-[I]- Electric cars again

[Lesley Weston]

I've just read this:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=lithium-air-oxygen-battery&WT.mc_id=SA_WR_20120425

or http://tinyurl.com/88fbss4

which seems relevant to our recent discussion on electric cars. It's
early days yet, but abandoning theoretically-sound ideas because they
need more work before they can become industrial processes is not the
way to move forward. If Jobs and Wozniak and the others had decided that
a home computer for everybody would take too much time and money to
develop, nobody would be reading this. If Chain, Jennings and Florey had
decided that mould growing on someone's sandwiches [1] would be too much
effort to develop into an effective antibiotic, half of us wouldn't
still be alive to read this. If Bell had decided... well, you get the idea.

[1] That's probably apocryphal, but it makes a better story than
Jennings noticing what mould was doing to the bacteria growing on the
agar in a petri dish, which is more likely to be what happened.

Lesley.

--
This address is real, but to reach me use leswes att shaw dott ca

[GaryN]

Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
news:jnju9t$t89$1...@mud.stack.nl:

> I've just read this:
>
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=lithium-air-oxygen-
bat
> tery&WT.mc_id=SA_WR_20120425
>

<snip>

>
> [1] That's probably apocryphal, but it makes a better story than
> Jennings noticing what mould was doing to the bacteria growing on the
> agar in a petri dish, which is more likely to be what happened.

Being of the biker persuasion I suggest that all cars should immediately
be banned, all freight moved by rail, and only British motorcycles be
allowed on the roads of our great country.

This was a Party Political Broadcast for the B*M*P (British
Motorcyclists Party (Ours are better))

Spot the person who is thoroughly fed up with current UK politics!

Bloody canvassers for the council elections next week are worse than
Jehovas Witnesses. Had one today. Saturated (it's been pissing down
for 3 days here) and I gave her a cup of tea while her outer kit steamed
on the radiators.

Probably not going to vote for her party, whoever they are, because I
was too busy looking at the wet t-shirt which obviously didn't have a
bra under it[1], to take any notice of what she was saying.

If anyone wants to call me sexist then remember - the day I fail to
notice an attractive, if annoying, woman; you can dig the hole, push me
in and shovel the dirt over. Because I'm dead.

I think that's close to being a quote from Heinleins "Number of the
Beast" but not exact and I'm not sure.

Anyway she got a hot cuppa and partially dried clothes in a warm house
out of it while I got to look at her tits for 20 minutes.

Who got the best of that deal?


gary

[1]When buying waterproof outer garments be sure it does what it says on
the label. --
"When California slides into the ocean, like the mystics and statistics
say it will I predict this motel will be standing
Until I pay my bill"

Warren Zevon.

[Chris Zakes]

On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 10:38:05 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
caused Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> to write:

>I've just read this:
>
>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=lithium-air-oxygen-battery&WT.mc_id=SA_WR_20120425
>
>or http://tinyurl.com/88fbss4
>
>which seems relevant to our recent discussion on electric cars. It's
>early days yet, but abandoning theoretically-sound ideas because they
>need more work before they can become industrial processes is not the
>way to move forward.

Granted, but abandoning existing working technology now for something
that *might* be viable in 2020 is equally foolish.

My gasoline-powered car currently gets ~400 miles per tankful, not
quite the range they predict for this new technology, presuming they
can get all the bugs out of the current design. But note that the
article says the current-technology, much-touted--but still has to be
government-subsidised to make it commercially viable--Chevy Volt only
gets 50 miles per charge. The Nissan Leaf gets a little better range
at 100 miles per charge, but consider the further commentary here:
http://nlpc.org/stories/2011/11/10/nissan-leaf-fails-real-life-test-miserably

Yes, electric cars might be the wave of the future. But the important
point *today* is that that particular future hasn't happened yet.

-Chris Zakes
Texas

--

I hallucinate gently for a living.

-Terry Pratchett

[Lesley Weston]

On 04-29-12 7:31 PM, GaryN wrote:
> Lesley Weston<brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> news:jnju9t$t89$1...@mud.stack.nl:
>
>> I've just read this:
>>
>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=lithium-air-oxygen-
> bat
>> tery&WT.mc_id=SA_WR_20120425
>>
> <snip>
>>
>> [1] That's probably apocryphal, but it makes a better story than
>> Jennings noticing what mould was doing to the bacteria growing on the
>> agar in a petri dish, which is more likely to be what happened.
>
> Being of the biker persuasion I suggest that all cars should immediately
> be banned, all freight moved by rail, and only British motorcycles be
> allowed on the roads of our great country.

That's OK so long as you allow motor-tricycles (the only time I tried
to ride a motorbike other than as pillion, I couldn't keep the thing
upright. And that was just a 250). And some kind of protection from the
weather, though given the rest of your post you may not want to allow
that, at least not for attractive young women. So if you're going that
far, you might as well go the rest of the way and allow small electric
runabouts, which lead to large electric freight-carriers. With heaters
in them.

[Jessie_C]

In article <ddusp7ttjr7i90ht8...@4ax.com>, dont...@gmail.com
says...

> but consider the further commentary here:
> http://nlpc.org/stories/2011/11/10/nissan-leaf-fails-real-life-test-miserably
>
>

Sorry, couldn't get past the Right Wing bias in that article. National Legal
and Policy Centre is on Right Wing Watch's list; they're known to fabricate
sources and ignore debnkings. Therefore I must regard anything they publish as
suspect.

[Lesley Weston]

On 04-30-12 4:58 AM, Chris Zakes wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 10:38:05 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused Lesley Weston<brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> to write:
>
>> I've just read this:
>>
>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=lithium-air-oxygen-battery&WT.mc_id=SA_WR_20120425
>>
>> or http://tinyurl.com/88fbss4
>>
>> which seems relevant to our recent discussion on electric cars. It's
>> early days yet, but abandoning theoretically-sound ideas because they
>> need more work before they can become industrial processes is not the
>> way to move forward.
>
> Granted, but abandoning existing working technology now for something
> that *might* be viable in 2020 is equally foolish.

Why abandon anything? Nothing changes overnight, but if developing
electric technolology is subsidised, perhaps out of some of the profits
from making gasoline cars, then gradually it will take over. As more and
more people look for electrics for their next car, the industry will
shift to make more and more of them and fewer and fewer gas cars. That's
what happened when everybody started wanting SUVs (why?), and it's what
always happens in a free market.

>
> My gasoline-powered car currently gets ~400 miles per tankful, not
> quite the range they predict for this new technology, presuming they
> can get all the bugs out of the current design. But note that the
> article says the current-technology, much-touted--but still has to be
> government-subsidised to make it commercially viable--Chevy Volt only
> gets 50 miles per charge. The Nissan Leaf gets a little better range
> at 100 miles per charge, but consider the further commentary here:
> http://nlpc.org/stories/2011/11/10/nissan-leaf-fails-real-life-test-miserably
>
> Yes, electric cars might be the wave of the future. But the important
> point *today* is that that particular future hasn't happened yet.

And never will if we don't get moving on it in time to have it up and
running when the oil runs out. I recently read an article by Neal
Stephenson about how SF is all doom-and-gloom now about technology, when
it used to be the stuff that made potential engineers then in their
teens say "I could build that!" and devote their lives to doing so.

http://www.worldpolicy.org/journal/fall2011/innovation-starvation

[Chris Zakes]

Ah, another case of "shoot the messenger, ignore the message."

[GaryN]

Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in

news:jnm6ll$23cu$1...@mud.stack.nl:

> On 04-29-12 7:31 PM, GaryN wrote:

<snip>

>> Being of the biker persuasion I suggest that all cars should
>> immediately be banned, all freight moved by rail, and only British
>> motorcycles be allowed on the roads of our great country.
>
> That's OK so long as you allow motor-tricycles (the only time I tried
> to ride a motorbike other than as pillion, I couldn't keep the thing
> upright. And that was just a 250). And some kind of protection from
> the weather, though given the rest of your post you may not want to
> allow that, at least not for attractive young women. So if you're
> going that far, you might as well go the rest of the way and allow
> small electric runabouts, which lead to large electric
> freight-carriers. With heaters in them.
>
> Lesley.
>

There is no such thing as bad weather - just inadequate clothing!

The dozy bint was walking through a full scale electrical storm, the
intent of which was to reclaim the land by airdrop, in a long fluffy
coat and a wooly hat! Both of which soak up the arriving water and then
distribute it.

I use my FT Aqua jacket and a wide brimmed hat treated with Fabsil[1],
the SO uses the Mascot waterproof padded jacket (with hood) that I gave
her. Both of us with waterproof, padded overtrousers and well dubbined
combat boots.

Because we like staying warm and dry and not getting Pneumonia.

Amazing how much better that works than arriving saturated and shivering
to try and persuade someone that they should vote for your party!

gary

[1]Good stuff if you can get it - spray can, waterproofs just about any
fabric if used properly.

[Chris Zakes]

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 07:26:05 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser

caused Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> to write:

>On 04-30-12 4:58 AM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 10:38:05 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
>> caused Lesley Weston<brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> to write:
>>
>>> I've just read this:
>>>
>>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=lithium-air-oxygen-battery&WT.mc_id=SA_WR_20120425
>>>
>>> or http://tinyurl.com/88fbss4
>>>
>>> which seems relevant to our recent discussion on electric cars. It's
>>> early days yet, but abandoning theoretically-sound ideas because they
>>> need more work before they can become industrial processes is not the
>>> way to move forward.
>>
>> Granted, but abandoning existing working technology now for something
>> that *might* be viable in 2020 is equally foolish.
>
>Why abandon anything? Nothing changes overnight, but if developing
>electric technolology is subsidised, perhaps out of some of the profits
>from making gasoline cars, then gradually it will take over. As more and
>more people look for electrics for their next car, the industry will
>shift to make more and more of them and fewer and fewer gas cars. That's
>what happened when everybody started wanting SUVs (why?), and it's what
>always happens in a free market.

Um... last time I looked, a free market didn't *need* subsidies from
the government. That's part of what makes it "free", after all: the
lack of strings connected to some bureaucrat (who probably doesn't
have a clue about how your business works, but nevertheless considers
himslef competent to tell you how to run it.) Upthread you'd mentioned
Jobs and Wozniak's work on home computers, Chain, Jennings and
Florey's work with penecillin and Bell's work on the telephone. Now
tell me which government, or government agency was subsidising their
work?

And the notion that the government should take money from existing car
companies and use it to fund their competitors... what's free market
about that?

As for SUVs, I expect most people want them for the same reason I want
one: so they can carry more kids or stuff than in a sedan or Smart
Car.

>> My gasoline-powered car currently gets ~400 miles per tankful, not
>> quite the range they predict for this new technology, presuming they
>> can get all the bugs out of the current design. But note that the
>> article says the current-technology, much-touted--but still has to be
>> government-subsidised to make it commercially viable--Chevy Volt only
>> gets 50 miles per charge. The Nissan Leaf gets a little better range
>> at 100 miles per charge, but consider the further commentary here:
>> http://nlpc.org/stories/2011/11/10/nissan-leaf-fails-real-life-test-miserably
>>
>> Yes, electric cars might be the wave of the future. But the important
>> point *today* is that that particular future hasn't happened yet.
>
>And never will if we don't get moving on it in time to have it up and
>running when the oil runs out.

You keep talking like *nobody* is working on developing electric cars,
or better technology to make them more competitive, while at the same
time posting an article about developing a better lithium battery to
do that very thing. So which is it, really?

[GaryN]

Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:g0atp7podib2tguh9...@4ax.com:

<snip>

> You keep talking like *nobody* is working on developing electric cars,
> or better technology to make them more competitive, while at the same
> time posting an article about developing a better lithium battery to
> do that very thing. So which is it, really?
>
> -Chris Zakes
> Texas

Just one minor point that I would like to, well, point out. Particularly
in view of the recent petrol crisis.

Where do I top up my electric car's battery? Nowhere in Oxfred for
certain!

And can I carry spare electrickery in a Jerrycan? So if I run out I can
top up?

Where does the electrickery come from anyway? Is it some nasty people
burning oil and coal? Or playing with neutrons?

What the Greenies appear to forget is that the electrical power has to come
from somewhere.

gary

[Kevin Wells]

In message <XnsA045A44625BD9...@216.196.109.145>

GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:

>
>Amazing how much better that works than arriving saturated and shivering
>to try and persuade someone that they should vote for your party!

Any fool can be cold, wet and miserable.


--
Kev Wells http://riscos.kevsoft.co.uk/
http://kevsoft.co.uk/ http://kevsoft.co.uk/AleQuest/
ICQ 238580561
The older I get the faster I used to be.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Monday, April 30, 2012 6:00:29 PM UTC+1, GaryN wrote:
> Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:g0atp7podib2tguh9...@4ax.com:
>
> <snip>
>
> > You keep talking like *nobody* is working on developing electric cars,
> > or better technology to make them more competitive, while at the same
> > time posting an article about developing a better lithium battery to
> > do that very thing. So which is it, really?
> >
> > -Chris Zakes
> > Texas
>
> Just one minor point that I would like to, well, point out. Particularly
> in view of the recent petrol crisis.
>
> Where do I top up my electric car's battery? Nowhere in Oxfred for
> certain!
>
> And can I carry spare electrickery in a Jerrycan? So if I run out I can
> top up?
>
> Where does the electrickery come from anyway? Is it some nasty people
> burning oil and coal? Or playing with neutrons?
>
> What the Greenies appear to forget is that the electrical power has to come
> from somewhere.

If you mean Oxford, then apparently since January 2011:

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/headlines/8783915.Oxford_s_electric_motorists_can_refuel_free/

Petrolheads furious, evidently.

[GaryN]

Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
news:23583138.2047.1335810809777.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbxz8:

<snip>

> If you mean Oxford, then apparently since January 2011:
>
> http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/headlines/8783915.Oxford_s_electric_mo
> torists_can_refuel_free/
>
> Petrolheads furious, evidently.
>

Must have missed that, certainly hasn't been widely advertised locally.
Driving in Oxfred is damn near impossible these days and most of the charge
points seem to be well outside usual routes.

I all honesty nobody in their right mind drives in Oxfred these days.

[Jessie_C]

In article <pu9tp711djmi0168i...@4ax.com>, dont...@gmail.com
says...

> Ah, another case of "shoot the messenger, ignore the message."
>

No, it's a case of "This messenger is known to fabricate messenges; they cannot
be relied upon to tell the truth. Liars cannot be trusted."

Now if you can find something written by someone with a reputation for honesty,
I'll consider it.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Monday, April 30, 2012 8:53:55 PM UTC+1, GaryN wrote:
> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
> news:23583138.2047.1335810809777.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbxz8:
>
> <snip>
>
> > If you mean Oxford, then apparently since January 2011:
> >
> > http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/headlines/8783915.Oxford_s_electric_mo
> > torists_can_refuel_free/
> >
> > Petrolheads furious, evidently.
> >
>
> Must have missed that, certainly hasn't been widely advertised locally.
> Driving in Oxfred is damn near impossible these days and most of the charge
> points seem to be well outside usual routes.
>
> I all honesty nobody in their right mind drives in Oxfred these days.

That must be why they've cunningly hidden the
electric charge spaces at several car parks with
an associated public transport "park and ride"
service. Sneakily concealing the basic futility
of, well, being alive, I suppose.

[Chris Zakes]

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:48:10 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
caused <Jessie_C> to write:

>In article <pu9tp711djmi0168i...@4ax.com>, dont...@gmail.com
>says...
>> Ah, another case of "shoot the messenger, ignore the message."
>>
>
>No, it's a case of "This messenger is known to fabricate messenges; they cannot
>be relied upon to tell the truth. Liars cannot be trusted."

The way you phrased it sounded like you were condemning them *solely*
because they were right-wing, and without bothering to read the
article.

>Now if you can find something written by someone with a reputation for honesty,
>I'll consider it.

You could try the Consumer Reports article that they used as a basis
for their comments:
http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2011/11/driving-the-nissan-leaf-hurray-for-traffic-1.html

[Chris Zakes]

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 12:00:29 -0500, an orbital mind-control laser
caused GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> to write:

>Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:g0atp7podib2tguh9...@4ax.com:
>
><snip>
>
>> You keep talking like *nobody* is working on developing electric cars,
>> or better technology to make them more competitive, while at the same
>> time posting an article about developing a better lithium battery to
>> do that very thing. So which is it, really?
>>
>> -Chris Zakes
>> Texas
>
>Just one minor point that I would like to, well, point out. Particularly
>in view of the recent petrol crisis.
>
>Where do I top up my electric car's battery? Nowhere in Oxfred for
>certain!
>
>And can I carry spare electrickery in a Jerrycan? So if I run out I can
>top up?
>
>Where does the electrickery come from anyway? Is it some nasty people
>burning oil and coal? Or playing with neutrons?
>
>What the Greenies appear to forget is that the electrical power has to come
>from somewhere.
>
>gary

Didn't you know? Half of it is coming from all the wind farms that are
cluttering up the landscape, killing migrating birds and emitting
annoying noises. The other half is coming from the solar power plants
that are taking up any space not cluttered with wind farms.

Or something like that.

[Chris Zakes]

I find it interesting that the electricity for these recharging
stations is ostensibly free. As far as I know, usable electricity
doesn't just fall out of the sky; it has to be produced *somewhere*
and transmitted to the end-user. So who's paying for this "free"
electricity? The taxpayers through government subsidies? Local
electric customers through higher bills? Somebody else?

[John S. Wilkins]

GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:

> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> news:jnju9t$t89$1...@mud.stack.nl:
>
> > I've just read this:
> >
> > http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=lithium-air-oxygen-
> bat
> > tery&WT.mc_id=SA_WR_20120425
> >
> <snip>
> >
> > [1] That's probably apocryphal, but it makes a better story than
> > Jennings noticing what mould was doing to the bacteria growing on the
> > agar in a petri dish, which is more likely to be what happened.
>
> Being of the biker persuasion I suggest that all cars should immediately
> be banned, all freight moved by rail, and only British motorcycles be
> allowed on the roads of our great country.
>
> This was a Party Political Broadcast for the B*M*P (British
> Motorcyclists Party (Ours are better))
>
> Spot the person who is thoroughly fed up with current UK politics!

I'm sorry, but I must put ina good word for Italian, German and Japanese
motorcycles. USians motorcycles, of course, self destruct at the first
turn of the road.

>
> Bloody canvassers for the council elections next week are worse than
> Jehovas Witnesses. Had one today. Saturated (it's been pissing down
> for 3 days here) and I gave her a cup of tea while her outer kit steamed
> on the radiators.
>
> Probably not going to vote for her party, whoever they are, because I
> was too busy looking at the wet t-shirt which obviously didn't have a
> bra under it[1], to take any notice of what she was saying.
>
> If anyone wants to call me sexist then remember - the day I fail to
> notice an attractive, if annoying, woman; you can dig the hole, push me
> in and shovel the dirt over. Because I'm dead.
>
> I think that's close to being a quote from Heinleins "Number of the
> Beast" but not exact and I'm not sure.
>
> Anyway she got a hot cuppa and partially dried clothes in a warm house
> out of it while I got to look at her tits for 20 minutes.
>
> Who got the best of that deal?
>
>
> gary
>
> [1]When buying waterproof outer garments be sure it does what it says on
> the label. --
> "When California slides into the ocean, like the mystics and statistics
> say it will I predict this motel will be standing
> Until I pay my bill"
>
> Warren Zevon.

--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

[Robert Carnegie]

On Tuesday, May 1, 2012 3:20:22 AM UTC+1, Chris Zakes wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 11:33:29 -0700 (PDT), an orbital mind-control
> laser caused Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> to write:
>

> > Apparently since January 2011:

> >
> >http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/headlines/8783915.Oxford_s_electric_motorists_can_refuel_free/
> >
> >Petrolheads furious, evidently.
>
> I find it interesting that the electricity for these recharging
> stations is ostensibly free. As far as I know, usable electricity
> doesn't just fall out of the sky; it has to be produced *somewhere*
> and transmitted to the end-user. So who's paying for this "free"
> electricity? The taxpayers through government subsidies? Local
> electric customers through higher bills? Somebody else?

It may be "sustainable", in which case it does fall out of the sky,
onto solar panels; blow in, with the wind; wash up on the sea shore -
tide and wave. The rest is just infrastructure. I use quotes,
because even one billion years from now, these energy sources may
be impaired; for instance, the sea will probably naturally evaporate
around then.

The park-and-ride car parking fee is GBP 1.50 for the privilege of
storing your car on a small rectangle of land for one day, and
apparently that's enough to pay for 75 miles of electric driving,
depending on the car, and on how you handle it.

[GaryN]

Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:htgup7t9dri3encov...@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 12:00:29 -0500, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> to write:

<snip>

>>What the Greenies appear to forget is that the electrical power has to
>>come from somewhere.
>>
>>gary
>
> Didn't you know? Half of it is coming from all the wind farms that are
> cluttering up the landscape, killing migrating birds and emitting
> annoying noises. The other half is coming from the solar power plants
> that are taking up any space not cluttered with wind farms.
>
> Or something like that.
>
> -Chris Zakes
> Texas

Well it won't be water power with half the country on hosepipe ban
drought orders *AND* over 160 flood warnings issued at the same time!
Usually in the same areas.

This does actually make sense. The hosepipe ban is due to dry winter =
ground too dry for 4 days torrential rain to soak in, hence runoff
causing flooding. But telling someone whose house is flooded that
they're not allowed to use a hosepipe, because of the drought, still
smacks of the absurd!

[Lesley Weston]

On 04-30-12 7:56 AM, Chris Zakes wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 07:18:15 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused<Jessie_C> to write:
>
>> In article<ddusp7ttjr7i90ht8...@4ax.com>, dont...@gmail.com
>> says...
>>> but consider the further commentary here:
>>> http://nlpc.org/stories/2011/11/10/nissan-leaf-fails-real-life-test-miserably
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, couldn't get past the Right Wing bias in that article. National Legal
>> and Policy Centre is on Right Wing Watch's list; they're known to fabricate
>> sources and ignore debnkings. Therefore I must regard anything they publish as
>> suspect.
>
> Ah, another case of "shoot the messenger, ignore the message."

OK, having shot the messenger because I trust Jessie better than I trust
an organisation called "National Legal and Policy Centre", I checked the
message. The Leaf has a small range. Right. So we need to follow up some
or all of the promising leads for increasing the range, not to ditch the
whole idea of electric cars.

[Lesley Weston]

Surely you jest? /Consumer Reports/ is a commercial organisation
notorious for their biases in favour of certain products that turn out
to be useless and for condemning other excellent products whose
manufacturers presumably didn't take the editor to the right restaurant
or provided too small a Summer cottage or whatever. Do you have anything
on the topic that you found through Google Scholar?

[Lesley Weston]

On 04-30-12 8:27 AM, Chris Zakes wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 07:26:05 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused Lesley Weston<brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> to write:
>
>> On 04-30-12 4:58 AM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 10:38:05 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
>>> caused Lesley Weston<brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> to write:
>>>
>>>> I've just read this:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=lithium-air-oxygen-battery&WT.mc_id=SA_WR_20120425
>>>>
>>>> or http://tinyurl.com/88fbss4
>>>>
>>>> which seems relevant to our recent discussion on electric cars. It's
>>>> early days yet, but abandoning theoretically-sound ideas because they
>>>> need more work before they can become industrial processes is not the
>>>> way to move forward.
>>>
>>> Granted, but abandoning existing working technology now for something
>>> that *might* be viable in 2020 is equally foolish.
>>
>> Why abandon anything? Nothing changes overnight, but if developing
>> electric technolology is subsidised, perhaps out of some of the profits
>>from making gasoline cars, then gradually it will take over. As more and
>> more people look for electrics for their next car, the industry will
>> shift to make more and more of them and fewer and fewer gas cars. That's
>> what happened when everybody started wanting SUVs (why?), and it's what
>> always happens in a free market.
>
> Um... last time I looked, a free market didn't *need* subsidies from
> the government.

Not at that stage, no. But in order to produce something that will be
competitive later, they need some help now. It wouldn't be important if
it were just a matter of producing pink pop tarts instead of purple, or
vice versa; the supply of whatever pop tarts are made of [1] isn't
running out [2], so there's no RL pressure to drive commercial
development of them.

> That's part of what makes it "free", after all: the
> lack of strings connected to some bureaucrat (who probably doesn't
> have a clue about how your business works, but nevertheless considers
> himslef competent to tell you how to run it.) Upthread you'd mentioned
> Jobs and Wozniak's work on home computers, Chain, Jennings and
> Florey's work with penecillin and Bell's work on the telephone. Now
> tell me which government, or government agency was subsidising their
> work?

J&W and Bell, I don't know. But C,J&F were supported by the British
Government, who wanted some way to keep their troops alive when their
wounds got infected.

>
> And the notion that the government should take money from existing car
> companies and use it to fund their competitors... what's free market
> about that?

Why should it be their competitors? Any car manufacturer with half a
brain is working on developing electric cars and has been for some time.
If they get help from the Government in the form of some of the money
they pay as taxes coming back to them for research, they'll move that
much faster and might even win the race against the end of oil.

<snip>

>>> Yes, electric cars might be the wave of the future. But the important
>>> point *today* is that that particular future hasn't happened yet.
>>
>> And never will if we don't get moving on it in time to have it up and
>> running when the oil runs out.
>
> You keep talking like *nobody* is working on developing electric cars,
> or better technology to make them more competitive, while at the same
> time posting an article about developing a better lithium battery to
> do that very thing. So which is it, really?

That's in answer to your repeated argument that electric cars don't have
much range, so governments shouldn't waste their time and our money on
them because the future hasn't happened yet.

[1] Certainly not food.

[2] Unless it's petroleum by-products, which it may well be.

[Lesley Weston]

On 04-30-12 10:00 AM, GaryN wrote:
> Chris Zakes<dont...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:g0atp7podib2tguh9...@4ax.com:
>
> <snip>
>
>> You keep talking like *nobody* is working on developing electric cars,
>> or better technology to make them more competitive, while at the same
>> time posting an article about developing a better lithium battery to
>> do that very thing. So which is it, really?
>>
>> -Chris Zakes
>> Texas
>
> Just one minor point that I would like to, well, point out. Particularly
> in view of the recent petrol crisis.
>
> Where do I top up my electric car's battery? Nowhere in Oxfred for
> certain!

The company in my original post are building a series of power-supply
stations throughout BC. That's just the first step, made here because
the BC Government is subsidising the building.

>
> And can I carry spare electrickery in a Jerrycan? So if I run out I can
> top up?

I'm sure that one is soluble, though not being an engineer I don't know how.

> Where does the electrickery come from anyway? Is it some nasty people
> burning oil and coal? Or playing with neutrons?

No reason why it should be, though nuclear power is a good idea. There
are all sorts of alternative technologies, some of them already being
used to produce electricity or to reduce the demand for it so that it
can be used for something else.

>
> What the Greenies appear to forget is that the electrical power has to come
> from somewhere.

It's not really a matter of greenness. The oil supplies are dwindling,
so if we want to go on living as we do now or better we have no choice
but to develop alternatives. Reducing pollution and slowing climate
change are extra bonuses, not the reason to do it.

[Lesley Weston]

That's good! Especially "The cars have a range of 155 miles per battery
charge". That's enough for most people's daily needs, except in Texas,
and means that the cars can usually be charged at home. While the
charging stations are free it makes better sense to use them than your
home power, but that's probably just a temporary publicity thing.

[Lesley Weston]

On 04-30-12 10:09 AM, A.Reader wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 10:38:05 -0700,
> Lesley Weston<brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I've just read this:
>>
>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=lithium-air-oxygen-battery&WT.mc_id=SA_WR_20120425
>>
>> or http://tinyurl.com/88fbss4
>>
>> which seems relevant to our recent discussion on electric cars. It's
>> early days yet, but abandoning theoretically-sound ideas because they
>> need more work before they can become industrial processes is not the
>> way to move forward.
>

> No, but meanwhile cyclecars would be a far better idea than
> buggering around trying to get enough battery to move a 200 lb
> payload wrapped in 2000 lb of steel. That's the problem with
> current designs: they've totally lost the north.
>
> Compare to a 3-wheel tadpole cyclecar: v-twin diesel, 2 seats,
> rag top, less than 500 lb unladen, 200mpg @ 50mph on used oil
> from the chip shop.

Is the cyclecar powered by people using pedals or by a "v-twin diesel"?
If the former, then apart from the greater consumption of food and
increased production of CO2 and the various nasty things in sweat,
travel is free and non-polluting and doesn't use up the oil, which has
to be a Good Thing so long as you're able-bodied. Not much use to the
people who most need personal transport, those who are physically
disabled in various ways.

If it's the latter, then we just have a small car. Better than a SUV,
certainly, but not really an improvement otherwise.

And besides:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=II1U-85lzkQ

[Alec Cawley]

GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
> Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:g0atp7podib2tguh9...@4ax.com:
>
> <snip>
>
>> You keep talking like *nobody* is working on developing electric cars,
>> or better technology to make them more competitive, while at the same
>> time posting an article about developing a better lithium battery to
>> do that very thing. So which is it, really?
>>
>> -Chris Zakes
>> Texas
>
> Just one minor point that I would like to, well, point out. Particularly
> in view of the recent petrol crisis.
>
> Where do I top up my electric car's battery? Nowhere in Oxfred for
> certain!

Off your household mains, using cheap overnight electricity.

Though there will have to be high speed recharging points on major roads,
which can top you up in fifteen minutes, or do a battery swap in two.

>
> And can I carry spare electrickery in a Jerrycan? So if I run out I can
> top up?

You can't. Which is a problem. But aircraft seem able to manage without
jerry cans. It means a bit more planning and forethought, and the stupid
will get caught out. But I am pretty sure you are far off that stupid.

> Where does the electrickery come from anyway? Is it some nasty people
> burning oil and coal? Or playing with neutrons?

Possibly. But there are other ways of playing it. One of the problem with
solar and wind is their irregularity. But if you. An get people to hook up
to intelligent charging points when parked for a while (at home or at work,
but probably not at the shops) the set of all parked cars becomes a huge
battery pack to even out the bumps in the renewable supplies. It requires a
bit more planning - you would have to warn an hour or two before you wanted
to take your car of a full range run. But for the ordinary commute, they
will ensure that you have enough charge for your needs, and then use the
remainder as a reserve.

> What the Greenies appear to forget is that the electrical power has to come
> from somewhere.

But fixed power stations can afford much heavier and more effective
anti-pollution devices. /If/ carbon capture ever works, of which I have
strong doubts, this would make it almost non polluting. And then there are
renewables, as described. And maybe one day fusion power may not be thirty
years off.

(I want to see more research in open ocean deep water thermal energy).

[Jessie_C]

In article <XnsA045B72D7E1A1...@216.196.109.145>,
webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk says...

> Where does the electrickery come from anyway? Is it some nasty people
> burning oil and coal? Or playing with neutrons?
>
>

Geothermal generation has hardly been touched, nor has tidal, ocean thermal,
orbital solar...

[Chris Zakes]

On Tue, 01 May 2012 07:34:13 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser

caused Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> to write:

And when have I *ever* said we should ditch the whole idea of electric
cars? I've said they're not really commercially viable *right now* due
to higher costs and limited driving range, and that more work needs to
be done to make them viable. And I've questioned who should be paying
for that work--the taxpayers through government subsidies or venture
capitalists, clever inventors, existing car companies or other private
operations.

Bear in mind that the original discussion started a couple of weeks
ago when somebody said we needed to dump gasoline-based cars and
switch to electric immediately, not wait until the technology was
developed.

[Chris Zakes]

On Tue, 1 May 2012 05:55:12 -0700 (PDT), an orbital mind-control

laser caused Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> to write:

>On Tuesday, May 1, 2012 3:20:22 AM UTC+1, Chris Zakes wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 11:33:29 -0700 (PDT), an orbital mind-control
>> laser caused Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> to write:
>>
>> > Apparently since January 2011:
>> >
>> >http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/headlines/8783915.Oxford_s_electric_motorists_can_refuel_free/
>> >
>> >Petrolheads furious, evidently.
>>
>> I find it interesting that the electricity for these recharging
>> stations is ostensibly free. As far as I know, usable electricity
>> doesn't just fall out of the sky; it has to be produced *somewhere*
>> and transmitted to the end-user. So who's paying for this "free"
>> electricity? The taxpayers through government subsidies? Local
>> electric customers through higher bills? Somebody else?
>
>It may be "sustainable", in which case it does fall out of the sky,
>onto solar panels; blow in, with the wind; wash up on the sea shore -
>tide and wave. The rest is just infrastructure.

And a few minor details like making solar power more viable, dealing
with the NIMBY folks against wind turbines... um, *are* there any wave
or tidal electric generators up and running, or are they still on the
drawing board?

>I use quotes,
>because even one billion years from now, these energy sources may
>be impaired; for instance, the sea will probably naturally evaporate
>around then.
>
>The park-and-ride car parking fee is GBP 1.50 for the privilege of
>storing your car on a small rectangle of land for one day, and
>apparently that's enough to pay for 75 miles of electric driving,
>depending on the car, and on how you handle it.

But, apparently, not enough to pay for topping up the petrol tank. It
sure looks like *somebody* is being discriminated against.

[Chris Zakes]

On Tue, 01 May 2012 08:32:13 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser

caused Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> to write:

Unless they're being powered by on-site solar cells or wind turbines,
I doubt they're really "free". The cost is just being spread around
among everybody who pays taxes (most of whom probably *don't* use this
so-called free service.)

And I note that a full recharge takes three hours (vs. maybe five
minutes to put gas in my car.) If it took that long to gas up my car,
and I had to do it every 155 miles, I'd go back to riding my bicycle
full-time.

Frankly, all this says to me is that electric cars aren't ready for
prime-time yet.

[Lesley Weston]

On 05-01-12 3:29 PM, Alec Cawley wrote:
> GaryN<webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:

<snip>

>> Where does the electrickery come from anyway? Is it some nasty people
>> burning oil and coal? Or playing with neutrons?
>
> Possibly. But there are other ways of playing it. One of the problem with
> solar and wind is their irregularity. But if you. An get people to hook up
> to intelligent charging points when parked for a while (at home or at work,
> but probably not at the shops) the set of all parked cars becomes a huge
> battery pack to even out the bumps in the renewable supplies. It requires a
> bit more planning - you would have to warn an hour or two before you wanted
> to take your car of a full range run. But for the ordinary commute, they
> will ensure that you have enough charge for your needs, and then use the
> remainder as a reserve.

That's clever! Are there any such plans in the works? Or perhaps the
equivalent of those charging pads that you put your phone on when you
get home. Induction pads in all parking spots.

>
>> What the Greenies appear to forget is that the electrical power has to come
>> from somewhere.
>
> But fixed power stations can afford much heavier and more effective
> anti-pollution devices. /If/ carbon capture ever works, of which I have
> strong doubts, this would make it almost non polluting. And then there are
> renewables, as described. And maybe one day fusion power may not be thirty
> years off.

When I was doing A-levels, in 1962, the class went on a tour of Harwell
[1]. They proudly showed us various reactors, including what had been
ZETA. "An early attempt to build a large-scale nuclear fusion reactor,
the project was started in 1954, and the first successes were achieved
in 1957. In 1958 the project was shut down, as it was believed that no
further progress could be made with the kind of design that ZETA
represented."

Shame, really. But if it can ever happen it's pretty much the answer to
everything.

>
> (I want to see more research in open ocean deep water thermal energy).

Me too.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_Energy_Research_Establishment

[Chris Zakes]

On 1 May 2012 22:29:04 GMT, an orbital mind-control laser caused Alec

Cawley <al...@spamspam.co.uk> to write:

>GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
>> Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:g0atp7podib2tguh9...@4ax.com:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> You keep talking like *nobody* is working on developing electric cars,
>>> or better technology to make them more competitive, while at the same
>>> time posting an article about developing a better lithium battery to
>>> do that very thing. So which is it, really?
>>>
>>> -Chris Zakes
>>> Texas
>>
>> Just one minor point that I would like to, well, point out. Particularly
>> in view of the recent petrol crisis.
>>
>> Where do I top up my electric car's battery? Nowhere in Oxfred for
>> certain!
>
>Off your household mains, using cheap overnight electricity.
>
>Though there will have to be high speed recharging points on major roads,
>which can top you up in fifteen minutes, or do a battery swap in two.
>
>>
>> And can I carry spare electrickery in a Jerrycan? So if I run out I can
>> top up?
>
>You can't. Which is a problem. But aircraft seem able to manage without
>jerry cans. It means a bit more planning and forethought, and the stupid
>will get caught out. But I am pretty sure you are far off that stupid.

Should I point out that airplanes *don't* run on electricity? They
have very large fuel tanks, burning good old petrochemicals to power
their engines.

[Chris Zakes]

On Tue, 01 May 2012 08:25:58 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser

caused Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> to write:

>On 04-30-12 10:00 AM, GaryN wrote:
>> Chris Zakes<dont...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:g0atp7podib2tguh9...@4ax.com:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> You keep talking like *nobody* is working on developing electric cars,
>>> or better technology to make them more competitive, while at the same
>>> time posting an article about developing a better lithium battery to
>>> do that very thing. So which is it, really?
>>>
>>> -Chris Zakes
>>> Texas
>>
>> Just one minor point that I would like to, well, point out. Particularly
>> in view of the recent petrol crisis.
>>
>> Where do I top up my electric car's battery? Nowhere in Oxfred for
>> certain!
>
>The company in my original post are building a series of power-supply
>stations throughout BC. That's just the first step, made here because
>the BC Government is subsidising the building.
>>
>> And can I carry spare electrickery in a Jerrycan? So if I run out I can
>> top up?
>
>I'm sure that one is soluble, though not being an engineer I don't know how.

<shrug> It's called a spare battery. Whether it's *practical* or not
is another matter.

[Alec Cawley]

The point is not the nature of the fuel, but that planning can make
journeys quite safe without the need for a spare jerry can. You do not see
the copilot out on the wing with the jerry can, topping up 100 miles from
the destination. You can plan: the work involved is minor.

[Alec Cawley]

Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
> When I was doing A-levels, in 1962, the class went on a tour of Harwell
> [1]. They proudly showed us various reactors, including what had been
> ZETA. "An early attempt to build a large-scale nuclear fusion reactor,
> the project was started in 1954, and the first successes were achieved in
> 1957. In 1958 the project was shut down, as it was believed that no
> further progress could be made with the kind of design that ZETA represented."
>
> Shame, really. But if it can ever happen it's pretty much the answer to everything.

.
A few years ago I toured the JET at Culham (fascinating, much recommended).
They were all beginning the buildup to ITER, but they also said that if
someone said, right now, to go for a commercial plant and assume that ITER
had delivered what they expect it will, then allowing for all the design,
planning and commercial delays, it would be 27 years before the first real,
large scale fusion power station went on grid.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Wednesday, May 2, 2012 3:38:40 PM UTC+1, Chris Zakes wrote:
> On Tue, 01 May 2012 08:32:13 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused Lesley Weston

> to write:
>
> >On 04-30-12 11:33 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >> http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/headlines/8783915.Oxford_s_electric_motorists_can_refuel_free/
> >>
> >> Petrolheads furious, evidently.
> >
> >
> >That's good! Especially "The cars have a range of 155 miles per battery
> >charge". That's enough for most people's daily needs, except in Texas,
> >and means that the cars can usually be charged at home. While the
> >charging stations are free it makes better sense to use them than your
> >home power, but that's probably just a temporary publicity thing.
> >
> >Lesley.
>
> Unless they're being powered by on-site solar cells or wind turbines,
> I doubt they're really "free". The cost is just being spread around
> among everybody who pays taxes (most of whom probably *don't* use this
> so-called free service.)

Or, around electricity companies, who may do very well out of
electric cars once they catch on.

[GaryN]

Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in

news:9773993.1892.1335992620290.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbya4:

<snip>

> Or, around electricity companies, who may do very well out of
> electric cars once they catch on.
>

If someone develops an electric motorcycle that can match my '87 CBR1000
then I might be interested. 130mph, 165 miles before hitting reserve
(bloody fiddly tap on those) with about another 30 miles before a 5 minute
fill up then I may be interested.

Don't think electric motorcycles will ever catch on. It's just not,
right! Not for real bikers anyway.

Most of us are quite in favour of green stuff but like the gun lobby in
USia - "You can take my motorcycle out of my cold, dead, hands"

I'm not supposed to ride but still do occasionally because I might as well
be dead if I didn't.

[Chris Zakes]

On Wed, 02 May 2012 17:46:51 -0500, an orbital mind-control laser
caused GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> to write:

>Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
>news:9773993.1892.1335992620290.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbya4:
>
><snip>
>
>> Or, around electricity companies, who may do very well out of
>> electric cars once they catch on.
>>
>
>If someone develops an electric motorcycle that can match my '87 CBR1000
>then I might be interested. 130mph, 165 miles before hitting reserve
>(bloody fiddly tap on those) with about another 30 miles before a 5 minute
>fill up then I may be interested.

There's always *this* option...
http://thereifixedit.failblog.org/2012/04/22/white-trash-repairs-the-dominos-pizza-safe-scooter/

[Chris Zakes]

On 2 May 2012 19:37:22 GMT, an orbital mind-control laser caused Alec

Of course not. If you run out of fuel, you have to turn around and go
back for some more. Like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38N5OcZx3ko

[GaryN]

Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:agr3q793p5oq3jknf...@4ax.com:

<snip>

> There's always *this* option...
> http://thereifixedit.failblog.org/2012/04/22/white-trash-repairs-the-do
> minos-pizza-safe-scooter/
>
> -Chris Zakes
> Texas

Can you turn the engine sound on and off?

In Oxfred the temptation to sneak up on cyclists (who are apparently exempt
from traffic laws), and scare the shite out of them, would be irresistable!

[Lesley Weston]

On 05-02-12 7:22 AM, Chris Zakes wrote:
> On Tue, 01 May 2012 07:34:13 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused Lesley Weston<brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> to write:
>
>> On 04-30-12 7:56 AM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 07:18:15 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
>>> caused<Jessie_C> to write:
>>>
>>>> In article<ddusp7ttjr7i90ht8...@4ax.com>, dont...@gmail.com
>>>> says...
>>>>> but consider the further commentary here:
>>>>> http://nlpc.org/stories/2011/11/10/nissan-leaf-fails-real-life-test-miserably
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, couldn't get past the Right Wing bias in that article. National Legal
>>>> and Policy Centre is on Right Wing Watch's list; they're known to fabricate
>>>> sources and ignore debnkings. Therefore I must regard anything they publish as
>>>> suspect.
>>>
>>> Ah, another case of "shoot the messenger, ignore the message."
>>
>> OK, having shot the messenger because I trust Jessie better than I trust
>> an organisation called "National Legal and Policy Centre", I checked the
>> message. The Leaf has a small range. Right. So we need to follow up some
>> or all of the promising leads for increasing the range, not to ditch the
>> whole idea of electric cars.
>>
>> Lesley.
>
> And when have I *ever* said we should ditch the whole idea of electric
> cars?

That's true, you haven't.

> I've said they're not really commercially viable *right now* due
> to higher costs and limited driving range,

That's true too.

> and that more work needs to
> be done to make them viable.

But you've never said that, and always argued when I said it. I'm glad
you've changed your mind now.

> And I've questioned who should be paying
> for that work--the taxpayers through government subsidies or venture
> capitalists, clever inventors, existing car companies or other private
> operations.

Which means nobody does, once it's covered by the Somebody Else's
Problem Field.

>
> Bear in mind that the original discussion started a couple of weeks
> ago when somebody said we needed to dump gasoline-based cars and
> switch to electric immediately, not wait until the technology was
> developed.

I must have missed that post.

[Lesley Weston]

On 05-02-12 7:38 AM, Chris Zakes wrote:
> On Tue, 01 May 2012 08:32:13 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused Lesley Weston<brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> to write:
>
>> On 04-30-12 11:33 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>> On Monday, April 30, 2012 6:00:29 PM UTC+1, GaryN wrote:

<snip>

>>>> What the Greenies appear to forget is that the electrical power has to come
>>>> from somewhere.
>>>
>>> If you mean Oxford, then apparently since January 2011:
>>>
>>> http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/headlines/8783915.Oxford_s_electric_motorists_can_refuel_free/
>>>
>>> Petrolheads furious, evidently.
>>
>>
>> That's good! Especially "The cars have a range of 155 miles per battery
>> charge". That's enough for most people's daily needs, except in Texas,
>> and means that the cars can usually be charged at home. While the
>> charging stations are free it makes better sense to use them than your
>> home power, but that's probably just a temporary publicity thing.
>>
>> Lesley.
>
> Unless they're being powered by on-site solar cells or wind turbines,
> I doubt they're really "free". The cost is just being spread around
> among everybody who pays taxes (most of whom probably *don't* use this
> so-called free service.)

That's how society runs. Everybody works together towards a desirable
situation such as everybody benefiting from having a full electric-car
infrastructure already in place when the oil runs out.

>
> And I note that a full recharge takes three hours (vs. maybe five
> minutes to put gas in my car.) If it took that long to gas up my car,
> and I had to do it every 155 miles, I'd go back to riding my bicycle
> full-time.
>
> Frankly, all this says to me is that electric cars aren't ready for
> prime-time yet.

And never will be unless initiatives like the Oxford one and the BC
charging stations one are encouraged. I've been lucky: I've always lived
in places where people can see that there /will/ be some sort of future
whatever we do or don't do, and that if we want it to be one that suits
us we had better start working on making it so now.

[Lesley Weston]

On 05-02-12 7:45 AM, Chris Zakes wrote:
> On Tue, 01 May 2012 08:25:58 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused Lesley Weston<brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> to write:
>
>> On 04-30-12 10:00 AM, GaryN wrote:

<snip>

>>> And can I carry spare electrickery in a Jerrycan? So if I run out I can
>>> top up?
>>
>> I'm sure that one is soluble, though not being an engineer I don't know how.
>
> <shrug> It's called a spare battery. Whether it's *practical* or not
> is another matter.

Yes, sorry, I meant a practical solution. Maybe a heftier version of the
Booster Pack

http://tinyurl.com/cxzqwkq or

http://www.canadiantire.ca/AST/browse/4/Auto/3/Batteries/BatteryBoosting/PRDOVR~0111558P/MotoMaster+500A+Booster+Pack.jsp?locale=en

Ours kept the motor going long enough for us to get out of the major
intersection to a place where it was safe to stop and call the BCAA when
our alternator failed. So one that packs enough charge to get you to a
power socket would work, if it's possible to make one that's light
enough to have on board.

[GaryN]

Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:a1s3q7hrannsl4nij...@4ax.com:

IIRC (and I do - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Black_Buck) it took
11 Victor tanker aircraft to get 1 Vulcan bomber to the target at Port
Stanley. The Victors in front refuelled the Vulcan whilst also refuelling
the next wave of Victors before turning back.

Now that's planning, and a lot of jerry cans!

May not have been an enormously effective mission but you have to admire
the sheer determination that went into it.

The last of the Victor tankers was running on fumes and prayers when it got
back and the Vulcan was bloody nearly fired on by the Task Force on it's
return flight[1].

gary

[1]I happen to know the guy who was First Officer on HMS Glasgow at the
time, it was very close to them launching triple A at the Vulcan.

[steveski]

GaryN wrote:

> Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:agr3q793p5oq3jknf...@4ax.com:
>
> <snip>
>
>> There's always *this* option...
>> http://thereifixedit.failblog.org/2012/04/22/white-trash-repairs-the-do
>> minos-pizza-safe-scooter/

[snip]

> Can you turn the engine sound on and off?
>
> In Oxfred the temptation to sneak up on cyclists (who are apparently
> exempt from traffic laws), and scare the shite out of them, would be
> irresistable!

I remember these from, ISTR, the late sixties:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9na-_XVRhMM>

Oh, how I wanted one! But having seen the vid, I realise they're sooooo
crappy :-) Therein lies the nub of getting old - all those fondly
(mis)remembered things . . .

--
Steveski

[Alec Cawley]

Not true. The Someone Else's Problem field can be cancelled by the We Can
Make Money Field. But the way to do that is not to have the government hand
out free money to what they, heavily influenced by lobbyists, think a good
idea, but to raise the cost of the bad things. Which means a Carbon Tax
levied on all carbon based field, with no special cases, and a pollution
tax directly correlated with the harm pollution does. To start low and be
ramped up in well advertised steps. Some of the income to be used to
relieve undeserving sufferers, but not by subsidising what is taxed.

The point is to let the market decide whether electric, or hydrogen, or
super-busses, or home working, or something we don't know of yet, is the
solution. Or, of course, a mix of all of the above. But the basic point is
to tax the harm, and not to pick winners. Government has shown an
absolutely dire record on picking winners. I would guess a long term
failure rate of over 80%, and probably 90%. Price costs honestly, and let
individuals decide.

[Harry Vaderchi]

On Thu, 03 May 2012 18:24:12 +0100, GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk>
wrote:

>
> IIRC (and I do - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Black_Buck) it
> took
> 11 Victor tanker aircraft to get 1 Vulcan bomber to the target at Port
> Stanley. The Victors in front refuelled the Vulcan whilst also
> refuelling
> the next wave of Victors before turning back.
>
> Now that's planning, and a lot of jerry cans!

This is the standard "crossing the desert" maths problem.
AAW why it's enormously expensive to get to space.

--
[dash dash space newline 4line sig]

Albi CNU

[Larry Moore]

On 2012-05-03, steveski <stev...@invalid.com> wrote:

> I remember these from, ISTR, the late sixties:
>
><http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9na-_XVRhMM>
>
> Oh, how I wanted one! But having seen the vid, I realise they're sooooo
> crappy :-) Therein lies the nub of getting old - all those fondly
> (mis)remembered things . . .
>

Surely the trad usage is two wooden clothes pegs which secured
a playing card that flapped against the bike spokes.
We thought it was cool.

--
Out beyond ideas of right doing and wrong doing
THERE IS A FIELD
I'll meet you there
Rumi

[Chris Zakes]

On Thu, 03 May 2012 07:04:57 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser

Maybe I wasn't being as clear as you needed, but consider these two
quotes:
Wed, 11 Apr 2012
Build an electric car that's really competitive--same or better price,
driving range, interior space, etc. and you won't *need* government
coercion to make car manufacturers build them, or government subsidies
to get people to buy them. The market will do so on its own.

Wed, 11 Apr 2012
Luddite alarmist hype notwithstanding, we've got enough oil for quite
a while. I'm not saying we *shouldn't* develop other/better
technologies, but I don't see much evidence that we've gotten to the
point that such technology is competitive (without massive government
intervention) yet.

>> And I've questioned who should be paying
>> for that work--the taxpayers through government subsidies or venture
>> capitalists, clever inventors, existing car companies or other private
>> operations.
>
>Which means nobody does, once it's covered by the Somebody Else's
>Problem Field.
>>
>> Bear in mind that the original discussion started a couple of weeks
>> ago when somebody said we needed to dump gasoline-based cars and
>> switch to electric immediately, not wait until the technology was
>> developed.
>
>I must have missed that post.

On Sat, 07 Apr 2012, Larry Moore had written:

"Personally, I think our short-term PM Joe Clark had the right idea:
an 18 cent per/L tax on petroleum (proceeds to be distributed equally
to taxpayers) to encourage us to transition to the post-petroleum
world while we still have the chance."

[GaryN]

"Harry Vaderchi" <ad...@127.0.0.1> wrote in
news:op.wdq1rygu1r0rdn@dell3100:

May be a standard maths problem but it's still a hell of a lot of logistics
to work out in the Real World.

Coming soon to a NG near you. The standard fox, chicken and grain beside
the river problem!

gary

[Chris Zakes]

On 3 May 2012 19:49:22 GMT, an orbital mind-control laser caused Alec

Cawley <al...@spamspam.co.uk> to write:

>Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 05-02-12 7:22 AM, Chris Zakes wrote:

(snip)

>>> And I've questioned who should be paying
>>> for that work--the taxpayers through government subsidies or venture
>>> capitalists, clever inventors, existing car companies or other private
>>> operations.
>>
>> Which means nobody does, once it's covered by the Somebody Else's Problem Field.
>
>Not true. The Someone Else's Problem field can be cancelled by the We Can
>Make Money Field. But the way to do that is not to have the government hand
>out free money to what they, heavily influenced by lobbyists, think a good
>idea, but to raise the cost of the bad things. Which means a Carbon Tax
>levied on all carbon based field, with no special cases, and a pollution
>tax directly correlated with the harm pollution does.

Ah, kind of like the Slow Modem Tax that caused faster modems to be
developed, or the Universal Internet Access Tax that caused the
development of smartphones?

Because we all know that progress can only happen with government
intervention into the private sector; these things would never happen
on their own.

[Chris Zakes]

On Thu, 03 May 2012 07:17:12 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser

"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny. Free men pull
in all kinds of directions. It's the only way to make progress."

-Havelock Vetinari

[Free Lunch]

On Thu, 03 May 2012 21:48:50 -0500, Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com>
wrote in alt.fan.pratchett:

Knowing the dog-botherer as we do, we might not want to notice that
while people pull in different directions they all seem to get where he
wants them to go.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Friday, May 4, 2012 3:42:58 AM UTC+1, Chris Zakes wrote:
> On 3 May 2012 19:49:22 GMT, an orbital mind-control laser caused Alec
> Cawley <al...@spamspam.co.uk> to write:
>
> >Lesley Weston

> wrote:
> >> On 05-02-12 7:22 AM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> >>> And I've questioned who should be paying
> >>> for that work--the taxpayers through government subsidies or venture
> >>> capitalists, clever inventors, existing car companies or other private
> >>> operations.
> >>
> >> Which means nobody does, once it's covered by the Somebody Else's Problem Field.
> >
> >Not true. The Someone Else's Problem field can be cancelled by the We Can
> >Make Money Field. But the way to do that is not to have the government hand
> >out free money to what they, heavily influenced by lobbyists, think a good
> >idea, but to raise the cost of the bad things. Which means a Carbon Tax
> >levied on all carbon based field, with no special cases, and a pollution
> >tax directly correlated with the harm pollution does.
>
> Ah, kind of like the Slow Modem Tax that caused faster modems to be
> developed, or the Universal Internet Access Tax that caused the
> development of smartphones?
>
> Because we all know that progress can only happen with government
> intervention into the private sector; these things would never happen
> on their own.

And no one was ever dissatisfied with their dial-up modem
performance... but wait, why did we need broadband then
(which likewise nobody is dissatisfied with)?

Anyway in most places in the US, broadband is a benevolent
monopoly, supplied not-profit at cost.

Smartphones are subsidised by their own purchasers, which
is Patrician-clever.

[Chris Zakes]

Monopoly? There are at least three or four companies supplying
broadband where I live--the phone company, the cable company and a
couple of satellite TV companies.

>Smartphones are subsidised by their own purchasers, which
>is Patrician-clever.

And that's my point: these technologies were developed by people who
a) had a clever idea, and b) developed it on their own (and made large
piles of money in the process.) Government intervention in the form of
incentives or punitive taxes wasn't necessary to force other people to
buy their products.

[Chris Zakes]

Or perhaps more accurately, where he doesn't mind that they go. That
quote is from "The Truth", where, as I'm sure you remember, Vetinari
drops his opposition to the use of movable type, thereby allowing
newspaper and magazine publication to happen.

My question for Lesley would be: Who decides which situations are
"desireable", and who decides which direction we're supposed to pull
to get there? She seems to think electric cars are the way to go, and
all our efforts should be pulling in that direction. But what if it
turns out that, say, hydrogen fuel cells are a much better way to go?
Should we still be locked into producing electric cars?

[Robert Carnegie]

On Friday, May 4, 2012 1:26:27 PM UTC+1, Chris Zakes wrote:
> On Fri, 4 May 2012 01:48:51 -0700 (PDT), an orbital mind-control
> laser caused Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> to write:
>
> >On Friday, May 4, 2012 3:42:58 AM UTC+1, Chris Zakes wrote:
> >> Ah, kind of like the Slow Modem Tax that caused faster modems to be
> >> developed, or the Universal Internet Access Tax that caused the
> >> development of smartphones?
> >>
> >> Because we all know that progress can only happen with government
> >> intervention into the private sector; these things would never happen
> >> on their own.
> >
> >And no one was ever dissatisfied with their dial-up modem
> >performance... but wait, why did we need broadband then
> >(which likewise nobody is dissatisfied with)?
> >
> >Anyway in most places in the US, broadband is a benevolent
> >monopoly, supplied not-profit at cost.
>
> Monopoly? There are at least three or four companies supplying
> broadband where I live--the phone company, the cable company and a
> couple of satellite TV companies.

Indeed I misspoke somewhat. Currently, only one-third of
Americans (but probably covering more than one-third of
U.S. geography) have a broadband monopoly - by local
bye-laws, I believe, in many smaller cities or towns.
(What I don't believe in is satellite internet access.
For one thing, having your personal data traffic
transmitted to anyone on the continent with a receiver
weirds me.)

Ten per cent have no broadband at all. Here is a blog
by someone who doesn't worry much about any of this.

http://andrewcrain.wordpress.com/2012/02/08/9/

http://andrewcrain.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/broadband-competition-same-as-it-ever-was/

http://andrewcrain.wordpress.com/2012/02/20/the-30-percent-is-a-little-competition-enough/

Notice that in the second and third articles, he uses the
term "tomorrow" to refer to "maybe some time next week",
in line with telecoms business practices.

> >Smartphones are subsidised by their own purchasers, which
> >is Patrician-clever.
>
> And that's my point: these technologies were developed by people who
> a) had a clever idea, and b) developed it on their own (and made large
> piles of money in the process.) Government intervention in the form of
> incentives or punitive taxes wasn't necessary to force other people to
> buy their products.

And do you characterise the mobile phone user's
relationship with their provider as benevolent?

Anyway, you (or someone else) said something else
somewhere up there, I think, that I don't like:
that the Plan is to finish burning all the fossil
oil and /then/ transition to sustainable alternative.
Increasingly this looks like what is going to happen,
at best (worse is that there isn't a good enough,
ready enough, sustainable alternative, and, y'know,
civilisation kind of ends) but that doesn't make it
a /good/ Plan, because burning the oil is also
mucking up the ecosphere (along with a thousand other
things that we collectively do). I'd really like you to
take on board the concept that we should stop using
gasoline /even while there's still some left/.
(It's not like anyone has to be persuaded to not
use it when it ain't there any more.)

[Robert Carnegie]

On Friday, May 4, 2012 1:37:21 PM UTC+1, Chris Zakes wrote:
> My question for Lesley would be: Who decides which situations are
> "desireable", and who decides which direction we're supposed to pull
> to get there? She seems to think electric cars are the way to go, and
> all our efforts should be pulling in that direction. But what if it
> turns out that, say, hydrogen fuel cells are a much better way to go?
> Should we still be locked into producing electric cars?

Well, a hydrogen fuel cell is an electricity-making
machine, so, yes. But there are also engines that
just burn hydrogen very approximately as though it
was gasoline. At the moment, the argument is for
a plural infrastructure of alternatives, where
obviously we can develop one more fully if it
looks like the winner.

We have an electricity infrastructure now. But
it's likely that if we want to use it to power
everybody's automobile, we will need a bigger one.
Compensating factors include people using
nature-powered electricity generators on site,
and reducing the automobile's energy running costs.

Currently you don't buy coal, heating oil, heating
gas, gasoline, and electricity the same way. Some
of them are delivered in some sort of truck.
Some come through a pipe to your house.

The well-known problems with hydrogen are getting it
and keeping it. Sustainable hydrogen production may
depend on electricity plus water. I think currently
it's cheaper to break hydrogen out of fossil fuel,
which, if so, is another of those slightly
embarrassing facts about alternative vehicle power
systems. And it's pretty difficult to carry hydrogen
around in bulk, unless you take advantage of it
being lighter than air and you are not a smoker.
Its molecules are tiny, so they leak. If somebody
has bright ideas in this field, patent them, and
then license them generously.

[Lesley Weston]

On 05-03-12 12:49 PM, Alec Cawley wrote:
> Lesley Weston<brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 05-02-12 7:22 AM, Chris Zakes wrote:

<snip>

>>> And I've questioned who should be paying
>>> for that work--the taxpayers through government subsidies or venture
>>> capitalists, clever inventors, existing car companies or other private
>>> operations.
>>
>> Which means nobody does, once it's covered by the Somebody Else's Problem Field.
>
> Not true. The Someone Else's Problem field can be cancelled by the We Can
> Make Money Field.

Not in this case, apparently.

> But the way to do that is not to have the government hand
> out free money to what they, heavily influenced by lobbyists, think a good
> idea, but to raise the cost of the bad things. Which means a Carbon Tax
> levied on all carbon based field, with no special cases, and a pollution
> tax directly correlated with the harm pollution does. To start low and be
> ramped up in well advertised steps. Some of the income to be used to
> relieve undeserving sufferers, but not by subsidising what is taxed.

I don't think so. Governments punishing people for living their lives in
what had been the normal way until then is just going to lose them the
next election, which is what is about to happen to the BC government [1]
for that very reason. Offering positive incentives for people to change
as in the Oxford scheme has a much better chance of success, both
politically and in terms of reality.

>
> The point is to let the market decide whether electric, or hydrogen, or
> super-busses, or home working, or something we don't know of yet, is the
> solution. Or, of course, a mix of all of the above.

Of course. This particular discussion is about electric cars, but it's
essential to keep all the possibilities in view.

> But the basic point is
> to tax the harm, and not to pick winners. Government has shown an
> absolutely dire record on picking winners. I would guess a long term
> failure rate of over 80%, and probably 90%. Price costs honestly, and let
> individuals decide.

See above. Carrots always work better than sticks.

[1] Yay!

[steveski]

Larry Moore wrote:

> On 2012-05-03, steveski <stev...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> I remember these from, ISTR, the late sixties:
>>
>><http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9na-_XVRhMM>
>>
>> Oh, how I wanted one! But having seen the vid, I realise they're sooooo
>> crappy :-) Therein lies the nub of getting old - all those fondly
>> (mis)remembered things . . .
>>
>
> Surely the trad usage is two wooden clothes pegs which secured
> a playing card that flapped against the bike spokes.
> We thought it was cool.

Indeed - we had those - but the "Motor Roar" was a quantum leap up. One lad
had one and we ALL wanted a go on his bike . . . Oh, callow youth :-)

--
Steveski

[Lesley Weston]

On 05-04-12 5:26 AM, Chris Zakes wrote:

<snip>

> And that's my point: these technologies were developed by people who
> a) had a clever idea, and b) developed it on their own (and made large
> piles of money in the process.) Government intervention in the form of
> incentives or punitive taxes wasn't necessary to force other people to
> buy their products.

No, but if the materials necessary for their production had been on the
point of running out, there wouldn't have been time to wait for the
markets to make their inventors rich. R&D takes a lot of time; it has to
be started now so that when there is no more oil we still have a
transport system.

[Free Lunch]

On Fri, 04 May 2012 07:37:21 -0500, Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com>

Following on the idea of going directions that we don't care if they go
that way, why not have the rule that carbon dioxide emissions need to be
cut and that the carbon emissions from new vehicles will be limited to
ever-decreasing amounts. Most electric power in the US comes from coal
or natural gas. Burning those for electricity or hydrogen doesn't
necessarily keep the carbon emissions lower, it just moves them around.
No/low carbon emission electricity or hydrogen comes from hydro,
nuclear, wind and solar.

>My question for Lesley would be: Who decides which situations are
>"desireable", and who decides which direction we're supposed to pull
>to get there? She seems to think electric cars are the way to go, and
>all our efforts should be pulling in that direction. But what if it
>turns out that, say, hydrogen fuel cells are a much better way to go?
>Should we still be locked into producing electric cars?

The only advantage I can think of for hydrogen fuel cells over electric
batteries is that the batteries have not improved fast enough to make
them economic. I don't really care which we try, but greatly decreasing
the use of hydrocarbons in cars is a very good idea.

[Lesley Weston]

On 05-03-12 4:33 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:
> On Thu, 03 May 2012 07:04:57 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused Lesley Weston<brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> to write:
>
>> On 05-02-12 7:22 AM, Chris Zakes wrote:

<snip>

>>> and that more work needs to
>>> be done to make them viable.
>>
>> But you've never said that, and always argued when I said it. I'm glad
>> you've changed your mind now.
>
> Maybe I wasn't being as clear as you needed, but consider these two
> quotes:
> Wed, 11 Apr 2012
> Build an electric car that's really competitive--same or better price,
> driving range, interior space, etc. and you won't *need* government
> coercion to make car manufacturers build them, or government subsidies
> to get people to buy them. The market will do so on its own.

How does that support doing research now, rather than pie in the sky in
the future? An electric car that meets your criteria isn't just going to
happen overnight.

>
> Wed, 11 Apr 2012
> Luddite alarmist hype notwithstanding, we've got enough oil for quite
> a while. I'm not saying we *shouldn't* develop other/better
> technologies, but I don't see much evidence that we've gotten to the
> point that such technology is competitive (without massive government
> intervention) yet.

You're not saying we should, either. But as I said, I'm glad you've
changed your mind; it's not like you (from what I know of you here) to
refuse to take off your blinkers in case you might see something you
don't like.

>
>
>>> And I've questioned who should be paying
>>> for that work--the taxpayers through government subsidies or venture
>>> capitalists, clever inventors, existing car companies or other private
>>> operations.
>>
>> Which means nobody does, once it's covered by the Somebody Else's
>> Problem Field.
>>>
>>> Bear in mind that the original discussion started a couple of weeks
>>> ago when somebody said we needed to dump gasoline-based cars and
>>> switch to electric immediately, not wait until the technology was
>>> developed.
>>
>> I must have missed that post.
>
> On Sat, 07 Apr 2012, Larry Moore had written:
>
> "Personally, I think our short-term PM Joe Clark had the right idea:
> an 18 cent per/L tax on petroleum (proceeds to be distributed equally
> to taxpayers) to encourage us to transition to the post-petroleum
> world while we still have the chance."

How do you get "dump gasoline-based cars and switch to electric
immediately, not wait until the technology was developed." from

"encourage us to transition to the post-petroleum world while we still

have the chance"? Perhaps the misunderstanding has to do with the
meaning of "transition"?

[Lesley Weston]

Also, I don't know if anyone has noticed, but TP seems quite fond of
making jokes.

[Lesley Weston]

The people who elect the governments. In the US I believe that's less
than 50% of eligible voters? BICBW.

> She seems to think electric cars are the way to go, and
> all our efforts should be pulling in that direction. But what if it
> turns out that, say, hydrogen fuel cells are a much better way to go?
> Should we still be locked into producing electric cars?

She thinks that all possibilities including electric cars should be
explored. The post that started this arm of the discussion was about a
new technology making electric cars more effective, which is why it's
about said electric cars.

[Lesley Weston]

Which is why we should be working on developing not only electric (or
whatever) cars, but also a space elevator or one or more of the other
ideas. Synthetic spider silk looks promising.

[Alec Cawley]

And no one is disagreeing with the idea that electric cars should be
explored. But you are going a long way further: you are saying the
exploration phase is over and it is time to settle the new land, coercing
people (with money) to do what they would not do of their own free will.
Captain Cook. Explored Australia. What you are proposing is more like the
Botany Bay colony: forcing people into a poorly mapped and possibly
inhospitable land because you have decided that they should do so. Botany
Bay was not a total disaster, but many died and more suffered because they
were not prepared for the place they are going. Similarly, pushing out
electric cars before they make actual sense will cause at least financial
suffering.

[Alec Cawley]

Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> The only advantage I can think of for hydrogen fuel cells over electric
> batteries is that the batteries have not improved fast enough to make
> them economic. I don't really care which we try, but greatly decreasing
> the use of hydrocarbons in cars is a very good idea.

Weight. Refuelling time. Price. Lack of toxic heavy metals in the
environment.

Not saying that any of these is, or will be, true. But they are all
possibilities which deserve research. Batteries have been researched
intensively for a long time: it is not obvious that there are great leaps
in capability still to be unlocked.

[Alec Cawley]

No, many things will happen on their own due to people following their own
needs and interests, and other people wanting to get rich providing them.
But people don't take an overview, they look only at the short term and
their narrow interests. Which is why we need a government provided police
force and a justice system: somebody has to make rules and the market will
not do that (unless you like local warlords and vigilante justice).

In the particular case, we are trying to handle global climate change, the
fact that fossil fuels are finite, and the urban pollution caused by
vehicles. Cars today pollute about one tenth as much as they did thirty
years ago. This did not happen through the market place, it happened
through government mandated pollution controls and inspections, in the
teeth of cried of doom from the car manufacturers. Ditto unleaded petrol:
fuel manufacturers were fat and happy putting lead in fuel, and hated to
change. But millions of children have been saved from brain damage by
government regulation.

For things that have a huge impact, but one can cheat locally, government
intervention is needed. But that should be at the market level by taxing
the bad, not at the bureaucratic level by picking winners. The governments
mandated catalytic converters, thus killing research into lean burn
engines, which I think it was mistake. But I do not think it was a mistake
to mandate pollution levels rather than (as Ron Paul would want) leaving
everybody to sue their neighbours for the harm to their environment.

[Free Lunch]

On 4 May 2012 17:10:04 GMT, Alec Cawley <al...@spamspam.co.uk> wrote in
alt.fan.pratchett:

>Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
>> The only advantage I can think of for hydrogen fuel cells over electric
>> batteries is that the batteries have not improved fast enough to make
>> them economic. I don't really care which we try, but greatly decreasing
>> the use of hydrocarbons in cars is a very good idea.
>
>Weight.

Yes, thoough I don't know enough about fuel cells to know how much
difference.

>Refuelling time.

Definitely.

>Price.

I'm not certain why it would be competitive with battery-stored
electricity. It seems like fuel cells are very expensive and a hydrogen
storage and delivery system will also be expensive (though no more
expensive than our current natural gas delivery system.

>Lack of toxic heavy metals in the environment.

Certainly a current risk for batteries.

>Not saying that any of these is, or will be, true. But they are all
>possibilities which deserve research. Batteries have been researched
>intensively for a long time: it is not obvious that there are great leaps
>in capability still to be unlocked.

Unfortunately true.

[Chris Zakes]

On Fri, 4 May 2012 06:25:03 -0700 (PDT), an orbital mind-control

laser caused Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> to write:

>On Friday, May 4, 2012 1:26:27 PM UTC+1, Chris Zakes wrote:
>> On Fri, 4 May 2012 01:48:51 -0700 (PDT), an orbital mind-control
>> laser caused Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> to write:
>>
>> >On Friday, May 4, 2012 3:42:58 AM UTC+1, Chris Zakes wrote:
>> >> Ah, kind of like the Slow Modem Tax that caused faster modems to be
>> >> developed, or the Universal Internet Access Tax that caused the
>> >> development of smartphones?
>> >>
>> >> Because we all know that progress can only happen with government
>> >> intervention into the private sector; these things would never happen
>> >> on their own.
>> >
>> >And no one was ever dissatisfied with their dial-up modem
>> >performance... but wait, why did we need broadband then
>> >(which likewise nobody is dissatisfied with)?
>> >
>> >Anyway in most places in the US, broadband is a benevolent
>> >monopoly, supplied not-profit at cost.
>>
>> Monopoly? There are at least three or four companies supplying
>> broadband where I live--the phone company, the cable company and a
>> couple of satellite TV companies.
>
>Indeed I misspoke somewhat. Currently, only one-third of
>Americans (but probably covering more than one-third of
>U.S. geography) have a broadband monopoly - by local
>bye-laws, I believe, in many smaller cities or towns.

Okay, that's an area I know little-to-nothing about, so there's not
much point in me trying to say anything--I'd just exhibit my
ignorance.

>(What I don't believe in is satellite internet access.
>For one thing, having your personal data traffic
>transmitted to anyone on the continent with a receiver
>weirds me.)

Isn't it encrypted in some way? (I don't know, we've never had
satellite TV.)

>Ten per cent have no broadband at all. Here is a blog
>by someone who doesn't worry much about any of this.
>
>http://andrewcrain.wordpress.com/2012/02/08/9/
>
>http://andrewcrain.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/broadband-competition-same-as-it-ever-was/
>
>http://andrewcrain.wordpress.com/2012/02/20/the-30-percent-is-a-little-competition-enough/
>
>Notice that in the second and third articles, he uses the
>term "tomorrow" to refer to "maybe some time next week",
>in line with telecoms business practices.

<shrug> Remember that the US is *big*. It's hardly surprising to me
that there isn't high-speed internet access to, for example, most
ranches in west Texas. (But for comparison, my daughter, who lives in
a small town in Germany, can only get internet access by going to the
nearby US Air Force base, or through her I-Pad.)

>> >Smartphones are subsidised by their own purchasers, which
>> >is Patrician-clever.
>>
>> And that's my point: these technologies were developed by people who
>> a) had a clever idea, and b) developed it on their own (and made large
>> piles of money in the process.) Government intervention in the form of
>> incentives or punitive taxes wasn't necessary to force other people to
>> buy their products.
>
>And do you characterise the mobile phone user's
>relationship with their provider as benevolent?

Depends on what you mean by "benevolent" I suppose. But it *is*
voluntary, not coercive in the way that taxes are. Nothing (except
having to pay the fees for ending a contract early) stops me from
ditching Verizon and switching to ATT or T-Mobile or half a dozen
other companies.

>Anyway, you (or someone else) said something else
>somewhere up there, I think, that I don't like:
>that the Plan is to finish burning all the fossil
>oil and /then/ transition to sustainable alternative.
>Increasingly this looks like what is going to happen,
>at best (worse is that there isn't a good enough,
>ready enough, sustainable alternative, and, y'know,
>civilisation kind of ends) but that doesn't make it
>a /good/ Plan, because burning the oil is also
>mucking up the ecosphere (along with a thousand other
>things that we collectively do). I'd really like you to
>take on board the concept that we should stop using
>gasoline /even while there's still some left/.
>(It's not like anyone has to be persuaded to not
>use it when it ain't there any more.)

I don't *think* I said that. I've pointed out that electric cars in
their current state aren't really competitive with gasoline cars, so
more work needs to be done on their development.

And as I understand things, there's something like a century's worth
of oil still in the ground, so we've got some leeway on developing new
technologies; we shouldn't be stampeded into the first thing that
*might* work and ignore everything else.

[Chris Zakes]

On Fri, 04 May 2012 07:50:55 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser

caused Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> to write:

>On 05-03-12 4:33 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>> On Thu, 03 May 2012 07:04:57 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
>> caused Lesley Weston<brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> to write:
>>
>>> On 05-02-12 7:22 AM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>>> and that more work needs to
>>>> be done to make them viable.
>>>
>>> But you've never said that, and always argued when I said it. I'm glad
>>> you've changed your mind now.
>>
>> Maybe I wasn't being as clear as you needed, but consider these two
>> quotes:
>> Wed, 11 Apr 2012
>> Build an electric car that's really competitive--same or better price,
>> driving range, interior space, etc. and you won't *need* government
>> coercion to make car manufacturers build them, or government subsidies
>> to get people to buy them. The market will do so on its own.
>
>How does that support doing research now, rather than pie in the sky in
>the future? An electric car that meets your criteria isn't just going to
>happen overnight.

I would have thought it's obvious: building an electric car that's
really competitive is going to take more research and development.

The phrase "while we still have a chance" sounded to me as though the
post-petroleum world was going to happen soon--like in the next decade
or two. Maybe I misinterpreted what he meant.

[Jonathan Ellis]

"Chris Zakes" <dont...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6eu8q79m8d4qlbeui...@4ax.com...

The point is that you work on developing the future *while you still have a
now*.

you work on developing non-hydrocarbon-dependent power while you still have
enough of the hydrocarbons available, that they do not need to be rationed
yet.

Otherwise what power are you going to use to *build* the first
non-hydrocarbon-dependent power stations, or the factories where your
batteries going to be made or your hydrogen is going to be extracted?

[Chris Zakes]

I've never said we shouldn't.

But the development needs a lot more work. Electric cars on the market
today have a 75-100 mile range before needing to spend several hours
hooked to a recharger, their range decreases significantly if you're
using the heater or AC, they don't have much cargo capacity and they
cost more than a similar-sized gasoline car.

[Lesley Weston]

So we also need to be working just as urgently on developing those
alternatives.

>
>> My question for Lesley would be: Who decides which situations are
>> "desireable", and who decides which direction we're supposed to pull
>> to get there? She seems to think electric cars are the way to go, and
>> all our efforts should be pulling in that direction. But what if it
>> turns out that, say, hydrogen fuel cells are a much better way to go?
>> Should we still be locked into producing electric cars?
>
> The only advantage I can think of for hydrogen fuel cells over electric
> batteries is that the batteries have not improved fast enough to make
> them economic. I don't really care which we try, but greatly decreasing
> the use of hydrocarbons in cars is a very good idea.

Lowering carbon emissions is an excellent idea: it will slow down
climate change (probably) and make the air less dangerous to breathe,
more useful to crops and animals and better-smelling because all the
other pollutants will also be lowered.

But that's only one set of reasons to look for alternative fuels. The
oil will run out, and then we will need some other way to fuel our
transport. If we wait until there is no more oil before we put
everything we have into developing AF, we won't be able to do it.

[Lesley Weston]

I don't know where you and Chris get this idea that I'm advocating
anybody being forced to do anything. I'm saying that /offering/
ten-pound fares to Australia with the balance being paid by the
Government is the way to go. It worked for Australia in the few decades
after the war, until the people who took up the offer had made the place
so inviting that now everybody wants to live there and so they're making
it more difficult to immigrate there, not less. Nobody had to accept the
initial offer, but nearly all those who did are glad they did, as are
those who followed.

[Lesley Weston]

On 05-04-12 5:58 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:
> On Fri, 04 May 2012 07:50:55 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused Lesley Weston<brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> to write:
>
>> On 05-03-12 4:33 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>>> On Thu, 03 May 2012 07:04:57 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
>>> caused Lesley Weston<brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> to write:
>>>
>>>> On 05-02-12 7:22 AM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>> and that more work needs to
>>>>> be done to make them viable.
>>>>
>>>> But you've never said that, and always argued when I said it. I'm glad
>>>> you've changed your mind now.
>>>
>>> Maybe I wasn't being as clear as you needed, but consider these two
>>> quotes:
>>> Wed, 11 Apr 2012
>>> Build an electric car that's really competitive--same or better price,
>>> driving range, interior space, etc. and you won't *need* government
>>> coercion to make car manufacturers build them, or government subsidies
>>> to get people to buy them. The market will do so on its own.
>>
>> How does that support doing research now, rather than pie in the sky in
>> the future? An electric car that meets your criteria isn't just going to
>> happen overnight.
>
> I would have thought it's obvious: building an electric car that's
> really competitive is going to take more research and development.

Indeed it is, and we seem to be agreed on that. But R&D doesn't just
happen; someone has to pay for it, and someone has to set up the labs
and experimental factories etc. and pay for those and for the people to
work in them. And someone has to buy the intermediate products, which
are way beyond most incomes; this is necessary both to fund further
research and to beta-test.

The pharmaceutical industry works like this in most civilised
countries, with a balance struck between the money the companies need to
develop new drugs to treat horrible illnesses and the amount that
governments are willing to pay them so that the governed can have the
existing drugs. At the moment it seems to be out of balance, with Big
Pharma's profits unreasonably large at the expense of taxpayers, but
that is being addressed and in general it's a pretty good system.

And actually, that should be an argument on your side: it's possible to
get rich by developing something useful. If everybody else benefits too,
then you can get even richer because governments are willing to
contribute to your wealth on behalf of their people, so that those
people can have what they need.

<snip>

>>>>> Bear in mind that the original discussion started a couple of weeks
>>>>> ago when somebody said we needed to dump gasoline-based cars and
>>>>> switch to electric immediately, not wait until the technology was
>>>>> developed.
>>>>
>>>> I must have missed that post.
>>>
>>> On Sat, 07 Apr 2012, Larry Moore had written:
>>>
>>> "Personally, I think our short-term PM Joe Clark had the right idea:
>>> an 18 cent per/L tax on petroleum (proceeds to be distributed equally
>>> to taxpayers) to encourage us to transition to the post-petroleum
>>> world while we still have the chance."
>>
>> How do you get "dump gasoline-based cars and switch to electric
>> immediately, not wait until the technology was developed." from
>> "encourage us to transition to the post-petroleum world while we still
>> have the chance"? Perhaps the misunderstanding has to do with the
>> meaning of "transition"?
>>
>> Lesley.
>
> The phrase "while we still have a chance" sounded to me as though the
> post-petroleum world was going to happen soon--like in the next decade
> or two. Maybe I misinterpreted what he meant.

Some people look further ahead than others. Of course, those of us in
the first group are more likely to trip over something right in front of
us; however those in the second group are inviting a nasty surprise to
happen later.

[Lesley Weston]

On 05-04-12 10:10 AM, Alec Cawley wrote:

What re-started this discussion was me posting a link to an article
about just such a great leap forward:

http://tinyurl.com/88fbss4

While I was looking for it (for some reason I didn't use CiteUlike for
it), I found these:

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/40309/?nlid=nldly&nld=2012-04-30

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/06/automobiles/autoreviews/the-battery-driven-car-just-got-a-lot-more-normal.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

or http://tinyurl.com/7mtf77f

The one about the Focus seems to be saying "promising, but needs more
work", just as we have been saying here. The only disagreement among us
(on this one, anyway) is how that work should be funded and when.

[Robert Carnegie]

Damn, you just did it /again/, I assume you didn't notice.
"Not using non-fossil fuel technologies is fine as long as
the oil keeps coming." It is /not/ fine. Even while
there is still oil left, we need to stop.

[Bernard Peek]

On 05/05/12 17:55, Robert Carnegie wrote:

> Damn, you just did it /again/, I assume you didn't notice.
> "Not using non-fossil fuel technologies is fine as long as
> the oil keeps coming." It is /not/ fine. Even while
> there is still oil left, we need to stop.

None of this is black & white. At some point oil's value as a source of
hydrocarbons for the chemical industry will be more than its value as a
fuel. At some point the cost of extracting oil will become higher than
its value and extraction will stop. These inflection points will depend
on other factors such as developments in battery design making electric
vehicles cheaper and changes in town-planning reducing the need for cars.


--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com

[Alec Cawley]

Climate change is the reason we need to stop using fossil fuels now. I am
relaxed about the exhaustion problem. We will not suddenly run out of
fossil fuels. Instead, prices will rise as the easier sources are exhausted
Nd we have to switch to more expensive sources. This process is already
well under way. As prices rise, alternatives will,become more attractive,
and the market will provide. Average per capita driving distances are
already falling, and fuel economy is a major selling point. No problem
here.

But we can easily set the climate on the path to irreversible change before
we realise what weave done. We are playing with matches and we don't know
whether this is the fuel store or ash store.

[Chris Zakes]

On Sat, 05 May 2012 08:53:58 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser

caused Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> to write:

>On 05-04-12 10:10 AM, Alec Cawley wrote:
>> Free Lunch<lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>
>>> The only advantage I can think of for hydrogen fuel cells over electric
>>> batteries is that the batteries have not improved fast enough to make
>>> them economic. I don't really care which we try, but greatly decreasing
>>> the use of hydrocarbons in cars is a very good idea.
>>
>> Weight. Refuelling time. Price. Lack of toxic heavy metals in the
>> environment.
>>
>> Not saying that any of these is, or will be, true. But they are all
>> possibilities which deserve research. Batteries have been researched
>> intensively for a long time: it is not obvious that there are great leaps
>> in capability still to be unlocked.
>
>What re-started this discussion was me posting a link to an article
>about just such a great leap forward:
>
>http://tinyurl.com/88fbss4
>
>While I was looking for it (for some reason I didn't use CiteUlike for
>it), I found these:
>
>http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/40309/?nlid=nldly&nld=2012-04-30
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/06/automobiles/autoreviews/the-battery-driven-car-just-got-a-lot-more-normal.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
>
>or http://tinyurl.com/7mtf77f
>
>The one about the Focus seems to be saying "promising, but needs more
>work", just as we have been saying here.

Yep. The major problems are still long recharging time, limited
driving range and less cargo capacity. Until those are resolved you've
got a small-city commuter vehicle, not a general-purpose vehicle.

>The only disagreement among us
>(on this one, anyway) is how that work should be funded and when.
>
>Lesley.

There seem to be quite a few people who are interested in buying
electric cars; I really don't see why the government needs to get
involved.

-Chris Zakes
Texas
--

Modern art is what happens when painters stop looking at girls and
persuade themselves that they have a better idea.

- John Ciardi

[Chris Zakes]

On Sat, 5 May 2012 09:55:50 -0700 (PDT), an orbital mind-control

For some reason I'm just not communicating here. I'm not saying we
should wait until the oil runs out before developing electric cars.
I'm saying we have some time *before* the oil runs out to do the
development properly.

Stop messing around here and go design an electric battery that will
recharge in five minutes and give an average car a 400-mile driving
range. License it to the car manufacturer of your choice and you'll be
rich.

[Chris Zakes]

On Sat, 05 May 2012 07:30:38 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser

caused Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> to write:

(snip)

>I don't know where you and Chris get this idea that I'm advocating
>anybody being forced to do anything. I'm saying that /offering/
>ten-pound fares to Australia with the balance being paid by the
>Government is the way to go. It worked for Australia in the few decades
>after the war, until the people who took up the offer had made the place
>so inviting that now everybody wants to live there and so they're making
>it more difficult to immigrate there, not less. Nobody had to accept the
>initial offer, but nearly all those who did are glad they did, as are
>those who followed.
>
>Lesley.

And *where* did that government money come from? Taxes, I presume? So
the government forced everybody to subsidise trips to Australia,
whether they wanted to or not. But how many of those taxpayers ended
up moving to Australia?

If it wasn't 100% (which it obviously wasn't) then it's still robbing
Peter to pay Paul.

[Larry Moore]

On 2012-05-05, Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 05 May 2012 07:30:38 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> to write:
>
> (snip)
>
>>I don't know where you and Chris get this idea that I'm advocating
>>anybody being forced to do anything. I'm saying that /offering/
>>ten-pound fares to Australia with the balance being paid by the
>>Government is the way to go. It worked for Australia in the few decades
>>after the war, until the people who took up the offer had made the place
>>so inviting that now everybody wants to live there and so they're making
>>it more difficult to immigrate there, not less. Nobody had to accept the
>>initial offer, but nearly all those who did are glad they did, as are
>>those who followed.
>>
>>Lesley.
>
> And *where* did that government money come from? Taxes, I presume? So
> the government forced everybody to subsidise trips to Australia,
> whether they wanted to or not. But how many of those taxpayers ended
> up moving to Australia?
>
> If it wasn't 100% (which it obviously wasn't) then it's still robbing
> Peter to pay Paul.
>
> -Chris Zakes
> Texas

The Australian government, as part of its "White Australia"
policy, subsidized the transportation cost of employable
Caucasian immigrants. They thought it prudent, being so close
to land populated by non-Caucasians, to buck up the numbers.

--
E. O. Wilson noted, 'As a species we are endowed with paleolithic emotions,
medieval institutions, and near-godlike technological capability.'

[Robert Carnegie]

*sigh* Okay, try it this way: if I could wish for the oil
to run out right now, worldwide, I would. Say, it all
suddenly turns into granite.

I think that solves a problem.

[Larry Moore]

On 2012-05-04, steveski <stev...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
> Indeed - we had those - but the "Motor Roar" was a quantum leap up. One lad
> had one and we ALL wanted a go on his bike . . . Oh, callow youth :-)
>

Sorry - either by bicycle days were before that came out
or it didn't make it to this end of the woods.

I had a search and think either the spoke card with pipe resonator
(TurboSpoke,) or the battery powered unit (V-RROOM!) would have been
grand when I was twelve years old.

--
Quand les hommes ne peuvent changer les choses, ils changent les mots.
Jean Jaure's

[John S. Wilkins]

Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 05 May 2012 07:30:38 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> to write:
>
> (snip)
>
> >I don't know where you and Chris get this idea that I'm advocating
> >anybody being forced to do anything. I'm saying that /offering/
> >ten-pound fares to Australia with the balance being paid by the
> >Government is the way to go. It worked for Australia in the few decades
> >after the war, until the people who took up the offer had made the place
> >so inviting that now everybody wants to live there and so they're making
> >it more difficult to immigrate there, not less. Nobody had to accept the
> >initial offer, but nearly all those who did are glad they did, as are
> >those who followed.
> >
> >Lesley.
>
> And *where* did that government money come from? Taxes, I presume? So
> the government forced everybody to subsidise trips to Australia,
> whether they wanted to or not. But how many of those taxpayers ended
> up moving to Australia?

All of them were already *in* Australia. The subsidy was an Australian
offer, not a British.

>
> If it wasn't 100% (which it obviously wasn't) then it's still robbing
> Peter to pay Paul.

That is a very odd argument. We greatly profited from having educated
and generally well behaved immigrants, and our economy boomed. Also, the
ones that didn't settle in here went home after the mandatory period
expired (I think it was five years). The rest just had to put up with
being called Whinging Poms...

--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

[John S. Wilkins]

Partly. I think that race played less of a part than economics, and
Brits were already educated, spoke English, and were able to engage in
the industries we already had, since ours were based on the British
ones. If anyone was emploited, it was the British education budget.

Not that I am denying the role that race played, but if you think about
it, any empire will tend to favour its own ethnic majorities. By the
way, White Australia persisted until the 60s, but the Italians and
Greeks undercut it. At one point the second biggest Greek speaking city
in the world was Melbourne, after Athens. Mediterraneans were considered
"wogs", but not quite non-whites. The first real nonwhite immigration
came after Vietnam, around 1973.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Sunday, May 6, 2012 2:56:40 AM UTC+1, John S. Wilkins wrote:
> That is a very odd argument. We greatly profited from having educated
> and generally well behaved immigrants, and our economy boomed.

They became taxpayers, mostly, I expect.

But you'd have done better with Japanese.

Alternatively, the non-aboriginal population could
have returned en masse to Europe.

These are all options. Were all options. I suppose
the "return to Europe" one still could be tried as
the water runs out - only, we were talking about
transport fuel running out, too.

Perhaps, by the time it becomes necessary, the important
elements of personal identity of a human being can be
e-mailed.

> Also, the
> ones that didn't settle in here went home after the mandatory period
> expired (I think it was five years).

Just to clear up, who paid for that, and how much?

And of course a proportion were killed in encounters
with the peculiar wildlife.

[John S. Wilkins]

Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, May 6, 2012 2:56:40 AM UTC+1, John S. Wilkins wrote:

...

> > Also, the
> > ones that didn't settle in here went home after the mandatory period
> > expired (I think it was five years).
>
> Just to clear up, who paid for that, and how much?

They did, at commercial rates.

>
> And of course a proportion were killed in encounters
> with the peculiar wildlife.

Not if they wore Vegemite on their scalps.

[Bernard Peek]

On 05/05/12 22:51, Alec Cawley wrote:

> Bernard Peek<b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:


> But we can easily set the climate on the path to irreversible change before
> we realise what weave done. We are playing with matches and we don't know
> whether this is the fuel store or ash store.

Good point.


--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com

[Bernard Peek]

On 05/05/12 23:02, Chris Zakes wrote:


>
> Stop messing around here and go design an electric battery that will
> recharge in five minutes and give an average car a 400-mile driving
> range. License it to the car manufacturer of your choice and you'll be
> rich.

That's not how R&D works. It's incremental. The early-adopters pay the
first installment of the research costs leading to a product that will
eventually be cheap enough for the mass-market.


--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com

[Bernard Peek]

On 05/05/12 22:54, Chris Zakes wrote:


> There seem to be quite a few people who are interested in buying
> electric cars; I really don't see why the government needs to get
> involved.

The government has committed itself to reducing carbon emissions
somewhat. This is one way of doing that. It's not the best way because
it's a surrogate for the real issue.

The more direct approach would be to do waht the UK has done and impose
an escalating tax on fossil-fuels. It stated in advance that the new
task would increase faster than inflation. As a result the UK is doing a
lot of research on new technologies. The auto and fuel companies (and
their customers) need to be forcibly reminded that the light at the end
of the tunnel is an oncoming vehicle on their side of the road.


--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com

[Lesley Weston]

Not a problem if you do the full charge overnight while you sleep and/or
during the eight hours that you're at work. If you need a top-up in
between it doesn't take nearly as long.

> limited
> driving range

Less limited than it was, and getting better all the time.

> and less cargo capacity.

That one looks like a serious problem. Though as he points out, the
Focus is cramped whatever its fuel.

> Until those are resolved you've
> got a small-city commuter vehicle, not a general-purpose vehicle.

For most people, a city runabout is all that they want or need. People
who want to drive on long trips can always rent a wallowing gas-guzzler
[1] for the few times a year they'll need one, using some of the money
they've saved by running an electric car the rest of the time. But of
course vehicles for various forms of work are a long way off.

>
>
>> The only disagreement among us
>> (on this one, anyway) is how that work should be funded and when.
>>
>> Lesley.
>
> There seem to be quite a few people who are interested in buying
> electric cars; I really don't see why the government needs to get
> involved.

I'm immensely interested. I don't have the price, so I'm one of the many
people who would gladly buy one rather than a new gas-car if it were
subsidised to the same price. In reality I can't buy a new car of any
type, but plenty of people do.

[1] Extra cylinders and large gas tanks always seem to go with soft
suspension.

[Lesley Weston]

On 05-06-12 5:42 AM, Bernard Peek wrote:
> On 05/05/12 22:54, Chris Zakes wrote:
>
>
>> There seem to be quite a few people who are interested in buying
>> electric cars; I really don't see why the government needs to get
>> involved.
>
> The government has committed itself to reducing carbon emissions
> somewhat. This is one way of doing that. It's not the best way because
> it's a surrogate for the real issue.

It's the real solution. Taxing carbon is the surrogate. However little
CO2 we produce, if it comes from fossil fuels then we're still using up
something irreplaceable when there's no need. So developing alternative
fuels actually solves the problem, while making life more expensive for
people when they have no choice but to use fossil fuels and buy products
made and transported using fossil fuels just loses elections and pisses
people off; it has no positive effects.

>
> The more direct approach would be to do waht the UK has done and impose
> an escalating tax on fossil-fuels. It stated in advance that the new
> task would increase faster than inflation. As a result the UK is doing a
> lot of research on new technologies. The auto and fuel companies (and
> their customers) need to be forcibly reminded that the light at the end
> of the tunnel is an oncoming vehicle on their side of the road.
>
>

To vary the metaphor a little, you catch more flies with honey than with
vinegar, though I've never been quite clear why you want to catch flies
in the first place unless, like TP, you keep carnivorous plants [1].
Incentives always work better than penalties. The research on new
technologies is happening everywhere in the first and second worlds and
in some parts of the third world. In particular, it's happening in the
US where there is no carbon tax and where there are tax subsidies for
the research.

[1] I wonder if the plants prefer their food sweet and sticky, or piquant?

[Lesley Weston]

On 05-05-12 3:14 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:
> On Sat, 05 May 2012 07:30:38 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused Lesley Weston<brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> to write:
>
> (snip)
>
>> I don't know where you and Chris get this idea that I'm advocating
>> anybody being forced to do anything. I'm saying that /offering/
>> ten-pound fares to Australia with the balance being paid by the
>> Government is the way to go. It worked for Australia in the few decades
>> after the war, until the people who took up the offer had made the place
>> so inviting that now everybody wants to live there and so they're making
>> it more difficult to immigrate there, not less. Nobody had to accept the
>> initial offer, but nearly all those who did are glad they did, as are
>> those who followed.
>>
>> Lesley.
>
> And *where* did that government money come from? Taxes, I presume?

Yes. Australian taxes. They didn't press-gang unwilling colonists or
arrange to continue taking boat-loads of convicts. Instead, they offered
a real incentive and it worked.

> So
> the government forced everybody to subsidise trips to Australia,

Not trips, permanent immigration, though of course people who changed
their minds (some did) were free to leave as soon as they had gathered
the fare back to the UK together, which didn't take long in that era of
full employment there.

> whether they wanted to or not. But how many of those taxpayers ended
> up moving to Australia?

All of them, or their ancestors had. Though the first ones there didn't
get offered cheap fares 40,000 years ago; they had to paddle their own
canoes.