Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / General Car Topics / May 2009

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

General Motors' VOLT?  Kill This BABY Before It's Born!

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Perverto - 29 Apr 2009 16:39 GMT
"The Volt: Not Ready to Roll"

By Charles Lane
Wednesday, April 29, 2009

General Motors has announced a plan to stave off bankruptcy that
includes cutting 21,000 jobs, reducing its dealer network and
eliminating its Pontiac division. "I'm a believer in dealing with
reality," GM chief executive Fritz Henderson said.

Better late than never. GM wouldn't be in quite so deep a hole if it
had not sunk a billion dollars, and much of its corporate reputation,
into a not-very-realistic plug-in electric hybrid vehicle known as the
Chevrolet Volt.

Likely to cost consumers more than $30,000 even after a big government
tax rebate, the little four-seat Volt "is currently projected to be
much more expensive than its gasoline-fueled peers and will likely
need substantial reductions in manufacturing cost in order to become
commercially viable," President Obama's automobile task force reported
on March 30.

Translation: Unless and until gas prices shoot up, you'd be crazy to
buy one of these much-ballyhooed vehicles, which will run 40 miles on
a single charge if GM can overcome difficult battery-engineering
issues.

To be sure, the green-leaning Obama administration has not ruled out
allowing a restructured GM to continue pouring (federal) money into
the Volt. But I hope it won't. The Volt and other electric vehicles
could gobble up more subsidies than ethanol.

Though Obama promised to have 1 million plug-in hybrids on the road by
2015, the dream of a mass-market electric car remains implausible and
probably will be for years.

For some people -- environmentally friendly Hollywood stars and other
wealthy dabblers -- cost is not the top concern in deciding what car
to buy. For them, a Volt or even a $101,500 all-electric Tesla
Roadster might be of interest.

Everyone else looks at total cost of ownership, which includes not
only the purchase price but also taxes, fuel consumption (electricity,
in the case of an electric car) and depreciation.

A 2009 study by Boston Consulting Group found that the five-year total
cost of owning an electric car would remain "relatively unattractive
to consumers in 2020, unless its cost is subsidized."

And that's in Germany, where high fuel taxes give drivers much
stronger incentives to use alternative-fuel vehicles than in the
United States. So if the electric car isn't practical in Europe's
biggest car market, it's even less so in the States.

In fact, Boston Consulting Group found that the total cost of
ownership of existing hybrids and advanced internal combustion engine
cars is more attractive than that of electric cars as long as oil
prices are below $280 a barrel. Oil is trading at around $49 a barrel
today; in the United States, gas costs about $2 a gallon.

Small wonder that venture capitalists have pulled the plug on one of
the most promising new electrics, the Norwegian THINK, a two-seater
built for city driving. At last check, the Norwegian government was
refusing a request to bail out the company.

And small wonder that the Obama task force looked askance at the Volt,
which offers the size and power of some small Volkswagens at Cadillac
prices. Geoffrey Styles, founder of the energy consultant GSW Strategy
Group, recently reported that it would take a minimum of six years for
drivers to recoup the differential between the Volt's projected price
and that of a Toyota Prius -- even assuming $4 per-gallon gasoline.

Electric cars might ease a lot of problems related to auto emissions
-- global warming not least among them. This is why green-minded
politicians love them and entrepreneurs tinker with them.

Of course, to the extent that they relied on coal-fired electric
plants for power, electric cars might simply move the emissions
problem around. And who knows what environmental challenges might be
posed by the disposal of millions of big, used-up lithium-ion
batteries?

More fundamentally, the electric car is hostage to the oil-price
cycle. Indeed, to the extent that we use more electric cars, we reduce
the demand for petroleum, which drives down the price of petroleum,
which makes electric cars less competitive with gas-burning ones --
and so on.

There's no way to change this pattern unless and until a breakthrough
radically cheapens electric-car technology -- or the U.S. government
drastically and permanently increases gas taxes.

In the meantime, we would probably accomplish more in terms of
sustainable fuel savings simply by driving less, trading in big cars
for smaller ones, and improving existing hybrid and internal-
combustion technology.

The Obama administration should refrain from lavishing public money on
losing propositions such as GM's Volt -- and let the entrepreneurs
keep on tinkering.

[Charles Lane is a member of the editorial page staff.]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/28/AR2009042801191.html
zzbunker@netscape.net - 30 Apr 2009 00:02 GMT
> "The Volt: Not Ready to Roll"
>
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
> to buy. For them, a Volt or even a $101,500 all-electric Tesla
> Roadster might be of interest.

 Well, with Hollywood, nothing,  including everybody else's money
 and highways has ever been an issue either. That's why GM
 even started their destruction of the US out there. And the
 people with actual non-zero transportation brains today work on
 On-Line Publishing, Drones, Robots, GPS, and Autonomous Vehicles.

> Everyone else looks at total cost of ownership, which includes not
> only the purchase price but also taxes, fuel consumption (electricity,
[quoted text clipped - 59 lines]
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/28/AR200...
Canuck57 - 30 Apr 2009 00:43 GMT
Costs too much.  Lets start importing or get a much less expensive Zenn.
Why mess around with complexity, costs and GM/CAW/UAW/GMAC digging into your
tax wallet??

http://www.zenncars.com/

Rumors are you can get one for about $10K and no oil changes or gasoline at
all.  One issue though, some state/provincial governments are roadblocking
their sale.

Why?  Simple.  If you spend only $10K, think of all the sales tax the
government does not get.  If you don't burn gas or use oil, one of the
highestest taxed liquids short of consumable alcohol isn't needed!  And all
that service going untaxed that you don't need...

$30,000 to $40,000 for a Volt is stupid priced.

Best to kill it right now before it costs taxpayers too much.

> "The Volt: Not Ready to Roll"
>
[quoted text clipped - 100 lines]
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/28/AR2009042801191.html
David Harper - 30 Apr 2009 00:53 GMT
> Costs too much.  Lets start importing or get a much less expensive Zenn.
> Why mess around with complexity, costs and GM/CAW/UAW/GMAC digging into
> your
> tax wallet??
>
> http://www.zenncars.com/

From their website:

"the regulated maximum speed of a ZENN is 25 mph."

- David Harper
Canuck57 - 30 Apr 2009 01:46 GMT
>> Costs too much.  Lets start importing or get a much less expensive Zenn.
>> Why mess around with complexity, costs and GM/CAW/UAW/GMAC digging into
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> - David Harper

I don't know where you live, but in rush hour that is a fantastic rate of
speed.  I would rather keep the $20,000 to $30,000 grand in my pocket.

Just ban the things on the interstate, these roller skates can't climb a 1%
grade anyway. ;)
Bob F - 03 May 2009 21:41 GMT
>>> Costs too much.  Lets start importing or get a much less expensive
>>> Zenn. Why mess around with complexity, costs and GM/CAW/UAW/GMAC
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> Just ban the things on the interstate, these roller skates can't
> climb a 1% grade anyway. ;)

There are a lot more roads than the interstate where 25 is dangerous.
SMS - 30 Apr 2009 01:28 GMT
> Costs too much.  Lets start importing or get a much less expensive Zenn.
> Why mess around with complexity, costs and GM/CAW/UAW/GMAC digging into your
> tax wallet??

The Zenn has insufficient range.

A better bet is the BYD F3DM plug-in/hybrid car from China. Warren
Buffet has invested big time in the company. 62 mile range on battery
power. It's already being sold in China.

"http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/12/byd-f3dm-electric-plug-in-hybrid-china.php"

As soon as it can be modified to meet U.S. safety standards, in about a
year, it will come to the U.S..
Canuck57 - 30 Apr 2009 02:09 GMT
>> Costs too much.  Lets start importing or get a much less expensive Zenn.
>> Why mess around with complexity, costs and GM/CAW/UAW/GMAC digging into
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> As soon as it can be modified to meet U.S. safety standards, in about a
> year, it will come to the U.S..

Somehow I don't think you buy a Volt for safety.  Lets see a video of a F150
or semi T-boning it!
Mike - 30 Apr 2009 03:14 GMT
There are a bunch of full electric cars available on the US market today.
They start at around $129,000 MSRP.   There is even a $57,000 electric
motorcycle.

Now that the BO administration "owns" GM you can bet the environuts will
make GM sell the Volt at a lesser price, even it they loose money.   The
government wants us all to buy "clean' vehicle to save the planet.  BO will
just tax the "rich" to get the money.   LOL

>> As soon as it can be modified to meet U.S. safety standards, in about a
>> year, it will come to the U.S..
>
> Somehow I don't think you buy a Volt for safety.  Lets see a video of a
> F150 or semi T-boning it!
Canuck57 - 30 Apr 2009 04:13 GMT
> There are a bunch of full electric cars available on the US market today.
> They start at around $129,000 MSRP.   There is even a $57,000 electric
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> government wants us all to buy "clean' vehicle to save the planet.  BO
> will just tax the "rich" to get the money.   LOL

Yep.  Wait until the middle class get the governments definition of rich,
the middle class.  LOL.

>>> As soon as it can be modified to meet U.S. safety standards, in about a
>>> year, it will come to the U.S..
>>
>> Somehow I don't think you buy a Volt for safety.  Lets see a video of a
>> F150 or semi T-boning it!
gnu / linux - 30 Apr 2009 06:41 GMT
> > There are a bunch of full electric cars available on the US market today.
> > They start at around $129,000 MSRP.   There is even a $57,000 electric
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> >> Somehow I don't think you buy a Volt for safety.  Lets see a video of a
> >> F150 or semi T-boning it!

those that flew our own planes into our own buildings need money !
Björn - 30 Apr 2009 08:28 GMT
> > "Mike" <mikehu...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
> those that flew our own planes into our own buildings need money !

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/9-11_solved118.html
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/12/former-president-of-italy-911-was.html
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/cossiga911mossadinsidejob15apr09.shtml
Mike - 30 Apr 2009 19:17 GMT
Don't you mean the children and grand children of the "middle" class?
LOL

>> There are a bunch of full electric cars available on the US market today.
>> They start at around $129,000 MSRP.   There is even a $57,000 electric
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>>> Somehow I don't think you buy a Volt for safety.  Lets see a video of a
>>> F150 or semi T-boning it!
Canuck57 - 01 May 2009 00:31 GMT
> Don't you mean the children and grand children of the "middle" class? LOL

I wish I could laugh.  But insanely true.

>>> There are a bunch of full electric cars available on the US market
>>> today. They start at around $129,000 MSRP.   There is even a $57,000
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>>>> Somehow I don't think you buy a Volt for safety.  Lets see a video of a
>>>> F150 or semi T-boning it!
SMS - 30 Apr 2009 17:23 GMT
>> As soon as it can be modified to meet U.S. safety standards, in about a
>> year, it will come to the U.S..
>
> Somehow I don't think you buy a Volt for safety.  Lets see a video of a F150
> or semi T-boning it!

That's immaterial, any car sold in the U.S. has to meet the standards.
Björn - 30 Apr 2009 19:07 GMT
> >> As soon as it can be modified to meet U.S. safety standards, in about a
> >> year, it will come to the U.S..
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> That's immaterial, any car sold in the U.S. has to meet the standards.

It is possible to set up separate transport system for small
economical cars, trains, subways and then other bigger vehicles
Mike - 30 Apr 2009 19:13 GMT
Because of the environuts, not very likely.  Hell it will take 50 years just
to build the electric transmission lines needed to feed the power from the
wind and sun generated sources, that the environuts them self want, into the
grid.

On Apr 30, 4:23 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Canuck57 wrote:
> >> As soon as it can be modified to meet U.S. safety standards, in about a
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> That's immaterial, any car sold in the U.S. has to meet the standards.

It is possible to set up separate transport system for small
economical cars, trains, subways and then other bigger vehicles
Canuck57 - 01 May 2009 00:47 GMT
> Because of the environuts, not very likely.  Hell it will take 50 years
> just to build the electric transmission lines needed to feed the power
> from the wind and sun generated sources, that the environuts them self
> want, into the grid.

That is why China is putting a new coal plant on line every week this year.
They know there isn't enough wind and solar cells for power.  Besides, what
solar cell works after sunset or a rainy-overcast day?  The carbon based NG
& coal facilities still need to be able to carry peek loads, and spew out
CO2 so people can charge their cars.

> On Apr 30, 4:23 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> Canuck57 wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> It is possible to set up separate transport system for small
> economical cars, trains, subways and then other bigger vehicles
SMS - 01 May 2009 14:46 GMT
>> Because of the environuts, not very likely.  Hell it will take 50 years
>> just to build the electric transmission lines needed to feed the power
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> & coal facilities still need to be able to carry peek loads, and spew out
> CO2 so people can charge their cars.

Actually Mike is quite incorrect, as usual. The real solar advantage is
in areas with abundant sunlight, and installing large numbers of small
systems on houses, so that no new transmission lines are needed. In my
area, the meter runs backward from Spring until Fall, and the excess is
banked back with the utility which does not need to use fossil fuel for
the generation. The subsidies for solar systems are more than offset by
the elimination of the need for more transmission lines and the
elimination of the capital costs of new generating stations.

The utilities love the distributed solar installations because they
reduce the peak load generating demands, enabling them to use less
fossil fuel during the day, generating as much as possible with solar
and hydro, yet not requiring costly new transmission lines.

Unfortunately, the utility doesn't pay homeowners for any excess (over
monthly use) that they generate, so there is no need to cover your
entire roof with panels thinking you'll make money off the deal, but you
do get those banked KWH back in the winter months when the solar panels
generate less power. Plus, electricity demand in the winter is much less
since you're not using gas or heating oil for heat, not running the pool
pump as much, and not running the A/C.

Furthermore, electric vehicles with a range of 60 miles will be mainly
charged at night when demand is low and rates are lower (included with
every new solar installation is a time-of-use meter so there is a big
incentive to use less electricity during the day and more at night).
Canuck57 - 02 May 2009 01:17 GMT
> Actually Mike is quite incorrect, as usual. The real solar advantage is in
> areas with abundant sunlight, and installing large numbers of small
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> the elimination of the need for more transmission lines and the
> elimination of the capital costs of new generating stations.

It can't really work that way.  You can't store power by day for use at
night, cloudy days and the like on a commercial large scale.  Or at least no
one has done it yet in a way that could supply more than 1% of the nations
needs.  BSing at best.

Be it carbon or nuke based, you need a system that can supply peek power,
used during the day or not, it has to do peek load.

> The utilities love the distributed solar installations because they reduce
> the peak load generating demands, enabling them to use less fossil fuel
> during the day, generating as much as possible with solar and hydro, yet
> not requiring costly new transmission lines.

What do you do on a cloudy dark rainy day?  Or in winter when the days get
short.  Send people home?

> Unfortunately, the utility doesn't pay homeowners for any excess (over
> monthly use) that they generate, so there is no need to cover your entire
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> you're not using gas or heating oil for heat, not running the pool pump as
> much, and not running the A/C.

Reliability is the issue.  Unreliable power is cheap, say 1 cent a KWH, but
reliable 7x24xcloudy days without wind is 10 cents per kwh or more.

You only save on the raw fuel, not on plant and equipment as peek power is
needed and it needs to be manned the same at 25% as it is at 100% capacity.

> Furthermore, electric vehicles with a range of 60 miles will be mainly
> charged at night when demand is low and rates are lower (included with
> every new solar installation is a time-of-use meter so there is a big
> incentive to use less electricity during the day and more at night).

Ok, on a still dark night, what is generating the power?  Coal & NG carbon
based fuels. LOL.

If we were serious we would forget trillion dollar wars and pork-corruption
debt spend budgets and invest in Thorium and Uranium reactors.  But like a
herd of buffalo, we are heading for the cliff all right.  Einstien had it
right, the only two things that are infinite is mankinds stupidity and the
universe, and I am not sure of the later.
Rod Speed - 02 May 2009 02:11 GMT
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote

>> Actually Mike is quite incorrect, as usual. The real solar advantage
>> is in areas with abundant sunlight, and installing large numbers of
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>> transmission lines and the elimination of the capital costs of new
>> generating stations.

> It can't really work that way.  You can't store power by day for use at night, cloudy days and the like on a
> commercial large scale.

Corse you can. Some countrys have been doing
that for decades using pumped water storages.

> Or at least no one has done it yet in a way that could supply more than 1% of the nations needs.

Wrong again. NZ does a lot more than that.

> BSing at best.

Yours is pig ignorance at best.

> Be it carbon or nuke based, you need a system that can supply peek power, used during the day or not, it has to do
> peek load.

Yep, but its perfectly possible to have peak power from coal or
nukes and supplement that with other power generation as well.

The only real problem is that its significantly more expensive than both.

>> The utilities love the distributed solar installations because they
>> reduce the peak load generating demands, enabling them to use less
>> fossil fuel during the day, generating as much as possible with
>> solar and hydro, yet not requiring costly new transmission lines.

> What do you do on a cloudy dark rainy day?

Use the baseload power from coal or nukes.

> Or in winter when the days get short.  Send people home?

Use the baseload power from coal or nukes.

You still save some energy when its still sunny.

>> Unfortunately, the utility doesn't pay homeowners for any excess
>> (over monthly use) that they generate, so there is no need to cover
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>> the winter is much less since you're not using gas or heating oil
>> for heat, not running the pool pump as much, and not running the A/C.

> Reliability is the issue.

Nope, not when you have baseload nukes or coal fired power stations.

> Unreliable power is cheap, say 1 cent a KWH,

Its nothing like as cheap as that when the capital cost is included.

> but reliable 7x24xcloudy days without wind is 10 cents per kwh or more.

Thats wrong too. Power from brown coal in australia doesnt cost anything like that.

> You only save on the raw fuel,

But that can be a significant saving, particularly in remote areas not on the grid.

> not on plant and equipment as peek power is needed and it needs to be manned the same at 25% as it is at 100%
> capacity.

That last is just plain wrong too. Trivial to completely automate it.

>> Furthermore, electric vehicles with a range of 60 miles will be
>> mainly charged at night when demand is low and rates are lower
>> (included with every new solar installation is a time-of-use meter
>> so there is a big incentive to use less electricity during the day
>> and more at night).

> Ok, on a still dark night, what is generating the power?  Coal & NG carbon based fuels. LOL.

You still save those fuels when the sun is shining.

> If we were serious we would forget trillion dollar wars and pork-corruption debt spend budgets and invest in Thorium
> and Uranium reactors.

Sure. And use the power from those to heat our houses so we dont
waste natural gas on heating houses, and use it to power cars instead.

> But like a herd of buffalo, we are heading for the cliff all right.

Bet that doesnt last forever.

> Einstien had it right,

Nope, not ever, except with some aspects of relativity.

> the only two things that are infinite is  mankinds stupidity and the universe, and I am not sure of the later.

Your problem.
Canuck57 - 02 May 2009 05:40 GMT
>> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> Corse you can. Some countrys have been doing
> that for decades using pumped water storages.

Do you have the foggiest idea of how much land and how much water it takes
to power a city of say a million people?

Obviously not very good at science and math.

>> Or at least no one has done it yet in a way that could supply more than
>> 1% of the nations needs.
>
> Wrong again. NZ does a lot more than that.

Cite, BS is cheap.

You still need a conventional full capacity grid nearby.  Even dams being as
efficient as they are still don't come close to meeting the energy needs.

>> BSing at best.
>
> Yours is pig ignorance at best.

Ah, resorting to rehtoric.  Sign of lower intelligence union rat.

>> Be it carbon or nuke based, you need a system that can supply peek power,
>> used during the day or not, it has to do peek load.
>
> Yep, but its perfectly possible to have peak power from coal or
> nukes and supplement that with other power generation as well.

Going to cost more.  And still burning lots of carbon.

> The only real problem is that its significantly more expensive than both.

You mean to have both, agreed.

>>> The utilities love the distributed solar installations because they
>>> reduce the peak load generating demands, enabling them to use less
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Use the baseload power from coal or nukes.

Yep.

>> Or in winter when the days get short.  Send people home?
>
> Use the baseload power from coal or nukes.

Yep.

> You still save some energy when its still sunny.

Some, yes, but do you save money?  Nope, as you have to buy the plant and
equipment for the altenative form.

Best just to buy a pair of big nukes for the major cities.

>>> Unfortunately, the utility doesn't pay homeowners for any excess
>>> (over monthly use) that they generate, so there is no need to cover
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Nope, not when you have baseload nukes or coal fired power stations.

Yep.  My whole point is no windmill nor solar cell is going to any time
soone replace the burning of carbon.

>> Unreliable power is cheap, say 1 cent a KWH,
>
> Its nothing like as cheap as that when the capital cost is included.

And that is why more of it is not done unless convenient.  Heck, if you haul
in a train of wood ever 2 hours you get lots of bark, and burning it makes
sense as it is cheaper in ash form to dispose and you can use the power to
keep the machinery going to clip the peak loads.  But still puts tons of
carbon in the atomosphere.

>> but reliable 7x24xcloudy days without wind is 10 cents per kwh or more.
>
> Thats wrong too. Power from brown coal in australia doesnt cost anything
> like that.

Don't know "brown coal", so no comment.

>> You only save on the raw fuel,
>
> But that can be a significant saving, particularly in remote areas not on
> the grid.

Yep, but that is a drop in the bucket.

>> not on plant and equipment as peek power is needed and it needs to be
>> manned the same at 25% as it is at 100% capacity.
>
> That last is just plain wrong too. Trivial to completely automate it.

How so?  Do you have a battery to store say 500 mwh time say 14 hours over
the night?  And running a power plant at 25% or 100% only varies in fuel
costs.  Workers, capitalization, legal BS, HR, fat management is all the
same.

>>> Furthermore, electric vehicles with a range of 60 miles will be
>>> mainly charged at night when demand is low and rates are lower
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> You still save those fuels when the sun is shining.

But going to cost a lot more.  And eco nuts also overlook the fact that
putting 100 hectars of land under a solar grid is going to adversely affect
the environment.  Might even alter the earths atomosphere because the sun
will not hit the ground.  Even the worms will not like it as there will be
no food.

>> If we were serious we would forget trillion dollar wars and
>> pork-corruption debt spend budgets and invest in Thorium and Uranium
>> reactors.
>
> Sure. And use the power from those to heat our houses so we dont
> waste natural gas on heating houses, and use it to power cars instead.

Why not just off the human and really save on CO2 output?  Which is really
the crux of the problem, more people is more CO2.

>> But like a herd of buffalo, we are heading for the cliff all right.
>
> Bet that doesnt last forever.

I would not bet against you.

>> Einstien had it right,
>
> Nope, not ever, except with some aspects of relativity.

No one has proved he is wrong.  Many have tried, some even thought so until
someone showed them the error in the math.

Einstein was truly brilliant like no other.

>> the only two things that are infinite is  mankinds stupidity and the
>> universe, and I am not sure of the later.
>
> Your problem.

Not really.  I will be long dead before the reconing.  I figure we are on
the dawn of the information revolution, and it is going to leave many people
behind.  Going forward, a few hundred years the information revolution is
going to stimulate the human mind.  Many will die, some will survive.  We
will, despite our feable attempts to stagnate, will evolve by the unstopable
force of nature.  Because to resist, we will join the dinasources and the
meek cockroaches will inherit the earth if we do not intellectually and
socialogically evolve.

And knee jerk junk science or political BS isn't the evolution I am talking
about.  Hive evolution, the labour workers, disposable like drones in a bee
hive.  Elite and royals with knowlege and control.  It has already began.
Increasingly more people have lesser value in a modern society, thus become
expendable.  In fact many countries are loaded with masses of people that
are a liability.

For most, the future is going to be about basic survival in a informationa
age.
Rod Speed - 02 May 2009 22:46 GMT
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote

>>>> Actually Mike is quite incorrect, as usual. The real solar
>>>> advantage is in areas with abundant sunlight, and installing large
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>>>> need for more transmission lines and the elimination of the
>>>> capital costs of new generating stations.

>>> It can't really work that way.  You can't store power by day for
>>> use at night, cloudy days and the like on a commercial large scale.

>> Corse you can. Some countrys have been doing
>> that for decades using pumped water storages.

> Do you have the foggiest idea of how much land and how much water it takes to power a city of say a million people?

It aint supplying all the power, its just used as a load leveller.

> Obviously not very good at science and math.

You dont have a f.cking clue what load levelling using pumped water is about.

Australia does it with the entire SE grid which is a hell of a lot more than 1M people.

>>> Or at least no one has done it yet in a way that could supply more than 1% of the nations needs.

>> Wrong again. NZ does a lot more than that.

> Cite, BS is cheap.

Have a look at the percentage NZ gets from hydro. Hell of a lot more than 1%

Tasmania in spades.

> You still need a conventional full capacity grid nearby.

No you dont.

> Even dams being as efficient as they are still don't come close to meeting the energy needs.

Tell that to the countrys that have a hell of a lot more than 1% of their power from hydro.

>>> BSing at best.

>> Yours is pig ignorance at best.

> Ah, resorting to rehtoric.

Corse you never ever did anything like that yourself, eh ?

> Sign of lower intelligence union rat.

Even a terminal fuckwit such as yourself should be able to
check whether I am a union anything using groups.google.

>>> Be it carbon or nuke based, you need a system that can supply peek power, used during the day or not, it has to do
>>> peek load.

>> Yep, but its perfectly possible to have peak power from coal or
>> nukes and supplement that with other power generation as well.

> Going to cost more.

Sure.

And still burning lots of carbon.

Nope, not with nukes.

>> The only real problem is that its significantly more expensive than both.

> You mean to have both,

No, thats not what I meant. I JUST meant that all the other sources of
power except hydro are significantly more expensive than coal or nukes.

> agreed.

>>>> The utilities love the distributed solar installations because they
>>>> reduce the peak load generating demands, enabling them to use less
>>>> fossil fuel during the day, generating as much as possible with
>>>> solar and hydro, yet not requiring costly new transmission lines.

>>> What do you do on a cloudy dark rainy day?

>> Use the baseload power from coal or nukes.

> Yep.

>>> Or in winter when the days get short.  Send people home?

>> Use the baseload power from coal or nukes.

> Yep.

>> You still save some energy when its still sunny.

> Some, yes, but do you save money?

It aint about saving money. Those who want that approach
want it because it saves CO2 production when its sunny.

> Nope, as you have to buy the plant
> and equipment for the altenative form.

But dont consume the fuel when its sunny.

> Best just to buy a pair of big nukes for the major cities.

Sure. And it makes a lot of sense to stop wasting natural gas
heating houses and to heat them with electricity from nukes instead
and use the natural gas in cars to cut the cost of oil imports etc.

>>>> Unfortunately, the utility doesn't pay homeowners for any excess
>>>> (over monthly use) that they generate, so there is no need to cover
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>>>> heating oil for heat, not running the pool pump as much, and not
>>>> running the A/C.

>>> Reliability is the issue.

>> Nope, not when you have baseload nukes or coal fired power stations.

> Yep.  My whole point is no windmill nor solar cell is going to any time soone replace the burning of carbon.

You mangled the reliability story tho. I didnt comment on your basic
point because there wasnt any problem with the basic point.

>>> Unreliable power is cheap, say 1 cent a KWH,

>> Its nothing like as cheap as that when the capital cost is included.

> And that is why more of it is not done unless convenient.  Heck, if you haul in a train of wood ever 2 hours you get
> lots of bark, and burning it makes sense as it is cheaper in ash form to dispose and you can use the power to keep the
> machinery going to clip the peak loads.  But still puts tons of carbon in the atomosphere.

Yes, nukes leave the rest for dead carbon wise.

>>> but reliable 7x24xcloudy days without wind is 10 cents per kwh or more.

>> Thats wrong too. Power from brown coal in australia doesnt cost anything like that.

> Don't know "brown coal", so no comment.

Its a very low grade coal thats no use for anything except power generation.

>>> You only save on the raw fuel,

>> But that can be a significant saving, particularly in remote areas not on the grid.

> Yep, but that is a drop in the bucket.

Sure, but relevant for them.

Nukes make more sense but its not that easy to get
adequately qualified operators for such remote places.

>>> not on plant and equipment as peek power is needed and it needs to be manned the same at 25% as it is at 100%
>>> capacity.

>> That last is just plain wrong too. Trivial to completely automate it.

> How so?  Do you have a battery to store say 500 mwh time say 14 hours over the night?

Nope, you use grid wide pumped water for that.

> And running a power plant at 25% or 100% only varies in fuel costs.  Workers, capitalization, legal BS, HR, fat
> management is all the same.

Thats not true of completely automated solar and wind etc.

>>>> Furthermore, electric vehicles with a range of 60 miles will be
>>>> mainly charged at night when demand is low and rates are lower
>>>> (included with every new solar installation is a time-of-use meter
>>>> so there is a big incentive to use less electricity during the day
>>>> and more at night).

>>> Ok, on a still dark night, what is generating the power?  Coal & NG carbon based fuels. LOL.

>> You still save those fuels when the sun is shining.

> But going to cost a lot more.

Sure. But the fools care about the CO2 production.

> And eco nuts also overlook the fact that putting 100 hectars of land under a solar grid is going to adversely affect
> the environment.

Not enough to matter.

> Might even alter the earths atomosphere

Nope.

> because the sun will not hit the ground.  Even the worms will not like it as there will be no food.

They're most sited in deserts for the longer sun times so the
worms are irrelavant, there are no worms even without the solar.

>>> If we were serious we would forget trillion dollar wars and pork-corruption debt spend budgets and invest in Thorium
>>> and Uranium reactors.

>> Sure. And use the power from those to heat our houses so we dont
>> waste natural gas on heating houses, and use it to power cars instead.

> Why not just off the human and really save on CO2 output?

For some odd reason that doesnt appeal to many of the voters.

> Which is really the crux of the problem, more people is more CO2.

You're always welcome to hang yourself any time you like.

>>> But like a herd of buffalo, we are heading for the cliff all right.

>> Bet that doesnt last forever.

> I would not bet against you.

>>> Einstien had it right,

>> Nope, not ever, except with some aspects of relativity.

> No one has proved he is wrong.

He was just plain wrong with that stupid claim that 'god does not play dice with the universe'

God may well not, but something clearly does with radioactive decay.

> Many have tried, some even thought so until someone showed them the error in the math.

> Einstein was truly brilliant like no other.

Thats just plain wrong with some of his sillier pontifications.

>>> the only two things that are infinite is mankinds stupidity and the universe, and I am not sure of the later.

>> Your problem.

> Not really.  I will be long dead before the reconing.

There will be no reckoning.

Whatever happens, we can always change to nukes if that becomes
necessary and CO2 production does turn out to be a real problem.

> I figure we are on the dawn of the information revolution, and it is going to leave many people behind.

Sure, but that always happens with any revolution.

> Going forward, a few hundred years the information revolution is going to stimulate the human mind.

Yes.

> Many will die, some will survive.

Everyone will die, you watch.

> We will, despite our feable attempts to stagnate, will evolve by the unstopable force of nature.

We've been doing that for millennia now.

> Because to resist, we will join the dinasources and the meek cockroaches will inherit the earth if we do not
> intellectually and socialogically evolve.

How odd that they didnt manage to do that already.

> And knee jerk junk science or political BS isn't the evolution I am
> talking about.  Hive evolution, the labour workers, disposable like
> drones in a bee hive.  Elite and royals with knowlege and control.

We've already disposed of the royals.

> It has already began. Increasingly more people have lesser value in a modern society, thus become expendable.

They always have been.

> In fact many countries are loaded with masses of people that are a liability.

You're always welcome to hang yourself any time you like.

> For most, the future is going to be about basic survival in a informationa age.

Nope, human society aint been about basic survival for millennia now.
Clive - 04 May 2009 01:16 GMT
>> Even dams being as efficient as they are still don't come close to meeting the energy needs.
>
>Tell that to the countrys that have a hell of a lot more than 1% of their power from hydro.
I understand that Egypt generates more than 90% of it's electricity from
three enormous dams, the biggest , the Aswan High dam.   The Americans
wouldn't let Egypt have the technology, so they just got the Russians to
build it.   A beautiful structure and at least ten times the size of the
Hoover dam.
Signature

Clive

Rod Speed - 04 May 2009 09:42 GMT
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

>>> Even dams being as efficient as they are still don't come close to meeting the energy needs.

>> Tell that to the countrys that have a hell of a lot more than 1% of their power from hydro.

> I understand that Egypt generates more than 90% of it's electricity
> from three enormous dams, the biggest , the Aswan High dam.

That is just plain wrong. Try 12%
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/Egypt/Electricity.html

> The Americans wouldn't let Egypt have the technology,

Thats a lie too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aswan_High_Dam#Construction_history

> so they just got the Russians to build it.

Its much more complicated than that.

> A beautiful structure and at least ten times the size of the Hoover dam.
Canuck57 - 01 May 2009 00:45 GMT
On Apr 30, 4:23 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Canuck57 wrote:
> >> As soon as it can be modified to meet U.S. safety standards, in about a
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> That's immaterial, any car sold in the U.S. has to meet the standards.

It is possible to set up separate transport system for small
economical cars, trains, subways and then other bigger vehicles
---
It is already don't in many cities, seperate lanes for bicycles, busses and
multiple passengers.

No need to listen to DC/Obama or Ottawa/Harper corruption.  These twits, if
it doesn't cost the taxpayer plenty their minds are closed.
SMS - 01 May 2009 14:33 GMT
> No need to listen to DC/Obama or Ottawa/Harper corruption.  These twits, if
> it doesn't cost the taxpayer plenty their minds are closed.

LOL, so you think that setting up separate lanes for bicycles, buses,
and multiple passenger vehicles won't cost the taxpayer plenty of money?

The GM bailout is more to protect the jobs of the autoworkers and all
their suppliers than anything else. The stockholders have already lost
about everything. Personally I think that bankruptcy would be a good
option for GM, then salvage the worthwhile pieces (Chevy, Cadillac, GMC).
Canuck57 - 02 May 2009 01:20 GMT
>> No need to listen to DC/Obama or Ottawa/Harper corruption.  These twits,
>> if it doesn't cost the taxpayer plenty their minds are closed.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> about everything. Personally I think that bankruptcy would be a good
> option for GM, then salvage the worthwhile pieces (Chevy, Cadillac, GMC).

That is what I predict for GM.  In chapter 11 they will be packaged to the
highest bidder.  And they may be sold in pieces, US-GM goes chapter 7,
GM-Europe gets sold, as does GM-Asia.  The proceeds used to bay the bills.

I just want the GM-bailout corruption and taxpayer rape to stop.
Canuck57 - 01 May 2009 00:43 GMT
>>> As soon as it can be modified to meet U.S. safety standards, in about a
>>> year, it will come to the U.S..
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> That's immaterial, any car sold in the U.S. has to meet the standards.

Standards can be "cooked" and often are.  Take Canada for example, we have
RIV regs on the Canadian autos that changes the daytime running light
intensity just a bit to make it brighter.  Often just a module or $3 bulbs
to fix, but it is enough that a government sponsored prefered source
(Canadian Tire) gets you to pay for it.

The idea is to make it just awkward enough that you don't shop across the
border, and buy the otherwise same identical car made from the same plant of
the same parts in Canada.  This way local dealers get "protection" from
cross border shopping.

Obama wants green as in eco green, it is sitting right under his nose and
will not cost billions in corruption to accomplish.  But then Obama is about
green, in 3 short months he has added 10% to the national debt, Harpo is on
course to add 20%.  It is really about moving green from our pockets to
government pockets in the facist goverment statism new-order state.
Mike - 01 May 2009 15:29 GMT
I hope you wearing  your aluminum foil hat when you post all of you goofy
comments.

It must be a Canadian thing, thousands of people living in the boondocks
with nothing to do and no life outside the internet.     LOL

>>>> As soon as it can be modified to meet U.S. safety standards, in about a
>>>> year, it will come to the U.S..
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> pockets to government pockets in the facist goverment statism new-order
> state.
Björn - 01 May 2009 16:03 GMT
On May 1, 2:29 pm, "My c.nt" <mikehu...@lycos.com> wrote:
> >>> Somehow I don't think you buy a Volt for safety.  Lets see a video of a
> >>> F150 or semi T-boning it!
> > The idea is to make it just awkward enough that you don't shop across the
> > border, and buy the otherwise same identical car made from the same plant
> > of the same parts in Canada.  This way local dealers get "protection" from
> > cross border shopping.

How safe is you wheelchair?
Canuck57 - 02 May 2009 01:24 GMT
>I hope you wearing  your aluminum foil hat when you post all of you goofy
>comments.

At least I paid for mine.  More than I can say for GM, living off the backs
of taxpayers and not paying their bills.

> It must be a Canadian thing, thousands of people living in the boondocks
> with nothing to do and no life outside the internet.     LOL

Can't afford much else, they tax the crap out of you here for jack a.s 
bailouts and corruption.  Hell, we are still paying for debt incured by
Turdeau, who racked it up over 30 years ago.  That is where 33% of the
income taxes I pay go.

Indentured tax slavery.  Greedy basterds who vote for these jerks are short
sighted selfish bastards.  And now doing it to their great grand children.

We should just declare our governments bankrupt.

>>>>> As soon as it can be modified to meet U.S. safety standards, in about
>>>>> a year, it will come to the U.S..
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>> pockets to government pockets in the facist goverment statism new-order
>> state.
Rod Speed - 02 May 2009 02:13 GMT
>> I hope you wearing  your aluminum foil hat when you post all of you
>> goofy comments.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> by Turdeau, who racked it up over 30 years ago.  That is where 33% of
> the income taxes I pay go.

No it isnt.

> Indentured tax slavery.

You dont pay and tax slaves.

> Greedy basterds who vote for these jerks are short sighted selfish bastards.  And now doing it to their great grand
> children.

> We should just declare our governments bankrupt.

You wouldnt like the consequences of that.

>>>>>> As soon as it can be modified to meet U.S. safety standards, in
>>>>>> about a year, it will come to the U.S..
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>>> about moving green from our pockets to government pockets in the
>>> facist goverment statism new-order state.
Canuck57 - 02 May 2009 05:46 GMT
>>> I hope you wearing  your aluminum foil hat when you post all of you
>>> goofy comments.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> No it isnt.

Denial of facts is a mental disease. Dilusional something 'er rather.

>> Indentured tax slavery.
>
> You dont pay and tax slaves.

You are right, you don't pay slaves, you tax them.  Too much  C2H6O tonight?
(Ethanol)

>> Greedy basterds who vote for these jerks are short sighted selfish
>> bastards.  And now doing it to their great grand children.
>
>> We should just declare our governments bankrupt.
>
> You wouldnt like the consequences of that.

Depends, are you responsible and honest or just riding on BS?

Our governments are riding on BS and inevitable financial collapse.
Supporting governments now for too long that debt-corruption spend out of
control.  They have in crertaintly gone to a point where in north america,
this whol next generation born today will be tax slaves to pay todays debt.

Or go through a 20 year depression that makes the Great Depression look like
a cake walk.
Rod Speed - 02 May 2009 22:51 GMT
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

>>>> I hope you wearing  your aluminum foil hat when you post all of you goofy comments.

>>> At least I paid for mine.  More than I can say for GM, living off the backs of taxpayers and not paying their bills.

>>>> It must be a Canadian thing, thousands of people living in the
>>>> boondocks with nothing to do and no life outside the internet.   LOL

>>> Can't afford much else, they tax the crap out of you here for jack
>>> a.s bailouts and corruption.  Hell, we are still paying for debt
>>> incured by Turdeau, who racked it up over 30 years ago.  That is
>>> where 33% of the income taxes I pay go.

>> No it isnt.

> Denial of facts is a mental disease.

You wouldnt know what a real fact was if it bit you on your lard arse.

Nothing like 33% of the income taxes you pay goes to paying off Trudeau's debt.

> Dilusional something 'er rather.

Your pathetic delusion is there for all to see.

>>> Indentured tax slavery.

>> You dont pay and tax slaves.

> You are right, you don't pay slaves, you tax them.

No one taxes slaves, you flog them instead, stupid.

> Too much  C2H6O tonight? (Ethanol)

Thats clearly your problem.

>>> Greedy basterds who vote for these jerks are short sighted selfish bastards.  And now doing it to their great grand
>>> children.

>>> We should just declare our governments bankrupt.

>> You wouldnt like the consequences of that.

> Depends, are you responsible and honest or just riding on BS?

No need to ask you that question, the answer is obvious.

> Our governments are riding on BS and inevitable financial collapse.

Fools claimed the same thing during the great depression.

> Supporting governments now for too long that debt-corruption spend out of control.  They have in crertaintly gone to a
> point where in north america, this whol next generation born today will be tax slaves to pay todays debt.

How odd that spending FAR more in WW2 didnt produce that result.

> Or go through a 20 year depression that makes the Great Depression look like a cake walk.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
cavedweller - 01 May 2009 16:24 GMT
> Standards can be "cooked" and often are.  Take Canada for example, we have
> RIV regs on the Canadian autos that changes the daytime running light
> intensity just a bit to make it brighter.  Often just a module or $3 bulbs
> to fix, but it is enough that a government sponsored prefered source
> (Canadian Tire) gets you to pay for it.

Huh?  You got that right out of CMVSS 108, did you?
Canuck57 - 02 May 2009 01:27 GMT
On Apr 30, 7:43 pm, "Canuck57" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:

> Standards can be "cooked" and often are. Take Canada for example, we have
> RIV regs on the Canadian autos that changes the daytime running light
> intensity just a bit to make it brighter. Often just a module or $3 bulbs
> to fix, but it is enough that a government sponsored prefered source
> (Canadian Tire) gets you to pay for it.

Huh?  You got that right out of CMVSS 108, did you?
-------
CMVSS ?? Don't know what that is.

But have imported a few vehicles.  Saved a lot of cash while suckers in
Canada paid $10 to $14K more than I did.
cavedweller - 02 May 2009 02:33 GMT
> On Apr 30, 7:43 pm, "Canuck57" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> -------
> CMVSS ?? Don't know what that is.

I'm not surprised.

> But have imported a few vehicles.  Saved a lot of cash while suckers in
> Canada paid $10 to $14K more than I did.

I'm not surprised by that either.  Are you an immigrant?
Canuck57 - 02 May 2009 05:47 GMT
On May 1, 8:27 pm, "Canuck57" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> "cavedweller" <jawnwil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> -------
> CMVSS ?? Don't know what that is.

I'm not surprised.

> But have imported a few vehicles. Saved a lot of cash while suckers in
> Canada paid $10 to $14K more than I did.

I'm not surprised by that either.  Are you an immigrant?
-----
LOL.
Bert Hyman - 30 Apr 2009 19:14 GMT
In
news:a458ac50-bdc4-4450-9f17-59682d64ae63@d25g2000prn.googlegroups.com
Perverto <kinkysr@yahoo.com> wrote:

> The Obama administration should refrain from lavishing public money on
> losing propositions such as GM's Volt -- and let the entrepreneurs
> keep on tinkering.

Why?

Isn't it clear that Obama and his minions will be managing the nation's
economy directly from Washington?

If Obama wants the Volt, GM will build it, even if it takes more
billions of government handouts, even if it never works and even if
nobody buys one.

Signature

Bert Hyman    St. Paul, MN    bert@iphouse.com

Mike-Swain@silent.com - 30 Apr 2009 23:12 GMT
>Why?
>
>Isn't it clear that Obama and his minions will be managing the nation's
>economy directly from Washington

You didn't "get" that managing the nations economy from
the corporations and financial institutions that should
have (and did) caused nearly total collapse?

Are you stupid?
Bert Hyman - 01 May 2009 00:10 GMT
In news:uf8kv49fabisucnqe6iodhotnnmth8qg98@4ax.com Mike-Swain@silent.com
wrote:

>>Why?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Are you stupid?

Are you a fascist, socialist or Communist?

Signature

Bert Hyman    St. Paul, MN    bert@iphouse.com

Canuck57 - 01 May 2009 00:51 GMT
> In
> news:a458ac50-bdc4-4450-9f17-59682d64ae63@d25g2000prn.googlegroups.com
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> billions of government handouts, even if it never works and even if
> nobody buys one.

Just look north to Canada, not many companies that get on government
corporate welfare and corruption handouts ever get off of it.  And none have
or could survive without sucking the taxpayer.

Obama has pissed away billions more on Chrylser, they will be back for more.
Count on it.  The taste of free taxpayer cash is very corrupting.

But be dammed if I will ever buy GM, Chrysler, CAW/UAW again.  Just not
going to happen.  I refuse to support their corruption.
George Orwell - 30 Apr 2009 23:10 GMT
President Obama's SUV (Air Force One) is used almost daily as he flits from
one corner of this nation to another to deliver his talking points. Each
trip burns more fuel than you could in a lifetime of driving, even if you
drive the most fuel thirsty V-8 ever built by GM, the Pontiac 348 of '57. I
call it hypocrisy.

Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente   |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore   |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni      |For more info
                 https://www.mixmaster.it
stermen - 07 May 2009 15:05 GMT
BUY ANY BRAND OF CAR AND ACCESSORIES FOR your CAR

Clik to go

http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/711-53200-19255-0/1?type=4&campid=5336229480&tooli
d=10001&customid=&mpre=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.motors.ebay.com%2F


> "The Volt: Not Ready to Roll"
>
[quoted text clipped - 100 lines]
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/28/AR2009042801191.html
 
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.