-[I]- birthdays

[Paul Jamison]

It's that time again - Murphy! Sammy! Clarissa! Max! Front and center!

(Two ferrets - Sammy, a Dark-Eyed White with a yarmulke; Clarissa, Sammy's
lovely Cinnamon wife; and Max, a handsome Sable with his hind legs strapped
into a wheelchair device - come rushing up and stand at attention.)

Sammy: Present and accounted for, sir! Well, the three of us, at any rate.

Paul: Where's Murphy? Is he all right?

Max: He's over there, sir. (Points at large pile of receipts, bills,
schedules and scratch paper covered with calculations. The pile is moving
around; there's obviously something under it. Presently the head of another
Sable ferret, with a frantic look in his eyes, pops out. Murphy is mumbling
to himself.)

Murphy: Tax tables! - Charity writeoffs! - Business expenses! - IRAs! -
CDs! - Deductions! Deductions! Deductions! - Oh, sir!! I need to talk to
you! Can I claim you as a dependant?

Paul: Uh... I don't think that'll work, Murph.

Murphy: Right, right - no biggie, I can do this! Maybe if I itemize - (dives
into piles and disappears again.)

Paul: Waited a bit late to do his Income Tax, I take it?

Sammy: Uh-huh. It tends to sneak up on you.

Paul: But - Murphy doesn't *have* any income, does he? And he's a Canadian
citizen. Does he even need to pay Income Tax?

(Sammy, Clarissa and Max look at each other, then look at Murphy digging
through pile of papers.)

Murphy (triumphantly): Aha! I have it! The perfect deduction! The IRS can't
touch me now! Ah-hahahaha!!

Max: Sir, now might not be the time to tell Murphy that. He's put so much
work into this over the last few days and it might upset him.

Paul: Oh, well, it'll help him to brush up on his higher math skills.
Anyway, we've got a birthday salute. Is the cannon in good shape for a
firing?

Clarissa: Yessir! Skippy, Skippy, Skippy, Skippy and Skippy just did some
light maintenance and she's working fine.

Paul: Where's Skippy? In another off-Broadway play?

Max: Well... no, sir. Unlike our friend Murphy, Skippy *does* have an
income. And with all those things that he does on the side - his income tax
return is *very* complicated.

(The howl of what sounds like a coyote comes from nearby.)

Sammy: That sounds like Skippy now, sir. I think he's filled out seven
supplemental forms by now. If you think *Murphy* is stressed - well, I
wouldn't bother Skippy for a week or so, sir.

Paul: Understood. Okay, let's get the cannon ready for firing!

(Skippy, Skippy, Skippy, Skippy and Skippy - the crack team of ferret
mechanics - push the Civil War cannon forward.)

Paul: In position? Excellent! Ready... aim... FIRE!

*BOOOOOOOMMM!!*

*WHOOOOOOOOSSSHHHH!!!*

(Charge explodes over AFP, showering the group with confetti, streamers,
balloons, M&Ms (Ferretone, Lemon Bar, Twinkie Weiner, Green Chili, Alfalfa
and other popular flavors) and other goodies. Two banners float down: HAPPY
BIRTHDAYS TO SURESH RAMASUBRAMANIAN, BJORN BJORNSSON, TODD NOYCE, DECLAN,
ROBERT KNIGHT, BEN HALSTEAD, BARBARA KENDAL, MEG THORNTON, JAN UZZELL,
SSIRIENNA, MARK DISSINGTON, GRAHAM OF THE AFFORDABLE LEATHER, TIM GERRISH,
BRAVUS THE BRAW AKA DAVID, JOHN LEITH, ORJAN WESTIN, BEN ARGYLE, ALEX
CARLTON, GILLIE HOUCK, CHRIS HILL, ANDROMEDA, ANDREA J CHEE, TRACY
WILKINSON, DAVID DEWILDE, JAMES TUNNICLIFFE, LINDSAY ENDELL, JOANNE LACY,
MOUSE DAREDEVIL HARRIES, JAN H. HAUL, LARS BALKER RASMUSSEN, JULIE
MONTGOMERY, CLAIRE GAMBLE, MATTHEW DU PLESSIS, IAN ROGERS, THOMAS P.
STEGGELL II, FRODO OF CANADA, THIS FELLOW, REALLY NICE GUY, WHO WRITES GOOD
STUFF, WITH FOOTNOTES, AND WEARS A HAT, JOHN "HOMICIDE" GILBERTSON, KEITH
WILLOUGHBY, JENNY PRESTON, MICHAEL GAVIN AND ANYONE ELSE FROM APRIL THAT I'M
FORGETTING! REMEMBER, TO GET YOUR NAME ON THE BIRTHDAY LIST, SEND RELEVANT
INFORMATION TO birthdays(at)lspace(dot)org! and I'VE BEEN WORKING MY TAX
RETURNS AND I AM NOT HAPPY. Clarissa, Sammy and the Skippys do a ferret
conga, while Max grinds out a rousing tune on a hurdy-gurdy.)

Nope, not happy at all.

Paul

[Lesley Weston]

Very nice! But as a Canadian Murphy will be paying higher taxes than a
citizen of any other country in the world, except possibly Sweden if
it's their turn this week. Good luck with yours.

Lesley.

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

[John S. Wilkins]

As the ecologist taxonomist who studies ecosystems in collapse said,
nothing is certain but a dearth of taxa...
--
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

[Larry Moore]

On 2012-04-02, Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Very nice! But as a Canadian Murphy will be paying higher taxes than a
> citizen of any other country in the world, except possibly Sweden if
> it's their turn this week. Good luck with yours.
>
> Lesley.
>

Do you have a cite for that, Leslie?

--
I have been a happy man ever since January 1, 1990, when I no longer had an
email address. I'd used email since about 1975, and it seems to me that 15
years of email is plenty for one lifetime. Donald Knuth

[Larry Moore]

On 2012-04-02, Larry Moore <sshirley...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2012-04-02, Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Very nice! But as a Canadian Murphy will be paying higher taxes than a
>> citizen of any other country in the world, except possibly Sweden if
>> it's their turn this week. Good luck with yours.
>>
>> Lesley.
>>
>
> Do you have a cite for that, Leslie?
>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP -
using the Heritage Foundation numbers, we're 43rd on the list (32.2%,)
more than 2 points more than Australia (30.8) and two less than New
Zealand (34.5%.)

We're about a quarter more than the USA (26.9%) but we pay for our
health insurance through a single-payer, which is included, but the US
doesn't. If one folded private health insurance payments into the US
number, I'm not sure there'd be much of a difference.

I do think we could still have a decent and caring society with the
tax percentage of GDP of Japan (28.3%)

--
After all, there is no customer for DRM outside of the boardroom.
No one ever woke up and said, “Gosh, I wish there was a way I could
get an e-book that does less than the books I’m accustomed to.”
No one ever will. Cory Doctorow

[GaryN]

jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote in
news:1khyciv.ps6585lwrn7kN%jo...@wilkins.id.au:

<snip>

> As the ecologist taxonomist who studies ecosystems in collapse said,
> nothing is certain but a dearth of taxa...

I suspect a few have become slightly rarer while I made a walking stick for
you. Those not poisoned by white spirit and wood stain are sealed under a
double coat of Yacht Varnish. The brass tops were cleaned with

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IzBzUqjKk8

as was the chromed steel tip and I'm just waiting for the SO to turn up
with silicone sealant to fix the tip.

If there was anything alive and offensive in there it isn't now.

gary

--
"Your Reputation is what people know about you.
Your Honour is what you know about yourself"

Lois McMaster Bujold.

[John S. Wilkins]

Larry Moore <sshirley...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2012-04-02, Larry Moore <sshirley...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2012-04-02, Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> Very nice! But as a Canadian Murphy will be paying higher taxes than a
> >> citizen of any other country in the world, except possibly Sweden if
> >> it's their turn this week. Good luck with yours.
> >>
> >> Lesley.
> >>
> >
> > Do you have a cite for that, Leslie?
> >
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentag
> e_of_GDP -
> using the Heritage Foundation numbers, we're 43rd on the list (32.2%,)
> more than 2 points more than Australia (30.8) and two less than New
> Zealand (34.5%.)
>
> We're about a quarter more than the USA (26.9%) but we pay for our
> health insurance through a single-payer, which is included, but the US
> doesn't. If one folded private health insurance payments into the US
> number, I'm not sure there'd be much of a difference.
>
> I do think we could still have a decent and caring society with the
> tax percentage of GDP of Japan (28.3%)

Only if you have a small defense force, I think.

[John S. Wilkins]

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

> jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote in
> news:1khyciv.ps6585lwrn7kN%jo...@wilkins.id.au:
>
> <snip>
>
> > As the ecologist taxonomist who studies ecosystems in collapse said,
> > nothing is certain but a dearth of taxa...
>
> I suspect a few have become slightly rarer while I made a walking stick for
> you. Those not poisoned by white spirit and wood stain are sealed under a
> double coat of Yacht Varnish. The brass tops were cleaned with
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IzBzUqjKk8
>
> as was the chromed steel tip and I'm just waiting for the SO to turn up
> with silicone sealant to fix the tip.
>
> If there was anything alive and offensive in there it isn't now.
>

I am so looking forward to seeing it.

[Lizzy Taylor]

On 03/04/12 13:07, John S. Wilkins wrote:

> Larry Moore<sshirley...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I do think we could still have a decent and caring society with the
>> tax percentage of GDP of Japan (28.3%)
>
> Only if you have a small defense force, I think.

The UK seems to be rapidly heading that way

Lizzy

[John S. Wilkins]

Time to return the Malvinas, then.

[Lesley Weston]

On 04-02-12 4:46 PM, Larry Moore wrote:
> On 2012-04-02, Larry Moore<sshirley...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2012-04-02, Lesley Weston<brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Very nice! But as a Canadian Murphy will be paying higher taxes than a
>>> citizen of any other country in the world, except possibly Sweden if
>>> it's their turn this week. Good luck with yours.
>>>
>>> Lesley.
>>>
>>
>> Do you have a cite for that, Leslie?

Not this time. last time we had this discussion I did, but I can't find
anything now.

>>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP -
> using the Heritage Foundation numbers, we're 43rd on the list (32.2%,)
> more than 2 points more than Australia (30.8) and two less than New
> Zealand (34.5%.)

"This is a list of tax rates around the world. It focuses on three types
of taxes: corporate taxes, individual taxes and sales taxes (value added
taxes (VAT) / goods and services taxes (GST) / sales). Some other taxes
(for instance property tax, substantial in many countries, such as USA)
are not shown here. The table is not intended to represent the true tax
burden to either the corporation or the individual in the listed country."

That's from the Heritage Foundation's site; by their own admission they
leave out Provincial and Municipal taxes, health premiums, gas tax,
transit tax, alcohol and tobacco taxes and probably others that I'm
forgetting too. If you total all the taxes paid, whatever they might be
called, we in Canada pay as tax around 50% of whatever we make. Tax day,
the date on which we start working for ourselves instead of for the
various levels of government, used to be somewhere in May or even April,
but now it's well into June. The validity of this argument is shown by
the fact that the Federal Government has made substantial cuts in income
tax and GST over the last few years, yet tax day is getting later and later.

Still, when you think what we get for our taxes it's a pretty good bargain.

<snip>

>
> I do think we could still have a decent and caring society with the
> tax percentage of GDP of Japan (28.3%)
>

I don't know enough about how Japan handles things like health care to
comment on that.

[Lizzy Taylor]

On 03/04/2012 16:33, Lesley Weston wrote:

> That's from the Heritage Foundation's site; by their own admission they
> leave out Provincial and Municipal taxes, health premiums, gas tax,
> transit tax, alcohol and tobacco taxes and probably others that I'm
> forgetting too. If you total all the taxes paid, whatever they might be
> called, we in Canada pay as tax around 50% of whatever we make. Tax day,
> the date on which we start working for ourselves instead of for the
> various levels of government, used to be somewhere in May or even April,
> but now it's well into June. The validity of this argument is shown by
> the fact that the Federal Government has made substantial cuts in income
> tax and GST over the last few years, yet tax day is getting later and
> later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Freedom_Day#Tax_Freedom_Day_around_the_world

Lizzy

[Nigel Stapley]

John S. Wilkins wrote:
> Lizzy Taylor <li...@thetaylorfamily.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 03/04/12 13:07, John S. Wilkins wrote:
>>> Larry Moore<sshirley...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I do think we could still have a decent and caring society with the
>>>> tax percentage of GDP of Japan (28.3%)
>>> Only if you have a small defense force, I think.
>> The UK seems to be rapidly heading that way
>>
> Time to return the Malvinas, then.

Why, have the Ice Giants borrowed them again?

--
Regards

Nigel Stapley

www.thejudge.me.uk

<reply-to will bounce>

[CCA]

On Apr 2, 1:29 am, "Paul Jamison" <pjamis...@cox.net> wrote:

HAPPY
> BIRTHDAYS TO MEG THORNTON, JAN UZZELL,
> SSIRIENNA,

Happy Birthday Ssirienna :-) (Who I believe I once called my
homegirl, although I'm not even nearly cool enough to use that word!)

GRAHAM OF THE AFFORDABLE LEATHER, ORJAN WESTIN, THIS FELLOW, REALLY

NICE GUY, WHO WRITES GOOD
> STUFF, WITH FOOTNOTES, AND WEARS A HAT,

Happy Birthdays to all those :-)

I'VE BEEN WORKING MY TAX
> RETURNS AND I AM NOT HAPPY

Oh dear... will a tax-free *hug* help?

CCA

[Larry Moore]

On 2012-04-03, Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 04-02-12 4:46 PM, Larry Moore wrote:
>> On 2012-04-02, Larry Moore<sshirley...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2012-04-02, Lesley Weston<brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Very nice! But as a Canadian Murphy will be paying higher taxes than a
>>>> citizen of any other country in the world, except possibly Sweden if
>>>> it's their turn this week. Good luck with yours.
>>>>
>>>> Lesley.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do you have a cite for that, Leslie?
>
> Not this time. last time we had this discussion I did, but I can't find
> anything now.
>>>
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP -
>> using the Heritage Foundation numbers, we're 43rd on the list (32.2%,)
>> more than 2 points more than Australia (30.8) and two less than New
>> Zealand (34.5%.)
>
> "This is a list of tax rates around the world. It focuses on three types
> of taxes: corporate taxes, individual taxes and sales taxes (value added
> taxes (VAT) / goods and services taxes (GST) / sales). Some other taxes
> (for instance property tax, substantial in many countries, such as USA)
> are not shown here. The table is not intended to represent the true tax
> burden to either the corporation or the individual in the listed country."
>

> That's from the Heritage Foundation's site; ...

http://www.photius.com/rankings/tax_burden_country_ranks_2009.html
which is a list produced by (spare the mark,) Forbes magazine
and quoted by the CIA Worldbook. You'll see that the Forbes data differs
often from that given by the Hayekians; I assume the differences are
due to a lack of rigour on the part of the think tanks.

> Still, when you think what we get for our taxes it's a pretty good bargain.

Agreed.

>
> Lesley.
>
Since the US military expenditure is over half the total world's,
how and when are they paying for it?

[Paul Jamison]

"CCA" <sphir...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5360a83d-f472-4355...@y13g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...

=====================

A hug is always welcome. Tax-free just makes it better.

Paul

[GaryN]

Nigel Stapley <un...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote in
news:mtGdnWWaEoEitubS...@brightview.co.uk:

> John S. Wilkins wrote:
>> Lizzy Taylor <li...@thetaylorfamily.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/04/12 13:07, John S. Wilkins wrote:
>>>> Larry Moore<sshirley...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I do think we could still have a decent and caring society with
>>>>> the tax percentage of GDP of Japan (28.3%)
>>>> Only if you have a small defense force, I think.
>>> The UK seems to be rapidly heading that way
>>>
>> Time to return the Malvinas, then.
>
> Why, have the Ice Giants borrowed them again?
>

The British Navy is currently 2 pedalos, a rowing boat and a submarine
with a talent for running aground (they don't make proper seas these
days). The British airforce is a couple of Tornados, loads of Typhoons
(which don't work very well) and whatever the Battle of Britain flight
can scrape together.

The British Army is currently sacking more soldiers than it recruits
whilst advertising for people to join the TA (I'm actually still
technically a reservist).

I don't see that working when they are already removing pensions and
benefits from the Afghanistan wounded.

I have the greatest respect for, and pride in, our military but they are
being hamstrung. We couldn't put up a fight for the Falklands now.
Haven't even got the Vulcans and Victor tankers to make another
suicidally insane raid on Port Stanley airfield[1]. Oh and no aircraft
carriers until 2014, no aircraft for them until 2020 (best estimates).

I know the Harrier is old and a bit obsolete but *IT WORKS* and thats
better than no carriers or aircraft.

The problem is that the beancounters have scrapped proven weapons
systems without having anything to replace them. I still find it hard
to believe that they spent £8Bn on Nimrod EWAR aircraft and then
scrapped them before they were sent to squadrons! Should people that
stupid be in charge of the defence of our country?. The idea of having
the replacement available before scrapping the old stuff seems to have
escaped them. But then:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUAEy7oI-Hg (Foul language warning)

gary

[1] The longest distance ever flown on a bombing raid - over 8000 miles
total, hit a postage stamp size target from 10K feet and then nearly got
shot down by friendlies on the return.

[Lesley Weston]

Yes I saw that when I was searching. It doesn't include all those other
taxes that I mentioned in the bit you snipped, so it's meaningless.
Rather like the Consumer Price Index, which doesn't include the cost of
food or energy when used to calculate the rate of inflation or wage
increases.

>
>> Still, when you think what we get for our taxes it's a pretty good bargain.
>
> Agreed.
>
>>
>> Lesley.
>>
> Since the US military expenditure is over half the total world's,
> how and when are they paying for it?
>

Maybe that explains the doo-doo they're in now.

[Larry Moore]

On 2012-04-04, Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 04-03-12 2:13 PM, Larry Moore wrote:

>> http://www.photius.com/rankings/tax_burden_country_ranks_2009.html
>> which is a list produced by (spare the mark,) Forbes magazine
>> and quoted by the CIA Worldbook. You'll see that the Forbes data differs
>> often from that given by the Hayekians; I assume the differences are
>> due to a lack of rigour on the part of the think tanks.
>
> Yes I saw that when I was searching. It doesn't include all those other
> taxes that I mentioned in the bit you snipped, so it's meaningless.
> Rather like the Consumer Price Index, which doesn't include the cost of
> food or energy when used to calculate the rate of inflation or wage
> increases.

I assume that all government spending has to be covered eventually
by taxes of some name or another. There are times when having a
publicly accountable single payer is the route to take - and there
are times and uses where a regulated market suits.

I suppose having fuel and food not included in the CPI makes it
comparable, year to year. I don't know if your petrol/gas prices
are spiking like ours will this weekend but we're setting a new
record. I'd hate to be fueling a SUV.

>> Since the US military expenditure is over half the total world's,
>> how and when are they paying for it?
>>
> Maybe that explains the doo-doo they're in now.
>
> Lesley.
>

Eventually all chickens will come home to roost.

--
For at least another hundred years we must pretend to ourselves and to every
one that fair is foul and foul is fair; for foul is useful and fair is not.
Avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods for a little longer still.
John Maynard Keynes

[Lesley Weston]

On 04-05-12 7:15 AM, Larry Moore wrote:
> On 2012-04-04, Lesley Weston<brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 04-03-12 2:13 PM, Larry Moore wrote:
>
>>> http://www.photius.com/rankings/tax_burden_country_ranks_2009.html
>>> which is a list produced by (spare the mark,) Forbes magazine
>>> and quoted by the CIA Worldbook. You'll see that the Forbes data differs
>>> often from that given by the Hayekians; I assume the differences are
>>> due to a lack of rigour on the part of the think tanks.
>>
>> Yes I saw that when I was searching. It doesn't include all those other
>> taxes that I mentioned in the bit you snipped, so it's meaningless.
>> Rather like the Consumer Price Index, which doesn't include the cost of
>> food or energy when used to calculate the rate of inflation or wage
>> increases.
>
> I assume that all government spending has to be covered eventually
> by taxes of some name or another.

Well yes, up to a point. So I guess if you divide the Budget by the
population, you'll get each individual's tax burden. Except that this
doesn't include the Provincial and Municipal budgets and whatever
happens to the transit taxes and other similar levies. And anyway
diligent searching hasn't found me the total amount that's just been
announced by Flaherty as the amount the Feds intend to spend this year;
it must be so scary that it's a secret. And what about money that we as
a country, province or city borrow?

> There are times when having a
> publicly accountable single payer is the route to take - and there
> are times and uses where a regulated market suits.
>
> I suppose having fuel and food not included in the CPI makes it
> comparable, year to year.

Not really. Since food, rent and energy dispose of the major part of
everybody's income (except the rich), the real figures showing what it
costs to stay alive year to year are rather more useful.

> I don't know if your petrol/gas prices
> are spiking like ours will this weekend but we're setting a new
> record. I'd hate to be fueling a SUV.

Ho Yerss! Our tank is half full, but we don't plan on making any long trips.

[Larry Moore]

On 2012-04-05, Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Well yes, up to a point. So I guess if you divide the Budget by the
> population, you'll get each individual's tax burden. Except that this
> doesn't include the Provincial and Municipal budgets and whatever
> happens to the transit taxes and other similar levies. And anyway
> diligent searching hasn't found me the total amount that's just been
> announced by Flaherty as the amount the Feds intend to spend this year;
> it must be so scary that it's a secret. And what about money that we as
> a country, province or city borrow?
>

In http://www.budget.gc.ca/2012/plan/pdf/Plan2012-eng.pdf , he says
program spending of a bit over 250 billion but I don't think I
understand what is covered by that.

>> I don't know if your petrol/gas prices
>> are spiking like ours will this weekend but we're setting a new
>> record. I'd hate to be fueling a SUV.
>
> Ho Yerss! Our tank is half full, but we don't plan on making any long trips.
>
> Lesley.
>

Burgers with my sibs, their kids, and grandkids, etc, at my
mom's then a sleepover at my step-daughter's in the city.

Half a tank of gas should do it.

[GaryN]

Larry Moore <sshirley...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:9MmdndOWlvclj-PS...@wightman.ca:

> On 2012-04-05, Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Well yes, up to a point. So I guess if you divide the Budget by the
>> population, you'll get each individual's tax burden. Except that this
>> doesn't include the Provincial and Municipal budgets and whatever
>> happens to the transit taxes and other similar levies. And anyway
>> diligent searching hasn't found me the total amount that's just been
>> announced by Flaherty as the amount the Feds intend to spend this
>> year; it must be so scary that it's a secret. And what about money
>> that we as a country, province or city borrow?
>>
> In http://www.budget.gc.ca/2012/plan/pdf/Plan2012-eng.pdf , he says
> program spending of a bit over 250 billion but I don't think I
> understand what is covered by that.
>
>
>>> I don't know if your petrol/gas prices
>>> are spiking like ours will this weekend but we're setting a new
>>> record. I'd hate to be fueling a SUV.
>>
>> Ho Yerss! Our tank is half full, but we don't plan on making any long
>> trips.
>>
>> Lesley.
>>
>
> Burgers with my sibs, their kids, and grandkids, etc, at my
> mom's then a sleepover at my step-daughter's in the city.
>
> Half a tank of gas should do it.
>
>

The SO had half a tank, I paid £20 to top it off on the day the
ministerial moron told people to hoard. In my own defence I hadn't
heard the broadcast but I suspected what might happen with the tanker
drivers strike threatened.

As for "The army will make deliveries" - don't make Oi larf! The army
has fewer than 60 HAZMAT trained drivers and their vehicles are not
equipped to pump fuel into civilian tanks. Can't see that covering for
2000 civilian drivers, who are HAZMAT qualified, going on strike.

Fortunately said strike appears to be indefinitely postponed but we
shall see. Personally I think it was a ploy to get everyone running
round like headless chickens, in which case it most certainly served
it's purpose.

gary

[Lesley Weston]

On 04-05-12 2:46 PM, Larry Moore wrote:
> On 2012-04-05, Lesley Weston<brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Well yes, up to a point. So I guess if you divide the Budget by the
>> population, you'll get each individual's tax burden. Except that this
>> doesn't include the Provincial and Municipal budgets and whatever
>> happens to the transit taxes and other similar levies. And anyway
>> diligent searching hasn't found me the total amount that's just been
>> announced by Flaherty as the amount the Feds intend to spend this year;
>> it must be so scary that it's a secret. And what about money that we as
>> a country, province or city borrow?
>>
> In http://www.budget.gc.ca/2012/plan/pdf/Plan2012-eng.pdf , he says
> program spending of a bit over 250 billion but I don't think I
> understand what is covered by that.

Thanks! I was searching under "Budget", silly me, instead of under the
far more meaningful "Action Plan". My ex-boss is fond of douchebag
phrases [1] like "Action Plan"; we used to listen politely and then get
on with our work.

[1] https://www.facebook.com/WordsDouchebagsSay

[Larry Moore]

On 2012-04-06, GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>
> The SO had half a tank, I paid £20 to top it off on the day the
> ministerial moron told people to hoard. In my own defence I hadn't
> heard the broadcast but I suspected what might happen with the tanker
> drivers strike threatened.
>
> As for "The army will make deliveries" - don't make Oi larf! The army
> has fewer than 60 HAZMAT trained drivers and their vehicles are not
> equipped to pump fuel into civilian tanks. Can't see that covering for
> 2000 civilian drivers, who are HAZMAT qualified, going on strike.
>
> Fortunately said strike appears to be indefinitely postponed but we
> shall see. Personally I think it was a ploy to get everyone running
> round like headless chickens, in which case it most certainly served
> it's purpose.
>
> gary
>

This side of the pond, for reasons understood by cost accountants
only, the petro companies decided to close or mothball four
fuel distilleries in the MA/NJ area.

From reports, we are awash in North American crude oil sitting in
storage so the present blip in fuel prices are artificial.

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.

[Lesley Weston]

On 04-07-12 4:03 AM, Larry Moore wrote:
> On 2012-04-06, GaryN<webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>
>> The SO had half a tank, I paid £20 to top it off on the day the
>> ministerial moron told people to hoard. In my own defence I hadn't
>> heard the broadcast but I suspected what might happen with the tanker
>> drivers strike threatened.
>>
>> As for "The army will make deliveries" - don't make Oi larf! The army
>> has fewer than 60 HAZMAT trained drivers and their vehicles are not
>> equipped to pump fuel into civilian tanks. Can't see that covering for
>> 2000 civilian drivers, who are HAZMAT qualified, going on strike.
>>
>> Fortunately said strike appears to be indefinitely postponed but we
>> shall see. Personally I think it was a ploy to get everyone running
>> round like headless chickens, in which case it most certainly served
>> it's purpose.
>>
>> gary
>>
>
> This side of the pond, for reasons understood by cost accountants
> only, the petro companies decided to close or mothball four
> fuel distilleries in the MA/NJ area.
>
> From reports, we are awash in North American crude oil sitting in
> storage so the present blip in fuel prices are artificial.
>
> 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.
>

Joe Who? had a lot of good ideas: he favoured a flat income tax too. But
he made no attempt to implement any of his ideas while he was PM. To be
fair, that wasn't very long. He seems to be the only Canadian politician
about whose worth everybody in all parties agrees; even Jack Layton is
remembered for his quick wits rather than his integrity. Pity he (Joe)
was in the wrong party.

[Larry Moore]

The Reform Party made it clear that the defenestration of the
Progressives was part of the deal in forming the Conservatives.

My dad, firmly a Progressive Progressive-Conservative, was a
supporter of Bill Davis in the provincial wing and Joe Clark,
federally.

I favour my father but have no political home - the Conservatives
are poor money managers [1] and small minded; the Liberals lack
a national vision that includes the West, and the NDP lacks what
the Chinese call " the Mandate of Heaven. "


[1] Tory Times are Hard Times.

[GaryN]

Larry Moore <sshirley...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:leqdnQTo8vpQ0B3S...@wightman.ca:

<snip>

> [1] Tory Times are Hard Times.

Over here Tory times are hard times because they're trying to clean up the
mess that Labour left.

"Hi! I'm Tony and this is my mate Gordon. We're going to borrow shitloads
of money and leave the Tories to try to sort the cock up when we get voted
out. Gordon sold all our gold reserves and I make £50K per speech whilst
being a peace ambassador to the nations we invaded"

Does Tony "Bullshite" Blair get taxed 50% on his income? Err no, because
it all gets shunted through offshore accounts owned by him and his missus.

I was amused the other day by a challenge on 'Newsnight' from 'Red' Ken
Livingstone to Boris Johnson. "Will you publish your income and tax for
your earnings?"

Boris said "Yes, if you do", and did. In time for the first editions of
the papers the next day. Red Ken seems to have lost some of his receipts.
And it's not his company it's his wife's company, he's just a director!

Pull the other one Kenny, it has bells on.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Saturday, April 7, 2012 6:15:22 PM UTC+1, GaryN wrote:
> Over here Tory times are hard times because
> they're trying to clean up the mess that
> Labour left.

Not so much that, as that when the U.S. economy
went bust a few years ago, it took ours with it,
starting with major banks.

[Larry Moore]

Not surprisingly, our bankers didn't - the preceding government was
strongly lobbied to relax our banking regulations but, somehow,
resisted.

The banking collapses were a direct result of the relaxation of
regulation and scrutiny that the banks requested under the banner
of modernization.

[Chris Zakes]

I have no particular problem transitioning to a post petroleum world,
but is the post-petroleum world *ready* for all of us?

At least in the US, the only way to sell electric cars is with major
government subsidies to the purchaser. Widespread solar power is still
a lot closer to the drawing board than to reality, as far as I can
tell. And wind power suffers from serious NIMBY-ism.

-Chris Zakes
Texas
--

When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its
subjects, "This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to
know," the end result is tyranny and opression, no matter how holy the motives.

-John Lyle in "If This Goes On--" by Robert Heinlein

[Kevin Wells]

In message <8ft1o7tafkjr69va2...@4ax.com>

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

>
>At least in the US, the only way to sell electric cars is with major
>government subsidies to the purchaser. Widespread solar power is still
>a lot closer to the drawing board than to reality, as far as I can
>tell. And wind power suffers from serious NIMBY-ism.
>

Another problem with wind farms is that if there is no or little wind
they do not work.

Last week I passed three wind farms and all the windmills were not
working.


--
Kev Wells http://riscos.kevsoft.co.uk/
http://kevsoft.co.uk/ http://kevsoft.co.uk/AleQuest/
ICQ 238580561
And was the holy Lamb of God

[Lesley Weston]

On 04-07-12 7:23 AM, Larry Moore wrote:
> On 2012-04-07, Lesley Weston<brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 04-07-12 4:03 AM, Larry Moore wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>>>
>> Joe Who? had a lot of good ideas: he favoured a flat income tax too. But
>> he made no attempt to implement any of his ideas while he was PM. To be
>> fair, that wasn't very long. He seems to be the only Canadian politician
>> about whose worth everybody in all parties agrees; even Jack Layton is
>> remembered for his quick wits rather than his integrity. Pity he (Joe)
>> was in the wrong party.
>>
>> Lesley.
>>
>
> The Reform Party made it clear that the defenestration of the
> Progressives was part of the deal in forming the Conservatives.

That was in their young, hotheaded days. Before they realised that in
order to rule Canada they would have to become Liberals.

>
> My dad, firmly a Progressive Progressive-Conservative, was a
> supporter of Bill Davis in the provincial wing and Joe Clark,
> federally.
>
> I favour my father but have no political home - the Conservatives
> are poor money managers [1] and small minded; the Liberals lack
> a national vision that includes the West, and the NDP lacks what
> the Chinese call " the Mandate of Heaven. "
>
>
> [1] Tory Times are Hard Times.
>

Actually, the Conservatives are doing pretty well on the money front,
much as I hate to praise them and much as I dislike many of their other
policies. Canada is one of the few countries that's weathering the storm
in reasonable safety. The Liberals lack any vision at all along with any
other desirable qualities. The NDP is currently a headless chicken
through no fault of their own, unless they can be blamed for the Cult of
Personality that they indulged in while Jack the Wonderful was around.

I like what little I know about Elizabeth May [1] on the personal
level, but even if she had more people some of her ideas are just too
crazy for my taste; For one thing, nuclear power is essential if we're
to go on with our comfortable lives when the oil runs out. And for
another, if we're ever to benefit from the vast deposits of oil in
Athabasca we'd better do it soon before alternative fuels become the
norm, and that means we need the pipeline.

So unless something happens before the next election (plenty of time
for that, after all), I'll still be wondering who I can possibly vote
for when the time comes.

[1] Leader of the Green Party and its only elected member in the Federal
Government.

[Lesley Weston]

On 04-07-12 7:28 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:

<snip>

> I have no particular problem transitioning to a post petroleum world,
> but is the post-petroleum world *ready* for all of us?
>
> At least in the US, the only way to sell electric cars is with major
> government subsidies to the purchaser.

An enormous number of people (including me) would most certainly buy
electric cars if the price were comparable to gas-driven cars. So a
combination of government subsidies and manufacturers swallowing the
pill is the only way to go.

> Widespread solar power is still
> a lot closer to the drawing board than to reality, as far as I can
> tell.

The same applies. You have to have a lot of money to buy the initial
equipment, and if you don't have that then it doesn't matter how much
you would save in the future. But there's all sorts of technology
happening now that is making it cheaper.

> And wind power suffers from serious NIMBY-ism.

I can't see why, though I know you're right. The towers are beautiful.

Then there are all the other technologies: geothermal, tidal, heat
exchange between deep and shallow water, fuel produced by bacteria from
waste CO2, and I'm sure there are others.

[Lesley Weston]

On 04-08-12 3:17 AM, Kevin Wells wrote:
> In message<8ft1o7tafkjr69va2...@4ax.com>
> Chris Zakes<dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> At least in the US, the only way to sell electric cars is with major
>> government subsidies to the purchaser. Widespread solar power is still
>> a lot closer to the drawing board than to reality, as far as I can
>> tell. And wind power suffers from serious NIMBY-ism.
>>
>
> Another problem with wind farms is that if there is no or little wind
> they do not work.
>
> Last week I passed three wind farms and all the windmills were not
> working.
>
>

You need other technologies as well, even including oil and coal if
their emissions are scrubbed and the CO2 used for the production of
fuel. In combination, all the available methods of producing energy
would provide more than enough.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Sunday, April 8, 2012 11:17:15 AM UTC+1, Kevin Wells wrote:
> Another problem with wind farms is that if
> there is no or little wind they do not work.
>
> Last week I passed three wind farms and all the windmills were not
> working.

/All/ of them? Call the manufacturer, that
sounds like a design fault. :-)

Yes. Obviously, wind farms only work when
there's wind. So that doesn't much help you
to not have coal power stations, but it lets
you not put more coal into them all every day.

[GaryN]

Kevin Wells <k...@kevsoft.co.uk> wrote in
news:d220257d...@talktalk.net:

<snip>

> Last week I passed three wind farms and all the windmills were not
> working.

Today I passed wind at least 30 times and is there a turbine to be seen?
Anyone catching natural gas?

Nope.

My plan is that we need gas collectors in the same way as we have bottle
banks. Fart into a plastic bag, seal it quickly, then deposit in a methane
tank at the end of the day. Cows and pigs could have bin bags attached to
their backsides as part of the same initiative!

It'll work except for the balooning livestock!

[Kevin Wells]

In message <XnsA02FAC63A2999...@216.196.109.145>

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

>Kevin Wells <k...@kevsoft.co.uk> wrote in
>news:d220257d...@talktalk.net:
>
><snip>
>
>> Last week I passed three wind farms and all the windmills were not
>> working.
>
>Today I passed wind at least 30 times and is there a turbine to be seen?
>Anyone catching natural gas?
>
>Nope.
>
>My plan is that we need gas collectors in the same way as we have bottle
>banks. Fart into a plastic bag, seal it quickly, then deposit in a methane
>tank at the end of the day. Cows and pigs could have bin bags attached to
>their backsides as part of the same initiative!

If we sold it I could make a fortune.

>
>It'll work except for the balooning livestock!
>
>gary
>


--

Kev Wells http://riscos.kevsoft.co.uk/
http://kevsoft.co.uk/ http://kevsoft.co.uk/AleQuest/
ICQ 238580561

Member of IRUG http://irug.kevsoft.co.uk/

[Nigel Stapley]

GaryN wrote:
> Kevin Wells <k...@kevsoft.co.uk> wrote in
> news:d220257d...@talktalk.net:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Last week I passed three wind farms and all the windmills were not
>> working.
>
> Today I passed wind at least 30 times and is there a turbine to be seen?
> Anyone catching natural gas?
>
> Nope.

Yur, but at approximately 1153 hours this morning, your front door flew
right across the street.

[Larry Moore]

On 2012-04-08, Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 06:03:23 -0500, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused Larry Moore <sshirley...@gmail.com> to write:
>

>>This side of the pond, for reasons understood by cost accountants
>>only, the petro companies decided to close or mothball four
>>fuel distilleries in the MA/NJ area.
>>
>>From reports, we are awash in North American crude oil sitting in
>>storage so the present blip in fuel prices are artificial.
>>
>>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.
>
> I have no particular problem transitioning to a post petroleum world,
> but is the post-petroleum world *ready* for all of us?
>

Like old-age, running out of affordable petroleum is inevitable;
will ye, nil ye, either we plan or we fail.

> At least in the US, the only way to sell electric cars is with major
> government subsidies to the purchaser.

Perhaps we might try that - at the moment, the challenge is the
occasional cold bit of weather reducing the power of the batteries. It
looks like a hybrid (the small motor supplying heat to keep the battery
working and charging it as necessary,) works well enough. A number
of commercial firms have adopted this for their delivery vehicles
here (and they being internationals, where you are also.)

> Widespread solar power is still a lot closer to the drawing board than
> to reality, as far as I can tell.

I think solar could be used for direct heating rather than losing
power converting it to electricity.
I saw a movie 'Sahara' that had a solar powered hazardous waste facility
and it seemed feasible; perhaps a similar idea of a solar array
cement making plant would work.

.
> And wind power suffers from serious NIMBY-ism.
>
> -Chris Zakes
> Texas

Yes. Battery storage technology to even out the intermittency seems
to be well under development but the towers are huge, obtrusive
additions to a back yard even if they are elegant seen from a
distance.

[Larry Moore]

On 2012-04-08, Kevin Wells <k...@kevsoft.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <8ft1o7tafkjr69va2...@4ax.com>
> Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>At least in the US, the only way to sell electric cars is with major
>>government subsidies to the purchaser. Widespread solar power is still
>>a lot closer to the drawing board than to reality, as far as I can
>>tell. And wind power suffers from serious NIMBY-ism.
>>
>
> Another problem with wind farms is that if there is no or little wind
> they do not work.
>
> Last week I passed three wind farms and all the windmills were not
> working.
>
>

Picking the right site is a challenge. There was a town near here that
voted not to put their first water storage tower on the top of the hill
because it would have been visually obtrusive - the new, replacement,
tower is (after problems fighting fires with low water pressure,)
however.

[Chris Zakes]

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 11:17:15 +0100, an orbital mind-control laser
caused Kevin Wells <k...@kevsoft.co.uk> to write:

>In message <8ft1o7tafkjr69va2...@4ax.com>
> Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>At least in the US, the only way to sell electric cars is with major
>>government subsidies to the purchaser. Widespread solar power is still
>>a lot closer to the drawing board than to reality, as far as I can
>>tell. And wind power suffers from serious NIMBY-ism.
>>
>
>Another problem with wind farms is that if there is no or little wind
>they do not work.
>
>Last week I passed three wind farms and all the windmills were not
>working.

That's rarely a problem in West Texas (the nearest wind farm to me.)
But long-distance transmission of the electricity apparently *is* a
problem.

[Chris Zakes]

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 10:56:50 -0500, an orbital mind-control laser
caused GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> to write:

>Kevin Wells <k...@kevsoft.co.uk> wrote in
>news:d220257d...@talktalk.net:
>
><snip>
>
>> Last week I passed three wind farms and all the windmills were not
>> working.
>
>Today I passed wind at least 30 times and is there a turbine to be seen?
>Anyone catching natural gas?
>
>Nope.
>
>My plan is that we need gas collectors in the same way as we have bottle
>banks. Fart into a plastic bag, seal it quickly, then deposit in a methane
>tank at the end of the day. Cows and pigs could have bin bags attached to
>their backsides as part of the same initiative!
>
>It'll work except for the balooning livestock!
>
>gary

Like this?
http://inhabitat.com/spiffy-backpack-traps-bovine-gas/

[Chris Zakes]

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 07:53:15 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
caused Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> to write:

>On 04-07-12 7:28 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> I have no particular problem transitioning to a post petroleum world,
>> but is the post-petroleum world *ready* for all of us?
>>
>> At least in the US, the only way to sell electric cars is with major
>> government subsidies to the purchaser.
>
>An enormous number of people (including me) would most certainly buy
>electric cars if the price were comparable to gas-driven cars. So a
>combination of government subsidies and manufacturers swallowing the
>pill is the only way to go.

So in other words, in the current market, they're not really
competitive. The Chevy Volt, for example, lists a minimum price of
$31,645.00--nearly twice what a comparable-sized gasoline car costs.

>> Widespread solar power is still
>> a lot closer to the drawing board than to reality, as far as I can
>> tell.
>
>The same applies. You have to have a lot of money to buy the initial
>equipment, and if you don't have that then it doesn't matter how much
>you would save in the future. But there's all sorts of technology
>happening now that is making it cheaper.
>
>> And wind power suffers from serious NIMBY-ism.
>
>I can't see why, though I know you're right. The towers are beautiful.

Many people seem to find the appearance undesirable--at least if it's
visible from *their* house. I've also seen objections about them
interfering with migratory bird routes. And, apparently, they're
pretty noisy up close.

> Then there are all the other technologies: geothermal, tidal, heat
>exchange between deep and shallow water, fuel produced by bacteria from
>waste CO2, and I'm sure there are others.
>
>Lesley.

But again, how many of these are ready for large-scale activation
*today*? If we stopped using petrochemicals right now, is there any
way solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, heat exchange and bacteria could
fill that gap? I don't think any of those technologies would make my
car run, for example.

And a lot of them are pretty location-dependant. Tidal, geothermal and
deep/shallow water heat exchange wouldn't be much good in Kansas or
Saskatchewan.

[Geoff Field]

Chris Zakes wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 11:17:15 +0100, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused Kevin Wells <k...@kevsoft.co.uk> to write:
>
>> In message <8ft1o7tafkjr69va2...@4ax.com>
>> Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> At least in the US, the only way to sell electric cars is with major
>>> government subsidies to the purchaser. Widespread solar power is
>>> still a lot closer to the drawing board than to reality, as far as
>>> I can tell. And wind power suffers from serious NIMBY-ism.
>>>
>>
>> Another problem with wind farms is that if there is no or little wind
>> they do not work.
>>
>> Last week I passed three wind farms and all the windmills were not
>> working.
>
> That's rarely a problem in West Texas (the nearest wind farm to me.)
> But long-distance transmission of the electricity apparently *is* a
> problem.

Back in my days working for the Transmission Line Design Engineer's
office of what used to be our state electricity commission, I was told
that the rule of thumb is 1,000V per mile for efficient transmission of
power. Of course, the higher the voltage, the bigger and more expensive
the equipment.

With things like wind power, the idea is to put it near the main loads
to help reduce the load on the transmission lines from the base power
generators (coal, etc).

Of course, NIMBY always applies. Oh yes, then there's the claim that
they kill the local birds.

Geoff


--
Geoff Field
Professional Geek,
Amateur Stage-Levelling Gauge

[Geoff Field]

Larry Moore wrote:
> On 2012-04-08, Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 06:03:23 -0500, an orbital mind-control laser
>> caused Larry Moore <sshirley...@gmail.com> to write:

[snip]

>>> From reports, we are awash in North American crude oil sitting in
>>> storage so the present blip in fuel prices are artificial.

Here in Australia, we supply a large amount of our own fuel, but the
final petrol price is still linked to the Singapore pricing and the US
dollar. Then, something like 60% or so of the price is taxes and levies
(which are really taxes by a different name), about 16% of which is
pumped back into the transport sector...

Apparently.

>>> 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.

In addition to the other taxes, I guess.

[snip]

>> At least in the US, the only way to sell electric cars is with major
>> government subsidies to the purchaser.

Like others, I'd buy an electric car if it was in a reasonable price
range (and if there was some actual choice available in the
Australian market).

> Perhaps we might try that - at the moment, the challenge is the
> occasional cold bit of weather reducing the power of the batteries. It
> looks like a hybrid (the small motor supplying heat to keep the
> battery working and charging it as necessary,) works well enough. A
> number
> of commercial firms have adopted this for their delivery vehicles
> here (and they being internationals, where you are also.)

Not here :-(

>> Widespread solar power is still a lot closer to the drawing board
>> than to reality, as far as I can tell.

Like wind, PV solar only works if the sun is shining.

> I think solar could be used for direct heating rather than losing
> power converting it to electricity.

Interesting thought. There's a building near here that used to be
owned by the Japanese company Yazaki. On the roof is a large
array of solar collectors that actually used to power the air conditioner
directly.

> I saw a movie 'Sahara' that had a solar powered hazardous waste
> facility and it seemed feasible; perhaps a similar idea of a solar
> array cement making plant would work.

A concentrating solar plant could be used for anything that needs
heat - while the sun is actually shining. There are a few such plants
that store the heat in molten salt so the output is not quite so time
sensitive.

>> And wind power suffers from serious NIMBY-ism.
>

> Yes. Battery storage technology to even out the intermittency seems
> to be well under development but the towers are huge, obtrusive
> additions to a back yard even if they are elegant seen from a
> distance.

Most of the wind farms I've seen here in .au are on actual farms.
Rather than battery storage, I'd suggest flywheels or capacitors.

[Chris Zakes]

On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 08:39:45 +1000, an orbital mind-control laser
caused "Geoff Field" <geoff...@hotmail.com> to write:

>Larry Moore wrote:
>> On 2012-04-08, Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 06:03:23 -0500, an orbital mind-control laser
>>> caused Larry Moore <sshirley...@gmail.com> to write:
>[snip]
>>>> From reports, we are awash in North American crude oil sitting in
>>>> storage so the present blip in fuel prices are artificial.
>
>Here in Australia, we supply a large amount of our own fuel, but the
>final petrol price is still linked to the Singapore pricing and the US
>dollar. Then, something like 60% or so of the price is taxes and levies
>(which are really taxes by a different name), about 16% of which is
>pumped back into the transport sector...

I saw a sign the other day...
"Oil Company profit on a gallon of gas: 7%
Taxes on a gallon of gas: 47%
You tell me who's getting the obscene profits."

>Apparently.
>
>>>> 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.
>
>In addition to the other taxes, I guess.
>
>[snip]
>>> At least in the US, the only way to sell electric cars is with major
>>> government subsidies to the purchaser.
>
>Like others, I'd buy an electric car if it was in a reasonable price
>range (and if there was some actual choice available in the
>Australian market).
>
>> Perhaps we might try that - at the moment, the challenge is the
>> occasional cold bit of weather reducing the power of the batteries. It
>> looks like a hybrid (the small motor supplying heat to keep the
>> battery working and charging it as necessary,) works well enough. A
>> number
>> of commercial firms have adopted this for their delivery vehicles
>> here (and they being internationals, where you are also.)
>
>Not here :-(
>
>>> Widespread solar power is still a lot closer to the drawing board
>>> than to reality, as far as I can tell.
>
>Like wind, PV solar only works if the sun is shining.

Huh? Around here, the wind still blows after dark.

>> I think solar could be used for direct heating rather than losing
>> power converting it to electricity.
>
>Interesting thought. There's a building near here that used to be
>owned by the Japanese company Yazaki. On the roof is a large
>array of solar collectors that actually used to power the air conditioner
>directly.

I've had a back-of-my head idea for years: photovoltaic roofing
shingles. Put them on the house when it's built, they supply (or at
least supplement) the regular electricity. I've no idea if it's
workable with current technology, though.

[GaryN]

Larry Moore <sshirley...@gmail.com> wrote in news:_
8Odnc0lZ7i1RhzS...@wightman.ca:

<snip>

> I saw a movie 'Sahara' that had a solar powered hazardous waste facility
> and it seemed feasible; perhaps a similar idea of a solar array
> cement making plant would work.

Would that be the same 'Sahara' as the Clive Cussler novel where the plant
was actually a cover for long term storage of hazardous/radioactive waste?
The waste then leaking out of the storage and polluting aquifers in the
region. Can't say I fancy that much!

In theory the idea should work but putting it into practice in remote,
inhospitibal, areas would require colossal, possibly prohibitive, capital
expenditure.

[Larry Moore]

On 2012-04-08, Geoff Field <geoff...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Larry Moore wrote:
>> On 2012-04-08, Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 06:03:23 -0500, an orbital mind-control laser
>>> caused Larry Moore <sshirley...@gmail.com> to write:
> [snip]
>>>> From reports, we are awash in North American crude oil sitting in
>>>> storage so the present blip in fuel prices are artificial.
>
> Here in Australia, we supply a large amount of our own fuel, but the
> final petrol price is still linked to the Singapore pricing and the US
> dollar. Then, something like 60% or so of the price is taxes and levies
> (which are really taxes by a different name), about 16% of which is
> pumped back into the transport sector...
>
> Apparently.

The numbers are about the same - repairing the roads that weather and
the big rigs tear up.

>
>>>> 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.
>
> In addition to the other taxes, I guess.

Yes - that's the idea.

>
> [snip]
>>> At least in the US, the only way to sell electric cars is with major
>>> government subsidies to the purchaser.
>

>> of commercial firms have adopted this for their delivery vehicles
>> here (and they being internationals, where you are also.)
>
> Not here :-(
>

It's part of the 6% annual reduction challenge that most of our
big fleets are involved in.

I see TNT Australia uses hybrids, btw.

>
> Most of the wind farms I've seen here in .au are on actual farms.

Same here - surrounded by three big lakes, we always have on-shore
or off-shore breezes

> Rather than battery storage, I'd suggest flywheels or capacitors.
>
> Geoff
>

There's a group at MIT that has put the design of an aluminium
refinery reversed to make an affordable industrial-scale battery
that looks like it might be useful. There's a TED
talk on YouTube by the developer.

[Larry Moore]

On 2012-04-09, Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I saw a sign the other day...
> "Oil Company profit on a gallon of gas: 7%
> Taxes on a gallon of gas: 47%
> You tell me who's getting the obscene profits."
>
>

This message brought to you by the Petroleum Council of
America? :-) With the opportunities to hide revenues in
the peculiar tax exemptions they are granted, they can claim
any profit level that they wist.
Grocery chains operate on a 1% profit.

> I've had a back-of-my head idea for years: photovoltaic roofing
> shingles. Put them on the house when it's built, they supply (or at
> least supplement) the regular electricity. I've no idea if it's
> workable with current technology, though.
>
> -Chris Zakes
> Texas

Could do - the panels are heavier than shingles but the extra load-bearing
could be built in. The problem integrating panels onto an existing older
house is providing support for the weight.

[Lesley Weston]

On 04-08-12 8:56 AM, GaryN wrote:
> Kevin Wells<k...@kevsoft.co.uk> wrote in
> news:d220257d...@talktalk.net:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Last week I passed three wind farms and all the windmills were not
>> working.
>
> Today I passed wind at least 30 times and is there a turbine to be seen?
> Anyone catching natural gas?

I didn't know it was infectious.

[Lesley Weston]

On 04-08-12 2:59 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 07:53:15 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused Lesley Weston<brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> to write:
>
>> On 04-07-12 7:28 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> I have no particular problem transitioning to a post petroleum world,
>>> but is the post-petroleum world *ready* for all of us?
>>>
>>> At least in the US, the only way to sell electric cars is with major
>>> government subsidies to the purchaser.
>>
>> An enormous number of people (including me) would most certainly buy
>> electric cars if the price were comparable to gas-driven cars. So a
>> combination of government subsidies and manufacturers swallowing the
>> pill is the only way to go.
>
> So in other words, in the current market, they're not really
> competitive. The Chevy Volt, for example, lists a minimum price of
> $31,645.00--nearly twice what a comparable-sized gasoline car costs.

Exactly. So the government needs to supplement, and more importantly the
manufacturers need to accept reality.

>
>
>>> Widespread solar power is still
>>> a lot closer to the drawing board than to reality, as far as I can
>>> tell.
>>
>> The same applies. You have to have a lot of money to buy the initial
>> equipment, and if you don't have that then it doesn't matter how much
>> you would save in the future. But there's all sorts of technology
>> happening now that is making it cheaper.
>>
>>> And wind power suffers from serious NIMBY-ism.
>>
>> I can't see why, though I know you're right. The towers are beautiful.
>
> Many people seem to find the appearance undesirable--at least if it's
> visible from *their* house.

Not me. I'd be quite happy.

> I've also seen objections about them
> interfering with migratory bird routes.

I think those have been debunked.

> And, apparently, they're
> pretty noisy up close.

I wouldn't know, but if they are then obviously they shouldn't be too
near houses.

>
>
>> Then there are all the other technologies: geothermal, tidal, heat
>> exchange between deep and shallow water, fuel produced by bacteria from
>> waste CO2, and I'm sure there are others.
>>
>> Lesley.
>
> But again, how many of these are ready for large-scale activation
> *today*? If we stopped using petrochemicals right now, is there any
> way solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, heat exchange and bacteria could
> fill that gap? I don't think any of those technologies would make my
> car run, for example.

Why does that matter? Thinking ahead and planning for the future is
usually recommended.

>
> And a lot of them are pretty location-dependant. Tidal, geothermal and
> deep/shallow water heat exchange wouldn't be much good in Kansas or
> Saskatchewan.

No, but windmills would, and actually I think geothermal can be made to
work just about anywhere. Plants that burn oil or coal or renewable
local vegetation and have efficient scrubbing of the emissions to
reclaim the CO2 and use it to make fuel, nuclear plants, plants that use
algae to produce diesel, plants that use bacteria to convert weeds like
switch-grass grown on wasteland to electricity, plants that gasify a
city's garbage and so produce power - all of these would work anywhere.
And in your examples the methods that need sunlight would do
particularly well.

[Lesley Weston]

On 04-08-12 3:39 PM, Geoff Field wrote:
> Larry Moore wrote:
>> On 2012-04-08, Chris Zakes<dont...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

>>> Widespread solar power is still a lot closer to the drawing board
>>> than to reality, as far as I can tell.
>
> Like wind, PV solar only works if the sun is shining.
>
>> I think solar could be used for direct heating rather than losing
>> power converting it to electricity.
>
> Interesting thought. There's a building near here that used to be
> owned by the Japanese company Yazaki. On the roof is a large
> array of solar collectors that actually used to power the air conditioner
> directly.
>
>> I saw a movie 'Sahara' that had a solar powered hazardous waste
>> facility and it seemed feasible; perhaps a similar idea of a solar
>> array cement making plant would work.
>
> A concentrating solar plant could be used for anything that needs
> heat - while the sun is actually shining. There are a few such plants
> that store the heat in molten salt so the output is not quite so time
> sensitive.
>
>>> And wind power suffers from serious NIMBY-ism.
>>
>> Yes. Battery storage technology to even out the intermittency seems
>> to be well under development but the towers are huge, obtrusive
>> additions to a back yard even if they are elegant seen from a
>> distance.
>
> Most of the wind farms I've seen here in .au are on actual farms.
> Rather than battery storage, I'd suggest flywheels or capacitors.

Or a combination of all of the above, to smooth out the interruptions in
any one source.

[Lesley Weston]

On 04-09-12 4:40 AM, Chris Zakes wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 08:39:45 +1000, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused "Geoff Field"<geoff...@hotmail.com> to write:
>
>> Larry Moore wrote:
>>> On 2012-04-08, Chris Zakes<dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 06:03:23 -0500, an orbital mind-control laser
>>>> caused Larry Moore<sshirley...@gmail.com> to write:
>> [snip]
>>>>> From reports, we are awash in North American crude oil sitting in
>>>>> storage so the present blip in fuel prices are artificial.
>>
>> Here in Australia, we supply a large amount of our own fuel, but the
>> final petrol price is still linked to the Singapore pricing and the US
>> dollar. Then, something like 60% or so of the price is taxes and levies
>> (which are really taxes by a different name), about 16% of which is
>> pumped back into the transport sector...
>
> I saw a sign the other day...
> "Oil Company profit on a gallon of gas: 7%
> Taxes on a gallon of gas: 47%
> You tell me who's getting the obscene profits."
>

We the people are. Oil-company profits benefit a few people who already
have far more than they need, while taxes benefit the whole community.

<snip>

> I've had a back-of-my head idea for years: photovoltaic roofing
> shingles. Put them on the house when it's built, they supply (or at
> least supplement) the regular electricity. I've no idea if it's
> workable with current technology, though.

It's being done. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_shingles

[Lesley Weston]

On 04-09-12 6:01 AM, Larry Moore wrote:
> On 2012-04-09, Chris Zakes<dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I saw a sign the other day...
>> "Oil Company profit on a gallon of gas: 7%
>> Taxes on a gallon of gas: 47%
>> You tell me who's getting the obscene profits."
>>
>>
>
> This message brought to you by the Petroleum Council of
> America? :-) With the opportunities to hide revenues in
> the peculiar tax exemptions they are granted, they can claim
> any profit level that they wist.
> Grocery chains operate on a 1% profit.
>
>> I've had a back-of-my head idea for years: photovoltaic roofing
>> shingles. Put them on the house when it's built, they supply (or at
>> least supplement) the regular electricity. I've no idea if it's
>> workable with current technology, though.
>>
>> -Chris Zakes
>> Texas
>
> Could do - the panels are heavier than shingles

Not necessarily. New technologies to make them much lighter and cheaper
are springing up all over the place.

[Larry Moore]

On 2012-04-09, GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
> Larry Moore <sshirley...@gmail.com> wrote in news:_
> 8Odnc0lZ7i1RhzS...@wightman.ca:
>
><snip>
>
>
>> I saw a movie 'Sahara' that had a solar powered hazardous waste facility
>> and it seemed feasible; perhaps a similar idea of a solar array
>> cement making plant would work.
>
> Would that be the same 'Sahara' as the Clive Cussler novel where the plant
> was actually a cover for long term storage of hazardous/radioactive waste?
> The waste then leaking out of the storage and polluting aquifers in the
> region. Can't say I fancy that much!
>
> In theory the idea should work but putting it into practice in remote,
> inhospitibal, areas would require colossal, possibly prohibitive, capital
> expenditure.
>
> gary
>

Yes, according to the movie, the designers for the plant had all the
high-tech worked out but didn't provide for sand and sandstorms
affecting reflector efficiency. The manager couldn't keep up with
clearing them, the plant fell behind schedule, but the manager was
unwilling to admit that he couldn't fulfill his production schedule,
drums of disposable gunk (non-radioactive but fiercely mutagenic,)
built up in storage and started leaking
into the ground water and the story unfolded..

I think the dust problem wouldn't be that difficult to design for
and the plant was very well CGI'd in the movie.

The logistics of the plant (even with a dedicated railway,) in the
south end of the Sahara was a puzzler, I admit.
The north end of the Sahara, closer to container ports and
customers, would have made more sense.

[Alec Cawley]

There are plans being discussed for a huge solar plant in the northern
Sahara, with a cable under the Mediterranean. Because of the various costs,
including the cable, it only makes sense on a huge scale, and hence is a
huge investment just being outlined at the moment. One of the main problems
is political: would you put a facility generating more than 10% of your
countries electricity on the territory of another with a history of
political instability? You may pay for it, then find it nationalised
without compensation.

[Alec Cawley]

Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 04-08-12 2:59 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 07:53:15 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
>> caused Lesley Weston<brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> to write:
>>
>>> On 04-07-12 7:28 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> I have no particular problem transitioning to a post petroleum world,
>>>> but is the post-petroleum world *ready* for all of us?
>>>>
>>>> At least in the US, the only way to sell electric cars is with major
>>>> government subsidies to the purchaser.
>>>
>>> An enormous number of people (including me) would most certainly buy
>>> electric cars if the price were comparable to gas-driven cars. So a
>>> combination of government subsidies and manufacturers swallowing the
>>> pill is the only way to go.
>>
>> So in other words, in the current market, they're not really
>> competitive. The Chevy Volt, for example, lists a minimum price of
>> $31,645.00--nearly twice what a comparable-sized gasoline car costs.
>
> Exactly. So the government needs to supplement, and more importantly the
> manufacturers need to accept reality.

Buyers need to accept reality, which that batteries are very expensive. The
manufacturers as well as the government are currently subsidising the cars
for PR purposes. Which means that if you want electric cars you are going
to have to pay more. Indirectly via taxes, maybe, or fuel costs. But they
are simply more expensive to build, a hurdle which cannot be hand waved
over.

>>
>>> Then there are all the other technologies: geothermal, tidal, heat
>>> exchange between deep and shallow water, fuel produced by bacteria from
>>> waste CO2, and I'm sure there are others.
>>>
>>> Lesley.
>>
>> But again, how many of these are ready for large-scale activation
>> *today*? If we stopped using petrochemicals right now, is there any
>> way solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, heat exchange and bacteria could
>> fill that gap? I don't think any of those technologies would make my
>> car run, for example.
>
> Why does that matter? Thinking ahead and planning for the future is usually recommended.
>>
>> And a lot of them are pretty location-dependant. Tidal, geothermal and
>> deep/shallow water heat exchange wouldn't be much good in Kansas or
>> Saskatchewan.
>
> No, but windmills would, and actually I think geothermal can be made to
> work just about anywhere. Plants that burn oil or coal or renewable local
> vegetation and have efficient scrubbing of the emissions to reclaim the
> CO2 and use it to make fuel, nuclear plants, plants that use algae to
> produce diesel, plants that use bacteria to convert weeds like
> switch-grass grown on wasteland to electricity, plants that gasify a
> city's garbage and so produce power - all of these would work anywhere.
> And in your examples the methods that need sunlight would do particularly well.

No, geothermal only works in a few places, at least at the depths currently
envisaged. Of course, if you go down deep enough, there is hot rock
everywhere. But that is escalating the technology by a large step. And
there are already reports of geothermal causing earthquakes. Outside the
very obviously volcanic (and thus uninhabited) areas of Iceland , NZ etc,
it is still unproven.

There is no working large scale Carbon Capture scheme anywhere. There are
some research schemes which have not yet reported. But to base hopes on a
technology which is, at this point, totally untried is, to my mind, lunacy.
By all means, continue research. But don't do an Enron and count your
profits when they are pure hypotheticals.

[daniel goldsmith]

On 2012-04-09, Alec Cawley <al...@spamspam.co.uk> wrote:
> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 04-08-12 2:59 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>>> On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 07:53:15 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
>>> caused Lesley Weston<brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> to write:
>>>
>>>> On 04-07-12 7:28 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>

>>>> An enormous number of people (including me) would most certainly buy
>>>> electric cars if the price were comparable to gas-driven cars. So a
>>>> combination of government subsidies and manufacturers swallowing the
>>>> pill is the only way to go.
>>>
>>> So in other words, in the current market, they're not really
>>> competitive. The Chevy Volt, for example, lists a minimum price of
>>> $31,645.00--nearly twice what a comparable-sized gasoline car costs.
>>
>> Exactly. So the government needs to supplement, and more importantly the
>> manufacturers need to accept reality.
>
> Buyers need to accept reality, which that batteries are very expensive. The
> manufacturers as well as the government are currently subsidising the cars
> for PR purposes. Which means that if you want electric cars you are going
> to have to pay more. Indirectly via taxes, maybe, or fuel costs. But they
> are simply more expensive to build, a hurdle which cannot be hand waved
> over.

Government subsidies, however, can only cover one of the Costs of these
battery-powered vehicles - ie the Purely Fiscal Consumer Costs. They can
do nothing at all about the far greater Cost of these devices - ie the
massive environmental cost of their production.

These batteries rely on significant quantities of Rare Earth Metals, whose
extraction is far from simple, and usually takes place in areas which have
heretofore been largely undeveloped. Once extracted, they need to be refined
and, of course, variously shipped about the globe to production plants. The
figures on the environmental cost of this production aren't readily estimable
but they are certainly far higher than those of IC engined vehicles.

Of course, once you have your shiny new leccy car, you need to fill her up
in the classic sense. The source of that power is the mains, in normal use,
so where does *that* power come from? What's the environmental cost of the
juice seems to be a key factor in some leading environmentalists (like the
Guardian's Monbiot) in deciding *against* purchasing an electric vehicle.

Speaking solely for myself, I'm quite happy that my ten year old vehicle,
well maintained and conservatively driven, is far more positive for the
environment than some jackass in his brand new Lexus RX 450h. I think that
the calculation would be more marginal for a purely electric vehicle, but
that continuing to drive an older vehicle would still be more positive, as
by extending the lifespan of a vehicle you are minimising the production
costs as a % of overall.

--
Protected by their camouflage, the New International Militant Hedgehogs
__o __o __o __o (NIMH) Approach their Target
'/ '/ '/ '/ _____________________________________________________
*Daniel Goldsmith. Reply-to/Homepage in Headers*

[Larry Moore]

On 2012-04-09, Alec Cawley <al...@spamspam.co.uk> wrote:

> There are plans being discussed for a huge solar plant in the northern
> Sahara, with a cable under the Mediterranean. Because of the various costs,
> including the cable, it only makes sense on a huge scale, and hence is a
> huge investment just being outlined at the moment. One of the main problems
> is political: would you put a facility generating more than 10% of your
> countries electricity on the territory of another with a history of
> political instability? You may pay for it, then find it nationalised
> without compensation.

If it were already a multi-government network rather than private
enterprise, it might have a more stable political future.

[Larry Moore]

On 2012-04-09, Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Not necessarily. New technologies to make them much lighter and cheaper
> are springing up all over the place.
>
> Lesley.
>

Lately, I see a number of farm equipment {storage|service}
structures being built with solar panels on the roof.

[Nigel Stapley]

Larry Moore wrote:
> On 2012-04-09, Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Not necessarily. New technologies to make them much lighter and cheaper
>> are springing up all over the place.
>>
>> Lesley.
>>
>
> Lately, I see a number of farm equipment {storage|service}
> structures being built with solar panels on the roof.
>

Round our way, the Council is putting solar panels on some of its
housing (the ones currently occupied by the elderly IIRC). I don't know
what benefit this is supposed to bring - perhaps to reduce the need to
use electrocity/gas to heat water during the summer.

[Lesley Weston]

On 04-09-12 8:40 AM, Alec Cawley wrote:
> Lesley Weston<brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 04-08-12 2:59 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>>> On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 07:53:15 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
>>> caused Lesley Weston<brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> to write:
>>>
>>>> On 04-07-12 7:28 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> I have no particular problem transitioning to a post petroleum world,
>>>>> but is the post-petroleum world *ready* for all of us?
>>>>>
>>>>> At least in the US, the only way to sell electric cars is with major
>>>>> government subsidies to the purchaser.
>>>>
>>>> An enormous number of people (including me) would most certainly buy
>>>> electric cars if the price were comparable to gas-driven cars. So a
>>>> combination of government subsidies and manufacturers swallowing the
>>>> pill is the only way to go.
>>>
>>> So in other words, in the current market, they're not really
>>> competitive. The Chevy Volt, for example, lists a minimum price of
>>> $31,645.00--nearly twice what a comparable-sized gasoline car costs.
>>
>> Exactly. So the government needs to supplement, and more importantly the
>> manufacturers need to accept reality.
>
> Buyers need to accept reality, which that batteries are very expensive.

They are. Which is why you don't buy a new one, you swap it out for a
recharged one, or you plug in your car at home and at your destination.
There's a company setting up a network of charging stations across the
whole of BC:

http://tinyurl.com/bm2agaj

And a Government programme to subsidise it. There's already a GP to
subsidise the production of the cars and this could be ramped up enormously.

> The
> manufacturers as well as the government are currently subsidising the cars
> for PR purposes. Which means that if you want electric cars you are going
> to have to pay more. Indirectly via taxes, maybe, or fuel costs.

Taxes yes, and why not? But fuel costs wouldn't be higher so long as
alternative means of making electricity already existing are developed
further, along with any new technology that might pop up.

> But they
> are simply more expensive to build, a hurdle which cannot be hand waved
> over.
>

So far. When more of them are being made the price will drop, which is
why subsidies are needed at this stage. And when gas has become so
expensive as it runs out that it's beyond most people's reach, then
we'll be glad that the technology for electric cars is already in place.

>>>
>>>> Then there are all the other technologies: geothermal, tidal, heat
>>>> exchange between deep and shallow water, fuel produced by bacteria from
>>>> waste CO2, and I'm sure there are others.
>>>>
>>>> Lesley.
>>>
>>> But again, how many of these are ready for large-scale activation
>>> *today*? If we stopped using petrochemicals right now, is there any
>>> way solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, heat exchange and bacteria could
>>> fill that gap? I don't think any of those technologies would make my
>>> car run, for example.
>>
>> Why does that matter? Thinking ahead and planning for the future is usually recommended.
>>>
>>> And a lot of them are pretty location-dependant. Tidal, geothermal and
>>> deep/shallow water heat exchange wouldn't be much good in Kansas or
>>> Saskatchewan.
>>
>> No, but windmills would, and actually I think geothermal can be made to
>> work just about anywhere. Plants that burn oil or coal or renewable local
>> vegetation and have efficient scrubbing of the emissions to reclaim the
>> CO2 and use it to make fuel, nuclear plants, plants that use algae to
>> produce diesel, plants that use bacteria to convert weeds like
>> switch-grass grown on wasteland to electricity, plants that gasify a
>> city's garbage and so produce power - all of these would work anywhere.
>> And in your examples the methods that need sunlight would do particularly well.
>
> No, geothermal only works in a few places, at least at the depths currently
> envisaged.

You could be right; I don't know much about the technology. But there is
a heat differential even at the depths coal mines reach, so I don't see
why that can't be used.

> Of course, if you go down deep enough, there is hot rock
> everywhere. But that is escalating the technology by a large step. And
> there are already reports of geothermal causing earthquakes

Well yes, there would be. If God had intended us to take energy out of
the ground, he would have provided us with tap roots.

> Outside the
> very obviously volcanic (and thus uninhabited) areas of Iceland , NZ etc,
> it is still unproven.
>
> There is no working large scale Carbon Capture scheme anywhere.

Yet.

> There are
> some research schemes which have not yet reported. But to base hopes on a
> technology which is, at this point, totally untried is, to my mind, lunacy.
> By all means, continue research. But don't do an Enron and count your
> profits when they are pure hypotheticals.

Of course. But it would be even higher lunacy to keep calm and carry on
as if there were nothing wrong and the oil deposits were infinite, when
instead we can develop alternative energy sources and so escape the
crisis. Probably.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Tuesday, April 10, 2012 4:31:35 PM UTC+1, Lesley Weston wrote:
> On 04-09-12 8:40 AM, Alec Cawley wrote:
> > Lesley Weston

> wrote:
> >> On 04-08-12 2:59 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:
> >>> So in other words, in the current market, they're not really
> >>> competitive. The Chevy Volt, for example, lists a minimum price of
> >>> $31,645.00--nearly twice what a comparable-sized gasoline car costs.
> >>
> >> Exactly. So the government needs to supplement, and more importantly the
> >> manufacturers need to accept reality.
> >
> > Buyers need to accept reality, which that batteries are very expensive.
>
> They are. Which is why you don't buy a new one, you swap it out for a
> recharged one, or you plug in your car at home and at your destination.
> There's a company setting up a network of charging stations across the
> whole of BC:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/bm2agaj
>
> And a Government programme to subsidise it.

If every vehicle needs to contain a battery, then
/someone/ needs to pay upfront for as many
batteries as there are vehicles. The ready-charged
batteries at charged stations just mean that you
need even more batteries to exist.

However, you could have your car with a battery
just large enough to get to the charge station,
where you obtain a larger battery.

That works if you don't use your vehicle every day, and everyone else doesn't. Otherwise, everybody
still needs a battery.

It also kinda works if you only occasionally take
a long-range battery, instead of a "daily commute"
battery.

Maybe they should be delivered in the morning on a
battery delivery truck. With regenerative braking.
And a computer drivvng it.

[Lesley Weston]

So much higher than the environmental costs of producing gas or diesel
engines.

>
> These batteries rely on significant quantities of Rare Earth Metals, whose
> extraction is far from simple, and usually takes place in areas which have
> heretofore been largely undeveloped. Once extracted, they need to be refined
> and, of course, variously shipped about the globe to production plants.

And when the engine wears out, its materials can be recycled.

> The
> figures on the environmental cost of this production aren't readily estimable
> but they are certainly far higher than those of IC engined vehicles.

Cite? But of course the real point is that when the last few litres of
petroleum products are being carefully preserved to make things that
can't be made from any other source and it has become a major crime to
burn them in a car engine, electric cars will still be running just fine.

>
> Of course, once you have your shiny new leccy car, you need to fill her up
> in the classic sense. The source of that power is the mains, in normal use,
> so where does *that* power come from?

From various renewable sources, once things settle down.

> What's the environmental cost of the
> juice seems to be a key factor in some leading environmentalists (like the
> Guardian's Monbiot) in deciding *against* purchasing an electric vehicle.

I don't care for Monbiot. He seems to have an agenda that overrides logic.

>
> Speaking solely for myself, I'm quite happy that my ten year old vehicle,
> well maintained and conservatively driven, is far more positive for the
> environment than some jackass in his brand new Lexus RX 450h. I think that
> the calculation would be more marginal for a purely electric vehicle, but
> that continuing to drive an older vehicle would still be more positive, as
> by extending the lifespan of a vehicle you are minimising the production
> costs as a % of overall.
>

My 1989 Honda Civic that I bought new is still doing well. When I do
have to replace it I won't be able to afford a new car of any type, so
the chances are I'll be driving a Mall Assault Vehicle that some rich
bugger has swapped out for an electric car. I guess there's a net gain:
the SUV and the electric car will still be on the road, but my Civic
will have been recycled into the materials needed for an electric car or
some other useful object.

[Lesley Weston]

On 04-09-12 7:29 AM, Larry Moore wrote:
> On 2012-04-09, GaryN<webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
>> Larry Moore<sshirley...@gmail.com> wrote in news:_
>> 8Odnc0lZ7i1RhzS...@wightman.ca:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>> I saw a movie 'Sahara' that had a solar powered hazardous waste facility
>>> and it seemed feasible; perhaps a similar idea of a solar array
>>> cement making plant would work.
>>
>> Would that be the same 'Sahara' as the Clive Cussler novel where the plant
>> was actually a cover for long term storage of hazardous/radioactive waste?
>> The waste then leaking out of the storage and polluting aquifers in the
>> region. Can't say I fancy that much!
>>
>> In theory the idea should work but putting it into practice in remote,
>> inhospitibal, areas would require colossal, possibly prohibitive, capital
>> expenditure.
>>
>> gary
>>
>
> Yes, according to the movie, the designers for the plant had all the
> high-tech worked out but didn't provide for sand and sandstorms
> affecting reflector efficiency.

They need Martians, like the ones who helpfully cleared Rover's solar
panels and restored it to life.

[Alec Cawley]

That is totally to miss the point. If you pull out a $12,000 battery and
put in another $12,000 battery, you have saved nothing. It still costs
$11,000 more than its petrol driven equivalent.

>
> And a Government programme to subsidise it. There's already a GP to
> subsidise the production of the cars and this could be ramped up enormously.

Which just means that non-car users are subsidising car users. Government
subsidies come from somewhere.

>
>> The
>> manufacturers as well as the government are currently subsidising the cars
>> for PR purposes. Which means that if you want electric cars you are going
>> to have to pay more. Indirectly via taxes, maybe, or fuel costs.
>
> Taxes yes, and why not? But fuel costs wouldn't be higher so long as
> alternative means of making electricity already existing are developed
> further, along with any new technology that might pop up.
>
>> But they
>> are simply more expensive to build, a hurdle which cannot be hand waved
>> over.
>>
>
> So far. When more of them are being made the price will drop, which is
> why subsidies are needed at this stage. And when gas has become so
> expensive as it runs out that it's beyond most people's reach, then we'll
> be glad that the technology for electric cars is already in place.

When the reason for something having a high price is the processes involved
in its manufacture, it is reasonable to expect them to go down. When it is
a raw material already in widespread use and for which future shortages are
already predicted, that is somewhat over optimistic. All the current
battery technologies use relatively rare minerals in large quantity.

It is not enough. There are ripples on your pond, but you cannot get wave
power from them. Geothermal power requires a temperature of at least 150C
above ambient to generate power, and efficiency rises, as with all thermal
energy system. Deep mines typically get 30-40C above surface temp. So you
need to get four times hotter. In average places that is going to translate
into four times as deep. But in volcanic zones it is much shallower.

>> Of course, if you go down deep enough, there is hot rock
>> everywhere. But that is escalating the technology by a large step. And
>> there are already reports of geothermal causing earthquakes
>
> Well yes, there would be. If God had intended us to take energy out of
> the ground, he would have provided us with tap roots.
>
>> Outside the
>> very obviously volcanic (and thus uninhabited) areas of Iceland , NZ etc,
>> it is still unproven.
>>
>> There is no working large scale Carbon Capture scheme anywhere.
>
> Yet.
>
>> There are
>> some research schemes which have not yet reported. But to base hopes on a
>> technology which is, at this point, totally untried is, to my mind, lunacy.
>> By all means, continue research. But don't do an Enron and count your
>> profits when they are pure hypotheticals.
>
> Of course. But it would be even higher lunacy to keep calm and carry on
> as if there were nothing wrong and the
oil deposits were infinite, when instead we can develop alternative energy
sources and so escape the crisis. Probably.

Of course. But don't pin your hopes on untested technology. One campaigner
was frustrated to get the ear of a senior politician who asked "if CCS
works, then we don't have a problem." "Erm... Yes". "OK, I can stop
worrying". Personally, I give CCS less than a 25% chance of ever working
economically.

Fine to look for alternate sources. But until you have them, consider
cutting down, a proven 100% effective technology, first.

[Alec Cawley]

Larry Moore <sshirley...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2012-04-09, Alec Cawley <al...@spamspam.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> There are plans being discussed for a huge solar plant in the northern
>> Sahara, with a cable under the Mediterranean. Because of the various costs,
>> including the cable, it only makes sense on a huge scale, and hence is a
>> huge investment just being outlined at the moment. One of the main problems
>> is political: would you put a facility generating more than 10% of your
>> countries electricity on the territory of another with a history of
>> political instability? You may pay for it, then find it nationalised
>> without compensation.
>
> If it were already a multi-government network rather than private
> enterprise, it might have a more stable political future.

It is already planned as such, with the German government leading. But if
you have an Islamic revolution, they way will take pleasure in spiting
foreign governments.

[Alec Cawley]

Yes. Of the order of $10,000 per car, and some horrible heavy metal
poisoning of rivers etc.

>> These batteries rely on significant quantities of Rare Earth Metals, whose
>> extraction is far from simple, and usually takes place in areas which have
>> heretofore been largely undeveloped. Once extracted, they need to be refined
>> and, of course, variously shipped about the globe to production plants.
>
> And when the engine wears out, its materials can be recycled.

Battery, not engine. The engine is not the problem. Recycling produces more
pollution.

>
>> The
>> figures on the environmental cost of this production aren't readily estimable
>> but they are certainly far higher than those of IC engined vehicles.
>
> Cite? But of course the real point is that when the last few litres of
> petroleum products are being carefully preserved to make things that
> can't be made from any other source and it has become a major crime to
> burn them in a car engine, electric cars will still be running just fine.
>>
>> Of course, once you have your shiny new leccy car, you need to fill her up
>> in the classic sense. The source of that power is the mains, in normal use,
>> so where does *that* power come from?
>
> From various renewable sources, once things settle down.

/if and when/ things settle down. You are doing a lot of Panglossian
counting of chickens form the middle distant future.

[Robert Carnegie]

So put it in Israel then, nobody being spiteful
there at all.

[Larry Moore]

On 2012-04-10, Alec Cawley <al...@spamspam.co.uk> wrote:


>
> It is not enough. There are ripples on your pond, but you cannot get wave
> power from them. Geothermal power requires a temperature of at least 150C
> above ambient to generate power, and efficiency rises, as with all thermal
> energy system. Deep mines typically get 30-40C above surface temp. So you
> need to get four times hotter. In average places that is going to translate
> into four times as deep. But in volcanic zones it is much shallower.
>

And yet the OTEC would operate with the cold at 4C and the warm terminal at 30C;
I am unsure why OTEC is practical but geothermal from mines not.

[Larry Moore]

On 2012-04-10, Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> They need Martians, like the ones who helpfully cleared Rover's solar
> panels and restored it to life.
>
> Lesley.
>

Not a Diane Duane fan?

[Chris Zakes]

On 9 Apr 2012 15:40:32 GMT, an orbital mind-control laser caused Alec
Cawley <al...@spamspam.co.uk> to write:

(snip)

>No, geothermal only works in a few places, at least at the depths currently
>envisaged. Of course, if you go down deep enough, there is hot rock
>everywhere. But that is escalating the technology by a large step. And
>there are already reports of geothermal causing earthquakes. Outside the
>very obviously volcanic (and thus uninhabited) areas of Iceland , NZ etc,
>it is still unproven.

Coincidentally, on the way to work yesterday, I heard an ad for a
local geothermal company. Now I've always associated "geothermal" with
geysers or vulcanism, but this is something different--an in-ground
based heat pump. http://www.hcecopower.com/geothermal-heat-pumps

These things are, apparently,on the market now.

-Chris Zakes
Texas
--

When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its
subjects, "This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to
know," the end result is tyranny and opression, no matter how holy the motives.

-John Lyle in "If This Goes On--" by Robert Heinlein

[Chris Zakes]

On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 06:47:41 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser

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

>On 04-08-12 2:59 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 07:53:15 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
>> caused Lesley Weston<brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> to write:
>>
>>> On 04-07-12 7:28 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> I have no particular problem transitioning to a post petroleum world,
>>>> but is the post-petroleum world *ready* for all of us?
>>>>
>>>> At least in the US, the only way to sell electric cars is with major
>>>> government subsidies to the purchaser.
>>>
>>> An enormous number of people (including me) would most certainly buy
>>> electric cars if the price were comparable to gas-driven cars. So a
>>> combination of government subsidies and manufacturers swallowing the
>>> pill is the only way to go.
>>
>> So in other words, in the current market, they're not really
>> competitive. The Chevy Volt, for example, lists a minimum price of
>> $31,645.00--nearly twice what a comparable-sized gasoline car costs.
>
>Exactly. So the government needs to supplement, and more importantly the
>manufacturers need to accept reality.

Huh?? What sort of "reality" do the manufacturers need to accept? That
they'll be forced by the government (or people like you) to produce
these cars, even if they're losing money on the deal?

Oh, that's right, the Government will make up the difference... using
our tax money to do so. How is this *not* stupid?

But the original proposition seemed to be transitioning to a
"post-petroleum world" immediately, not waiting until the technology
was actually developed, workable or affordable.

[Chris Zakes]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:31:35 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser

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

>On 04-09-12 8:40 AM, Alec Cawley wrote:
>> Lesley Weston<brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 04-08-12 2:59 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 07:53:15 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
>>>> caused Lesley Weston<brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> to write:
>>>>
>>>>> On 04-07-12 7:28 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I have no particular problem transitioning to a post petroleum world,
>>>>>> but is the post-petroleum world *ready* for all of us?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At least in the US, the only way to sell electric cars is with major
>>>>>> government subsidies to the purchaser.
>>>>>
>>>>> An enormous number of people (including me) would most certainly buy
>>>>> electric cars if the price were comparable to gas-driven cars. So a
>>>>> combination of government subsidies and manufacturers swallowing the
>>>>> pill is the only way to go.
>>>>
>>>> So in other words, in the current market, they're not really
>>>> competitive. The Chevy Volt, for example, lists a minimum price of
>>>> $31,645.00--nearly twice what a comparable-sized gasoline car costs.
>>>
>>> Exactly. So the government needs to supplement, and more importantly the
>>> manufacturers need to accept reality.
>>
>> Buyers need to accept reality, which that batteries are very expensive.
>
>They are. Which is why you don't buy a new one, you swap it out for a
>recharged one, or you plug in your car at home and at your destination.

Uh-huh, and have you never had the battery in your car die and need to
be replaced? Car batteries recharge whenever the car is running, but
they still wear out in three to five years. How long will electric car
batteries last before they wear out?

>There's a company setting up a network of charging stations across the
>whole of BC:
>
>http://tinyurl.com/bm2agaj

I find it interesting that the article says you'd need to recharge an
electric car *twice* on a drive from Vancouver to Kamloops. That's
only 220 miles. I do a fair bit of long-distance driving. If I need to
stop every 75 miles or so to recharge an electric car, I'm
emphatically not interested in owning one.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 2:47:40 AM UTC+1, Chris Zakes wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:31:35 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused Lesley Weston

> to write:
> > There's a company setting up a network of charging stations across the
> >whole of BC:
> >
> >http://tinyurl.com/bm2agaj
>
> I find it interesting that the article says you'd need to recharge an
> electric car *twice* on a drive from Vancouver to Kamloops. That's
> only 220 miles. I do a fair bit of long-distance driving. If I need to
> stop every 75 miles or so to recharge an electric car, I'm
> emphatically not interested in owning one.

You'll want that Tesla, then. Pricey, pretty, and,
going by one television demonstration I saw, not
much legroom. It was being demonstrated to John Cleese,
who is, officially, ridiculously tall.

Maybe they can set up brothels at the charging
stations so that you don't mind waiting. I see
they say that the turnaround is fifteen minutes.

But then an hour or so down the road you have to
stop and do it again...

[Alec Cawley]

Not big enough. They were talking about a solar farm of the same order of
size as the whole of Israel. You need a country with a lot of empty space.

[Alec Cawley]

Larry Moore <sshirley...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2012-04-10, Alec Cawley <al...@spamspam.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> It is not enough. There are ripples on your pond, but you cannot get wave
>> power from them. Geothermal power requires a temperature of at least 150C
>> above ambient to generate power, and efficiency rises, as with all thermal
>> energy system. Deep mines typically get 30-40C above surface temp. So you
>> need to get four times hotter. In average places that is going to translate
>> into four times as deep. But in volcanic zones it is much shallower.
>>
>
> And yet the OTEC would operate with the cold at 4C and the warm terminal at 30C;
> I am unsure why OTEC is practical but geothermal from mines not.

I am not that sure that OTEC, as currently proposed, is that practical. The
OTEC proposals are essentially baed on thermocouples, whereas geothermal is
based on conventional steam turbines. The geothermal is therefore well
understood and has had the cost reduction once you have got the steam. The
OTEC is based, like many similar, on hoped-for cost reductions in what is
currently a very expensive technology.

There is an alternative open ocean OTEC which I saw many years ago, based
on a large vertical pipe with heat pumped to the bottom and the resultant
column of warm water turning a huge turbine at the top. This would depend
on enormous volumes of water, which the ocean has. It would also stir the
ocean and increase fertility of the open ocean.

[daniel goldsmith]

On 2012-04-11, Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Coincidentally, on the way to work yesterday, I heard an ad for a
> local geothermal company. Now I've always associated "geothermal" with
> geysers or vulcanism, but this is something different--an in-ground
> based heat pump. http://www.hcecopower.com/geothermal-heat-pumps
>
> These things are, apparently,on the market now.

And have been for quite some time. Well, not precisely the same thing
but see, as an example only: http://www.pet.ie/geothermal-heat-pumps.html

I know people who have them, and the reports are decidedly mixed. The
entire thing relies, as the name might suggest, on an electric pump to
recirculate the heat from the ground into the home. Absent the leccy,
absent the heat.

There are also issues with the heatcollector things. These seem to
relate to the fact that the ground isn't something that remains
perfectly still, something one would have thought would have been
accomodated in the designs. Cracked pipes mean loss of water pressure
mean loss of heat mean loss of loadsamoney repairing.

Swings and roundabouts, of course, but certainly not the no-brainer
many of these people, all committed "low impact" greenies thought
they were.

[Chris Zakes]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 01:29:15 -0700 (PDT), an orbital mind-control
laser caused Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> to write:

>On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 2:47:40 AM UTC+1, Chris Zakes wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:31:35 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
>> caused Lesley Weston
>> to write:
>> > There's a company setting up a network of charging stations across the
>> >whole of BC:
>> >
>> >http://tinyurl.com/bm2agaj
>>
>> I find it interesting that the article says you'd need to recharge an
>> electric car *twice* on a drive from Vancouver to Kamloops. That's
>> only 220 miles. I do a fair bit of long-distance driving. If I need to
>> stop every 75 miles or so to recharge an electric car, I'm
>> emphatically not interested in owning one.
>
>You'll want that Tesla, then.

Maybe. Can I walk into the nearby dealership and buy one this
afternoon? I *can* do that with any number of gasoline or diesel
powered cars--everything from Smart Cars to Hummers.

>Pricey, pretty, and,
>going by one television demonstration I saw, not
>much legroom. It was being demonstrated to John Cleese,
>who is, officially, ridiculously tall.

He's only 4 inches taller than me, so I doubt I'd be all that
comfortable either.

>Maybe they can set up brothels at the charging
>stations so that you don't mind waiting. I see
>they say that the turnaround is fifteen minutes.

And what would my wife and kids do while I was being "serviced" at the
service station?

>But then an hour or so down the road you have to
>stop and do it again...

Whereas in my current car, I can drive about 400 miles/six hours
before I need to stop. Nope, still not interested.

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 much
coercion or subsidizing is needed to get people to buy smartphones,
for example?

[Chris Zakes]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 09:53:43 +0000 (UTC), an orbital mind-control
laser caused daniel goldsmith <dg...@ascraeus.bongley.net.invalid> to
write:

>On 2012-04-11, Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Coincidentally, on the way to work yesterday, I heard an ad for a
>> local geothermal company. Now I've always associated "geothermal" with
>> geysers or vulcanism, but this is something different--an in-ground
>> based heat pump. http://www.hcecopower.com/geothermal-heat-pumps
>>
>> These things are, apparently,on the market now.
>
>And have been for quite some time. Well, not precisely the same thing
>but see, as an example only: http://www.pet.ie/geothermal-heat-pumps.html
>
>I know people who have them, and the reports are decidedly mixed. The
>entire thing relies, as the name might suggest, on an electric pump to
>recirculate the heat from the ground into the home. Absent the leccy,
>absent the heat.

Well... that's true of just about any heating system more complicated
than a fireplace--even a natural gas-based heating system uses
electric fans to get the warmed air where it's needed.

>There are also issues with the heatcollector things. These seem to
>relate to the fact that the ground isn't something that remains
>perfectly still, something one would have thought would have been
>accomodated in the designs. Cracked pipes mean loss of water pressure
>mean loss of heat mean loss of loadsamoney repairing.

That *should* be workable, using more flexible pipes than metal or
regular PVC, and such stupidity of design *ought* to be covered by the
warranty (at least in a rational and well-ordered universe. <G>)

[Robert Carnegie]

On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 1:01:57 PM UTC+1, Chris Zakes wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 01:29:15 -0700 (PDT), an orbital mind-control
> laser caused Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> to write:
>
> >On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 2:47:40 AM UTC+1, Chris Zakes wrote:
> >> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:31:35 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
> >> caused Lesley Weston
> >> to write:
> >> > There's a company setting up a network of charging stations across the
> >> >whole of BC:
> >> >
> >> >http://tinyurl.com/bm2agaj
> >>
> >> I find it interesting that the article says you'd need to recharge an
> >> electric car *twice* on a drive from Vancouver to Kamloops. That's
> >> only 220 miles. I do a fair bit of long-distance driving. If I need to
> >> stop every 75 miles or so to recharge an electric car, I'm
> >> emphatically not interested in owning one.
> >
> >You'll want that Tesla, then.
>
> Maybe. Can I walk into the nearby dealership and buy one this
> afternoon? I *can* do that with any number of gasoline or diesel
> powered cars--everything from Smart Cars to Hummers.

I think you can get a Tesla Roadster Sport, for
US$128,500. Do you want it now? On other models
I believe they are either supplying existing orders
or, er, not yet.

> >Pricey, pretty, and,
> >going by one television demonstration I saw, not
> >much legroom. It was being demonstrated to John Cleese,
> >who is, officially, ridiculously tall.
>
> He's only 4 inches taller than me, so I doubt I'd be all that
> comfortable either.

I guess they may have fixed that. Anyway, don't
sneer at four inches.

> >Maybe they can set up brothels at the charging
> >stations so that you don't mind waiting. I see
> >they say that the turnaround is fifteen minutes.
>
> And what would my wife and kids do while I was being "serviced" at the
> service station?

Um, I guess there can be cartoons shown. Or, if
you get the Tesla, it's a two-seater. Uh, the kids
can ride the bus.

> >But then an hour or so down the road you have to
> >stop and do it again...
>
> Whereas in my current car, I can drive about 400 miles/six hours
> before I need to stop. Nope, still not interested.

Would you consider finding someplace you want to be,
and staying there?

[Lesley Weston]

Is that the total cost or the amount by which it exceeds that of
producing a gas engine? And how is it costed out over so many
intangibles? I think Daniel was referring to non-pecuniary costs, which
are much the same whatever the fuel used in the finished product.

> and some horrible heavy metal
> poisoning of rivers etc.

Poor mining practices have nothing to do with the value of what the
mined products are used for.

>
>
>>> These batteries rely on significant quantities of Rare Earth Metals, whose
>>> extraction is far from simple, and usually takes place in areas which have
>>> heretofore been largely undeveloped. Once extracted, they need to be refined
>>> and, of course, variously shipped about the globe to production plants.
>>
>> And when the engine wears out, its materials can be recycled.
>
> Battery, not engine. The engine is not the problem.

OK, battery. Doesn't affect the validity of the argument.

> Recycling produces more
> pollution.
>
Does recycling really produce more pollution than the initial mining and
refining of the materials? And is this peculiar to the materials used in
electric-car batteries, or is it just a general condemnation of all
forms of recycling?

>>
>>> The
>>> figures on the environmental cost of this production aren't readily estimable
>>> but they are certainly far higher than those of IC engined vehicles.
>>
>> Cite? But of course the real point is that when the last few litres of
>> petroleum products are being carefully preserved to make things that
>> can't be made from any other source and it has become a major crime to
>> burn them in a car engine, electric cars will still be running just fine.
>>>
>>> Of course, once you have your shiny new leccy car, you need to fill her up
>>> in the classic sense. The source of that power is the mains, in normal use,
>>> so where does *that* power come from?
>>
>> From various renewable sources, once things settle down.
>
> /if and when/ things settle down. You are doing a lot of Panglossian
> counting of chickens form the middle distant future.

The fact, undeniable, that we've been shamefully slow about developing
commercial production of all the perfectly-viable energy sources doesn't
mean that further technology using them shouldn't be developed too. Then
when we have no choice but to use them, we'll be equipped to do so.

[Lesley Weston]

On 04-10-12 9:21 AM, Alec Cawley wrote:
> Lesley Weston<brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 04-09-12 8:40 AM, Alec Cawley wrote:

<snip>

>>> No, geothermal only works in a few places, at least at the depths currently
>>> envisaged.
>>
>> You could be right; I don't know much about the technology. But there is
>> a heat differential even at the depths coal mines reach, so I don't see
>> why that can't be used.
>>
>
> It is not enough. There are ripples on your pond, but you cannot get wave
> power from them. Geothermal power requires a temperature of at least 150C
> above ambient to generate power, and efficiency rises, as with all thermal
> energy system. Deep mines typically get 30-40C above surface temp. So you
> need to get four times hotter. In average places that is going to translate
> into four times as deep. But in volcanic zones it is much shallower.

I know it's used in non-volcanic zones - I've seen it on /This Old
House/. Perhaps they use it to heat the house directly or just to heat
water.

They do:

http://www.waterfurnace.com/geothermal-heat-pumps.aspx

http://canadianfinancialdiy.blogspot.ca/2010/08/geothermal-home-heating-case-study.html

Montreal is not in a volcanic zone.

Googling on "geothermal domestic heating" got me 997,000 hits, though I
don't suppose all of them are relevant. I think you might have been
thinking of just large-scale commercial production of power from
alternative sources, while I was talking about every possible use of
them; maybe I didn't explain that clearly, which has been known to happen.

<snip>

> There are
>>> some research schemes which have not yet reported. But to base hopes on a
>>> technology which is, at this point, totally untried is, to my mind, lunacy.
>>> By all means, continue research. But don't do an Enron and count your
>>> profits when they are pure hypotheticals.
>>
>> Of course. But it would be even higher lunacy to keep calm and carry on
>> as if there were nothing wrong and the
> oil deposits were infinite, when instead we can develop alternative energy
> sources and so escape the crisis. Probably.
>
> Of course. But don't pin your hopes on untested technology. One campaigner
> was frustrated to get the ear of a senior politician who asked "if CCS
> works, then we don't have a problem." "Erm... Yes". "OK, I can stop
> worrying". Personally, I give CCS less than a 25% chance of ever working
> economically.
>
> Fine to look for alternate sources. But until you have them, consider
> cutting down, a proven 100% effective technology, first.

Of course. The first step is to insulate all buildings properly, turn
off lights that aren't being used, don't drive when some other way will
work just as well, and all the rest of it. Not lowering your thermostat
when you're in the house though; that's just punishing yourself and
making yourself ill to no purpose. But we will still need energy even
with all the Good Citizen stuff, and there's no reason why it shouldn't
come from some or all of these sources, if only a bit more effort and
funding were put into them.

[Alec Cawley]

That is the cost differential. Remember, this is only the battery, which
replaces the gas tank, not the engine. You still need electric motors to
move the car. The motors are slightly cheaper than an internal combustion
engine, but not enough to compensate for a $12,000 battery pack.

>
>> and some horrible heavy metal
>> poisoning of rivers etc.
>
> Poor mining practices have nothing to do with the value of what the mined
> products are used for.

But until you invent practices which do not pollute, which has yet to be
done, you should not count on the results. All large scale ones pollute,
and heavy metal ones are particularly ad. It is not possible to extract
100% of the metal, and the residue has been shifted from rock formations
where it had remained safe for millions of years to spoil heaps which are
rain washed.

>>
>>
>>>> These batteries rely on significant quantities of Rare Earth Metals, whose
>>>> extraction is far from simple, and usually takes place in areas which have
>>>> heretofore been largely undeveloped. Once extracted, they need to be refined
>>>> and, of course, variously shipped about the globe to production plants.
>>>
>>> And when the engine wears out, its materials can be recycled.
>>
>> Battery, not engine. The engine is not the problem.
>
> OK, battery. Doesn't affect the validity of the argument.
>
>> Recycling produces more
>> pollution.
>>
> Does recycling really produce more pollution than the initial mining and
> refining of the materials? And is this peculiar to the materials used in
> electric-car batteries, or is it just a general condemnation of all forms of recycling?

No it does not - but that is not the point. It produces more pollution than
recycling stuff not containing heavy metals. Recycling steel produces some
rust, which is not a serious problem. Recycling lead and cadmium releases
thes highly toxic heavy metals into the environment.

>>>> The
>>>> figures on the environmental cost of this production aren't readily estimable
>>>> but they are certainly far higher than those of IC engined vehicles.
>>>
>>> Cite? But of course the real point is that when the last few litres of
>>> petroleum products are being carefully preserved to make things that
>>> can't be made from any other source and it has become a major crime to
>>> burn them in a car engine, electric cars will still be running just fine.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, once you have your shiny new leccy car, you need to fill her up
>>>> in the classic sense. The source of that power is the mains, in normal use,
>>>> so where does *that* power come from?
>>>
>>> From various renewable sources, once things settle down.
>>
>> /if and when/ things settle down. You are doing a lot of Panglossian
>> counting of chickens form the middle distant future.
>
> The fact, undeniable, that we've been shamefully slow about developing
> commercial production of all the perfectly-viable energy sources doesn't
> mean that further technology using them shouldn't be developed too. Then
> when we have no choice but to use them, we'll be equipped to do so.

I entirely agree that we should develop new technologies. What I do not
agree is that we should rush to large scale commercialisation of
technologies not ready for it. This is the sort of think Mao did I the
"Great Leap Forward", Kruschev in the "Virgin Lands" and the British with
the African Groundnut Scheme. In each case, a government struck by a
brilliant but unproven idea attempts to leapfrog ordinary commercial
developments and comes an almighty cropper.

I think current schemes are far too much carrot and far to little stick.
CO2 is the evil we wish to mitigate. We should have a simple Carbon Tax,
then leave the market to decide which are the best replacement
technologies. Subsidising government chosen favourites is recipe for
disaster. Governments are probably no more likely than most to get it wrong
(which is to say, quite likely) but, unlike market developers, unable to
admit when it is wrong and can the bad idea before disastrous waste has
occurred.

[Lesley Weston]

I've had my car since 1989. It's needed two new batteries in that time,
and the second one probably wasn't necessary since it turned out to be
the alternator at fault.

> How long will electric car
> batteries last before they wear out?

They're a different technology. But of course each one will wear out
eventually and have to be replaced, just like the other parts of a car
whatever its fuel.

>
>
>> There's a company setting up a network of charging stations across the
>> whole of BC:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/bm2agaj
>
> I find it interesting that the article says you'd need to recharge an
> electric car *twice* on a drive from Vancouver to Kamloops. That's
> only 220 miles. I do a fair bit of long-distance driving. If I need to
> stop every 75 miles or so to recharge an electric car, I'm
> emphatically not interested in owning one.

You don't need to pee? You don't drink coffee or eat lunch, or stretch
your legs while looking at something other than the road? And once
there's no more gas, you're just going to stop going anywhere further
than walking distance?

[Alec Cawley]

That is domestic heating via a heat pump, not power generation which (in
the context of cars) we were talking about. It is not truly geothermal, it
is just geostable. you are using the stability of temperature or rock or a
lake to pump heat out of in winter, and cold out of in summer. It still
consumes power to heat or cool you, just less than direct heating - but at
a significant capital cost, and with an unpleasant tendency for things to
go wrong.

Heat pumping, if you have a suitable mass to pump heat to or from, is A
Good Thing. A heat pump is three to five times as efficient as just burning
energy directly. But this is low grade heat suitable for domestic heating,
and not much else. It can certainly be done in many places: the National
Theatre in London is heated by a heat pump from the Thames. But it has
nothing to do with power generation.

[Lesley Weston]

On 04-11-12 5:01 AM, Chris Zakes wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 01:29:15 -0700 (PDT), an orbital mind-control
> laser caused Robert Carnegie<rja.ca...@excite.com> to write:
>
>> On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 2:47:40 AM UTC+1, Chris Zakes wrote:
>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:31:35 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
>>> caused Lesley Weston
>>> to write:
>>>> There's a company setting up a network of charging stations across the
>>>> whole of BC:
>>>>
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/bm2agaj
>>>
>>> I find it interesting that the article says you'd need to recharge an
>>> electric car *twice* on a drive from Vancouver to Kamloops. That's
>>> only 220 miles. I do a fair bit of long-distance driving. If I need to
>>> stop every 75 miles or so to recharge an electric car, I'm
>>> emphatically not interested in owning one.
>>
>> You'll want that Tesla, then.
>
> Maybe. Can I walk into the nearby dealership and buy one this
> afternoon? I *can* do that with any number of gasoline or diesel
> powered cars--everything from Smart Cars to Hummers.

"I don't need one of they there newfangled automobiles because my horse
is still alive".

<snip>

>
> 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 much
> coercion or subsidizing is needed to get people to buy smartphones,
> for example?

The only way to do that is to develop the new technology, and the only
way to do that is by people buying the cars, and the only way to do that
is with government subsidies in the initial stages. Then once electric
cars are the norm and the price has found its level at what people are
prepared to pay, the US won't need to worry about what the Arab nations
and Venezuela are doing or whether Canada still loves them. Also,
everybody will be much healthier because they'll be breathing clean air
and hearing less noise.

[Lesley Weston]

On 04-11-12 2:53 AM, daniel goldsmith wrote:
> On 2012-04-11, Chris Zakes<dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Coincidentally, on the way to work yesterday, I heard an ad for a
>> local geothermal company. Now I've always associated "geothermal" with
>> geysers or vulcanism, but this is something different--an in-ground
>> based heat pump. http://www.hcecopower.com/geothermal-heat-pumps
>>
>> These things are, apparently,on the market now.
>
> And have been for quite some time. Well, not precisely the same thing
> but see, as an example only: http://www.pet.ie/geothermal-heat-pumps.html
>
> I know people who have them, and the reports are decidedly mixed. The
> entire thing relies, as the name might suggest, on an electric pump to
> recirculate the heat from the ground into the home. Absent the leccy,
> absent the heat.

Our furnace runs on natural gas. When we have power cuts, several times
every Winter, the electric controls on the furnace stop working, so
again, no heat. When we're not having power cuts it would be nice if we
weren't burning expensive gas, thus polluting the air.

>
> There are also issues with the heatcollector things. These seem to
> relate to the fact that the ground isn't something that remains
> perfectly still, something one would have thought would have been
> accomodated in the designs. Cracked pipes mean loss of water pressure
> mean loss of heat mean loss of loadsamoney repairing.
>
> Swings and roundabouts, of course, but certainly not the no-brainer
> many of these people, all committed "low impact" greenies thought
> they were.
>

Early days yet.

[Lesley Weston]

On 04-10-12 6:14 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 06:47:41 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused Lesley Weston<brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> to write:
>
>> On 04-08-12 2:59 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>>> On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 07:53:15 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
>>> caused Lesley Weston<brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> to write:
>>>
>>>> On 04-07-12 7:28 PM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> I have no particular problem transitioning to a post petroleum world,
>>>>> but is the post-petroleum world *ready* for all of us?
>>>>>
>>>>> At least in the US, the only way to sell electric cars is with major
>>>>> government subsidies to the purchaser.
>>>>
>>>> An enormous number of people (including me) would most certainly buy
>>>> electric cars if the price were comparable to gas-driven cars. So a
>>>> combination of government subsidies and manufacturers swallowing the
>>>> pill is the only way to go.
>>>
>>> So in other words, in the current market, they're not really
>>> competitive. The Chevy Volt, for example, lists a minimum price of
>>> $31,645.00--nearly twice what a comparable-sized gasoline car costs.
>>
>> Exactly. So the government needs to supplement, and more importantly the
>> manufacturers need to accept reality.
>
> Huh?? What sort of "reality" do the manufacturers need to accept? That
> they'll be forced by the government (or people like you) to produce
> these cars, even if they're losing money on the deal?

That when there is no fuel for gas and diesel cars, there will be no
market for them either. So if they want to stay in business, they had
better start developing electric and other alternate-fuel cars at
affordable prices.

<snip>

>>> But again, how many of these are ready for large-scale activation
>>> *today*? If we stopped using petrochemicals right now, is there any
>>> way solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, heat exchange and bacteria could
>>> fill that gap? I don't think any of those technologies would make my
>>> car run, for example.
>>
>> Why does that matter? Thinking ahead and planning for the future is
>> usually recommended.
>
> But the original proposition seemed to be transitioning to a
> "post-petroleum world" immediately, not waiting until the technology
> was actually developed, workable or affordable.

It can't happen overnight. If we don't prepare for it ahead of time,
we'll be caught hopping when the current slight shortages get large
enough to be a problem.

[Lesley Weston]

On 04-10-12 3:34 PM, Larry Moore wrote:
> On 2012-04-10, Lesley Weston<brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> They need Martians, like the ones who helpfully cleared Rover's solar
>> panels and restored it to life.
>>
>> Lesley.
>>
>
> Not a Diane Duane fan?
>

Who?

[Larry Moore]

On 2012-04-11, Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 04-10-12 3:34 PM, Larry Moore wrote:
>> On 2012-04-10, Lesley Weston<brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> They need Martians, like the ones who helpfully cleared Rover's solar
>>> panels and restored it to life.
>>>
>>> Lesley.
>>>
>>
>> Not a Diane Duane fan?
>>
> Who?
>
> Lesley.
>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Duane


--
For at least another hundred years we must pretend to ourselves and to every
one that fair is foul and foul is fair; for foul is useful and fair is not.
Avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods for a little longer still.
John Maynard Keynes

[GaryN]

Larry Moore <sshirley...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:dPGdnQ2uq8PWLBjS...@wightman.ca:

> On 2012-04-11, Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> On 04-10-12 3:34 PM, Larry Moore wrote:

<snip>

>>> Not a Diane Duane fan?
>>>
>> Who?
>>
>> Lesley.
>>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Duane
>
>

Not Duran Duran then?

gary

--
"Your Reputation is what people know about you.
Your Honour is what you know about yourself"

Lois McMaster Bujold.

[Larry Moore]

On 2012-04-11, Alec Cawley <al...@spamspam.co.uk> wrote:

I assume that Carnot applies - difference in temperatures divided by
the absolute temperature of the coolant.

> There is an alternative open ocean OTEC which I saw many years ago, based
> on a large vertical pipe with heat pumped to the bottom and the resultant
> column of warm water turning a huge turbine at the top. This would depend
> on enormous volumes of water, which the ocean has. It would also stir the
> ocean and increase fertility of the open ocean.

Arthur C Clarke: Profiles of the Future, and a passing reference in The
Deep Range, ISTR. It would be an exciting bit of geo-engineering.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Tuesday, April 10, 2012 11:34:29 PM UTC+1, Larry Moore wrote:
> On 2012-04-10, Lesley Weston

> wrote:
>
> > They need Martians, like the ones who helpfully cleared Rover's solar
> > panels and restored it to life.
> >
> > Lesley.
> >
>
> Not a Diane Duane fan?

Er, why do you ask?

[Chris Zakes]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 07:53:19 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser

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

(snip)

>The fact, undeniable, that we've been shamefully slow about developing
>commercial production of all the perfectly-viable energy sources doesn't
>mean that further technology using them shouldn't be developed too. Then
>when we have no choice but to use them, we'll be equipped to do so.
>
>Lesley.

<shrug>Politicians have been saying that for thirty years or more.

If these energy sources are "perfectly viable" right now presumably
they'd already be competing on the open market. The fact that they
aren't says to me that they're *not* as viable as you seem to think.

How much government subsidizing was needed to cause widespread use of
home computers, or laptops or cell phones? Why should an electric car
be any different?

[Chris Zakes]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 06:38:33 -0700 (PDT), an orbital mind-control

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

>On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 1:01:57 PM UTC+1, Chris Zakes wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 01:29:15 -0700 (PDT), an orbital mind-control
>> laser caused Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> to write:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 2:47:40 AM UTC+1, Chris Zakes wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:31:35 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
>> >> caused Lesley Weston
>> >> to write:
>> >> > There's a company setting up a network of charging stations across the
>> >> >whole of BC:
>> >> >
>> >> >http://tinyurl.com/bm2agaj
>> >>
>> >> I find it interesting that the article says you'd need to recharge an
>> >> electric car *twice* on a drive from Vancouver to Kamloops. That's
>> >> only 220 miles. I do a fair bit of long-distance driving. If I need to
>> >> stop every 75 miles or so to recharge an electric car, I'm
>> >> emphatically not interested in owning one.
>> >
>> >You'll want that Tesla, then.
>>
>> Maybe. Can I walk into the nearby dealership and buy one this
>> afternoon? I *can* do that with any number of gasoline or diesel
>> powered cars--everything from Smart Cars to Hummers.
>
>I think you can get a Tesla Roadster Sport, for
>US$128,500. Do you want it now? On other models
>I believe they are either supplying existing orders
>or, er, not yet.

According to their website, the nearest Tesla dealership--the only one
in the state--is in Houston, 150 miles away.

No, wait, that's not a dealership, it's "The Tesla Gallery will not
sell vehicles, but serves as a place to educate visitors on electric
vehicle technology and Tesla products. The space is designed to engage
and inform you with hands-on exhibits, interactive touch-screen
experiences, and the opportunity to sit behind the wheel." As far as I
can tell, there aren't any Tesla car sitting on a showroom floor
waiting for buyers. Their Model S series requires a $5000.00
*reservation* and won't start production until the fall of this year.
The Model S Signature series is already sold out. Their Model X series
won't be available until 2013 or 2014.

Why does this begin to sound like the Moller aircar?

On the other hand, the nearest gasoline car dealership is about three
miles from my house, and there are probably a dozen more within ten
miles. And frankly, If I had $128,500.00 to throw around, I'd buy my
wife the BMW she's been lusting after, not some car that looks more
like vaporware than reality.

>> >Pricey, pretty, and,
>> >going by one television demonstration I saw, not
>> >much legroom. It was being demonstrated to John Cleese,
>> >who is, officially, ridiculously tall.
>>
>> He's only 4 inches taller than me, so I doubt I'd be all that
>> comfortable either.
>
>I guess they may have fixed that. Anyway, don't
>sneer at four inches.
>
>> >Maybe they can set up brothels at the charging
>> >stations so that you don't mind waiting. I see
>> >they say that the turnaround is fifteen minutes.
>>
>> And what would my wife and kids do while I was being "serviced" at the
>> service station?
>
>Um, I guess there can be cartoons shown. Or, if
>you get the Tesla, it's a two-seater. Uh, the kids
>can ride the bus.
>
>> >But then an hour or so down the road you have to
>> >stop and do it again...
>>
>> Whereas in my current car, I can drive about 400 miles/six hours
>> before I need to stop. Nope, still not interested.
>
>Would you consider finding someplace you want to be,
>and staying there?

No. Why should I be forced to limit my lifestyle? I want to be lots of
places: I go to SCA events all over Texas and Oklahoma, I visit family
in Houston; we're planning a trip to Disneyworld this summer. If that
offends people's sensibilities, that's *their* problem, not mine.

[Chris Zakes]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 09:07:05 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
caused Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> to write:

>On 04-11-12 5:01 AM, Chris Zakes wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 01:29:15 -0700 (PDT), an orbital mind-control
>> laser caused Robert Carnegie<rja.ca...@excite.com> to write:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 2:47:40 AM UTC+1, Chris Zakes wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:31:35 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
>>>> caused Lesley Weston
>>>> to write:
>>>>> There's a company setting up a network of charging stations across the
>>>>> whole of BC:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/bm2agaj
>>>>
>>>> I find it interesting that the article says you'd need to recharge an
>>>> electric car *twice* on a drive from Vancouver to Kamloops. That's
>>>> only 220 miles. I do a fair bit of long-distance driving. If I need to
>>>> stop every 75 miles or so to recharge an electric car, I'm
>>>> emphatically not interested in owning one.
>>>
>>> You'll want that Tesla, then.
>>
>> Maybe. Can I walk into the nearby dealership and buy one this
>> afternoon? I *can* do that with any number of gasoline or diesel
>> powered cars--everything from Smart Cars to Hummers.
>
>"I don't need one of they there newfangled automobiles because my horse
>is still alive".

<shrug> That was my attitude (albeit with a bicycle) for many years.
It wasn't until I got married and started having kids that the bicycle
was no longer practical.

><snip>
>>
>> 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 much
>> coercion or subsidizing is needed to get people to buy smartphones,
>> for example?
>
>The only way to do that is to develop the new technology, and the only
>way to do that is by people buying the cars, and the only way to do that
>is with government subsidies in the initial stages.

Okay, I'm curious. How much government subsidization did Henry Ford or
Charles Duryea have? How about Steve Jobs or Bill Gates?

[Chris Zakes]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 08:48:46 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser

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

(snip)

>>> There's a company setting up a network of charging stations across the
>>> whole of BC:
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/bm2agaj
>>
>> I find it interesting that the article says you'd need to recharge an
>> electric car *twice* on a drive from Vancouver to Kamloops. That's
>> only 220 miles. I do a fair bit of long-distance driving. If I need to
>> stop every 75 miles or so to recharge an electric car, I'm
>> emphatically not interested in owning one.
>
>You don't need to pee?

Not once an hour.

>You don't drink coffee

Well, no. On long trips I have an ice chest with drinks in it.

>or eat lunch,

Not once an hour. On a typical long trip, the lunch and gas break
coincide.

>or stretch your legs while looking at something other than the road?

Not once an hour. If I'm driving, my main objective is to get there,
not stop every hour.

>And once
>there's no more gas, you're just going to stop going anywhere further
>than walking distance?
>
>Lesley.

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.

[daniel goldsmith]

While I'm pretty sure this comment was tongue firmly in the cheek
fact remains that this argument is actually made by the electric
car people. It seems to me that there are two groups of people
involved in the electric car debate:

(for want of a better word) Greenies, who don't actually use a
car all that much anyway, don't understand why anyone would
want to and don't accept that people make regular journeys in
them.

(again, fwoabw) Petrolheads, who use their car as and when they
see fit, and can see no valid reason why that use should be
curtailed in any way.

The hoi polloi[1] stand somewhere between the two, understanding
that something will eventually be done about car usage, but by
no means convinced by the "charge 13hours for 200 km use" lark.
If and when electric vehicles can be provided at a sane price
without massive subsidy, with equally sane recharge/discharge
intervals, that mass will probably decamp. Until then, the sane
people will remain unhappily allied with the petrolheads.

[1] I know it was mentioned before, but I see no particular
reason why the greek language phrase "hoi polloi", meaning
"the many" should not take itself the definite article when
used amidst the English language. We certainly refer to
"the alcove" (the the vault) or "the algebra" (the the reunion
of broken parts) and "the albatross" (the the diver) when
using words of an Arab mien in the great glossolia of English

[Robert Carnegie]

On Thursday, April 12, 2012 3:55:48 AM UTC+1, Chris Zakes wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 06:38:33 -0700 (PDT), an orbital mind-control
> laser caused Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> to write:
>
> >On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 1:01:57 PM UTC+1, Chris Zakes wrote:
> >> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 01:29:15 -0700 (PDT), an orbital mind-control
> >> laser caused Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> to write:
> >> >You'll want that Tesla, then.
> >>
> >> Maybe. Can I walk into the nearby dealership and buy one this
> >> afternoon? I *can* do that with any number of gasoline or diesel
> >> powered cars--everything from Smart Cars to Hummers.
> >
> >I think you can get a Tesla Roadster Sport, for
> >US$128,500. Do you want it now? On other models
> >I believe they are either supplying existing orders
> >or, er, not yet.
>
> According to their website, the nearest Tesla dealership--the only one
> in the state--is in Houston, 150 miles away.

I thought we established that isn't an obstacle for you.

> No, wait, that's not a dealership, it's "The Tesla Gallery will not
> sell vehicles, but serves as a place to educate visitors on electric
> vehicle technology and Tesla products. The space is designed to engage
> and inform you with hands-on exhibits, interactive touch-screen
> experiences, and the opportunity to sit behind the wheel." As far as I
> can tell, there aren't any Tesla car sitting on a showroom floor
> waiting for buyers. Their Model S series requires a $5000.00
> *reservation* and won't start production until the fall of this year.
> The Model S Signature series is already sold out. Their Model X series
> won't be available until 2013 or 2014.
>
> Why does this begin to sound like the Moller aircar?

I can't imagine. There's no prospect of it being
airborne, unless you take a hill too fast.

A "showroom" seems to be exactly what the place in
Houston is, from that description. They show you
their cars (the ones that actually exist).

I don't know if it's usual to walk onto a lot and
take home a new gasoline car. I'd imagine that
you'd want to select factory customised features,
and then you'd have to wait for your specialised
car to be delivered.

> >Would you consider finding someplace you want to be,
> >and staying there?
>
> No. Why should I be forced to limit my lifestyle?

The laws of physics and the geographical extent
of the United States?

> I want to be lots of
> places: I go to SCA events all over Texas and Oklahoma, I visit family
> in Houston; we're planning a trip to Disneyworld this summer. If that
> offends people's sensibilities, that's *their* problem, not mine.

Nothing says "SCA" like buying a gasoline car in 2012. Maybe you can get chariot blades fitted to
the wheels.

For some reason, what they aren't selling big
for electric cars is a trailing cart full of
extra batteries, I don't know why...

Ah well: the current Tesla cars are not what you
want. Maybe they'll suit poor people's lifestyle
better. :-)