just want to point out that we electrical engineers are smarter than the other disciplines, as our measurement system (volts, ohms, amps, etc.) ARE SI AND ALWAYS HAVE BEEN the SI system. (Of course, we're also the newest... but still.) FloydR >[snip...] >> I admit that I was ignorant of such obtuseness. I was trained in the >> civilised world where a SI units are fundamental to Engineering >> practice. >> "A "ton of refrigeration" is defined as the cooling power of >> one short ton (2000 pounds or 907 kilograms) of ice melting >> in a 24-hour period." >> The USA seems to hold the world record for non-use of an adopted >> measurement system. No wonder you miss small a planet with a probe. >The problem with SI units is that they are totally impractical for >every day use because nearly every conversion from conventional to >SI is not a whole number. Consider the following... Conventional is SI, as far as I'm concerned. Conversion is superfluous if you work consistently in base SI units. That practice dramatically reduces the odd conversions that need to take place in other systems. Especially those that treat mechanical, electromagnetic and heat energy as though it weren't fundamentally the same thing; albeit in another form. A Joule is a Joule is a Joule. SI only becomes inconvenient near molecular/atomic level at one end of the scale, and atinter-planetary level at the other end. >I can put my index finger and middle finger together, measure in between two >lines on paper or two objects placed apart from each other, and roughly [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >significant digits issue in paper and pencil plus calculator math, or >floating point issues when using a computer to calculate. Note: Centimetres aren't SI. Totally specious. 2.54 is accurate to 3 digits. Your judgement of 1 inch is ONE digit. Why not call your "1 inch" "20 millimetres"? >Same goes for a foot. If someone has a foot measurement of 12 inches, they >can easily estimate distance with just their foot. The conversion is once >again not a whole number in SI units (it's 12 x 2.54 cm = 30.48 cm). I'd argue that 300 mm is a PITA to convert to the 11-13/16ths of an inch. >A yard vs. a meter. A yard is a nice even 36 inches. A meter is once again >not a whole number in the conversion (1 yard = 39.37 cm). While the mile is >5280 feet, that's still a whole number. Something like a 5k, that works out >to 3.2 miles so yet another case of a non-whole number. Those conversions are easy? 1 metre = 1000 mm 1 km = 1000 m >If I want to measure the freefall of an object, the non-SI measurement is 32 >ft/s^2. For some reason, SI once again uses non whole numbers, 9.8 m/s^2 for >gravity. The value is a physical property. Not part of the SI system. The 32 mumblefks is also an approximation. Multiplying by 10 is much easier than32; for most people. >Liquid measure: 8 fluid ounces is a cup, 2 cups makes a pint, 2 pints makes >a quart, 2 quarts makes one half gallon, 4 quarts is a gallon. Nice simple >whole numbers, all divisible by two for doubling or halving a quantity. SI >unit conversions... forget about whole numbers, the popular 2 Liter bottle >is 67.6 fluid ounces. What about firkins? Barrels? Ounces? US or UK? The 2-litre bottle contains 2 litres. 2000 ml. Where's the problem? >Solid weight measure, where the kilogram is based on some weight in an Nope. A kilogram is a definition of mass. >international lab--that's not something I can use as an everyday estimate, >and since 2.2 kilograms is the conversion for 1 pound it's not a whole >number once again. Yet, I can find any boxed product that says net weight 1 >lb (16 oz) and that's a good everyday estimate for one pound. A Ton is 2000 >of those pounds. Somehow, despite all the disparaging of the US conventional I thought a ton was 12,000 BRITISH thermal units per hour. :-) >system vs. SI, the US conventional system managed to keep the numbers whole, >or use easy fractions in most cases (e.g., x/4, 1/2, x/3, x/8, x/16). In >some cases, it is possible that the kilogram measurement may also be a whole >number (see 2000 lbs is 907 kg above) but in the majority of cases, the >conversion will not be a whole number. >You get the idea. SI units may be required for engineering purposes >(yeah, I had to deal with all that in Physics classes), but the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >one must expect to hear 1 inch instead of 2.54 cm, 1 yard instead >of 39.37 cm, and so on. News flash. I'm not in the USA. The only legal units for trade (outside of very specialised fields) are SI. >Others may vary, of course. I prefer to use whole numbers as much as >possible for non-engineering type calculations, which is why I avoid using >SI units--it means less chance for error due to rounding, truncation, or >even some sort of floating point math bug with the device or program doing >the calculation. You have a problem because you're using 2 measurement systems. Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Politics is the art of looking for trouble, X against HTML mail | finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly / \ and postings | and applying the wrong remedies - Groucho Marx >Conversion is superfluous if you work consistently in base SI units. >That practice dramatically reduces the odd conversions that need to >take place in other systems. Especially those that treat mechanical, >electromagnetic and heat energy as though it weren't fundamentally >the same thing; albeit in another form. A Joule is a Joule is a >Joule. And fuel consumption in SI is an area; what good is that? >SI only becomes inconvenient near molecular/atomic level at one end >of the scale, and atinter-planetary level at the other end. Showing even scientists can't live with SI. >>I can put my index finger and middle finger together, measure in between two >>lines on paper or two objects placed apart from each other, and roughly [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Note: Centimetres aren't SI. Right, it's even worse than that, with SI you've got no length unit between the millimeter and the meter... in the range almost all everyday length measurement is done in. >>Solid weight measure, where the kilogram is based on some weight in an > >Nope. A kilogram is a definition of mass. The term "weight" (as in weights and measures) usually means mass. The use of the term as strictly referring to force exerted by a mass under gravity is specialized. The use of "pound" to refer to either force or mass doesn't help... but then again, there's a kgf as well. >News flash. I'm not in the USA. The only legal units for trade >(outside of very specialised fields) are SI. Nonsense, the odd divisions (deciliters, centiliters, centimeters) are legal as well even in SI countries. SignatureThe problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need. >>Conversion is superfluous if you work consistently in base SI units. >>That practice dramatically reduces the odd conversions that need to >>take place in other systems. Especially those that treat mechanical, >>electromagnetic and heat energy as though it weren't fundamentally >>the same thing; albeit in another form. A Joule is a Joule is a >>Joule. >And fuel consumption in SI is an area; what good is that? >>SI only becomes inconvenient near molecular/atomic level at one end >>of the scale, and atinter-planetary level at the other end. >Showing even scientists can't live with SI. >>>I can put my index finger and middle finger together, measure in >>>between two lines on paper or two objects placed apart from each [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>>calculator math, or floating point issues when using a computer >>>to calculate. >>Note: Centimetres aren't SI. >Right, it's even worse than that, with SI you've got no length unit >between the millimeter and the meter... in the range almost all >everyday length measurement is done in. ISTM that you can't multiply or divide by 1000 without the use of a calculator. >>>Solid weight measure, where the kilogram is based on some weight in an >> >>Nope. A kilogram is a definition of mass. >The term "weight" (as in weights and measures) usually means mass. >The use of the term as strictly referring to force exerted by a >mass under gravity is specialized. The use of "pound" to refer to >either force or mass doesn't help... but then again, there's a kgf >as well. kgf is not an SI unit. The SI base unit of force is N. Approximating the weight of your argument. >>News flash. I'm not in the USA. The only legal units for trade >>(outside of very specialised fields) are SI. >Nonsense, the odd divisions (deciliters, centiliters, centimeters) are >legal as well even in SI countries. Show me where cl are legal in Australia. The "centimetre" measurements are nominal sizes. Like e.g. wheel rim sizes on cars. Standards define the actual (range of) dimensions in SI units. Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Politics is the art of looking for trouble, X against HTML mail | finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly / \ and postings | and applying the wrong remedies - Groucho Marx >>> Note: Centimetres aren't SI. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ISTM that you can't multiply or divide by 1000 without the use of a > calculator. If there are no "SI" units between mm and m, how is a calculator going to help? >>>> Note: Centimetres aren't SI. >>> Right, it's even worse than that, with SI you've got no length unit >>> between the millimeter and the meter... in the range almost all >>> everyday length measurement is done in. >> >> ISTM that you can't multiply or divide by 1000 without the use of a >> calculator. >If there are no "SI" units between mm and m, how is a calculator going >to help? You've not read what I wrote. Try again. Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Politics is the art of looking for trouble, X against HTML mail | finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly / \ and postings | and applying the wrong remedies - Groucho Marx >>>>> Note: Centimetres aren't SI. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > You've not read what I wrote. Uhhhhh, what is that quoted up there? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Try again. Nah. Easier to bury the nonsense once and for all. SignatureRequiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml >>>Conversion is superfluous if you work consistently in base SI units. >>>That practice dramatically reduces the odd conversions that need to [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > >Show me where cl are legal in Australia. See Schedule 3 in http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrumentCompilation1.ns f/0/22803A4C4E09475ACA2575EC001FA5B3/$file/NatMeasurement1999.pdf and see http://www.comlaw.gov.au/comlaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrumentCompilation1.ns f/0/5D3FB022BD58A67CCA25760400201672/$file/NationalMeasurementGuidelines1999.pdf SignatureThe problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need. >>>Nonsense, the odd divisions (deciliters, centiliters, centimeters) are >>>legal as well even in SI countries. >>Show me where cl are legal in Australia. >See Schedule 3 in >http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrumentCompilation1.ns f/0/22803A4C4E09475ACA2575EC001FA5B3/$file/NatMeasurement1999.pdf Maybe I need new spec's. Where does it say "cl" or "centilitre"? Schedule 3 defines prefixes. Not legal units. Non-SI legal units are defined in Schedule 2, along with the restrictions on use. >and see >http://www.comlaw.gov.au/comlaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrumentCompilation1.ns f/0/5D3FB022BD58A67CCA25760400201672/$file/NationalMeasurementGuidelines1999.pdf Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Politics is the art of looking for trouble, X against HTML mail | finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly / \ and postings | and applying the wrong remedies - Groucho Marx >>>>Nonsense, the odd divisions (deciliters, centiliters, centimeters) are >>>>legal as well even in SI countries. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >>http://www.comlaw.gov.au/comlaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrumentCompilation1.ns f/0/5D3FB022BD58A67CCA25760400201672/$file/NationalMeasurementGuidelines1999.pdf The guidelines specify that the prefixes in Schedule 3 can be used with the SI base units in Schedule 1, thus making centiliter as valid as milliliter or liter. SignatureThe problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need. >Centimetres aren't SI. Ahem. Centimetres are SI. See the list of prefixes on the official SI website: http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter3/prefixes.html >>Centimetres aren't SI. >Ahem. Centimetres are SI. >See the list of prefixes on the official SI website: >http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter3/prefixes.html I was too terse. Centimetres are not _preferred_ SI units; especially in science and Engineering. Similarly, cm and other similar multiples are not legal units for trade and legal metrology in many countries; except in special circumstances: e.g. hPa in meterology. Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Politics is the art of looking for trouble, X against HTML mail | finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly / \ and postings | and applying the wrong remedies - Groucho Marx >I was too terse. Centimetres are not _preferred_ SI units; especially >in science and Engineering. OK. I understand. > Last time on rec.autos.driving, elmer <e@f.udd> said: > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > OBTW, if you're going to present a fallacious argument, you should at > least learn how to spell the word. solar cells at night or evening? Interesting. So you get home wait until when to plug in? When will the load go down. Fast charge cells, in development will consume a lot of electricity fast. No matter when they plug in it's an extra consumption, of electric power, on an already loaded grid. Use Energy, of whatever origin, and you have to replenish it if you plan on driving it again. I really suppose your answer is to watch a meter, you install, and wait for the brownout, to ease before plugging in? You know that is going to work. There is no magic. Power out means power in. Last time on rec.autos.driving, elmer <e@f.udd> said: >solar cells at night or evening? Interesting. You could certainly use solar to charge your car while it sits in the parking lot all day at work. If you have storage batteries at home, you could charge those with solar and transfer the stored charge to your car when you get home. Or use the panels to charge your other two vehicles - the ones you don't use for commuting. >So you get home wait until when to plug in? When will the load go down. The power utility itself can tell you. Already there are devices which will shut off your air conditioner during periods of peak demand, as well as meters which charge different rates at different times of the day depending on demand. If electric cars start to cause stress to the system, it will be trivial to provide this data. >There is no magic. Power out means power in. There is no magic source of fossil fuels, either - when the oil runs out, the oil runs out. On that day, we'll need something else to power our vehicles. If not electricity, then what? Ethanol? Hydrogen? Both cost even MORE in terms of energy inputs than you can recover in energy outputs. ISTM that electric vehicles are the best option we will have for the forseeable future. Now is the time to start preparing for the end of cheap oil. If the electric grid needs to be built up to handle electric cars, then let's get started. Let's not wait until the last drops are trickling out of the barrel and everyone is in a panic before we begin to act. > Last time on rec.autos.driving, elmer <e@f.udd> said: > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > get started. Let's not wait until the last drops are trickling out of > the barrel and everyone is in a panic before we begin to act. A lot of these points are not friendly to Citizens/Consumers, such as, cutting off air conditioners when it is the hottest. that sorta defeats the purpose of air conditioning. Someone made the point that there are thousands of hybrids out there and not affecting electric provision. But there are 10s of millions, perhaps the number is larger, of cars not yet tapping the electric grid in California. I have no idea what the number will be that causes a problem. It is pretty low though based on the current situation there. I think, certainly, that 10%, of vehicles, tapping the power grid would cause a big problem at one time. 20% would be a really big drain at one time and perhaps overloading capabilities if spread over the course of the day., Perhaps the way to figure it is their target, of gasoline and diesel replaced. Electricity will consume x times perhaps as much as 3 times, probably around 2 times,energy that gasoline and diesel. Electricity is produced from energy. They are simply shifting the source somewhat. Instead of coming out of the tailpipes it will be coming out of huge smokestacks and going in to huge tailing dumps and ponds. It will cost a lot more than the gasoline and diesel. Nuclear energy is not here now and they don't want to bring it on board. Solar cells are a joke and a stop gap for such a large requirement and very expensive. Electricity is not free. Wind energy and geothermal and so contribute to electricity production but unless you carpet the rest, of the west, with big hideous prop blades but not in their yard of course, it wouldn't work and will cost much more. Those things have associated costs and environmental impacts too. So far these People have not solved their problems but have multiplied the costs, of vehicles, fuel costs and everything else for the rest, of the Country. > Scott in SoCal wrote: >> Last time on rec.autos.driving, elmer <e@f.udd> said: > Nuclear energy is not here now and they don't want to bring it on board. > Solar cells are a joke and a stop gap for such a large requirement and > very expensive. Statements like that are why people regard postings like your's a joke. Nuclear reactors produce almost 20% of the US's power. Last time I checked, the Diablo reactors (near Avila Beach/San Luis Obispo) and the San Onofre reactor (north of San Diego) *ARE* in California. FloydR >> Scott in SoCal wrote: >>> Last time on rec.autos.driving, elmer <e@f.udd> said: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > FloydR No,he's right about "they don't want to bring it on board"(no NEW nuke plants),as Obama has said he will not permit new nuclear plants WITHOUT HAVING "SAFE STORAGE" FOR THE WASTES. And Obama(with the DemocRATS) has - cancelled- Yucca Mountain Waste Repository,cut off it's funding,with NO plans for any other site. and California eco-nuts are against nuclear power and also high voltage transmission lines to deliver more power from ANY new electric source. then add in his plans for putting the coal industry out of business,his position of no new oil or gas drilling/production. -CONNECT THE DOTS-!! Obama has SAID publicly that he intends for energy costs to climb drastically. Obama wants us to reduce our lifestyles. Wake up. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com > Obama has SAID publicly that he intends for energy costs to climb > drastically. Obama wants us to reduce our lifestyles. Both parties want that. Both have acted in that direction. They are owned by interests that benefit from such conditions. > Wake up. >> Last time on rec.autos.driving, elmer <e@f.udd> said: >> [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > the costs, of vehicles, fuel costs and everything else for the rest, of > the Country. Businesses are not going to install solar panels and the other necessary equipment to charge their employees autos.They aren't going to pay for them,nor pay for the maintenance needed to keep solar panels at full output. solar panels are NOT "self-cleaning",and subject to damage from hailstorms,airborne debris,and high winds. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com > Businesses are not going to install solar panels and the other necessary > equipment to charge their employees autos. Why not? They spend an awful lot of money now building and maintaining those parking garages for their employees. >Last time on rec.autos.driving, elmer <e@f.udd> said: >>solar cells at night or evening? Interesting. >You could certainly use solar to charge your car while it sits in the >parking lot all day at work. If you have storage batteries at home, With power leads across the parking lot, no doubt feeding your car at your employer's cost? >you could charge those with solar and transfer the stored charge to >your car when you get home. Or use the panels to charge your other two >vehicles - the ones you don't use for commuting. Study "recovery losses". It reduces PV solar efficiency from 12% to something like 8%, depending on how you store the electricity. And what "other 2 vehicles"? What use, other than commuting is there for an electric car? You can't take it for a trip further than 100 miles from base unless you're absolutely certain of being able to charge it along the way, and have half a day to spare to recharge batteries every 200 miles. >>So you get home wait until when to plug in? When will the load go down. >The power utility itself can tell you. Already there are devices which >will shut off your air conditioner during periods of peak demand, as Yes ... such as the hottest days when the airconditioning load dominates, the utility shuts off airconditioners. >well as meters which charge different rates at different times of the >day depending on demand. If electric cars start to cause stress to the >system, it will be trivial to provide this data. >>There is no magic. Power out means power in. >There is no magic source of fossil fuels, either - when the oil runs >out, the oil runs out. On that day, we'll need something else to power >our vehicles. If not electricity, then what? Ethanol? Hydrogen? Both >cost even MORE in terms of energy inputs than you can recover in >energy outputs. ISTM that electric vehicles are the best option we >will have for the forseeable future. Supporting a significant fleet of electric vehicles is highly disruptive to a wide range of infrastructure components. If the dialy commute by electric car increases the electrical energy required every day 5- to 10-fold; and it would do at least the lower figure, then what is going to produce that electricty? Electricity utilities are already struggling to match demand. >Now is the time to start preparing for the end of cheap oil. If the >electric grid needs to be built up to handle electric cars, then let's >get started. Let's not wait until the last drops are trickling out of >the barrel and everyone is in a panic before we begin to act. Electric cars, charged from the grid aren't an appropriate technology. No amount of money, wishfull thinking or preaching is going to change the physical laws of nature that are in the way. You may not have noticed, but "cheap oil" is long gone. The automotive industry has mostly adapted by substantial improvements in fuel efficiency within the vehicles themselves. This has typically reduced fuel consumption to about half of what it was 20 years ago. Road and highway infrastructures, as well as driving behaviour can reduce fuel consumption; in practice. Simple driver training has the potential to reduce fuel consumption for most drivers by 20% to 30%. Without restricting their freedom of movement. Better roads and improved traffic conditions (in part due to driver training) reduce fuel consumption another 5% to 10%. Look at the "gap" between "urban" and "highway" fuel consumption ratings. If all driving were at "highway", then that substantially reduces the fuel required by a nation. And the world. We simply do not know how much oil there is as fossil fuel. Known resources will take the world perhaps 50 years to consume. Longer if consciousness of fuel use if maintained and technology as well as efficient habits propagate. As known oil resources diminish, it puts pressure not only on further exploration, but also on development of other technologies. e.g. extraction of oil from shale and sands, or fuel synthesis from coal. Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Those who can make you believe absurdities X against HTML mail | can make you commit atrocities. / \ and postings | -- Voltaire Last time on rec.autos.driving, Bernd Felsche <berfel@innovative.iinet.net.au> said: >With power leads across the parking lot, no doubt feeding your car >at your employer's cost? I think most employers can afford to offer an eighty-cent-per-day perk. >And what "other 2 vehicles"? Don't most households have at least 3 cars these days? Certainly nobody has just one... >What use, other than commuting is there for an electric car? If you can't come up with any, then feel free to stick with gasoline engine cars for your other two. >>>So you get home wait until when to plug in? When will the load go down. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Yes ... such as the hottest days when the airconditioning load >dominates, the utility shuts off airconditioners. It's clear you have some sort of agenda against this concept. Why? >Last time on rec.autos.driving, Bernd Felsche ><berfel@innovative.iinet.net.au> said: >>With power leads across the parking lot, no doubt feeding your car >>at your employer's cost? >I think most employers can afford to offer an eighty-cent-per-day >perk. The cost of charging is much greater than the WHOLESALE price of electricity; even if it were available. Installing the infrastructure would costs thousands per vehicle. You argument is circular anyway. Peak electricity consumption is already around business hours. The premises' sub-station would have to be significantly upgraded in most cases. >>And what "other 2 vehicles"? >Don't most households have at least 3 cars these days? Certainly >nobody has just one... Certainly this one does. The other car is the company's. >>What use, other than commuting is there for an electric car? >If you can't come up with any, then feel free to stick with gasoline >engine cars for your other two. Why should I buy an electric car? Insure it. Pay licencing and other registration fees. Maintain it. When there's a perfectly good diesel car sitting in the garage. Who'd pay to extend the garage? Who'd pay to upgrade the local electricity grid to facilitate charging of electric vehicles? Who'll pay to upgrade the power stations to supply at least 5 times as much electricity over 24 hours than they do at present? What's the source of energy for the power stations? >>>The power utility itself can tell you. Already there are devices >>>which will shut off your air conditioner during periods of peak >>>demand, as >>Yes ... such as the hottest days when the airconditioning load >>dominates, the utility shuts off airconditioners. >It's clear you have some sort of agenda against this concept. Why? I have an agenda against stupidity. Turning off people's airconditioners in a heat-wave isn't just stupid; IMHO, it borders on the criminally insane. Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Those who can make you believe absurdities X against HTML mail | can make you commit atrocities. / \ and postings | -- Voltaire > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Bernd Felsche > <berfel@innovative.iinet.net.au> said: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > If you can't come up with any, then feel free to stick with gasoline > engine cars for your other two. So your answer to how to make the electric vehicle practical is to tell people to own a second vehicle? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL<> SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> > Last time on rec.autos.driving, elmer <e...@f.udd> said: > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > OBTW, if you're going to present a fallacious argument, you should at > least learn how to spell the word. well.. without some changes though.. there is some expressed concern for adverse impacts to a non-smart grid. but as Scott pointed out - there are even non-grid potential solutions with solar, wind and even NG/LPG backup generators. we're still aways away... so far the batteries are not able to hold enough charge for a range better than local commuting... make sure we're talking here about plug-in hybrids also.. which are just ordinary hybrids - with larger/better batteries that can be recharged conventionally from the engine or from a plug these cars are going to cost even more than hybrid cars of the same flavor. The Chevy Volt - a loser in my view - is said to only have a 40 mile range and will cost 40K even with tax credits. but the most compelling issue is what happens to funding for roads? I'm pretty skeptical that we are going to go to a GPS-in-car mileage system.. so I'm thinking we're going to see a LOT MORE tolls.. including cordon tolls. thoughts? Last time on rec.autos.driving, Larry G <gross.larry@gmail.com> said: >but the most compelling issue is what happens to funding for roads? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >thoughts? There's no question the way roads are funded is going to have to change. Fuel taxes have been poorly managed for DECADES, and haven't even kept pace with inflation. Alternative vehicle fuels are going to be the death knell for fuel taxes. Of the remaining alternatives, tolls are certanly the most fair. If a way can be found to administer them efficiently without sacrificing privacy, then that may be the best way to go. > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Larry G <gross.larry@gmail.com> said: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > them efficiently without sacrificing privacy, then that may be the > best way to go. So the answer to poorly run government is more poorly run government and less freedom for us. Governments mis-manages the fuel taxes by diverting them to other purposes. The federal government causes the inflation by monkeying around with the economy and over spending. Governments squander the money through mis-management and fraud in road projects. This doesn't change with tolls. Look at the IL tollway authority. > > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Larry G <gross.la...@gmail.com> said: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > projects. This doesn't change with tolls. Look at the IL tollway > authority. so lets use the corrupt criminal finance houses to administer roads and you keep whining about diverting them to other purposes, what is it you do not understand unless there is a constitutional prohibition against doing that there is nothing prohibiting the ELECTED LEGISLATURE from doing exactly that again what is it you do not understand it is so very simple >> > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Larry G <gross.la...@gmail.com> said: >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > again what is it you do not understand > it is so very simple It's you who "doesn't understand" or just doesn't want to deal with the truth. The question is why do you reward people with more power and more money for failure and corruption? >It's you who "doesn't understand" or just doesn't want to deal with the >truth. The question is why do you reward people with more power and more >money for failure and corruption? My question is why do we keep re-electing them? -- "Well, if crime fighters fight crime and fire fighters fight fire, what do freedom fighters fight?" --George Carlin > >> > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Larry G <gross.la...@gmail.com> said: > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > truth. The question is why do you reward people with more power and more > money for failure and corruption? nope, I understand perfectly what you fail to comprehend is you are not hurting those with more money/more power one little bit and you are a fool if you think you are you are only hurting yourself and millions of others stuck on substandard roads any bridges near you closed? we had one in Union Co, NJ, closed for FOUR years because they did not have the money for replacement had you car damaged due to potholes? how about increasing accidents you think you are hurting "them". they have multiple sources of income. if not transportation, then education, hospitals, or something else you only think you are smart >> >> > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Larry G <gross.la...@gmail.com> said: >> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > and you are a fool if you think you are Where did you get the idea I even thought that? Oh wait you just made it up. > you are only hurting yourself and millions of others stuck on > substandard roads Giving them more money won't make the roads less substandard. > any bridges near you closed? Giving them more money won't fix the bridges. > we had one in Union Co, NJ, closed for FOUR years because they did not > have the money for replacement Because it was stolen and diverted and the bridge never maintained. Giving them more money won't change that. > had you car damaged due to potholes? how about increasing accidents Giving them more money won't change that. > you think you are hurting "them". they have multiple sources of > income. if not transportation, then education, hospitals, or > something else Giving them more money won't change that. > you only think you are smart Giving them more money won't change things. It will just be giving them more money. Give a crack whore $3000 to get herself an apartment and some new clothes to get her life back on track. What's the crack whore going to do with it? Buy more crack. Your elected rulers will do the same thing with more money they do with the present money, mismanage and steal it. > >> >> > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Larry G <gross.la...@gmail.com> said: > [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > > Because it was stolen and diverted and the bridge never maintained. That sir is a crock you have no idea what you are talking about the old bridge was built in the 1920's as a swing bridge never maintained??? for once why don't you talk about something you know about??? it was very well maintained, in an effort to keep it open but it became structurally unsound and NJDOT ordered it closed > Giving them more money won't change that. > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > it? Buy more crack. Your elected rulers will do the same thing with more > money they do with the present money, mismanage and steal it. http://www.azdot.gov/MPD/priority_Programming/PDF/pio.pdf This is the AzDOT 5 yr const program $600M in fy 2010 now how did they rebuild I-10 thru Tucson if it was all stolen http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/capital/stip1019/sec2/pdf/table3.pdf here is NJDOT's $2.14B fy 2010 all of it stolen? I don't believe it for a minute I know people that work for the city, Union and Middlesex Co's and NJDOT they are NOT criminals, and if you think they are you are very wrong comparing elected officials to crack whores leads me to wonder about your sanity paranoia WILL destroy you do you work for a company, do they have any govt contracts? everybody that works for govt is NOT a criminal was Rick Powell, how about John Lansford? > now how did they rebuild I-10 thru Tucson if it was all stolen It's pointless having a discussion with you. Nobody said it was 'all' stolen. You keep doing that, so good bye. > > now how did they rebuild I-10 thru Tucson if it was all stolen > > It's pointless having a discussion with you. Nobody said it was 'all' > stolen. You keep doing that, so good bye. and you are nothing more then a paranoid f.ck why don't you get help and btw, how much is stolen 10%, 20%, 30%???? are all the const estimates phonied for the theft have you ever phonied up a const estimate do you know anyone that has >> > now how did they rebuild I-10 thru Tucson if it was all stolen >> >> It's pointless having a discussion with you. Nobody said it was 'all' >> stolen. You keep doing that, so good bye. > > and you are nothing more then a paranoid f.ck It's funny how people who are affraid their neighbors are going to kill and steal from them think that those people in government don't use the power to get away with it. > why don't you get help > and btw, how much is stolen > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > do you know anyone that has Pick a project. Read the local newspapers. DUH. Start with the "big dig" and work your way smaller. Do I have to do everything for you? > >> > now how did they rebuild I-10 thru Tucson if it was all stolen > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > > do you know anyone that has how come you cannot answer the question? it is so simple even you can do it > Pick a project. Read the local newspapers. DUH. > Start with the "big dig" and work your way smaller. > > Do I have to do everything for you? you don't have to lift a finger every proj is just like the big dig huh??? just like everyone that works for a dot is a thief ok, the Ravenal Br in Charleston, SC how many indictments were handed down for that Fort Washington Way, Cincinnati and I will repeat this and I would appreciate an answer > > and btw, how much is stolen > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > do you know anyone that has > Nobody said it was 'all' > stolen. Actually, you did. >> Nobody said it was 'all' >> stolen. > > Actually, you did. Cite it. > >> Nobody said it was 'all' > >> stolen. > > > Actually, you did. > > Cite it. Give a crack whore $3000 to get herself an apartment and some new clothes to get her life back on track. What's the crack whore going to do with it? Buy more crack. Your elected rulers will do the same thing with more money they do with the present money, mismanage and steal it. that is what you said if you want to continue in your paranoid state where everyone is a thief except you you are welcome to frankly I don't believe you are any less a thief then anyone else and probably more of one now please answer the following every proj is just like the big dig huh??? just like everyone that works for a dot is a thief ok, the Ravenal Br in Charleston, SC how many indictments were handed down for that Fort Washington Way, Cincinnati and I will repeat this and I would appreciate an answer >> >> Nobody said it was 'all' >> >> stolen. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > that is what you said mismanage _AND_ steal it does NOT equal 'steal all of it'. DUH. Basic reading comprehension problems is why you're not worth discusing anything with. Not to mention your crappy formating. > >> >> Nobody said it was 'all' > >> >> stolen. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Basic reading comprehension problems is why you're not worth discusing > anything with. Not to mention your crappy formating. and you do nothing but fudge and frankly I do not give a flying fiddlers #### what you think you are nothing but a paranoid f.ck who is nothing, knows nothing and keeps repeating the same old sh.t to the same old shitheads on rad get your head screwed on straight and get a life >> There's no question the way roads are funded is going to have to >> change. Fuel taxes have been poorly managed for DECADES, and haven't [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > projects. This doesn't change with tolls. Look at the IL tollway > authority. So now that you've pointed out all the problems, your solution is? .... >>> There's no question the way roads are funded is going to have to >>> change. Fuel taxes have been poorly managed for DECADES, and haven't [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > So now that you've pointed out all the problems, your solution is? .... The solution starts with stop rewarding government failure with more government. People need to realize that first otherwise anything else is pointless and tilting at windmills. >>>> There's no question the way roads are funded is going to have to >>>> change. Fuel taxes have been poorly managed for DECADES, and [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > government. People need to realize that first otherwise anything else > is pointless and tilting at windmills. And how do you propose to do that? What are the details of your proposal such that highway costs are appropriately apportioned to the users? Are you suggesting privatization? Tolls? >>>>> There's no question the way roads are funded is going to have to >>>>> change. Fuel taxes have been poorly managed for DECADES, and [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >Are you suggesting privatization? Tolls? Electronic tolling has made the cost of collecting tolls competitive with gasoline taxes and, in some ways, but not all, is more fair. So far, the only two examples of privatization (Chicago and Indiana) were examples of politicians trying to have their cake and eat it too by selling off capital assets to manage operating deficits. Chicago and Indiana politicians know they aren't collecting enough taxes to keep up with the spending they promised, but they didn't have the guts to either raise the taxes or cut the spending necessary to have a balanced budget. >>>>> There's no question the way roads are funded is going to have to >>>>> change. Fuel taxes have been poorly managed for DECADES, and [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > And how do you propose to do that? What are the details of your proposal > such that highway costs are appropriately apportioned to the users? > Are you suggesting privatization? Tolls? I see no need to repeat myself from prior threads where I've covered that. Suppose you tell me how giving the same people who have failed in the past, abused power and mismanaged money, more money and more power is going to solve anything? Furthermore, show that there is a problem with road funding levels as they are first. It's the funds for the roads that are in surplus and raided for other purposes. Gov. Quinn in IL just raided road funds of $200,000,000 to give college tution grants. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-quinn-map-presser-19-oct19,0,5428121.story "The road fund is at least one state fund that Gov. Pat Quinn said Sunday officials could borrow from to help restore about $200 million in grants for the neediest college students." http://www.wgil.com/localnews.php?xnewsaction=fullnews&newsarch=102009&newsid=408 "The state has a variety of funds that are set aside for special purposes, often funded with special taxes or fees, that in aggregate have a surplus of about $4.5 billion, the governor's office says. Quinn would not identify all the funds from which he would borrow, but he said the road fund is a likely source." >Furthermore, show that there is a problem with road funding levels as >they are first. I'd say there isn't one. My example of this would be right here in Georgia where there is an ongoing project to widen IH95 from the Florida line to the South Carolina line. It is being done with no increase in the gas tax (except for twice yearly adjustments tied to the price of gas), no public-private partnerships and *no tolls.* -- "I... Can't drive... FIFTY-FIVE!!" --Sammy Hagar On Oct 31, 4:20 pm, necromancer > On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:38:52 +0000 (UTC), Brent > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > -- big deal, 112 miles of interstate costs next to nothing >>>>>> There's no question the way roads are funded is going to have to >>>>>> change. Fuel taxes have been poorly managed for DECADES, and [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > they are first. It's the funds for the roads that are in surplus and > raided for other purposes. Funds for roads aren't in surplus. The most recent year data shows that user revenues only could cover about 78 percent of expenditures. That is typical from year to year: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2007/hf10.cfm Some money is spent on mass transit, and some on things like the leaking underground storage tank fund, but those are more than made up by payments transferred into roads highways from the General Funds at all levels. The end result, simply, is that highway user fees are currently not high enough to cover all the highway expenditures, and the problem is getting progressively worse. The problem in the future is that as cars get more energy efficient, even less money will be collected per vehicle-mile because of that alone, making the problem even worse without considering alternative fueled vehicles. On top of that, alternative fueled vehicles either pay no fuel taxes today, or only a very small amount. As they become more popular, and a greater proportion of the vehicle miles are driven by such vehicles, the amount of money collected from users will drop even more. That is the problem. Ever reducing revenue, and inequitable collection of user fees. The gasoline tax will be less and less useful as time passes. >>>>>>> There's no question the way roads are funded is going to have to >>>>>>> change. Fuel taxes have been poorly managed for DECADES, and [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > user revenues only could cover about 78 percent of expenditures. That is > typical from year to year: After the funds are raided for everything from college grants to parks to police checkpoints, yes the money is gone. Government accounting doesn't tell you that. > http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2007/hf10.cfm > Some money is spent on mass transit, and some on things like the leaking > underground storage tank fund, but those are more than made up by > payments transferred into roads highways from the General Funds at all > levels. You're playing the same game the feds play. They say the fuel taxes aren't keeping up when really they are. It's the heavy truck sales taxes that aren't. http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/26/2635.asp "The American Road and Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) crunched the numbers and found this assertion to be entirely untrue. In fiscal 2007, the US Treasury reported that a total of $29.4 billion was collected from the taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel. In 2008, the total figure grew by $185 million to $29.6 billion. Lower traffic volumes did cause gasoline tax revenue to drop $70 million, but this figure was more than offset by a $256 million increase in revenue from the tax on diesel, which is primarily paid by the commercial trucking industry. View revenue chart. These truckers, hit by tough economic times, cut expenses significantly. Sales of new rigs plunged in 2008. That caused a $2.4 billion drop in revenue from the 12 percent tax on the retail sales of trucks and trailers. An accounting change in the way kerosene and similar taxes were transferred ended up showed a paper loss of $722 million from the fund. Together these factors, which are unrelated to the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in 2008, accounted for the $3 billion drop in trust fund revenue." Also see: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/28/2899.asp http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/04/415.asp http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/27/2789.asp Of course the government wants a tracking system, so it misrepresents what is actually happening. > The end result, simply, is that highway user fees are currently not high > enough to cover all the highway expenditures, and the problem is getting > progressively worse. The funds have been diverted out of roads for decades now and has been getting worse each year. > The problem in the future is that as cars get more energy efficient, even > less money will be collected per vehicle-mile because of that alone, > making the problem even worse without considering alternative fueled > vehicles. Not an excuse for tracking everyone. Fuel consumption is still proportional to vehicle weight and distance driven no matter how the technology approves. > On top of that, alternative fueled vehicles either pay no fuel taxes > today, or only a very small amount. As they become more popular, and a > greater proportion of the vehicle miles are driven by such vehicles, the > amount of money collected from users will drop even more. Illinois sends collection agents to the homes of people that make their own bio fuel to collect taxes including very high 'bonds' to put up. To follow the law with such alternative fuel vehicles in IL means paying a lot more. Anyway, there is no reason why alternative fuels cannot be taxed. This is not an excuse to track everyone's driving. > That is the problem. Ever reducing revenue, and inequitable collection > of user fees. The gasoline tax will be less and less useful as time > passes. No it does not. The fundamental problem is inflation, caused by the expansion of the money supply by the federal reserve and the federal government. Government should solve this root cause problem of it's own making. Do you really want the political class and government employees to have access to where and when you drive? and I believe everything "the Newspaper" says just like I believe everything the lying liars at Fox News say it is nothing but crapola put out by the ATA, a notorious bunch of liars coming from someone like you that does not know what a stip is doesn't know the first thing about transportation programming and thinks the idiot truckers can do no wrong you gave yourself away quoting lying bastards at the newspaper trucks and idiot truckers are the biggest problem on the roads more of the idiots should go bust not nearly enough do >>>>>>>> There's no question the way roads are funded is going to have >>>>>>>> to change. Fuel taxes have been poorly managed for DECADES, and [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > to police checkpoints, yes the money is gone. Government accounting > doesn't tell you that. The summary sheet tells you exactly where the money is going. There is line item for non-highway use. There is also a line item for transfers in from the general fund. The problem is that while there is money diverted from the trusts, more money is coming in from the general funds that what is taken out. It's a bit of a shell game where government essentially borrow from the trust funds when they find themselves short of cash, to keep from going into deficit from year to year. However, even with the contributions from the general fund, the size of the trusts is shrinking, meaning that highways are not fully-funded by the users. There is no surplus, contrary to your suggestion above. >> http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2007/hf10.cfm > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > The funds have been diverted out of roads for decades now and has been > getting worse each year. You are still missing the fact that more money comes in from the general fund to support highway programs that is taken out for other uses. The user fees are not sufficient to support highway programs alone, and have been short for many years. At the moment only covering 78 percent of expenditures. That percentage is before the amounts diverted to other uses are taken into consideration. The problem is only going to get worse at time passes, when considering inflation, more fuel-efficient vehicles, and the greater use of alternate-fueled vehicles, unless the fee structure is changed. >> The problem in the future is that as cars get more energy efficient, >> even less money will be collected per vehicle-mile because of that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > proportional to vehicle weight and distance driven no matter how the > technology approves. That is completely wrong. In the first place, there are economies of scale with weight, otherwise a fully-loaded truck would only get about 1 mile a gallon to compare with a car that gets 25 mpg. Further, as the efficiency of engines improves, vehicles use less fuel. You can see that if you ever drive a performance car built in the 1960s. 8-11 mpg gets pretty expensive on longer trips. I'm not suggesting that you need to track everyone to change how people are charged for the use of roads, however, the proposals under the intelligent transportation initiatives now suggest that new cars will be equipped with transponders so they can be part of anti-collision or automatic guidance systems. Once those transponders are in place, they will be too attractive to avoid their use for vehicle tolling. Like it or not, it is the way the future will likely unfold. >> On top of that, alternative fueled vehicles either pay no fuel taxes >> today, or only a very small amount. As they become more popular, and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > paying a lot more. Anyway, there is no reason why alternative fuels > cannot be taxed. This is not an excuse to track everyone's driving. Just how do you tax electric vehicles that can plug into the power grid anywhere, or where the owners have their own solar arrays or wind power they can use to charge batteries? How do you tax someone who makes biodiesel out of vegetable oils they make themselves? At least today, gasoline is both difficult to make, and cheap enough from available sources that people aren't encouraged to seek alternatives, so it is relatively easy to both track motor fuels where they are made, and apply a simplistic tax. >> That is the problem. Ever reducing revenue, and inequitable >> collection of user fees. The gasoline tax will be less and less [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Do you really want the political class and government employees to > have access to where and when you drive? There will always be inflation, as the general economic theories suggest that a 2 to 3 percent inflation rate is healthy for any economy. The government can already follow where I drive through licence plate recognition on surveillance cameras, tracking of toll transponders, the use of my credit card when I fill up the gas tank, the GPS built into my cell phone. I don't really care. Further, just like there are taxes applied to my telephone calls without the government knowing specifically who I call, I expect that a toll system for taxing vehicle use based on GPS technology would be sufficiently isolated from the government that they would need a warrant to get more details from the system than simply the total miles driven each year. The courts have already ruled that the government can't apply a GPS tracker to my car to track my movements without a court order. >> much snipped > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >each year. The courts have already ruled that the government can't apply >a GPS tracker to my car to track my movements without a court order. If the phone company knows, the government can and will find out when it wants/needs to. Information once captured can be stored and monitored. Criminals take advantage of this with various mechanisms such as trojans for computers and receivers that can pick up the signal transmitted by your electronic car door opener (reported by the Chronicle Herald, the major provincial newspaper for Nova Scotia). Data mining is becoming more efficient. Given all of this, what are we willing to tolerate in terms of tolling and payment mechanisms? >>> much snipped >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Data mining is becoming more efficient. Given all of this, what are > we willing to tolerate in terms of tolling and payment mechanisms? All true. The questions are: how secure can such a system be made, and what alternatives are there? The status quo cannot be the answer if alternate energy sources for vehicles become widespread. Oregon has experimented with a system that simply records the total miles driven. Whenever the vehicle is refueled, the miles since the last fill are calculated, and a per-mile fee is charged by the gas pump as a highway use tax. (the fuel was tax-free) That experiment demonstrated that such a system could work. One way of using such a system while acknowledging the concern of those who don't want detailed tracking data kept, would be to only keep track of the total owed for the use of the road network on the car itself. Tariffs could be preprogrammed to take into account the time of day, perhaps routes traveled with a GPS receiver, and then it could apply appropriate tariffs to reflect traffic demand or the specific tolls on various roads. When the vehicle is refueled, a total charge is passed on for the use of the highway network, with no detailed data on where the car was operated. >>>> much snipped >>> [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > total charge is passed on for the use of the highway network, with no > detailed data on where the car was operated. And what happens if the devices malfunction? maybe logging you for much more miles driven than actual? can they be hacked? IMO,local roads should not have tolls. Once again,EVERYBODY benefits from roads.the food you eat gets delivered on those roads,fire and EMTs arrive on those roads to save your butts. trying to shift more of the costs to users,that will be the result of such tracking systems. Also,I'd like to remind folks that courts have ruled that the data in car's "black boxes" can be subpoenaed as evidence that can be used against you in a trial. With tracking data,they can find out where you've been.And gov't is notorious for MISusing colected data. witness BJ and Hillary Clinton's use of IRS data to go after their enemies. Then there's Obama's Enemies List.Witness his attacks against those who disagree with or oppose him,like Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin. We do NOT need more gov't intrusion into our lives. We need LESS government;THAT is the American Way,one of freedom. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com > >>> much snipped > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > for the use of the highway network, with no detailed data on where the > car was operated. they can please everyone. Just have a transponder with an option... either pay as you go (tolls) or when you gas up.. have the transponder tell the gas pump your VIN and it will automatically compute a default tax. and if you don't have a functioning transponder..then you get the default pump tax. Last time on rec.autos.driving, Larry G <gross.larry@gmail.com> said: >they can please everyone. Just have a transponder with an option... >either pay as you go (tolls) or when you gas up.. have the transponder >tell the gas pump your VIN and it will automatically compute a default >tax. It would please me more if they simply checked my odometer once a year (or when I buy or sell a car) and charge me based on my actual mileage. Simple, cheaper to implement, and completely lacking in Big Brother side effects. > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Larry G <gross.la...@gmail.com> said: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > mileage. Simple, cheaper to implement, and completely lacking in Big > Brother side effects. Except you have to pay for some "theys" to do the checking. That kinda eliminates mail-in or electronic registration renewals. Plus, it gives people a yearly big tax bill, instead of incremental weekly ones at the pump. Some "poor people" might not be able to afford a few hundred $ extra at registration time. And everyone gets the true hit of being taxed. That switches the blame from money- grubbing big oil to rapacious big govt. Still, I agree it would be a far simpler system to implement and administer. >> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Larry G <gross.la...@gmail.com> said: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Except you have to pay for some "theys" to do the checking. That > kinda eliminates mail-in or electronic registration renewals. The tracking systems are very expensive to set up and require a lot of people to be employed to keep them up and running. > Plus, it gives people a yearly big tax bill, instead of incremental > weekly ones at the pump. Some "poor people" might not be able to > afford a few hundred $ extra at registration time. And everyone gets > the true hit of being taxed. That switches the blame from money- > grubbing big oil to rapacious big govt. That's the real reason for inflation. So people blame price gouging companies instead of the government spending. > >> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Larry G <gross.la...@gmail.com> said: > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > That's the real reason for inflation. So people blame price gouging > companies instead of the government spending. I think the idea behind the gas tax and the sales tax is if people pay by the transaction rather than get one whopping bill every six months or a year that it will be easier to collect and will have less delinquency issues - which themselves add expense to the overall collection costs. Of course one much easier way to implement an increase would be to just allow the sales tax to be put on gasoline also. 5% would be a nickel per dollar... about 12 cents per gallon.. and it would be automatically indexed for inflation. but in the end - if there is no increase in the gas tax ... I think electronic tolls are going to be easier to do than taxing by the mile with GPS.... I just don't see that system every really becoming a reality because people do not want the gov to have a device in their car... or the perception of it... I would think if you forced people to choose between a gas tax at the pump and a device in your car that "reports" to the govt.. (in folks minds).. they're not going to accept the later option... > I think electronic tolls are going to be easier to do than taxing by > the mile with GPS.... I just don't see that system every really [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > pump and a device in your car that "reports" to the govt.. (in folks > minds).. they're not going to accept the later option... I would have thought the same, except there has been no uproar over the use of GPS in cell phones, data recorders have been added to car electrical systems without any major protest, and people seem to think that GM's OnStar is a decent system. People also use transponders for toll roads, rather than pay cash at the toll booths. It all depends on how the system is implemented. If GPS appears on cars as part of an anti-collision system, people may accept it as good for them. Using it for tolling could then be optional, just like the use of a transponder is optional. If most people accept the system, then it will considered a normal part of driving, just like a toll transponder. >> I think electronic tolls are going to be easier to do than taxing by >> the mile with GPS.... I just don't see that system every really [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > electrical systems without any major protest, and people seem to think > that GM's OnStar is a decent system. but GOVERNMENT is not TAXING you based on data from those systems. Gov't doesn't get to see data from those systems at all,except by court order. > People also use transponders for toll roads, rather than pay cash at > the toll booths. but they have a CHOICE about using them,and also the choice of taking non- toll roads. People -volunteer- for those transponders,to be registered in that system. > It all depends on how the system is implemented. If GPS appears on > cars as part of an anti-collision system, people may accept it as good > for them. Using it for tolling could then be optional, just like the > use of a transponder is optional. If most people accept the system, > then it will considered a normal part of driving, just like a toll > transponder. If most people accept totalitarianism,then it will be a "normal" part of life.... SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com >> I think electronic tolls are going to be easier to do than taxing by >> the mile with GPS.... I just don't see that system every really [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > People also use transponders for toll roads, rather than pay cash at the > toll booths. This has been said many times before, but your examples are VOLUNTARY uses of devices that you do not have to own, some of which can be turned off. Mandatory ubiquitous transponder tolling is a whole 'nother animal ... something that can easily track cars every inch of the way. SignatureScott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com Capital Beltway Projects http://www.capital-beltway.com Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com >>> I think electronic tolls are going to be easier to do than taxing by >>> the mile with GPS.... I just don't see that system every really [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > uses of devices that you do not have to own, some of which can be > turned off. Yes, you are correct for most of the systems, other than the vehicle data recorders, which are not optional, and can't be turned off. So you simply make the use of GPS-based tolling optional, with an extra-cost premium for those who choose other means. I just don't see people opting in large numbers to turn off GPS in their cell phones. Maybe drug dealers, or those extra paranoid sorts. I also don't see protests about the cashless toll roads that require either a transponder or vehicle license plate scans. Yes, you can choose not to drive on the road, but do you hear many people saying they won't because they don't want the government to know where they are driving? > Mandatory ubiquitous transponder tolling is a whole 'nother animal ... > something that can easily track cars every inch of the way. Don't make it mandatory, simply charge more for any other option. Like it or not, the general public is getting pretty tolerant of government monitoring of everything from emails to cell phone location to credit card use. When GPS-based tolling becomes a reality, I don't see much protest. TV shows like the CSI series that show the police making instant queries about the use of credit cards, who people call on the phone or send emails to, or matching everything like what courses people took in school to the cars they drive, who they dated, and memberships in social clubs or the military are very unrealistic, but they also give the impression that the government has much more access to data than they really do. They certainly don't seem to think warrants are necessary for those queries. The unfortunate part, from a privacy perspective, is that people think these shows represent reality, that these things are already happening, and there is nothing they can do about them. Frustrated lawyers mention the CSI factor in court cases, where juries just can't understand why crime labs aren't doing all sorts of DNA or computer tests, when they've seen them used to solve crimes on TV. The feeling is that the government can always find out what you are doing. That is why I believe that GPS tolling will not be met with the resistance you think might be there, and is essentially inevitable. > > This has been said many times before, but your examples are VOLUNTARY > > uses of devices that you do not have to own, some of which can be [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > simply make the use of GPS-based tolling optional, with an extra-cost > premium for those who choose other means. On the one hand (if the added cost is high) that is pretty similar to making it mandatory, on the other hand if you don't force people to do it then you are weakening any supposed 'benefit' that might be derived from the scheme. Given that the states collect most of the road use taxes, it would obviously be a state by state decision as to how to collect it in their state, and it would not be appropriate for one state to financially penalize motorists from another state that does not have that scheme. > I also > don't see protests about the cashless toll roads that require either a > transponder or vehicle license plate scans. Yes, you can choose not to > drive on the road, but do you hear many people saying they won't because > they don't want the government to know where they are driving? Driving through a toll plaza twice a day is not even remotely comparable to 'ubiquitous transponder tolling' where you can be tracked every inch of the way. > The feeling is that the government can always find out what you are > doing. Your scheme would have a computer database that would make the information very easy and very accessible to anyone who had access to the database. > That is why I believe that GPS tolling will not be met with the > resistance you think might be there, and is essentially inevitable.- Your posting history has included being an 'evangelist' for mandatory ubiquitous transponder tolling (MUTT), and that has included trying to build a sense of 'inevitably' for implementing this scheme. MUTT is a lousy idea, for privacy reasons as well as economic and practical reasons. The primacy of using fuel taxes should last at least 15 or 20 more years, and there are much better alternatives to MUTT, as it would be a lot cheaper and a lot less intrusive to bill by odometer mileage, with a periodic visual check (perhaps every 12 months, or 6, or 3), and it could be implemented in one stage and individually by state, as opposed to allowing 10 to 20 years for new vehicles with transponders gradually to replace older vehicles without transponders. -- Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com Capital Beltway Projects http://www.capital-beltway.com Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com > > > This has been said many times before, but your examples are VOLUNTARY > > > uses of devices that you do not have to own, some of which can be [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > vehicles with transponders gradually to replace older vehicles without > transponders. The fuel taxes might last for 20 more years but they are done as a reliable source of new construction money in many states, including Virginia. So the question is - how will major new roads get built? In Virginia, most folks don't realize that the gas tax only provides about 25% of the total funding - and a one cent increase on the gas tax will only provide about 50 million dollars. I'm not saying it's impossible for an increase in the gas tax to fund new construction - but I would put this in the same "speculation" category as consideration of tolling existing interstates. In Virginia - to raise 500 million a year in new money, you'd need a 10 cent increase in the gas tax. and I don't think the incoming administration even has that on their radar screen - while at the same time they have expressed interest in "creative" approaches INCLUDING tolling the existing interstates. I would also point this out: "Approval of Submission of a Value Pricing Grant Proposal to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to Study Public Acceptability of Pricing Major Roadways in the Washington Metropolitan Area" http://www.mwcog.org/uploads/committee-documents/bl5aXl5X20091015160258.pdf > The fuel taxes might last for 20 more years but they are done as a > reliable source of new construction money in many states, including [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > about 25% of the total funding - and a one cent increase on the gas > tax will only provide about 50 million dollars. Here in Illinois, 30% of gasoline tax and other 'user fees' are diverted to other uses. http://www.heartland.org/publications/budget%20tax/article/17038/Gas_Tax_Diversi ons_Cause_Road_Crisis_in_Illinois.html Yes, I know the article is four years old. But things haven't changed. Quinn just upped the diversions another $200 million. "The FY2004 diversion of $783 million amounted to nearly 30 percent of state user-fee revenues. In effect, that accounts for 13 cents of the 19-cent state gasoline tax, the report noted. Even with the decline in diversions in the FY2005 budget, they would represent 10 of every 19 cents." Also note: "None of the 6.25 percent state sales tax that motorists also pay at the pump goes to the highway fund, thus depriving the road system of any revenue increases that flow from record-high gasoline prices." Sales taxes have risen considerably in cook and some neighboring counties since the article was written. "Normally, the diversions go to departments that can arguably claim they should be compensated for highway-related costs, such as the State Police for patrolling highways, Central Management Services for administering the road fund, and the Secretary of State for license replacement. But just how much of the diversions ultimately are used for highway-related purposes has been a long-running debate in Illinois. For its part, TFIC did not contest the legitimacy of any particular diversion, focusing instead on the impact of the total amount diverted." The real joke is that there are other fees that pay for SoS operations and the state police are used to write tickets to help balance the state budget, so they too are paid for by motorists. >> In Virginia, most folks don't realize that the gas tax only provides >> about 25% of the total funding - and a one cent increase on the gas >> tax will only provide about 50 million dollars. The latter is true, but over 75% of the total funding comes from fuel taxes and vehicle registration fees and other road use taxes. > Here in Illinois, 30% of gasoline tax and other 'user fees' are diverted > to other uses. There are substantial diversions practically everywhere. SignatureScott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com Capital Beltway Projects http://www.capital-beltway.com Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com > "None of the 6.25 percent state sales tax that motorists also pay at the > pump goes to the highway fund, thus depriving the road system of any > revenue increases that flow from record-high gasoline prices." None of the sales tax I just paid for lunch today goes into the 'restaurant fund' because there isn't any such fund. A sales tax is not a user fee. >> "None of the 6.25 percent state sales tax that motorists also pay at the >> pump goes to the highway fund, thus depriving the road system of any >> revenue increases that flow from record-high gasoline prices." > > None of the sales tax I just paid for lunch today goes into the > 'restaurant fund' because there isn't any such fund. That's nice. Here's the breakdown if you had eaten your lunch in chicago: http://www.illinoisrestaurants.org/associations/2039/files/sales%20tax%20increas e%20flyer%207.1.08.pdf RTA = Transit. > A sales tax is not a user fee. Did anyone say it was? No. But often government likes to use semantics when 'sales' doesn't work, they change the word. Almost all of that gasoline has a particular use. Also not only is gasoline tax money diverted to transit so are sales taxes on the sale of gasoline used on the road. >> much snippped > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >vehicles with transponders gradually to replace older vehicles without >transponders. How would you handle the drivers that drive in multiple states, especially those whose driving normally isn't in the state of registration? Also how would you handle us furriners from Canada (I'm not a furriner, but my car is and for residency purposes I may as well be Canadian)? >> MUTT is a lousy idea, for privacy reasons as well as economic and >> practical reasons. The primacy of using fuel taxes should last at [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > not a furriner, but my car is and for residency purposes I may as well > be Canadian)? Unless federally driven, MUTT would not address any of those issues, and given that states historically collect most of the road use taxes, it is very unlikely that the states would completely give that over to the federal government. SignatureScott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com Capital Beltway Projects http://www.capital-beltway.com Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com Last time on rec.autos.driving, James Robinson <wascana@212.com> said: >> This has been said many times before, but your examples are VOLUNTARY >> uses of devices that you do not have to own, some of which can be >> turned off. > >Yes, you are correct for most of the systems, other than the vehicle data >recorders, which are not optional, and can't be turned off. Sure they can. The data recorders are generally part of the same module that controls the airbags in the car; you can either remove this module (which would disable your airbags) or rig the control module to self-destruct a few seconds after an airbag deployment. A small thermite charge, perhaps the size of a grain of rice, should be sufficient to render the flash in the airbag module useless to nosy investigators. >So you >simply make the use of GPS-based tolling optional, with an extra-cost >premium for those who choose other means. At least initially. Of course, the REAL plan is to wait until they reach some level of critical mass, and *then* make them mandatory. >I just don't see people opting in large numbers to turn off GPS in their >cell phones. Most people don't even know their cell phones *have* a GPS receiver, let alone how to disable it. >When GPS-based tolling becomes a reality, I don't see much protest. Sadly, you are correct. The vast majority of the sheeple out there won't make even a bleet of protest. They all blithely believe they have nothing to hide, so they don't care if Big Brother wants to bore himself by tracking their every move. > > I think electronic tolls are going to be easier to do than taxing by > > the mile with GPS.... I just don't see that system every really [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > transponder is optional. If most people accept the system, then it will > considered a normal part of driving, just like a toll transponder. I'm in the middle on this. I think part of all of this is that many people simple do not understand what the technology can do until they have an "aha" moment or it gets on one of those talk radio ...etc.. you're right.. most cars have something similar to airline black boxes in them - and that info can be obtained for a court case. you can turn off the GPS in your cell phone but people don't understand that as long as your cell phone is on ..it is "pinging" the towers.. that's how calls are routed to your phone no matter where you are... license plate pattern reading is fast reaching maturity - to the point where not only can it be used for tolling but, in fact, it is in use in police cars and even stationary locations .. just "looking" for plates that have been tagged in the database for police interest. Auto GPS have tracklogs inside of them.. and they can be subpoenaed. the technology is already here.. but all the different ways it can be used - is not yet fully appreciated and in the public consciousness. but a really simple implementation would be for your VIN and Odometer to wirelessly respond to a query at a service station - no GPS needed... You could disable it but then you'd get the default tax - which would be set higher so that you'd get a "discount" if you agreed to turn on the Vin/Odo broadcast. Your car and/or the pump could basically remind you. but still.. it's one thing for folks to know that the gov _could_ capture info about your travels.. ; it's quite another to know that they ARE in receipt of the data and if a law enforcement guy wants to do the required process (or not) he/she can take a look at your travels... there is a Blog called the Newpaper .. that you can bet would go high order over any proposal along these lines... in fact, they already have "...the report urged a mandate for all drivers to install GPS tracking devices that would report driving habits to roadside Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) scanning devices." http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/28/2899.asp once Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck do a show on this.. you can bet there's gonna be folks with pitch forks out and about. Last time on rec.autos.driving, James Robinson <wascana@212.com> said: >Larry G <gross.larry@gmail.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >People also use transponders for toll roads, rather than pay cash at the >toll booths. People also allow their insurance companies to track their driving habits in exchange for a potential discount. These people think "I've got nothing to hide; let anyone who wants to track my every (boring) move." It's really, REALLY difficult to pound any sense through that kind of stupidity. >It all depends on how the system is implemented. If GPS appears on cars as >part of an anti-collision system, people may accept it as good for them. >Using it for tolling could then be optional, just like the use of a >transponder is optional. If most people accept the system, then it will >considered a normal part of driving, just like a toll transponder. Yep, that's how it is sneaking into our lives. Slowly but surely the data is being used for purposes other than those originally intended. For example: * Toll transponder records were subpoenaed in a divorce case in IL * An On*Star-like device was used by a federal law enforcement agency to not only track the position of the suspects' vehicle but to surreptitiously eavesdrop on conversations taking place within * There have been multiple instances of On*Star calling owners of high-performance cars while those cars were performing high-G maneuvers on a racetrack. No airbag deployments occurred; the On*Star box simply "phoned home" when a certain G-force threshold had been exceeded * A rental car company on the East Coast charged one of its renters a huge fine because the GPS recorded the renter exceeding a speed limit set forth in the rental contract * A drunken man used the On*Star system in his car to call for a cab because he was too drunk to drive home. Instead of calling a cab, On*Star called the police, who came and arrested the man foe DUI. Apparently if your key so much as TOUCHES your ignition, as was the case when the man powered up his On*Star in Accessory mode, the police can arrest you and charge you with DUI. And these are just the examples from off the top of my head; no doubt there are MANY more. > Last time on rec.autos.driving, James Robinson <wasc...@212.com> said: > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > And these are just the examples from off the top of my head; no doubt > there are MANY more. by the time that most folks figure out how intrusive it _can be_, the the barn door will have been left open so long that there's nothing left in the barn. It's no longer an issue of preventing the collection of the info, it's about how it can be legally used (or not) but I'm not people will be convinced to go along with GPS mileage just because " they can already track you". > >> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Larry G <gross.la...@gmail.com> said: > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > That's the real reason for inflation. So people blame price gouging > companies instead of the government spending. half a trillion for the corrupt, criminal, useless military in fy 2010 a billion for roads to nowhere like corridor H Last time on rec.autos.driving, Gary V <gjvoshol@comcast.net> said: >> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Larry G <gross.la...@gmail.com> said: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Except you have to pay for some "theys" to do the checking. I'll pay no matter what. If they want to use a transponder, I'll pay to buy the equipment and I'll pay again for installation, and probably pay again for an annual inspection of said equipment (to make sure it hasn't been tampered with). >Plus, it gives people a yearly big tax bill, instead of incremental >weekly ones at the pump. Some "poor people" might not be able to >afford a few hundred $ extra at registration time. No doubt there will be a "level pay plan" available. :) >Still, I agree it would be a far simpler system to implement and >administer. If there's a better system of taxing road users that covers all the bases and is inherently fair, I'd love to hear it. > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Larry G <gross.la...@gmail.com> said: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > mileage. Simple, cheaper to implement, and completely lacking in Big > Brother side effects. but some would end up with a substantial bill... ever thought about how much a year worth of gas tax is? and I think this would lead to schemes to avoid paying the tax... selling it of state.. messing with the odometer, etc. > The problem is that while there is money diverted from the trusts, more > money is coming in from the general funds that what is taken out. It's a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the trusts is shrinking, meaning that highways are not fully-funded by > the users. There is no surplus, contrary to your suggestion above. You're talking about very local roads funded by property and other taxes. Also, many states like IL charge a sales tax on fuel which is 'general fund'. I suspect that this alone exceeds what goes to the very local roads funded by property and other local taxes. Often when the political power structure wants to raise taxes they claim there is no money for the roads. That's because it's what people care about. (other times are 'no money for police and fire departments) The first place the political power structure looks for money when they are running short are the road funds. >> Not an excuse for tracking everyone. Fuel consumption is still >> proportional to vehicle weight and distance driven no matter how the >> technology approves. > That is completely wrong. > In the first place, there are economies of scale with weight, otherwise a > fully-loaded truck would only get about 1 mile a gallon to compare with a > car that gets 25 mpg. That's meaningless. It's the wear and tear to the road surface which is exponentionally increases with vehicle weight. > Further, as the efficiency of engines improves, vehicles use less fuel. > You can see that if you ever drive a performance car built in the 1960s. > 8-11 mpg gets pretty expensive on longer trips. So what? Change the amount of tax per unit volume of fuel. > I'm not suggesting that you need to track everyone to change how people > are charged for the use of roads, however, the proposals under the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > will be too attractive to avoid their use for vehicle tolling. Like it > or not, it is the way the future will likely unfold. Once any such system is in place it will be attractive to abuse in all sorts of ways. Any promise not abuse it I consider about as solid as the part of the social security act regarding the use of the SS#. >>> On top of that, alternative fueled vehicles either pay no fuel taxes >>> today, or only a very small amount. As they become more popular, and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> paying a lot more. Anyway, there is no reason why alternative fuels >> cannot be taxed. This is not an excuse to track everyone's driving. > Just how do you tax electric vehicles that can plug into the power grid > anywhere, or where the owners have their own solar arrays or wind power > they can use to charge batteries? The number of people who can have wind power or solar generation without government permission are few and far between these days. At present technology levels the paypack time has got to be considerable. Anyway, a simple meter on the car that reported the amount energy used would be enough. No reason to track. > How do you tax someone who makes biodiesel out of vegetable oils they > make themselves? IL gladly sends revenue agents out to collect it. > At least today, gasoline is both difficult to make, and cheap enough from > available sources that people aren't encouraged to seek alternatives, so > it is relatively easy to both track motor fuels where they are made, and > apply a simplistic tax. Ethanol conversions are rather easy, yet most people don't do it because making your own ethanol isn't exactly the way most people want to spend their time. Bio diesel has been around for people's diesel cars for ages. Still they can get give-away used fry grease, so it has yet to get popular. Still more difficult than most people want to deal with. People just have better things to do than brew their own fuel. Now, if there are plans to tax the bejebus out of motorists, then it might become worth it for people to do. A tracking tax system would be a move to make prior to deciding to put putitive taxes on motorists. >> Do you really want the political class and government employees to >> have access to where and when you drive? > There will always be inflation, as the general economic theories suggest > that a 2 to 3 percent inflation rate is healthy for any economy. Healthy for the government, healthy for select interests. Not us. You have to remember where most economists get their pay checks. > The government can already follow where I drive through licence plate > recognition on surveillance cameras, tracking of toll transponders, the > use of my credit card when I fill up the gas tank, the GPS built into my > cell phone. I don't really care. Most of the existing covers very little in the US. You can also pay cash for fuel and where you buy fuel doesn't really tell anyone where you've gone inside the range of your vehicle. It's all rather poor for tracking people. You don't really care... gee. that's nice. Hope you never upset anyone with a government office or job. Some people can be very very petty and will do anything from ruin a person's day or their life for the most trivial reasons. > Further, just like there are taxes applied to my telephone calls without > the government knowing specifically who I call, I expect that a toll > system for taxing vehicle use based on GPS technology would be > sufficiently isolated from the government that they would need a warrant > to get more details from the system than simply the total miles driven > each year. Let's say they hire a contractor to take care of it for them. They'll do as they've done with the phone companies already. The NSA will have their own rooms that sift through the information. (it's not conspiracy theory, it's court record, http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/04/70619 ) Failing that level they'll just make the contractor hand over the information without warrant as they did with the phone companies. Meanwhile this is a very costly collection system. It will require a good sized increase in taxes just to pay for the collection of the tax. > The courts have already ruled that the government can't apply > a GPS tracker to my car to track my movements without a court order. They'll just make a law instead. >>>>> There's no question the way roads are funded is going to have to >>>>> change. Fuel taxes have been poorly managed for DECADES, and [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > proposal such that highway costs are appropriately apportioned to the > users? EVERYBODY benefits from the roads. Government's problem is that it spends too much on social projects and "big government". > Are you suggesting privatization? Tolls? SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com >>>> There's no question the way roads are funded is going to have to >>>> change. Fuel taxes have been poorly managed for DECADES, and haven't [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >government. People need to realize that first otherwise anything else is >pointless and tilting at windmills. But the gasoline tax and the construction of federally funded highways are an example of success that only began to fail when those responsible for collecting enough revenue to maintain it refused to keep taxes at an appropriate level to pay the expenses. The relatively small diversions certainly didn't help roads, but they were not the proximate cause of the problem. >>>>> There's no question the way roads are funded is going to have to >>>>> change. Fuel taxes have been poorly managed for DECADES, and haven't [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > certainly didn't help roads, but they were not the proximate cause of > the problem. The only reason federal road funds are down is because fewer heavy trucks have been sold because of the present economy. It was some hocus-pocus the government was doing as an excuse for tracking system type tolling. I've posted the cite for it previously. The info is on thenewspaper.com if someone wants to search it out again. >>> There's no question the way roads are funded is going to have to >>> change. Fuel taxes have been poorly managed for DECADES, and haven't [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > So now that you've pointed out all the problems, your solution is? .... Well,governments are exploring the GPS based "miles-driven" tax on your vehicles.Every registered vehicle will HAVE to have a GPS transponder that gets read periodically by some gov't entity so you can be taxed on the mileage. (in ADDITION to existing fuel and other taxes...,of course.) But electric vehicles/alternative fuel vehicles are not going to be any significant portion of vehicular traffic for quite some time. they just are not practical right now. No infrastructure for them,either. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com > Last time on rec.autos.driving, elmer <e@f.udd> said: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > simple timer will allow it to be charged late at night when demand is > lowest and supply is more than ample. Electric cars are useful because they are currently a small niche market compared to hybrids, gasoline, and diesel vehicles. But what if nearly *everyone* bought an electric car in the future? Everyone would be charging their cars when they arrive at work, when enough electric cars demand the installation of sufficient charging stations at workplaces. Everyone would likely be charging their cars when they get home from work, again, once enough electric cars demand the installation of sufficient charging stations in residential areas. Even if groups could stagger their charging intervals, say in cascading hours, there will always be a significant charging demand once enough electric cars exist and are used. Can the electric power grids keep up with that in the short term, in the long term? What is it going to cost the provider of these charging stations in non-residential areas, and how will the cost be defrayed by passing on some of it to the user of the charging station? How much more will it cost a person on their electric bill to charge their vehicle daily in addition to whatever their current electricity usage might be? [snip...] > Can the electric power grids keep up with that in the short term Do you remember 1974 and 1979? Do you think the Russians and Chinese are our friends? Do you think critical oil ports, refineries, oil fields and pipelines worldwide are secured against a suicide bomber or political maverick? > Last time on rec.autos.driving, elmer <e@f.udd> said: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > simple timer will allow it to be charged late at night when demand is > lowest and supply is more than ample. And then you have a car which is of no utility if you suddenly need to make a trip. You can delay "charging" an internal combustion engine vehicle because if the "battery", or rather tank, is low, you can fill it in almost zero time, but a real battery takes hours to charge. So people will want to charge them immediately. > >The joke is true. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Even if a grain of your hyperbole were true, a couple of solar panels > on the garage roof would solve the problem. Hmmm... What happens shortly after people get home from work. Something to do with the sun... > OBTW, if you're going to present a fallacious argument, you should at > least learn how to spell the word. LOL SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> > It takes the same amount of energy to move x vehicle regardless of that > form of energy. Absolute nonsense. Different sources of mechanical energy have various efficiencies in converting fuel to energy. Further, different fuel sources have varying costs in obtaining and distributing the fuel. For example, they say making ethanol uses more energy than it saves in gasoline. New technologies change the energy efficiency. Automobile engines are much more efficient than years ago. > If one tenth of the vehicles become electric and plug in to recharge, > after a long commute, on a hot August day, there is going to be a brown > out and possibly a collapse of the grid. As others correctly pointed out, electric cars would get charged late overnight when power consumption is much lower and there is idle generating and grid capacity. This will have no choice but to go nuclear to meet current electric demand, let alone new demands. Fossile fuels are finite, and far too much comes from places run by whack-job governments. >> It takes the same amount of energy to move x vehicle regardless of that >> form of energy. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > varying costs in obtaining and distributing the fuel. For example, > they say making ethanol uses more energy than it saves in gasoline. That is being said by those who promote the total exclusive use of fossil fuel. For instance, "Waste management" is powering homes and businesses simply by tapping the natural creation of ethanol from the landfills. > New technologies change the energy efficiency. Automobile engines are > much more efficient than years ago. In the 70's we were told to expect cars being produced that would obtain over 50mpg. Doing so, would cut down the demand of fossil fuel, which would cut down the demand on vehicles. Do ya really think the car makers are gonna cut their own throat? >> If one tenth of the vehicles become electric and plug in to recharge, >> after a long commute, on a hot August day, there is going to be a brown [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > demand, let alone new demands. Fossile fuels are finite, and far too > much comes from places run by whack-job governments. No. You produce power on a more local level. I see no reason why the city of Los Angeles can't produce all the power they need locally. If they had several power plants producing for a smaller area, they wouldn't have brown outs so frequently. The same principle used in the Hoover dam could be scaled down easily. As the water can be recycled, all you would need is a holding tank. The water simply passes over the turbine blades causing them to spin and generate the power. > On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:39:54 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > ???? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > power. > ??? Are you aware that about 1000 MW are used in the state of California to pump water? Are you aware that, except for the Owens Valley and local sources of water from the LA Basin's mountains, that all the rest of the drinking water for LA, San Diego other inland locations is pumped? You're talking nonsense; ever heard of the 2nd law of thermodynamics? FloydR >> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:39:54 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com >> wrote: ???? [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > FloydR "recycle" water for electric generation? talk about repealing the laws of physics. water turbines require water flow from a water source ABOVE the turbines,once the water is below the turbines,it has no remaining potential energy.WHERE does this guy think the water gets it's energy from???? geez,people should HAVE to take physics/science in high school. Or have schools dumbed that down to worthless,like much of the other fields? SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com > Different sources of mechanical energy have various efficiencies in > converting fuel to energy. Electrics and hybrids also have the possibility of recapturing some of their kinetic energy into the battery when they slow down, through "regenerative braking." This can be huge in urban driving, if the batteries and controllers are up to it. Conventional cars turn it into brake dust and heat. (I still think one of the great frontiers in electrics and plug hybrids encompasses delivery trucks and -- in perhaps the best example of stop-and-go driving cycles -- city buses. WIth standardized battery packs that you can shuck in and out with a forklift back at the barn, you could recharge off-peak and still keep the fleet going if regenerative braking alone wouldn't make it through the day. Plus, the operator gets free PR in the form of foot-high reflective lettering about how green they're being.) > This will have no choice but to go nuclear to meet current electric > demand, let alone new demands. Fossil fuels are finite, and far too > much comes from places run by whack-job governments. Electrics and plug hybrids also offer at least the possibility of being recharged from less polluting sources. Plus, even in a worst case in which the electricity is generated with a high environmental footprint, that source can be out in the boondocks somewhere -- not in a more or less enclosed valley, containing millions of people, underneath a temperature inversion. It is also easier to scrub or capture the emissions of a large point source than hundreds of thousands of small distributed sources. A partial solution to the potential grid impact of electrics and plug hybrids (in a choking on your own success ramp-up scenario) is smarter metering. Recharge at the right(er) time and pay less; recharge at peak times and pay more (with the option of disallowing it when need be). Some people call this rationing, to which my reply is that the current situation (no pun intended and not much of one achieved), in which you can use as much as you want whenever you want without penalty, might not last forever. Just another reminder of what a powerful (ibid.) motif population increase is. The population of the US has doubled, and that of the world has tripled, in approximately a Baby Boomer's life thus far, and the trend goes on. This has already changed a lot of aspects of how we live, and it will continue to do so... --Joe >(I still think one of the great frontiers in electrics and plug >hybrids encompasses delivery trucks and -- in perhaps the best [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >the day. Plus, the operator gets free PR in the form of foot-high >reflective lettering about how green they're being.) A city bus doesn't need PR; it's the transportation of last resort. They had all-electric buses in Philadelphia for a while (called "trackless trolleys"); they cost more to run than the ordinary diesel smoke-spewers. >A partial solution to the potential grid impact of electrics and plug >hybrids (in a choking on your own success ramp-up scenario) is >smarter metering. Recharge at the right(er) time and pay less; >recharge at peak times and pay more (with the option of disallowing it >when need be). Widespread use of electric cars makes them a peak of their own. And their slow recharging time means pretty much every charge will cover some part of peak hours, and further means that people will, if they want reliable transportation, need to charge whenever they get a chance, not just when rates are low. SignatureThe problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need. >Widespread use of electric cars makes them a peak of their own. And >their slow recharging time means pretty much every charge will cover >some part of peak hours, and further means that people will, if they >want reliable transportation, need to charge whenever they get a >chance, not just when rates are low. Before electric cars can work, more power generation is needed. Electric cars really can't work for anything but a minority of vehicles until fusion power generation becomes a reality. >>Widespread use of electric cars makes them a peak of their own. And >>their slow recharging time means pretty much every charge will cover [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >cars really can't work for anything but a minority of vehicles >until fusion power generation becomes a reality. Fusion's not a requirement. Total load of electric cars would be somewhere on the order of today's total residential load. That will require a lot of generation, transmission, and distribution, but technically it could all be done with coal. SignatureThe problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need. >>> Widespread use of electric cars makes them a peak of their own. And >>> their slow recharging time means pretty much every charge will cover [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > require a lot of generation, transmission, and distribution, but technically it > could all be done with coal. Or with proven technology, environmentally clean Nuclear power. If electric cars were ever to become anything but a rich man's toy. SignatureRequiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml >>>> Widespread use of electric cars makes them a peak of their own. And >>>> their slow recharging time means pretty much every charge will cover [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> require a lot of generation, transmission, and distribution, but technically it >> could all be done with coal. >Or with proven technology, environmentally clean Nuclear power. >If electric cars were ever to become anything but a rich man's toy. Wait till gas hits $100/gallon. Conservation and other power generation methods will take on a new meaning then. >>>>> Widespread use of electric cars makes them a peak of their own. And >>>>> their slow recharging time means pretty much every charge will cover [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >Wait till gas hits $100/gallon. Conservation and other power generation >methods will take on a new meaning then. When gas hits $100/gallon, electricity will hit $100/kWh, so the electric car won't help at all. SignatureThe problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need. >>>>>> Widespread use of electric cars makes them a peak of their own. And >>>>>> their slow recharging time means pretty much every charge will cover [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >>Wait till gas hits $100/gallon. Conservation and other power generation >>methods will take on a new meaning then. >When gas hits $100/gallon, electricity will hit $100/kWh, so the >electric car won't help at all. You are making an assumption that power can only be generated with fossil fuel. >>>>>>> Widespread use of electric cars makes them a peak of their own. And >>>>>>> their slow recharging time means pretty much every charge will cover [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >You are making an assumption that power can only be generated with fossil >fuel. No, I'm making a statement which is based on exactly the same knowledge and insight as yours about $100/gallon gasoline. As for power generation, there's lots of ways it can be done, but none which are adequate and environmentally correct. Capacity means photovoltaic and wind will never be more than bit players, and environmental concerns are a problem with the rest -- solar thermal, fossil, nuclear, hydro, tidal, or whatever else you can think of. (And environmentalists often oppose wind and photovoltaic,too). What this means is if you want to make power, you can't appease environmentalists, you have to beat them. SignatureThe problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need. >>>> Widespread use of electric cars makes them a peak of their own. And >>>> their slow recharging time means pretty much every charge will cover [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Or with proven technology, environmentally clean Nuclear power. Environmentally clean, except for the water used for cooling that is dumped back into the ocean as treated waste water? I don't think it's that environmentally clean after all. On Nov 5, 12:09 am, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." <dwrous...@nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote: > >> In article <slrnhf3cp1.bn9.aznoma...@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net>, > >>>> Widespread use of electric cars makes them a peak of their own. And [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > I don't think it's that environmentally clean after all. I have a Nuke about 10 miles from me that uses a lagoon to dissipate heat before it goes into a river - and neither the lagoon nor the river has any radioactive waste in it. My problem with the energy issue and people is that - we can't move forward on any front - because every front has opponents - and the opponents themselves won't support any approach .. they're often opposed to everything except those things that do not work. as a society we have a problem choosing when none of the choices are wonderful. there is no question though...most of us .. when we turn on a light switch.. we are polluting the air with mercury and responsible for mountain top removal...as right now coal is about 1/2 of our power ... and it's not clean at all... >>>>> Widespread use of electric cars makes them a peak of their own. And >>>>> their slow recharging time means pretty much every charge will cover [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > I don't think it's that environmentally clean after all. It is warmed (which has effects, some say good, some say bad), but it is clean in the usual sense. Compare to waste-water from photovoltaic cell manufacturer, or the damage done to bat and bird (and human) populations done by "wind farms". SignatureRequiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml > >>> In article <slrnhf3cp1.bn9.aznoma...@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net>, > >>>>> Widespread use of electric cars makes them a peak of their own. And [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Compare to waste-water from photovoltaic cell manufacturer, or the > damage done to bat and bird (and human) populations done by "wind farms". we lose more birds and bats to cats and auto than turbines - right? > >>Widespread use of electric cars makes them a peak of their own. And > >>their slow recharging time means pretty much every charge will cover [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > it > could all be done with coal. Which kind of defeats the purpose of using electric cars, doncha think? SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> >> >>Widespread use of electric cars makes them a peak of their own. And >> >>their slow recharging time means pretty much every charge will cover [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Which kind of defeats the purpose of using electric cars, doncha think? Well, if you're a believer in the perils of CO2, you can still come out better with an electric car run from a coal plant. If you believe the line about point sources being invariably easier to clean up than distributed sources, you definitely do better with an electric car run from a coal plant. SignatureThe problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need. On Nov 4, 4:35 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote: > In article <alangbaker-09F9E9.13200704112...@news.shawcable.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > distributed sources, you definitely do better with an electric car run > from a coal plant. natural-gas or propane hybrids are a possibility as well - and cleaner than coal. In article <5f0663a4-d23d-4056-bf9d-a2936dff7f75@u13g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, > On Nov 4, 4:35 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > natural-gas or propane hybrids are a possibility as well - and cleaner > than coal. The arguments for doing electric cars *at all* are that: 1. It will save the environment by reducing CO2 emissions. 2. It will slow down the use of fossil fuels. Both of those arguments are rendered irrelevant by getting the power to recharge electric cars from fossil fuels. SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> > >> >>Widespread use of electric cars makes them a peak of their own. And > >> >>their slow recharging time means pretty much every charge will cover [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > distributed sources, you definitely do better with an electric car run > from a coal plant. You think that overall CO2 output from a coal plant making electricity to power an electric car will be lower than for an IC vehicle of the same performance? LOL SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> >> >> >>Widespread use of electric cars makes them a peak of their own. And >> >> >>their slow recharging time means pretty much every charge will cover [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >> distributed sources, you definitely do better with an electric car run >> from a coal plant. >You think that overall CO2 output from a coal plant making electricity >to power an electric car will be lower than for an IC vehicle of the >same performance? It can be. There is more room for processing of the exhaust. >> You think that overall CO2 output from a coal plant making electricity >> to power an electric car will be lower than for an IC vehicle of the >> same performance? > > It can be. There is more room for processing of the exhaust. And then what? SignatureRequiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml > >> >> >>Widespread use of electric cars makes them a peak of their own. And > >> >> >>their slow recharging time means pretty much every charge will cover [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > It can be. There is more room for processing of the exhaust. I'm sorry, but let's see the proof... SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> >> >> >> >>Widespread use of electric cars makes them a peak of their own. And >> >> >> >>their slow recharging time means pretty much every charge will cover [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >> >> It can be. There is more room for processing of the exhaust. >I'm sorry, but let's see the proof... You need somebody to prove to you that you can put equipment on a power plant that isn't portable enough to go on a car? You're hopeless. > >> >> >> In article > >> >> >> <slrnhf3cp1.bn9.aznomad.3@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net>, [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > You need somebody to prove to you that you can put equipment on > a power plant that isn't portable enough to go on a car? I need *you* to show that such equipment exists *and* and that it is economically feasible *and* that it overcomes the losses inherent in transmitting that power. > You're hopeless. Ball's in your court, Sunshine. :-) SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> [tired, old, sandbox argument deleted] Please do the same or better yet, take it to email--no body care. > [tired, old, sandbox argument deleted] Then I'll replace it! > > I need *you* to show that such equipment exists *and* and that it is > > economically feasible *and* that it overcomes the losses inherent in > > transmitting that power. > Please do the same or better yet, take it to email--no body care. I'll take that as your admission that you don't actually know anything about the subject. SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> > I'll take that as your admission that you don't actually know anything > about the subject. Not any thing that will learn by have it repeated many times. I d0o know how to operate a kill file. I was under the mistaken impression that you had something interesting to read. > > I'll take that as your admission that you don't actually know anything > > about the subject. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I was under the mistaken impression that you had something interesting > to read. What a coincidence. I was under the mistaken impression that you could back up with you claimed... SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> >>You think that overall CO2 output from a coal plant making electricity >>to power an electric car will be lower than for an IC vehicle of the >>same performance? >It can be. There is more room for processing of the exhaust. Processing into what? There's enough room in a car to process the exhaust so that substantially only harmless gases are released. Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Politics is the art of looking for trouble, X against HTML mail | finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly / \ and postings | and applying the wrong remedies - Groucho Marx >>>You think that overall CO2 output from a coal plant making electricity >>>to power an electric car will be lower than for an IC vehicle of the >>>same performance? >>It can be. There is more room for processing of the exhaust. >Processing into what? Sludge that can be burried instead of vented into the atmosphere. Please look up the word "can". You don't seem to know what it means. >>> It can be. There is more room for processing of the exhaust. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Please look up the word "can". You don't seem to know what it means. What "can" you make sludge out of, given N2, CO2, and H20 as inputs? SignatureRequiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml >>>> It can be. There is more room for processing of the exhaust. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >> Please look up the word "can". You don't seem to know what it means. >What "can" you make sludge out of, given N2, CO2, and H20 as inputs? who the hell knows? The point was that you can do things on a power plant that you can't on an automobile. >>>>> It can be. There is more room for processing of the exhaust. >>>> Processing into what? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > who the hell knows? The point was that you can do things on a power > plant that you can't on an automobile. And did you wish to make a point with that jewel? SignatureRequiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml >>>>> It can be. There is more room for processing of the exhaust. >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >who the hell knows? The point was that you can do things on a power >plant that you can't on an automobile. The point is that you can't. There's nothing to be done for the N2 and the H20, and nothing, in practice, which can be done with the CO2 on a power plant. SignatureThe problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need. >>>>You think that overall CO2 output from a coal plant making >>>>electricity to power an electric car will be lower than for an >>>>IC vehicle of the same performance? >>>It can be. There is more room for processing of the exhaust. >>Processing into what? >Sludge that can be burried instead of vented into the atmosphere. How does one make a CO2 or N2 "sludge"? >Please look up the word "can". You don't seem to know what it means. You seem to think it means a realization of wishful thinking. Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Politics is the art of looking for trouble, X against HTML mail | finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly / \ and postings | and applying the wrong remedies - Groucho Marx >>>>>> Widespread use of electric cars makes them a peak of their own. And >>>>>> their slow recharging time means pretty much every charge will cover [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > LOL You forgot that it takes more power than is produced to change from energy form to another. The costs of batteries and or fuel cells,new power plants and on down the line means multiplied costs over what we spend today. The eco freaks don't care they want cars eliminated. if the major expenditure is for an electric car until they eliminate personal transportation that's good. This idea that we must all cut back and suffer and share in misery to fit the ideology of these people is idiotic. We are not righeous though, unless we are all sharing in misery. We are supposed to like the French, not wasting by water bathing, no evil air conditioning, and two cylinder cars the size of a bike with fuel 6.00 a gallon. >>>>> In article >>>>> <slrnhf3cp1.bn9.aznomad.3@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net>, AZ [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > evil air conditioning, and two cylinder cars the size of a bike with > fuel 6.00 a gallon. Well,Obama HAS said we need to lower our lifestyle,use less,etc. Thus his blocking nuclear power,attempting to eliminate(bankrupt is the term he used) coal-fired electric generation thru Cap-n-Trade,blocking new domestic oil/gas development. connect the dots and you see his agenda. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com >You forgot that it takes more power than is produced to change from >energy form to another. Charge efficiency for lithium-ion chemistries is over 99%. There's transmission, distribution, and conversion loss at the charger, but those are all (or at least can be) quite small as well. The big gain for electric cars is that converting from electrical to mechanical is high-efficiency, whereas converting from chemical to mechanical on a small scale is relatively low efficiency. Converting from chemical to mechanical at a power plant can be done higher efficiency than in a car, so there's your gain. But you still need to generate the power, get the power to the car, and once it is there, store it. Generating the power and getting it to the car is straightforward but an expensive (and politically difficult) upgrade to infrastructure. Storing it remains a basic science problem which has not yet been solved satisfactorily. SignatureThe problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need. >>You forgot that it takes more power than is produced to change from >>energy form to another. >Charge efficiency for lithium-ion chemistries is over 99%. There's That depends on how they are charge, the state of charge, the AGE of the cells and the temperature. Likely some other factors, but those are at the top of my head. You also need to look at recovery efficiency, which also drops as current density increases; on top of the same factors as for charging. >transmission, distribution, and conversion loss at the charger, but >those are all (or at least can be) quite small as well. The big gain [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >mechanical at a power plant can be done higher efficiency than in a >car, so there's your gain. So why do Tesla rate their maximum-power drivetrain efficiency around 80%? Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Politics is the art of looking for trouble, X against HTML mail | finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly / \ and postings | and applying the wrong remedies - Groucho Marx >>those are all (or at least can be) quite small as well. The big gain >>for electric cars is that converting from electrical to mechanical is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >So why do Tesla rate their maximum-power drivetrain efficiency >around 80%? Still higher than an ICE at somewhere in the 20-30% range. SignatureThe problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need. >>>those are all (or at least can be) quite small as well. The big gain >>>for electric cars is that converting from electrical to mechanical is >>>high-efficiency, whereas converting from chemical to mechanical on a >>>small scale is relatively low efficiency. Converting from chemical to >>>mechanical at a power plant can be done higher efficiency than in a >>>car, so there's your gain. >>So why do Tesla rate their maximum-power drivetrain efficiency >>around 80%? >Still higher than an ICE at somewhere in the 20-30% range. Drivetrain efficiency after the flywheel is around 90% in most transverse-engined FWD cars. If you're looking at total efficiency from primary energy, then keep in mind that a direct-injected, turbo-diesel has an overall thermal efficiency of around 40%. Fuel consumption for the smaller cars being around 4 l/100km and around 5 l/100km for the larger ones; running on similar tyres. [50 to 60 mp(US)g] The significant advantage is that it can accelerate very quickly to high speed; a few times. The significant advantages of the turbo-diesels are that they can maintain a high speed for a long time and "re-charge" in about 5 minutes; at a price 20% of the Tesla. Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Politics is the art of looking for trouble, X against HTML mail | finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly / \ and postings | and applying the wrong remedies - Groucho Marx On Nov 8, 10:50 pm, Bernd Felsche <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote: > >>>those are all (or at least can be) quite small as well. The big gain > >>>for electric cars is that converting from electrical to mechanical is [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > maintain a high speed for a long time and "re-charge" in about 5 > minutes; at a price 20% of the Tesla. the problem with this topic.. is that it often mixes up issues... Is the direct-injected diesel the most efficient of any of the other ICE engines including all the different fuel categories to include gasoline, natural gas and propane? Do the gas mileage data confirm this? If your point is that if you use the MOST EFFICIENT ice dualed with a hybrid electric motor is better than.. all other things being equal that same hybrid motor dualed with other less efficient ICE.. I've never seen this anywhere. do you have a cite for it? >> If you're looking at total efficiency from primary energy, then keep >> in mind that a direct-injected, turbo-diesel has an overall thermal >> efficiency of around 40%. =A0Fuel consumption for the smaller cars >> being around 4 l/100km and around 5 l/100km for the larger ones; >> running on similar tyres. [50 to 60 mp(US)g] >> The significant advantage is that it can accelerate very quickly to >> high speed; a few times. >> The significant advantages of the turbo-diesels are that they can >> maintain a high speed for a long time and "re-charge" in about 5 >> minutes; at a price 20% of the Tesla. >the problem with this topic.. is that it often mixes up issues... >Is the direct-injected diesel the most efficient of any of the other >ICE engines including all the different fuel categories to include >gasoline, natural gas and propane? That's a question that can't be answered with a yes/no. DI turbo-diesel is a compound heat engine with very high thermal efficiency because a lot of the heat from the exhaust gas is used to reduce the work necessary to run the engine. The diesel cycle engine has a relatively constant specific fuel consumption (g/kWh) over the typical load range. A spark-ignition engine's specific fuel consumption is much higher under part-load. Spark ignition engines require a narrow range of air-fuel ratio for combustion to occur; and an even narrower one for clean combustion. Diesel engines OTOH normally operate on very lean to lean mixtures, facilitating the burning of all the fuel (resulting in very low HC production). They do burn hotter because of that, but there are methods such as (cooled) EGR to reduce the NOx inevitably produced under those conditions. Spark-ignition engines are however encroaching on diesels by "cribbing". They firstly go to direct-injection which not only avoids all that messy manifold/valve wetting, but allows, when the designers choose, to operate pretty much like a spark-ignited diesel, even continuing to inject gasoline (and air!) after injection. It's obviously going to cost more to build (and manage) engines of such complexity. But those technologies are alreadyonthe production line; and not on some distant horizon. Promoting the use of new, more-efficient engines in conventionally-fuelled vehicles reduces the dependence on fossil fuels. Less fuel is required for a particular journey. Average fleet replacement is shorter than 20 years on average. Other quanta in fuel consumption reductions are in how the cars are being operated (20 to 30% - available next week, if you like) and improvements in road and traffic engineering resulting in reductions of between 5% and 50% (2 to 10 years to implement). >Do the gas mileage data confirm this? Yes. The passenger cars with lowest fuel consumption in any size bracket, where different engine options are available, end up with turbo-diesel having the best fuel consumption. See e.g. the range of VW Polo vehicles available in Germany. VW's "Blue Motion" vehicle models are equipped with effiency-optimised TDI engines and a few tweaks to the transmission, tyres and aerodynamics. The now-defunct VW Lupo 3L could consistently use less than 3 litre/100km in the hands of the public when in economy mode. But the car was expensive and more difficult to make; with special alloy panels, suspension components, etc. So it was something of a commercial flop. VW learnt its lesson and produced the "Blue Motion" series that are not very different at all to the "normal" cars. >If your point is that if you use the MOST EFFICIENT ice dualed with a Not my point. My point is that in the pragmatic, real world where a product has to be able to sell into a large market, that the electric or hybrid isn't needed to achieve the primary energy savings. Coupling the most-efficient ICE to a hybrid very often makes the ICE much less efficient because of the warmup cycling required. Either that or the ICE is too small and nearly always running, which sort of obviates the need for a hybrid system. The latter especially for a diesel-cycle engine which has little efficiency penalty for part-load operations. Carrying the hybrid components reduces overall vehicle efficiency. Car makers are playing with "soft-hybrid" technologies; usually combined with start-stop technology that kills the engine ASAP, then uses the "ordinary" car battery for initial propulsion while the engine is starting. Soft-bybrid tehnology is being aided by the introductionof more and more electrically-powered ancillaries (power steering, brake servos, coolant pumps and fans; even airconditioning compressors) which can continue to operate on battery power without needing the engine to turn. We will have to wait another half decade perhaps for the long-awaited 42V electrics to fall into production models. Still early days; after about 15 years. >hybrid electric motor is better than.. all other things being equal >that same hybrid motor dualed with other less efficient ICE.. I've >never seen this anywhere. Keep in mind that a hybrid will have more mass and complexity for the same task. The former means that it takes more energy to move the vehicle the same distance over the same time. The latter means that it'll cost more to buy and operate. Fuel-efficient vehicles can only have a substantial impact on the total primary energy needs if lots of people actually buy and use them. >do you have a cite for it? Which "it?" Would you like me to list the contents of my Engineering library alphabetically? It's very difficult for me to "cite" because anyone statement that I make could be condensed from what I have read and in 1 to 100 sources; approximately 70% in English and 25% in German. Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Politics is the art of looking for trouble, X against HTML mail | finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly / \ and postings | and applying the wrong remedies - Groucho Marx > Larry G <gross.larry@gmail.com> wrote: ... Stuff about exhaust gas cleanup and DI diesel clipped for brevity. Actually, "AZ Nomad" has a valid point about packaging and exhaust- gass cleanup. Packaging is a big part of designing and engineering autos. It's easier to package (and therefore cleanup) the necessary items in a Ford F15 than in a Focus. That's one reason that the EPA requires each powerplant to be individually certified in each auto model. And Bernd is overlooking the problems cleaning up the gasses from diesel engnes. I very recently bought a BMW 335d. As you probably know, diesel engines just last year came back to the US, due to problems 1) with availability of low-sulfer fuel, and 2) engineering the system to clean up the exhaust gasses (if you didn't know, Bernd, the US requires the same standards for diesel engines as for gasoline, wrt NOx, CO and HC.) For look-see at the packaging and stuff, see: http://www.bmwblog.com/2008/10/23/bmw-twin-turbo-30l-diesel-engine-cutaway/39808 8462_bhagv-x2-1/ FloydR >... Stuff about exhaust gas cleanup and DI diesel clipped for brevity. >Actually, "AZ Nomad" has a valid point about packaging and exhaust- >gass cleanup. Packaging is a big part of designing and engineering >autos. It's easier to package (and therefore cleanup) the necessary >items in a Ford F15 than in a Focus. That's one reason that the EPA >requires each powerplant to be individually certified in each auto model. Plenty of room for the stuff in my company Golf TDI. >And Bernd is overlooking the problems cleaning up the gasses from >diesel engnes. I very recently bought a BMW 335d. As you probably [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >up the exhaust gasses (if you didn't know, Bernd, the US requires the same >standards for diesel engines as for gasoline, wrt NOx, CO and HC.) I'm well aware of the tardiness of the US to supply low-sulphur fuels; an effective pre-requisite to low-emission transport. >For look-see at the packaging and stuff, see: >http://www.bmwblog.com/2008/10/23/bmw-twin-turbo-30l-diesel-engine-cutaway/39808 8462_bhagv-x2-1/ 3-litre, twin-turbo. Monster torque and power. Much more than is required by an average car. Probably a lot of fun. An a nice revenue-earner for speed-limited highways. Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Politics is the art of looking for trouble, X against HTML mail | finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly / \ and postings | and applying the wrong remedies - Groucho Marx >>>>those are all (or at least can be) quite small as well. The big gain >>>>for electric cars is that converting from electrical to mechanical is [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >If you're looking at total efficiency from primary energy Well, yeah; apples to apples and all that. >, then keep >in mind that a direct-injected, turbo-diesel has an overall thermal >efficiency of around 40%. But it's a diesel, and therefore automatically sucks. Every few years diesel fans will say the new diesels are nothing like the loud smokers of a few years before, and they'll sucker a few people in that way... until people realize the new diesels are just like the old ones. SignatureThe problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need. >>Drivetrain efficiency after the flywheel is around 90% in most >>transverse-engined FWD cars. >> >>If you're looking at total efficiency from primary energy >Well, yeah; apples to apples and all that. >>, then keep >>in mind that a direct-injected, turbo-diesel has an overall thermal >>efficiency of around 40%. >But it's a diesel, and therefore automatically sucks. Every few years >diesel fans will say the new diesels are nothing like the loud smokers >of a few years before, and they'll sucker a few people in that >way... until people realize the new diesels are just like the old >ones. Is that a sarcastic comment? If it isn't, then you have NFI. My company car is a 2005 Golf TDI. It GOES from 0 to 100 km/h in about 8 seconds and does 1000 km on a tankful (55 litres). The top speed, according to the manufacturer is over 210 km/h. My personal car is a 1990 Golf GTI. It does 0 to 100 km/h in about 10 seconds and goes about 600 km on 55 litres. Top speed is 180 km/h. The newer car is quicker and uses less fuel despite being 300 kg heavier. Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Politics is the art of looking for trouble, X against HTML mail | finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly / \ and postings | and applying the wrong remedies - Groucho Marx On Nov 11, 4:12 am, Bernd Felsche <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote: > >>Drivetrain efficiency after the flywheel is around 90% in most > >>transverse-engined FWD cars. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > The newer car is quicker and uses less fuel despite being 300 kg > heavier. Hey Bernd do they sell American cars in Perth? Toyotas? What are the more popular brands and models in Perth. How much is gasoline in Perth? thanks >do they sell American cars in Perth? Toyotas? What are the more >popular brands and models in Perth. They sell very few American cars. Unless you count (GM) Holden as Pontiac. <http://www.holden.com.au> Jeep and Chrysler have a tenuous grip. Ford (Australia) tried to introduce some forgettable models that did well in the USA, but the locally-designed ones were better-engineered, better-built, more suited to local conditions and cheaper. Korean (Hundai and Kia) are popular because they're cheap. Ford sells the locally-engineered "Falcon" which is considered a large car <http://www.ford.com.au> . But they also sell Focus and Fiesta. Toyota, Subaru and Honda have a presence. Toyota is a significant player. But a lot of their imported cars actually come from China. Renault-Nissan and Mazda (Ford) are being challenged by growing market share of VW. >How much is gasoline in Perth? Check for yourself: <http://www.fuelwatch.wa.gov.au/prices/dsp_search.cfm?search=Quick> Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Politics is the art of looking for trouble, X against HTML mail | finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly / \ and postings | and applying the wrong remedies - Groucho Marx On Nov 11, 9:45 pm, Bernd Felsche <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote: > >do they sell American cars in Perth? Toyotas? What are the more > >popular brands and models in Perth. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Check for yourself: > <http://www.fuelwatch.wa.gov.au/prices/dsp_search.cfm?search=Quick> I don't see Perth on the pull down.. so what region is Perth in? What do folks who live in Perth do for giggles and grins? >On Nov 11, 9:45=A0pm, Bernd Felsche <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> >wrote: >> >do they sell American cars in Perth? Toyotas? What are the more >> >popular brands and models in Perth. >> >How much is gasoline in Perth? >> >> Check for yourself: >> <http://www.fuelwatch.wa.gov.au/prices/dsp_search.cfm?search=3DQuick> >I don't see Perth on the pull down.. so what region is Perth in? Perth is, technicalty speaking, a tiny locality with about 5000 residents; or colloquially the whole metropolitan area of over a million. >What do folks who live in Perth do for giggles and grins? Laugh at ignorant Americans. :-) Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Politics is the art of looking for trouble, X against HTML mail | finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly / \ and postings | and applying the wrong remedies - Groucho Marx Bernd Felsche <berfel@innovative.iinet.net.au> had written: | >On Nov 11, 9:45=A0pm, Bernd Felsche <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> | >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] | | >I don't see Perth on the pull down.. so what region is Perth in? Try "South of River". A suburb name would do you better, though. "Suburb" in Australia sort of, but doesn't quite, mean what it does in the Estados Unidos. | Perth is, technicalty speaking, a tiny locality with about 5000 | residents; or colloquially the whole metropolitan area of over a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | | Laugh at ignorant Americans. :-) I thought it was "drink at the Subiaco Hotel" (which was a nice thing to do for my birthday several months ago when I was traveling in Australia). SignatureMark Roberts - E-Mail address is valid but I don't use Google Groups If you quote, please quote only relevant passages and not the whole article. >Bernd Felsche <berfel@innovative.iinet.net.au> had written: >> >On Nov 11, 9:45=A0pm, Bernd Felsche <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> >> >wrote: >> >> >do they sell American cars in Perth? Toyotas? What are the more >> >> >popular brands and models in Perth. >> >> >How much is gasoline in Perth? >> >> >> >> Check for yourself: >> >> <http://www.fuelwatch.wa.gov.au/prices/dsp_search.cfm?search=3DQuick> >> >> >I don't see Perth on the pull down.. so what region is Perth in? >Try "South of River". A suburb name would do you better, though. Just the defaults also works. Something to keep in mind that the fuel Octane sold is RON; not pump-octane (IIRC, the average of RON and MON) as may be found in the USA. ULP is 91RON, PULP is 95RON. >"Suburb" in Australia sort of, but doesn't quite, mean what it does >in the Estados Unidos. A Suburb is an arbitrary area defined by invisible boundaries to split up the vast dormitory that is the Perth metro. area. The metro area stretches about 70km North and South; 10 km to the coast and up to 20 km inland from the CBD. Populatrionis quite low; fewer than 2 million suckers. >> Perth is, technicalty speaking, a tiny locality with about 5000 >> residents; or colloquially the whole metropolitan area of over a >> million. >> >What do folks who live in Perth do for giggles and grins? >> Laugh at ignorant Americans. :-) >I thought it was "drink at the Subiaco Hotel" (which was a nice >thing to do for my birthday several months ago when I was traveling >in Australia). Did you adjust your birthday for the timezone? :-) Subiaco is something of a Wankersville nowadays. Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Politics is the art of looking for trouble, X against HTML mail | finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly / \ and postings | and applying the wrong remedies - Groucho Marx On Nov 11, 9:45 pm, Bernd Felsche <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote: > >do they sell American cars in Perth? Toyotas? What are the more > >popular brands and models in Perth. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > >How much is gasoline in Perth? looks like it's more than a buck a liter... how much of that is tax? are the roads in Australia financed the same way they are in the US - primarily from the tax on gasoline? >On Nov 11, 9:45=A0pm, Bernd Felsche <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> >wrote: >> >do they sell American cars in Perth? Toyotas? What are the more >> >popular brands and models in Perth. >> Renault-Nissan and Mazda (Ford) are being challenged by growing >> market share of VW. >> >How much is gasoline in Perth? >looks like it's more than a buck a liter... >how much of that is tax? Something like AUD$0.58 per litre as fuel excise; plus 10% GST (Good and Services Tax) on the retail price. >are the roads in Australia financed the same way they are in the US - >primarily from the tax on gasoline? I wish! Out of general revenue. Either State or Federal. In the larger Australian cities (Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane) some of the roads, bridges and tunnels are privately-funded tollways. Not that there's much benefit in using them at peak hour in terms of saving time; unless your time is worth more than $120/hour. My last few times in Sydney, they would have save 4 minutes out of 45; but cost about $5 all the while, waving a rubber chicken at the windshield... so that the electronic tag gets read. It's not uncommon for the tollways to become wedged more severely than other routes. TOLL is a four-letter word. Public transport (buses, trains, ferries) are set up by State governments, but their detail design, construction, operation is contracted out to private operators in most States. Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Politics is the art of looking for trouble, X against HTML mail | finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly / \ and postings | and applying the wrong remedies - Groucho Marx > The eco freaks don't care they want cars eliminated. if the > major expenditure is for an electric car until they eliminate personal > transportation that's good. You seem awfully worried about an extremely tiny segment of the population that no one takes seriously. >> The eco freaks don't care they want cars eliminated. if the >> major expenditure is for an electric car until they eliminate personal >> transportation that's good. > > You seem awfully worried about an extremely tiny segment of the > population that no one takes seriously. Unfortunately, the bastards control Congress and the White House and will use them to destroy the engine of the world's economy unless they're stopped NOW. >>> The eco freaks don't care they want cars eliminated. if the >>> major expenditure is for an electric car until they eliminate personal >>> transportation that's good. >> >> You seem awfully worried about an extremely tiny segment of the >> population that no one takes seriously. >Unfortunately, the bastards control Congress and the White House and will >use them to destroy the engine of the world's economy unless they're >stopped NOW. paranoid idiot. On Nov 10, 12:39 pm, John David Galt <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote: > > You seem awfully worried about an extremely tiny segment of the > > population that no one takes seriously. > > Unfortunately, the bastards control Congress and the White House and will > use them to destroy the engine of the world's economy unless they're > stopped NOW. Let's take a closer look at this: Since those "SOB's" took over the Federal govt a year ago, the vast majority of expenditures continue to be for roads, just as they've always been. Future proposals are for _roads_. Likewise in all 50 states. Go to any state Hgwy Dept website and you'll see plenty of expensive road repair and expansion projects. The evidence strongly suggests your fears are groundless. Once again, the "anti-car" folks, who want to take your car away, are an extremely tiny segment of the population and no one takes them seriously. > On Nov 10, 12:39 pm, John David Galt <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > states. Go to any state Hgwy Dept website and you'll see plenty of > expensive road repair and expansion projects. Yes but a whole lot more of that money is now coming from general revenues and not road use taxes. That's because there is a basic problem with the road use taxes in that it promotes inefficiency. When cars become more efficient and people decide to drive less (either because gas goes up or they're just tired of it) then the whole transportation system finds itself on shaky ground. So the whole system attempts to move towards inefficiency as means of survival. This is clearly not sustainable. It aint the 60's anymore - where large quantities of fuel are consumed by inefficient cars producing huge amounts of revenue for road construction. The whole idea of road use taxes was conceived by the oil companies. It is really a brilliant concept if you think about it. It commits the entire nation to consuming as much petroleum as possible. Kinda like green stamps you buy so much gas you get a bonus new free road to drive on. The politicians and auto makers have a huge incentive to block any efforts to create fuel efficiency because that's what pays for the infrastructure. And it its important to give the dimwits the idea that cars are paying there own way so that no revenues are diverted to any competing technologies. That strategy has worked for 50 years but is now falling apart. The federal road use taxes have lately had a significant shortfall of revenue due to people buying less fuel. This is the beginning of a downward spiral. Since poorly maintained roads will only lead to less driving and thus less revenue and more poorly maintained roads. At some point the cost of driving has to increase significantly to meet the cost of roads, but that too will decrease the amount of driving. -jim > The evidence strongly suggests your fears are groundless. > > Once again, the "anti-car" folks, who want to take your car away, are > an extremely tiny segment of the population and no one takes them > seriously. >> On Nov 10, 12:39 pm, John David Galt <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > The whole idea of road use taxes was conceived by the oil > companies. would that be the "evil oil companies"???? > It is > really a brilliant concept if you think about it. It commits the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > -jim yeah,government has always been the path to better efficiency...... [sarcasm mode off] IMO,this "jim" is a communist. >> The evidence strongly suggests your fears are groundless. >> >> Once again, the "anti-car" folks, who want to take your car away, are >> an extremely tiny segment of the population and no one takes them >> seriously. Obama has said he'd like gas prices to climb to $10/gal,but -slowly-. So the economy doesn't take a dive and people don't realize they're lowering their standard of living. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com > Obama has said he'd like gas prices to climb to $10/gal,but -slowly-. > > So the economy doesn't take a dive and people don't realize they're > lowering their standard of living. Not hard to see why there is no chance there ever will be an honest politician. All any politician has to do to get your vote is to declare that gas will be cheap forever. -jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Oh I'm bound to go where there ain't no snow Where the rain don't fall, the wind don't blow In the Big Rock Candy Mountains Oh the buzzin' of the bees in the cigarette trees near the soda water fountain, At the lemonade springs where the bluebird sings on the Big Rock Candy Mountains >> Well, if you're a believer in the perils of CO2, you can still come >> out better with an electric car run from a coal plant. If you believe [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >to power an electric car will be lower than for an IC vehicle of the >same performance? Yes, in fact. I ran the numbers a while back (based on figures for the Tesla roadster) and got somewhere around half the CO2 for the electric car fueled by coal. SignatureThe problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need. >>> Well, if you're a believer in the perils of CO2, you can still come >>> out better with an electric car run from a coal plant. If you believe [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>to power an electric car will be lower than for an IC vehicle of the >>same performance? >Yes, in fact. I ran the numbers a while back (based on figures for >the Tesla roadster) and got somewhere around half the CO2 for the >electric car fueled by coal. Tell us what other assumptions you used. Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Politics is the art of looking for trouble, X against HTML mail | finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly / \ and postings | and applying the wrong remedies - Groucho Marx >>>> Well, if you're a believer in the perils of CO2, you can still come >>>> out better with an electric car run from a coal plant. If you believe [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Tell us what other assumptions you used. I wish I could find my original post. Basically, the Tesla ran on electricity all from coal, with average (US DOE figures) CO2 output per BTU and transmission/distribution loss (10%, IIRC). I used Tesla's miles per charge numbers (which were higher then) and charge time and amperage. The gas car got 30mpg. SignatureThe problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need. > >> Well, if you're a believer in the perils of CO2, you can still come > >> out better with an electric car run from a coal plant. If you believe [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the Tesla roadster) and got somewhere around half the CO2 for the > electric car fueled by coal. What did you compare it against? SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> > In article <_bGdnfGf0b7daWnXnZ2dnUVZ_tCdn...@speakeasy.net>, > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > What did you compare it against? this is one of those areas where there is a study that will back up virtually any point of view. one of the problems with comparisons are discussions like this: " The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency found that if Minnesota's fleet of vehicles making lengthy trips were replaced by plug-in hybrids, CO2 emissions per vehicle would likely decrease. However, unless more than 40% of the electricity used to charge the vehicles were to come from non-polluting sources, replacing the vehicles with non plug-in hybrids would engender a larger decrease in CO2 emissions. [137] Plug-in hybrids use less fuel in all cases, and produce much less carbon dioxide in short commuter trips, which is how most vehicles are used. The difference is such that overall carbon emissions would decrease if all internal combustion vehicles were converted to plug-ins.[138]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plug-in_hybrid#Greenhouse_gas_emissions but then if you want to get another view: " It turns out that plug-ins always result in lower emissions than conventional cars do, and they beat regular hybrids handily--except when the electricity comes from coal (the source of 43 percent of U.S. electricity), according to a study. But as gasoline comes from dirtier oil sources, such as tar sands, plug-ins may win even when powered indirectly by coal, one study author says." http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/20213/?a=f and here's a nifty chart that says the same thing graphically: http://gas2.org/2008/04/28/coal-power-cant-stop-plug-in-hybrids-from-beating-nor mal-cars/ so what is the "take away" for all of this? my view is this. We can produce electricity from a variety of sources including renewables and natural gas and it's likely that we'll find ways to burn coal more cleanly and more efficiently but the battery problem needs a technological breakthrough to be able to have PHEVs compete against the more traditional hybrids. People are not going to pay 5 or 10K more for a PHEV in my view and certainly not the 40K for a Volt or 100K for a Telsa... those cars will become niche cars...not mainstream mom/pop/kids cars. but at the end of the day - the gas tax is going to be foobar... for sure... and if you look at the current revenue generating ability of the gas tax in most states - it's enough to pay for maintenance and operations and not much else. so unless there are changes.. many major new roads are going to be toll roads. >> Different sources of mechanical energy have various efficiencies in >> converting fuel to energy. =A0 >Electrics and hybrids also have the possibility of recapturing some of >their kinetic energy into the battery when they slow down, through >"regenerative braking." This can be huge in urban driving, if the >batteries and controllers are up to it. Conventional cars turn it >into brake dust and heat. Most batteries aren't. The power requirements are enormous. Full braking is simply out of the question for conversion into electrical energy to charge batteries. Supercaps can capture about half of the charge, but the management of those as another complexity in the car adds signoificant costs for not very much benefit. >> This will have no choice but to go nuclear to meet current electric >> demand, let alone new demands. =A0Fossil fuels are finite, and far too >> much comes from places run by whack-job governments. >Electrics and plug hybrids also offer at least the possibility of >being recharged from less polluting sources. Plus, even in a worst [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >capture the emissions of a large point source than hundreds of >thousands of small distributed sources. Exhausts from modern cars are clean. There are no real pollutants coming out of the tailpipe; it's just H2O, CO2 and N2. And although thermodynamic efficiency can increase with the size of plant (because of larger heat exchange surfaces), the ability to scrub doesn't. >The population of the US has doubled, and that of the world has >tripled, in approximately a Baby Boomer's life thus far, and the trend >goes on. This has already changed a lot of aspects of how we live, >and it will continue to do so... Underlying population growth in first-world countires is negative; before taking immigration into account. Education is the best contraceptive. Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Politics is the art of looking for trouble, X against HTML mail | finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly / \ and postings | and applying the wrong remedies - Groucho Marx On Nov 9, 12:13 pm, Bernd Felsche <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote: > Exhausts from modern cars are clean. There are no real pollutants > coming out of the tailpipe; it's just H2O, CO2 and N2. Sure. You go stand at the curb or median of a busy highway and breath deeply and then tell me there's "no real pollutants". Are you willing to run your car in the garage with the door closed? I hope not. Cars are cleaner than they used to be, but they still are very dirty. We have more cars than ever and drive more than ever, so the gains in cleaner cars are outweighed by the huge increase in total miles driven. That so many suburban roads are congested does not help matters either. The future of electric power will be nuclear, not fossile, which is a heck of a lot cleaner. Even if coal is used, power plants (1) burn the coal at extremely high temperatures which consumes more of it and (2) has massive scrubbers to clean out the junk of it. > And although thermodynamic efficiency can increase with the size of > plant (because of larger heat exchange surfaces), the ability to > scrub doesn't. Sure it does. You have the advantage of economies of scale and a central site. You simply can't put that hardware on a personal vehicle. >> Exhausts from modern cars are clean. There are no real pollutants >> coming out of the tailpipe; it's just H2O, CO2 and N2. >Sure. You go stand at the curb or median of a busy highway and breath >deeply and then tell me there's "no real pollutants". I've done that. In big cities like Düsseldorf, Berlin, Munich, Cologne, London, Sydney, Melbourne and smaller ones such as Bochum, Kempten, Nuremberg, Perth (Western Australia), Adelaide ... and the air is tangibly cleaner than what it was in the 1980's and early 1990's. It is NOT a problem. The air is getting cleaner because, to all practical purposes, it's just H2O, CO2 and N2 coming out of the tailpipe. Well; except for the stinking, smoking buses in London that have two-thirds of the roads allocated to them now. >Are you willing to run your car in the garage with the door closed? >I hope not. I have ventilation in the garage, other than the door. But my garage also doesn't have plants growing in it? Does yours? >Cars are cleaner than they used to be, but they still are very dirty. "very dirty" in what respect? What MEASURES? Quantities and components? >We have more cars than ever and drive more than ever, so the gains in >cleaner cars are outweighed by the huge increase in total miles >driven. That so many suburban roads are congested does not help >matters either. What's driving people to more car use is that public transport systems are inadequate, especially as cities grow, with sprawling suburbs. The additional car use by the people living there isn't without cost ... but the people make their own choice to live that way. >The future of electric power will be nuclear, not fossile, which is a >heck of a lot cleaner. Nuclear? Where are the new nuclear plants? Wouldn't one need a lot of them before being able to sell electric cars? >Even if coal is used, power plants (1) burn the coal at extremely high >temperatures which consumes more of it and (2) has massive scrubbers >to clean out the junk of it. "extremely high temperatures" like what? You seem to be using superlatives when you have no idea of the technology. >> And although thermodynamic efficiency can increase with the size >> of plant (because of larger heat exchange surfaces), the ability >> to scrub doesn't. >Sure it does. You have the advantage of economies of scale and a >central site. You simply can't put that hardware on a personal >vehicle. Anything to quantify the economy of scale? Keeping in mind that the electricity distribution network will need to be upgraded for a baseload more than double what is provided now, and a peak capacity probably 5 times greater; for rapid-charging - which everybody will choose. Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Politics is the art of looking for trouble, X against HTML mail | finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly / \ and postings | and applying the wrong remedies - Groucho Marx On Nov 11, 9:18 pm, Bernd Felsche <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote: > >Sure. You go stand at the curb or median of a busy highway and breath > >deeply and then tell me there's "no real pollutants". [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > air is tangibly cleaner than what it was in the 1980's and early > 1990's. Try doing that in the U.S. > It is NOT a problem. The air is getting cleaner because, to all > practical purposes, it's just H2O, CO2 and N2 coming out of the > tailpipe. Well; except for the stinking, smoking buses in London > that have two-thirds of the roads allocated to them now. Plenty of soot and carbon monoxide come out as well. > What's driving people to more car use is that public transport > systems are inadequate, especially as cities grow, with sprawling > suburbs. The additional car use by the people living there isn't > without cost ... but the people make their own choice to live that > way. People usually do NOT have a choice about where they live; they go where they can afford to be; and close as possible to their job, schools, and other factors. Due to affordability, many people can't live where they want to. > >The future of electric power will be nuclear, not fossile, which is a > >heck of a lot cleaner. > > Nuclear? Where are the new nuclear plants? > Wouldn't one need a lot of them before being able to sell electric > cars? Nuclear plants and an expanded power grid are coming, regardless of electric cars. The peak power consumption is daytime, 9-5. Once the work day ends, the network has extra capacity that could be used for charging batteries. > >Even if coal is used, power plants (1) burn the coal at extremely high > >temperatures which consumes more of it and (2) has massive scrubbers [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You seem to be using superlatives when you have no idea of the > technology. So you're telling me the combustion process of a single automobile engine is more efficient than a stationary power plant? That would be wrong. If you ever visited a fossile fuel power plant, you'd see the massive infrastructure--too big for an automobile--that maximizes power from fuel. > Anything to quantify the economy of scale? Keeping in mind that the > electricity distribution network will need to be upgraded for a > baseload more than double what is provided now, and a peak capacity > probably 5 times greater; for rapid-charging - which everybody will > choose. The electric network must be upgraded anyway to meet future needs and new policies. Charging will occur during offpeak hours, not peak hours. Are you aware of the huge savings in power costs by offpeak customers? Overnight power is several times cheaper than daytime peak power. > On Nov 11, 9:18 pm, Bernd Felsche <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > customers? Overnight power is several times cheaper than daytime peak > power. You forget the mining and transportation of coal to the plant. you forget the disposal of toxic and somewhat radioactive residues as part of the costs. There are other items to be added to the costs. You forget the loses of energy in transforming the coal to a watt at the meter. > hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > You forget the mining and transportation of coal to the plant. you > forget the disposal of toxic and somewhat radioactive residues as part > of the costs. There are other items to be added to the costs. You forget > the loses of energy in transforming the coal to a watt at the meter. All fuels of such costs. Gasoline has to be delivered to individual gas stations and they have their environmental problems and costs. Some gasoline refiners got hit with heavy fines for poisioning the local water supply. While gasoline safety is very good, from time to time there are nasty accidents involving cars' gas tanks, gasoline stations, or other parts of the supply chain. It's not good when a gasoline tank trunk is involved in a highway accident. Coal at least is produced in the U.S. where as oil must be imported. Importing oil hurts the US' balance of trade and subsidizes hostile governments. The supply is vulnerable to disruption by weather and war. Because nuclear fuel delivers so much more energy per weight than coal, it saves considerable costs. >> hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >> You forget the mining and transportation of coal to the plant. you >> forget the disposal of toxic and somewhat radioactive residues as part >> of the costs. There are other items to be added to the costs. You forget >> the loses of energy in transforming the coal to a watt at the meter. >All fuels of such costs. Gasoline has to be delivered to individual >gas stations and they have their environmental problems and costs. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >stations, or other parts of the supply chain. It's not good when a >gasoline tank trunk is involved in a highway accident. >Coal at least is produced in the U.S. where as oil must be imported. This must be news to US-based opil producers in the Gulf, Texas, etc. >Importing oil hurts the US' balance of trade and subsidizes hostile >governments. The supply is vulnerable to disruption by weather and >war. So does importing iPods. With which governments is the USA currently at war? You mentioned "hostile" so there must be some sort of conflagration that I've missed between the climate porn in the media. >Because nuclear fuel delivers so much more energy per weight than >coal, it saves considerable costs. YIKES! You must have made a mistake.... that statement actually makes sense. Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Politics is the art of looking for trouble, X against HTML mail | finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly / \ and postings | and applying the wrong remedies - Groucho Marx On Nov 15, 2:26 am, Bernd Felsche <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote: > hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > >> hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > YIKES! You must have made a mistake.... that statement actually > makes sense. I think in terms of total costs - Nuke and Coal are in the same ballpark. If you throw in the GHG cost then Nukes win. On Nov 15, 2:26 am, Bernd Felsche <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote: > >Coal at least is produced in the U.S. where as oil must be imported. > > This must be news to US-based opil producers in the Gulf, Texas, > etc. You must not be aware that domestic oil sources can supply only a fraction of US needs, now less than half. Years ago the US was an oil exporter. > >Importing oil hurts the US' balance of trade and subsidizes hostile > >governments. The supply is vulnerable to disruption by weather and > >war. > > So does importing iPods. Not as much or as long as oil imports. > With which governments is the USA currently at war? You mentioned > "hostile" so there must be some sort of conflagration that I've > missed between the climate porn in the media. You can't be serious. >On Nov 15, 2:26=A0am, Bernd Felsche <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> >wrote: >> >Coal at least is produced in the U.S. where as oil must be imported. >> This must be news to US-based opil producers in the Gulf, Texas, >> etc. >You must not be aware that domestic oil sources can supply only a >fraction of US needs, now less than half. Years ago the US was an oil >exporter. I am aware of that; and the discouraging policies of US governments (of any flavour) to explore and to exploit. And waht about the resources held by their larger, friendly neighbour to the North. >> >Importing oil hurts the US' balance of trade and subsidizes hostile >> >governments. =A0The supply is vulnerable to disruption by weather and >> >war. >> So does importing iPods. >Not as much or as long as oil imports. >> With which governments is the USA currently at war? You mentioned >> "hostile" so there must be some sort of conflagration that I've >> missed between the climate porn in the media. >You can't be serious. Diversion Answer the question: Which GOVERNMENTS are HOSTILE to the point of conflagration? One doesn't have to like people in order to do business with them. Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Politics is the art of looking for trouble, X against HTML mail | finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly / \ and postings | and applying the wrong remedies - Groucho Marx >On Nov 11, 9:18=A0pm, Bernd Felsche <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> air is tangibly cleaner than what it was in the 1980's and early >> 1990's. >Try doing that in the U.S. The air quality may be worse in the USA. That's down to being able to implement proven technologies and public acceptance that it's an improvement in the quality of their lives; without any significant compromise. >> It is NOT a problem. The air is getting cleaner because, to all >> practical purposes, it's just H2O, CO2 and N2 coming out of the >> tailpipe. Well; except for the stinking, smoking buses in London >> that have two-thirds of the roads allocated to them now. >Plenty of soot and carbon monoxide come out as well. "Plenty"? More hand-waving. How much? >> What's driving people to more car use is that public transport >> systems are inadequate, especially as cities grow, with sprawling >> suburbs. The additional car use by the people living there isn't >> without cost ... but the people make their own choice to live that >> way. >People usually do NOT have a choice about where they live; they go >where they can afford to be; and close as possible to their job, >schools, and other factors. >Due to affordability, many people can't live where they want to. If their meansof travel is relatively free, then they have a much wider choice of where they can live; more fexibility where they work; more flexibility where they shop. >> >The future of electric power will be nuclear, not fossile, which is a >> >heck of a lot cleaner. >> >> Nuclear? Where are the new nuclear plants? >> Wouldn't one need a lot of them before being able to sell electric >> cars? >Nuclear plants and an expanded power grid are coming, regardless of >electric cars. Where in the USA?? >The peak power consumption is daytime, 9-5. Once the work day ends, >the network has extra capacity that could be used for charging >batteries. What a strange country. Don't people heat/cool their houses and cook their evening meals (or have them cooked) after business hours? They do ... e.g. <http://www.ctenergyinfo.com/seasonal_peak_demand.htm> Summer seasonal demand: Air conditioning drives Connecticut's summer peak demand. However, there are other devices such as pool pumps and dehumidifiers that significantly contribute to this seasonal peak demand. Remember, Connecticut's peak time period is noon to 8 pm, weekdays. In fact, many developed nations have evening peak periods ending at about 22:00 (10 p.m.) and morning peak periods starting at 07:00 (7 a.m.) Heavy industrial users of electricity draw about the same amount of electricity around the clock because it's cheaper and more productive to keep working than to stop and have to re-heat to operating temperature. >> >Even if coal is used, power plants (1) burn the coal at extremely high >> >temperatures which consumes more of it and (2) has massive scrubbers >> >to clean out the junk of it. >> "extremely high temperatures" like what? >> You seem to be using superlatives when you have no idea of the >> technology. >So you're telling me the combustion process of a single automobile >engine is more efficient than a stationary power plant? That would be >wrong. I look at the whole energy conversion from primary source: Powerplant -> distribution network -> battery charge -> battery recovery -> electric motor -> vehicle drag increase due to battery mass I don't make carte-blanche statements such as the strawmen that you build to attack. >If you ever visited a fossile fuel power plant, you'd see the massive >infrastructure--too big for an automobile--that maximizes power from >fuel. Do you have any idea of the complexity of a modern motor car; not one built "like they always have"? >> Anything to quantify the economy of scale? Keeping in mind that the >> electricity distribution network will need to be upgraded for a >> baseload more than double what is provided now, and a peak capacity >> probably 5 times greater; for rapid-charging - which everybody will >> choose. >The electric network must be upgraded anyway to meet future needs and >new policies. Charging will occur during offpeak hours, not peak >hours. >Are you aware of the huge savings in power costs by offpeak >customers? Overnight power is several times cheaper than daytime >peak power. That doesn't mean that it's more efficient! And off-peak period is only from 22:00 to 07:00; giving just 9 hours. That's not long enough for a Tesla Roadster; except on rapid charge. Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Politics is the art of looking for trouble, X against HTML mail | finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly / \ and postings | and applying the wrong remedies - Groucho Marx On Nov 15, 2:11 am, Bernd Felsche <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote: > >Due to affordability, many people can't live where they want to. > > If their meansof travel is relatively free, then they have a much > wider choice of where they can live; more fexibility where they > work; more flexibility where they shop. The cost of travel is separate than the _time_ of travel. > >> Nuclear? Where are the new nuclear plants? > >> Wouldn't one need a lot of them before being able to sell electric [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Where in the USA?? All over the USA. The existing supply and grid is inadequate and everybody knows it. > >The peak power consumption is daytime, 9-5. Once the work day ends, > >the network has extra capacity that could be used for charging [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > about 22:00 (10 p.m.) and morning peak periods starting at 07:00 (7 > a.m.) Not correct. Offices are the big users of air conditioners and computers and they shut down at 5 pm. Further, the direct heat of the sun is worst during the day time, by 5 pm the impact is less. > Heavy industrial users of electricity draw about the same amount of > electricity around the clock because it's cheaper and more > productive to keep working than to stop and have to re-heat to > operating temperature. No. Many industrial users who require intense amounts of electricity concentrate their work on the overnight shifts to take advantage of cheap power. Bottom line: When people get home from work they can start charging their cars and the system can support it. But as mentioned, the grid is gonna grow anyway. > >> >Even if coal is used, power plants (1) burn the coal at extremely high > >> >temperatures which consumes more of it and (2) has massive scrubbers [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >engine is more efficient than a stationary power plant? That would be > >wrong. > I look at the whole energy conversion from primary source: > Powerplant [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I don't make carte-blanche statements such as the strawmen that you > build to attack. Then you must also look at the crude oil access, overseas transport, refining, distribution, and weight of combustion parts of a car's power train. Cars today must run on gasoline or diesel, no other choice. In the future there will be more choices, which are necessary. > >If you ever visited a fossile fuel power plant, you'd see the massive > >infrastructure--too big for an automobile--that maximizes power from > >fuel. > > Do you have any idea of the complexity of a modern motor car; not > one built "like they always have"? That's a lot of drag weight to haul around, as well for the motorist to keep in repair. > >> Anything to quantify the economy of scale? Keeping in mind that the > >> electricity distribution network will need to be upgraded for a [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > And off-peak period is only from 22:00 to 07:00; giving just 9 hours. > That's not long enough for a Tesla Roadster; except on rapid charge. Off peak power time is much earlier than that. (Or we owe a heck of a lot of money to the power company). >On Nov 15, 2:11am, Bernd Felsche <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> wider choice of where they can live; more fexibility where they >> work; more flexibility where they shop. >The cost of travel is separate than the _time_ of travel. Nope. My time is worth money. Roughly $2/minute. >> >> Nuclear? Where are the new nuclear plants? >> >> Wouldn't one need a lot of them before being able to sell electric >> >> cars? >> >Nuclear plants and an expanded power grid are coming, regardless of >> >electric cars. >> Where in the USA?? >All over the USA. The existing supply and grid is inadequate and >everybody knows it. All over? Well then it must be easy for you to tell me where just 5 new nuclear power stations are under construction today. Not Watts Bar 2; which appears to be blocked by "environmentalists". <http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/2009/07/finishing-watts-bar-unit-2.html> >> In fact, many developed nations have evening peak periods ending at >> about 22:00 (10 p.m.) and morning peak periods starting at 07:00 (7 >> a.m.) >Not correct. Offices are the big users of air conditioners and >computers and they shut down at 5 pm. Look at the energy suppliers' data. >Further, the direct heat of the sun is worst during the day time, by 5 >pm the impact is less. And HEATING in winter; when the sun reduces the heating required during the daytime in temperate regions? >> Heavy industrial users of electricity draw about the same amount of >> electricity around the clock because it's cheaper and more >> productive to keep working than to stop and have to re-heat to >> operating temperature. >No. Many industrial users who require intense amounts of electricity >concentrate their work on the overnight shifts to take advantage of >cheap power. Bollocks. >Bottom line: When people get home from work they can start charging >their cars and the system can support it. But as mentioned, the grid >is gonna grow anyway. You're applying wishful thinking instead of looking at the real world data. Delusional. >> >> >Even if coal is used, power plants (1) burn the coal at extremely hig= >h [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >> You seem to be using superlatives when you have no idea of the >> >> technology. >> >So you're telling me the combustion process of a single automobile >> >engine is more efficient than a stationary power plant? That would be >> >wrong. >> I look at the whole energy conversion from primary source: >> Powerplant [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> I don't make carte-blanche statements such as the strawmen that you >> build to attack. >Then you must also look at the crude oil access, overseas transport, Which applies equally to electricity generation. >refining, distribution, and weight of combustion parts of a car's >power train. >Cars today must run on gasoline or diesel, no other choice. In the >future there will be more choices, which are necessary. There's LPG, CNG, alcohol, ... >> >If you ever visited a fossile fuel power plant, you'd see the massive >> >infrastructure--too big for an automobile--that maximizes power from >> >fuel. >> Do you have any idea of the complexity of a modern motor car; not >> one built "like they always have"? >That's a lot of drag weight to haul around, as well for the motorist >to keep in repair. Drag weight? What's that? What breaks on modern cars? The wear items such as tyres? Suspension components? Windshields? You seem to be ignorant of the fact that a modern car requires less than 6 hours of maintenance per year. >> >Are you aware of the huge savings in power costs by offpeak >> >customers? Overnight power is several times cheaper than daytime >> >peak power. >> That doesn't mean that it's more efficient! >> And off-peak period is only from 22:00 to 07:00; giving just 9 hours. >> That's not long enough for a Tesla Roadster; except on rapid charge. >Off peak power time is much earlier than that. (Or we owe a heck of a >lot of money to the power company). Incompetence can't be ruled out. <http://www.tcaust.com/energy/ea.nsf/Content/NSW+TOU+Res+FAQ> 10pm to 7am every day <http://users.tpg.com.au/users/robkemp/Power/MoreInfo.htm> Normal Domestic electricity in Australia is usually around 11 to 14 cents per kWh. Integral Energy, which is my retailer, charges just over 11.5 cents per kWh (incl GST) at present. Off Peak 2 electricity is provided outside peak demand periods. To try and minimise consumption peaks, each house is allocated a 'channel'. Each channel switches power on and off to the off-peak circuits at slightly different times. The channel that my controller is programmed to respond to on weekdays switches power on between then following times: 10pm and midnight, 1.30am and 7am, 9.30am and 4pm, with extended hours on the weekends. Integral Energy charges around 7.5 cents per kWh. Off Peak 1 electricity is usually provided overnight on weekdays (approximately 11pm to 6am) and extended hours over the weekend. Integral Energy charges around 4.4 cents per kWh. Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Politics is the art of looking for trouble, X against HTML mail | finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly / \ and postings | and applying the wrong remedies - Groucho Marx On Nov 16, 11:51 pm, Bernd Felsche <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote: > >All over the USA. The existing supply and grid is inadequate and > >everybody knows it. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Bar 2; which appears to be blocked by "environmentalists". > <http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/2009/07/finishing-watts-bar-unit-2....> I repeat, the existing US electric generating supply and grid are inadequate and everybody knows it. > >No. Many industrial users who require intense amounts of electricity > >concentrate their work on the overnight shifts to take advantage of > >cheap power. > > Bollocks. So you know more about how we run our business and take advantage of off peak power discounts? I don't think so. >On Nov 16, 11:51=A0pm, Bernd Felsche <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> >wrote: >> >All over the USA. The existing supply and grid is inadequate and >> >everybody knows it. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> Bar 2; which appears to be blocked by "environmentalists". >> <http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/2009/07/finishing-watts-bar-unit-2....= >I repeat, the existing US electric generating supply and grid are >inadequate and everybody knows it. You also indicated that nuclear power plants are being built all over the USA. WHICH YOU CAREFULLY SNIPPED! >> >No. Many industrial users who require intense amounts of electricity >> >concentrate their work on the overnight shifts to take advantage of >> >cheap power. >> Bollocks. >So you know more about how we run our business and take advantage of >off peak power discounts? I don't think so. You don't think. It costs more, in the developed world, to pay people to work at night than during the day. For most manufacturers, the savings in energy consumption don't offset the increases in pay. If you're operating a smelter or similar, it *might* pay off. Frankly, the deals that you negotiate with your electricity supplier for commercial use aren't relevant to domestic supply; especially if you are already a heavy, industrial consumer of electricity. The reasons should be evident. The electricity supplier is using your (thermal and other energy storage) resources to try to reduce your peak demand during the day. The peaking plant is less efficient than base-load, and the reduction in peakcapacity is not to be sneezed at. The real-world demand curves look like this: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tagesgang_engl.png> <http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Stromnetz_Lastkurve.jpg&filetime stamp=20050927174444> I provided you with off-peak rates and times for electricity supply by a few typical suppliers for domestic use. But your eyes will not see. It is the actual load curves, not the rates that one pays, that determines the availability of spare generating capacity to recharge electric toys from a domestic supply. You only get 9 hours or so to do it at off-peak rates. In previous postings, I've already established that the charging process will be at least the order of "normal" domestic electricity consumption; compressed into the charging period; and on top of background domestic consumption. As lowest off-peak load is usually no less than 70% of peak, there isn't enough generating capacity available to charge everybody's electric car battery during the off-peak period. Back-of-the-envelope estimates (based on 30% of baseload being domestic) put the required generating capacity to be around 350% of existing capacity if one could load-shed "each" battery charger individually to level out the demand. Such control is presently intractible for very large (100,000+) "populations" of grid-connected chargers, and larger "chunks" will need to be controlled with the side-effect that some cars won't be charged at all if they're not connected during their allocated time. (It's conceivable that chargers could be controlled individually, if a secure supply data network is established and all the appliances always play nice. Such networks are almost impossible to keep secure and can be exploited by criminals and lunatics to potentially disrupt not only electricity but also transport.) Most of the electricity to charge the traction batteries will have to be supplied by the peaking plants; the least-efficient generating systems. One cannot simply "upgrade" the base-load plant because the demand cannot be fully controlled. If the cars aren't plugged in, then turning on the charger places no additional load on the generating kit. Perhaps worse is when cars' charging is prematurely terminated; possibly producing power surges in the neighbourhood. Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Politics is the art of looking for trouble, X against HTML mail | finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly / \ and postings | and applying the wrong remedies - Groucho Marx On Nov 17, 1:06 pm, Bernd Felsche <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote: > You also indicated that nuclear power plants are being built all > over the USA. WHICH YOU CAREFULLY SNIPPED! I did NOT say "they are being built". > You don't think. Now you're being rude. > It costs more, in the developed world, to pay people to work at > night than during the day. For most manufacturers, the savings in > energy consumption don't offset the increases in pay. If you're > operating a smelter or similar, it *might* pay off. You don't know our business. > Frankly, the deals that you negotiate with your electricity supplier > for commercial use aren't relevant to domestic supply; especially if [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > base-load, and the reduction in peakcapacity is not to be sneezed > at. Power rates are significantly lower during off peak hours--that the power company defines, not us--because they have a massive quantity of fixed plant that is unused. As you said, they also use more efficient generation means. The same would apply to charging cars; they would be charged during the off-peak time. Allow me to repeat: the battery technology to power a car and be so charged is not here today; if it was, we'd be driving electric cars. But battery and propulsion technology is undergoing research and the future is another story. Likewise for the future in gasoline supplies. It is entirely possible we'll see a mix of battery and gasoline fueled vehicles in the future. Motorists will use the mode most beneficial to them. Today, many families have multiple cars in a single household, often one vehicle is a larger van for family use and longer trips and the other is a compact for local driving, sometimes by the teenage drivers. The electric car could serve there quite well. > The real-world demand curves look like this: > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tagesgang_engl.png> > <http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Stromnetz_Lastkurve.j...> > > I provided you with off-peak rates and times for electricity supply > by a few typical suppliers for domestic use. But your eyes will not see. I know what we and other commercial users pay for power. I work with cost accountants who study commercial rate schedules and consumption; they work with the power companies. Unlike home consumers who rarely deal with the power company, heavy commercial users have assigned customer reps who are in regular contact. (There are also technical issues that require periodic discussion). Note that different states and regions have different power costs and rate structures. Your writings below suggest that _overnight suddenly_ everyone will have an electric car to plug into _today's_ grid. Electric cars will not suddenly roll out en masse; when one is perfected consumers will not suddenly scrap their existing autos. When they are perfected the transition will be gradual. During the transition the grid will be upgraded to accomodate the needs; however, the grid probably already will be upgraded anyway. > It is the actual load curves, not the rates that one pays, that > determines the availability of spare generating capacity to recharge [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > generating kit. Perhaps worse is when cars' charging is prematurely > terminated; possibly producing power surges in the neighbourhood. >On Nov 17, 1:06=A0pm, Bernd Felsche <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> >wrote: >> You also indicated that nuclear power plants are being built all >> over the USA. =A0WHICH YOU CAREFULLY SNIPPED! >I did NOT say "they are being built". You wrote in <50fdf1cc-56e0-4e9d-b00b-0eb66de3ddf3@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>: Nuclear plants and an expanded power grid are coming, regardless of electric cars. It is well known that there are no nuclear plants to be built in the USA in the foreseeable future. <http://batr.net/cohoctonwindwatch/LAMAR%20ALEXANDER%20on%20NUCLELAR%20vs%20WIND.pdf> >> You don't think. >Now you're being rude. Calling it as I see it. If you think the truth is rude; then what about your ridiculous fantasies that are an insult to the intelligence? >> It costs more, in the developed world, to pay people to work at >> night than during the day. For most manufacturers, the savings in >> energy consumption don't offset the increases in pay. If you're >> operating a smelter or similar, it *might* pay off. >You don't know our business. Tell me what sort of business employs the feckless. >> Frankly, the deals that you negotiate with your electricity supplier >> for commercial use aren't relevant to domestic supply; especially if [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> base-load, and the reduction in peakcapacity is not to be sneezed >> at. >Power rates are significantly lower during off peak hours--that the >power company defines, not us--because they have a massive quantity of >fixed plant that is unused. As you said, they also use more efficient >generation means. >The same would apply to charging cars; they would be charged during >the off-peak time. >Allow me to repeat: the battery technology to power a car and be so >charged is not here today; if it was, we'd be driving electric cars. >But battery and propulsion technology is undergoing research and the >future is another story. Likewise for the future in gasoline >supplies. Hand-waving. You avoid providing answer with any substance. I can only surmise that you don't have a clue. >> The real-world demand curves look like this: >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tagesgang_engl.png> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> I provided you with off-peak rates and times for electricity supply >> by a few typical suppliers for domestic use. But your eyes will not see. >I know what we and other commercial users pay for power. I work with >cost accountants who study commercial rate schedules and consumption; >they work with the power companies. Unlike home consumers who rarely >deal with the power company, heavy commercial users have assigned >customer reps who are in regular contact. (There are also technical >issues that require periodic discussion). Hand-waving. You're trying to accept that your fantasy cannot be realized. >Note that different states and regions have different power costs and >rate structures. Hand-waving. >Your writings below suggest that _overnight suddenly_ everyone will >have an electric car to plug into _today's_ grid. Electric cars will [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >upgraded to accomodate the needs; however, the grid probably already >will be upgraded anyway. You fail to observe that the grid would have to supply several times more during the "off-peak" period than what it does now at peak times. Your "argument" is irrational. You have NO figures to back up anything that you assert. Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Politics is the art of looking for trouble, X against HTML mail | finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly / \ and postings | and applying the wrong remedies - Groucho Marx On Nov 12, 1:13 pm, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > On Nov 11, 9:18 pm, Bernd Felsche <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> " Due to affordability, many people can't live where they want to. " people drive further - between home and work not because they are forced to but because they want more house for their money. when you take a job with a higher salary but there is not affordable housing of the kind you want - near the job - that is a choice. Many people live and work locally - they work for lower salaries than in they commuted. Those folks made choices also. No one forced them to live and work locally no more than anyone forced others to not live and work locally. > On Nov 12, 1:13 pm, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > people drive further - between home and work not because they are > forced to but because they want more house for their money. So do you think a family of five--two parents and three kids--should live in a two bedroom apt; all teen kids (different genders) sharing a bedroom? >> On Nov 12, 1:13 pm, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > live in a two bedroom apt; all teen kids (different genders) sharing a > bedroom? There's a third gender on your planet? SignatureCheers, Bev ======================================================================= "Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things that I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to hide the bodies of the people who pissed me off." >There is no free lunch. The proponents of Electric Cars haven't got a >clue or are just trying to feather their pockets. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >and far dirtier as producing the electricity uses far more fuels for the >same equivalent energy. Troll |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.