Falacy of the Electric Car
elmer
clue or are just trying to feather their pockets.
It takes the same amount of energy to move x vehicle regardless of that
form of energy.
There are many jokes about everybody plugging in at the same time but it
is no joke.
Take Southern California where the this lunacy is at it's zenith.
If one tenth of the vehicles become electric and plug in to recharge,
after a long commute, on a hot August day, there is going to be a brown
out and possibly a collapse of the grid. Of course they are going to
eliminate big screen tv's and turn off their air conditioning etc except
at times when no one wants to use them, so maybe that will make uo the
difference. NOT
Turning energy into electricity by fossil fuel means or nuclear, which
is a bad word, and isn't going to be allowed in Southern California,
uses three or four watts to make and transmit one watt.
The joke is true. Cities will have to turn off everything to recharge
the cars so to speak. Hybrids will have to be plugged in too unless the
commute is long enough for the fossil fueled engine to kick in and
charge the batteries. Part of the electric car energy cost is the
frequent replacement of expensive battery packs.
The cost of electric vehicles will be far greater than gasoline engines
and far dirtier as producing the electricity uses far more fuels for the
same equivalent energy.
richard
The next phase of the electric development is to have the car charge
itself. Why not? The standard car today already charges it's own battery.
Why can't an electric do the same thing?
One vehicle I saw recently, the owner swapped the lead acid batteries for
lithium-ion ones. Doing so decreased the weight and improved the
horsepower.
There is development in progress of power sources outside the standard
power company. Localized fuel cell stations could supply power for an
entire block of homes. Every home in the country could literally produce
it's own required power. What you'd have left would never result in even
one little "brown out", any where.
Gary V
> The next phase of the electric development is to have the car charge
> itself. Why not? The standard car today already charges it's own battery.
> Why can't an electric do the same thing?
Is that not the definition of hybrid, richard?
Or are you envisioning some system where a full-electric car recharges
itself from some non-existant energy source - i.e. it creates it's own
energy by magic?
elmer
> Last time on rec.autos.driving, elmer <e...@f.udd> said:
>
>> There is no free lunch. The proponents of Electric Cars haven't got a
>> clue or are just trying to feather their pockets.
>> It takes the same amount of energy to move x vehicle regardless of that
>> form of energy.
>> There are many jokes about everybody plugging in at the same time but it
>> is no joke.
>> Take Southern California where the this lunacy is at it's zenith.
>> If one tenth of the vehicles become electric and plug in to recharge,
>> after a long commute, on a hot August day, there is going to be a brown
>> out and possibly a collapse of the grid.
>
> simple timer will allow it to be charged late at night when demand is
> lowest and supply is more than ample.
>
>> The joke is true.
>
> The joke is you and your ridiculous post.
>
>> Cities will have to turn off everything to recharge
>> the cars so to speak.
>
> on the garage roof would solve the problem.
>
> OBTW, if you're going to present a fallacious argument, you should at
> least learn how to spell the word.
solar cells at night or evening? Interesting.
So you get home wait until when to plug in? When will the load go down.
Fast charge cells, in development will consume a lot of electricity fast.
No matter when they plug in it's an extra consumption, of electric
power, on an already loaded grid. Use Energy, of whatever origin, and
you have to replenish it if you plan on driving it again.
I really suppose your answer is to watch a meter, you install, and wait
for the brownout, to ease before plugging in? You know that is going to
work.
There is no magic. Power out means power in.
Bernd Felsche
>Last time on rec.autos.driving, elmer <e...@f.udd> said:
>>There is no free lunch. The proponents of Electric Cars haven't got a
>>clue or are just trying to feather their pockets.
>>It takes the same amount of energy to move x vehicle regardless of that
>>form of energy.
>>There are many jokes about everybody plugging in at the same time but it
>>is no joke.
>>Take Southern California where the this lunacy is at it's zenith.
>>If one tenth of the vehicles become electric and plug in to recharge,
>>after a long commute, on a hot August day, there is going to be a brown
>>out and possibly a collapse of the grid.
>Solution: don't charge your car during periods of peak demand. A
>simple timer will allow it to be charged late at night when demand is
>lowest and supply is more than ample.
Only until electric cars become more common. At which point,
charge-time becomes peak-time.
Keep in mind that e.g. a Tesla draws 70A from a 240V outlet for a
period of 3.5 hours on fast-charge. That's roughly 60 kWh. Much more
than a residence (other than Al Gore's) would consume over 24 hours.
In fact, it's about 9 times as much as I use. In less than one
sixth of the day. i.e. the rate of power consumption (and required
generation) is around 60 times higher than my average domestic
electricity consumption.
I couldn't even fast-charge a Tesla because the utility pole outside
the house has a 60A fuse.
What do electric cars mean for electricity supply grid? Can it
supply power at a rate 60 times higher than at present?
No way. Transmission lines can't meet such a demand. Substations
can't without huge, expensive upgrades.
Nor are the power stations capable of being ramped up to charge a
substantial fleet of electric cars overnight. It's much, much more
than supplying spinning baseload. Work it out!
A scale analysis quickly shows that grid-charged electric vehicles
are not practical without substantial, fundamental changes to the
way in which electricity is generated and distributed.
>>Cities will have to turn off everything to recharge
>>the cars so to speak.
>Even if a grain of your hyperbole were true, a couple of solar panels
>on the garage roof would solve the problem.
Do the scale analysis. You'd have to be a millionaire to be able to
afford the solar panels to run an electric car.
The "couple of solar panels" would have to cover an area of well
over 30 square metres and store the energy for night-time
car-charging. Recovery losses will be significant. Extended cloudy
periods, and periods where one can't clean snow/dust/bird-droppings
off the solar collectors will also diminish how far one can drive on
solar power.
Even with 30 square metres of solar cells (PV), it is very likely
that the majority of charge for the car bettery will have to come
from the supply grid. Probably a coal-fired power station.
Then, there's the finite battery life to keep in mind. I wouldn't
bank on more than 1000 cycles. That's less than 3 years.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Those who can make you believe absurdities
X against HTML mail | can make you commit atrocities.
/ \ and postings | -- Voltaire
Larry G
> Last time on rec.autos.driving, elmer <e...@f.udd> said:
>
> >clue or are just trying to feather their pockets.
> >It takes the same amount of energy to move x vehicle regardless of that
> >form of energy.
> >There are many jokes about everybody plugging in at the same time but it
> >is no joke.
> >Take Southern California where the this lunacy is at it's zenith.
> >If one tenth of the vehicles become electric and plug in to recharge,
> >after a long commute, on a hot August day, there is going to be a brown
> >out and possibly a collapse of the grid.
>
> simple timer will allow it to be charged late at night when demand is
> lowest and supply is more than ample.
>
>
> The joke is you and your ridiculous post.
>
> >the cars so to speak.
>
> on the garage roof would solve the problem.
>
> least learn how to spell the word.
well.. without some changes though.. there is some expressed concern
for adverse impacts to a non-smart grid.
but as Scott pointed out - there are even non-grid potential solutions
with solar, wind and even NG/LPG backup generators.
we're still aways away... so far the batteries are not able to hold
enough charge for a range better than local commuting...
make sure we're talking here about plug-in hybrids also.. which are
just ordinary hybrids - with larger/better batteries that can be
recharged conventionally from the engine or from a plug
these cars are going to cost even more than hybrid cars of the same
flavor.
The Chevy Volt - a loser in my view - is said to only have a 40 mile
range and will cost 40K even with tax credits.
but the most compelling issue is what happens to funding for roads?
I'm pretty skeptical that we are going to go to a GPS-in-car mileage
system.. so I'm thinking we're going to see a LOT MORE tolls..
including cordon tolls.
thoughts?
Brent
> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Larry G <gross...@gmail.com> said:
>
>>but the most compelling issue is what happens to funding for roads?
>>
>>I'm pretty skeptical that we are going to go to a GPS-in-car mileage
>>system.. so I'm thinking we're going to see a LOT MORE tolls..
>>including cordon tolls.
>>
>>thoughts?
>
> change. Fuel taxes have been poorly managed for DECADES, and haven't
> even kept pace with inflation. Alternative vehicle fuels are going to
> be the death knell for fuel taxes. Of the remaining alternatives,
> tolls are certanly the most fair. If a way can be found to administer
> them efficiently without sacrificing privacy, then that may be the
> best way to go.
So the answer to poorly run government is more poorly run government and
less freedom for us. Governments mis-manages the fuel taxes by
diverting them to other purposes. The federal government causes the
inflation by monkeying around with the economy and over spending.
Governments squander the money through mis-management and fraud in road
projects. This doesn't change with tolls. Look at the IL tollway
authority.
rsh...@gmail.com
> On 2009-10-31, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
so lets use the corrupt criminal finance houses to administer roads
and you keep whining about diverting them to other purposes,
what is it you do not understand
unless there is a constitutional prohibition against doing that
there is nothing prohibiting the ELECTED LEGISLATURE from doing
exactly that
again what is it you do not understand
it is so very simple
elmer
> Last time on rec.autos.driving, elmer <e...@f.udd> said:
>
>> solar cells at night or evening? Interesting.
>
> parking lot all day at work. If you have storage batteries at home,
> you could charge those with solar and transfer the stored charge to
> your car when you get home. Or use the panels to charge your other two
> vehicles - the ones you don't use for commuting.
>
>> So you get home wait until when to plug in? When will the load go down.
>
> will shut off your air conditioner during periods of peak demand, as
> well as meters which charge different rates at different times of the
> day depending on demand. If electric cars start to cause stress to the
> system, it will be trivial to provide this data.
>
>> There is no magic. Power out means power in.
>
> out, the oil runs out. On that day, we'll need something else to power
> our vehicles. If not electricity, then what? Ethanol? Hydrogen? Both
> cost even MORE in terms of energy inputs than you can recover in
> energy outputs. ISTM that electric vehicles are the best option we
> will have for the forseeable future.
>
> Now is the time to start preparing for the end of cheap oil. If the
> electric grid needs to be built up to handle electric cars, then let's
> get started. Let's not wait until the last drops are trickling out of
> the barrel and everyone is in a panic before we begin to act.
A lot of these points are not friendly to Citizens/Consumers, such as,
cutting off air conditioners when it is the hottest. that sorta defeats
the purpose of air conditioning.
Someone made the point that there are thousands of hybrids out there and
not affecting electric provision. But there are 10s of millions, perhaps
the number is larger, of cars not yet tapping the electric grid in
California. I have no idea what the number will be that causes a
problem. It is pretty low though based on the current situation there.
I think, certainly, that 10%, of vehicles, tapping the power grid would
cause a big problem at one time. 20% would be a really big drain at one
time and perhaps overloading capabilities if spread over the course of
the day.,
Perhaps the way to figure it is their target, of gasoline and diesel
replaced. Electricity will consume x times perhaps as much as 3 times,
probably around 2 times,energy that gasoline and diesel. Electricity is
produced from energy. They are simply shifting the source somewhat.
Instead of coming out of the tailpipes it will be coming out of huge
smokestacks and going in to huge tailing dumps and ponds. It will cost a
lot more than the gasoline and diesel.
Nuclear energy is not here now and they don't want to bring it on board.
Solar cells are a joke and a stop gap for such a large requirement and
very expensive.
Electricity is not free. Wind energy and geothermal and so contribute to
electricity production but unless you carpet the rest, of the west, with
big hideous prop blades but not in their yard of course, it wouldn't
work and will cost much more. Those things have associated costs and
environmental impacts too.
So far these People have not solved their problems but have multiplied
the costs, of vehicles, fuel costs and everything else for the rest, of
the Country.
James Robinson
So now that you've pointed out all the problems, your solution is? ....
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> It takes the same amount of energy to move x vehicle regardless of that
> form of energy.
Absolute nonsense.
Different sources of mechanical energy have various efficiencies in
converting fuel to energy. Further, different fuel sources have
varying costs in obtaining and distributing the fuel. For example,
they say making ethanol uses more energy than it saves in gasoline.
New technologies change the energy efficiency. Automobile engines are
much more efficient than years ago.
> If one tenth of the vehicles become electric and plug in to recharge,
> after a long commute, on a hot August day, there is going to be a brown
> out and possibly a collapse of the grid.
As others correctly pointed out, electric cars would get charged late
overnight when power consumption is much lower and there is idle
generating and grid capacity.
This will have no choice but to go nuclear to meet current electric
demand, let alone new demands. Fossile fuels are finite, and far too
much comes from places run by whack-job governments.
Brent
It's you who "doesn't understand" or just doesn't want to deal with the
truth. The question is why do you reward people with more power and more
money for failure and corruption?
Brent
The solution starts with stop rewarding government failure with more
government. People need to realize that first otherwise anything else is
pointless and tilting at windmills.
James Robinson
And how do you propose to do that? What are the details of your proposal
such that highway costs are appropriately apportioned to the users?
Are you suggesting privatization? Tolls?
Free Lunch
<tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote in misc.transport.road:
But the gasoline tax and the construction of federally funded highways
are an example of success that only began to fail when those responsible
for collecting enough revenue to maintain it refused to keep taxes at an
appropriate level to pay the expenses. The relatively small diversions
certainly didn't help roads, but they were not the proximate cause of
the problem.
Free Lunch
<was...@212.com> wrote in misc.transport.road:
Electronic tolling has made the cost of collecting tolls competitive
with gasoline taxes and, in some ways, but not all, is more fair. So
far, the only two examples of privatization (Chicago and Indiana) were
examples of politicians trying to have their cake and eat it too by
selling off capital assets to manage operating deficits. Chicago and
Indiana politicians know they aren't collecting enough taxes to keep up
with the spending they promised, but they didn't have the guts to either
raise the taxes or cut the spending necessary to have a balanced budget.
Floyd Rogers
> Scott in SoCal wrote:
>> Last time on rec.autos.driving, elmer <e...@f.udd> said:
> Nuclear energy is not here now and they don't want to bring it on board.
> Solar cells are a joke and a stop gap for such a large requirement and
> very expensive.
Statements like that are why people regard postings like your's a joke.
Nuclear reactors produce almost 20% of the US's power. Last time
I checked, the Diablo reactors (near Avila Beach/San Luis Obispo) and
the San Onofre reactor (north of San Diego) *ARE* in California.
FloydR
Brent
I see no need to repeat myself from prior threads where I've covered
that.
Suppose you tell me how giving the same people who have failed in the
past, abused power and mismanaged money, more money and more power is
going to solve anything?
Furthermore, show that there is a problem with road funding levels as
they are first. It's the funds for the roads that are in surplus and
raided for other purposes.
Gov. Quinn in IL just raided road funds of $200,000,000 to give college
tution grants.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-quinn-map-presser-19-oct19,0,5428121.story
"The road fund is at least one state fund that Gov. Pat Quinn said Sunday
officials could borrow from to help restore about $200 million in grants
for the neediest college students."
http://www.wgil.com/localnews.php?xnewsaction=fullnews&newsarch=102009&newsid=408
"The state has a variety of funds that are set aside for special
purposes, often funded with special taxes or fees, that in aggregate have
a surplus of about $4.5 billion, the governor's office says. Quinn would
not identify all the funds from which he would borrow, but he said the
road fund is a likely source."
necromancer
<tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Furthermore, show that there is a problem with road funding levels as
>they are first.
I'd say there isn't one. My example of this would be right here in
Georgia where there is an ongoing project to widen IH95 from the
Florida line to the South Carolina line. It is being done with no
increase in the gas tax (except for twice yearly adjustments tied to
the price of gas), no public-private partnerships and *no tolls.*
--
"I... Can't drive... FIFTY-FIVE!!"
--Sammy Hagar
necromancer
<tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>It's you who "doesn't understand" or just doesn't want to deal with the
>truth. The question is why do you reward people with more power and more
>money for failure and corruption?
My question is why do we keep re-electing them?
--
"Well, if crime fighters fight crime and
fire fighters fight fire, what do freedom
fighters fight?"
--George Carlin
richard
> On Oct 30, 11:53�pm, elmer <e...@f.udd> wrote:
>
>> It takes the same amount of energy to move x vehicle regardless of that
>> form of energy.
>
> Absolute nonsense.
>
> Different sources of mechanical energy have various efficiencies in
> converting fuel to energy. Further, different fuel sources have
> varying costs in obtaining and distributing the fuel. For example,
> they say making ethanol uses more energy than it saves in gasoline.
>
That is being said by those who promote the total exclusive use of fossil
fuel. For instance, "Waste management" is powering homes and businesses
simply by tapping the natural creation of ethanol from the landfills.
> New technologies change the energy efficiency. Automobile engines are
> much more efficient than years ago.
In the 70's we were told to expect cars being produced that would obtain
over 50mpg. Doing so, would cut down the demand of fossil fuel, which would
cut down the demand on vehicles. Do ya really think the car makers are
gonna cut their own throat?
>
>> If one tenth of the vehicles become electric and plug in to recharge,
>> after a long commute, on a hot August day, there is going to be a brown
>> out and possibly a collapse of the grid.
>
> As others correctly pointed out, electric cars would get charged late
> overnight when power consumption is much lower and there is idle
> generating and grid capacity.
>
> This will have no choice but to go nuclear to meet current electric
> demand, let alone new demands. Fossile fuels are finite, and far too
> much comes from places run by whack-job governments.
No. You produce power on a more local level. I see no reason why the city
of Los Angeles can't produce all the power they need locally. If they had
several power plants producing for a smaller area, they wouldn't have brown
outs so frequently.
The same principle used in the Hoover dam could be scaled down easily. As
the water can be recycled, all you would need is a holding tank. The water
simply passes over the turbine blades causing them to spin and generate the
power.
Brent
The only reason federal road funds are down is because fewer heavy trucks
have been sold because of the present economy. It was some hocus-pocus
the government was doing as an excuse for tracking system type tolling.
I've posted the cite for it previously. The info is on thenewspaper.com
if someone wants to search it out again.
rsh...@gmail.com
nope, I understand perfectly
what you fail to comprehend is you are not hurting those with more
money/more power one little bit
and you are a fool if you think you are
you are only hurting yourself and millions of others stuck on
substandard roads
any bridges near you closed?
we had one in Union Co, NJ, closed for FOUR years because they did not
have the money for replacement
had you car damaged due to potholes? how about increasing accidents
you think you are hurting "them". they have multiple sources of
income. if not transportation, then education, hospitals, or
something else
you only think you are smart
rsh...@gmail.com
<a_septic_yank@worldofnecromancer_no_spam_no_way.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:38:52 +0000 (UTC), Brent
>
> >Furthermore, show that there is a problem with road funding levels as
> >they are first.
>
> I'd say there isn't one. My example of this would be right here in
> Georgia where there is an ongoing project to widen IH95 from the
> Florida line to the South Carolina line. It is being done with no
> increase in the gas tax (except for twice yearly adjustments tied to
> the price of gas), no public-private partnerships and *no tolls.*
>
> --
>
big deal, 112 miles of interstate
costs next to nothing
Brent
Where did you get the idea I even thought that? Oh wait you just made it
up.
> you are only hurting yourself and millions of others stuck on
> substandard roads
Giving them more money won't make the roads less substandard.
> any bridges near you closed?
Giving them more money won't fix the bridges.
> we had one in Union Co, NJ, closed for FOUR years because they did not
> have the money for replacement
Because it was stolen and diverted and the bridge never maintained.
Giving them more money won't change that.
> had you car damaged due to potholes? how about increasing accidents
Giving them more money won't change that.
> you think you are hurting "them". they have multiple sources of
> income. if not transportation, then education, hospitals, or
> something else
Giving them more money won't change that.
> you only think you are smart
Giving them more money won't change things. It will just be giving them
more money.
Give a crack whore $3000 to get herself an apartment and some new clothes
to get her life back on track. What's the crack whore going to do with
it? Buy more crack. Your elected rulers will do the same thing with more
money they do with the present money, mismanage and steal it.
Floyd Rogers
> No. You produce power on a more local level. I see no reason why the city
> of Los Angeles can't produce all the power they need locally. If they had
> several power plants producing for a smaller area, they wouldn't have
> brown
> outs so frequently.
>
> The same principle used in the Hoover dam could be scaled down easily. As
> the water can be recycled, all you would need is a holding tank. The water
> simply passes over the turbine blades causing them to spin and generate
> the
> power.
Are you aware that about 1000 MW are used in the state of California to
pump water? Are you aware that, except for the Owens Valley and local
sources of water from the LA Basin's mountains, that all the rest of the
drinking water for LA, San Diego other inland locations is pumped? You're
talking nonsense; ever heard of the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
FloydR
Daniel W. Rouse Jr.
news:seioe5hl12di3mssg...@4ax.com...
> Last time on rec.autos.driving, elmer <e...@f.udd> said:
>
>>clue or are just trying to feather their pockets.
>>form of energy.
>>is no joke.
>>Take Southern California where the this lunacy is at it's zenith.
>>after a long commute, on a hot August day, there is going to be a brown
>>out and possibly a collapse of the grid.
>
> simple timer will allow it to be charged late at night when demand is
> lowest and supply is more than ample.
>
compared to hybrids, gasoline, and diesel vehicles.
But what if nearly *everyone* bought an electric car in the future?
Everyone would be charging their cars when they arrive at work, when enough
electric cars demand the installation of sufficient charging stations at
workplaces. Everyone would likely be charging their cars when they get home
from work, again, once enough electric cars demand the installation of
sufficient charging stations in residential areas.
Even if groups could stagger their charging intervals, say in cascading
hours, there will always be a significant charging demand once enough
electric cars exist and are used.
Can the electric power grids keep up with that in the short term, in the
long term? What is it going to cost the provider of these charging stations
in non-residential areas, and how will the cost be defrayed by passing on
some of it to the user of the charging station? How much more will it cost a
person on their electric bill to charge their vehicle daily in addition to
whatever their current electricity usage might be?
[snip...]
Jim Yanik
Businesses are not going to install solar panels and the other necessary
equipment to charge their employees autos.They aren't going to pay for
them,nor pay for the maintenance needed to keep solar panels at full
output. solar panels are NOT "self-cleaning",and subject to damage from
hailstorms,airborne debris,and high winds.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com
Jim Yanik
news:r4Odndd9aZYuFHHX...@posted.palinacquisition:
No,he's right about "they don't want to bring it on board"(no NEW nuke
plants),as Obama has said he will not permit new nuclear plants WITHOUT
HAVING "SAFE STORAGE" FOR THE WASTES. And Obama(with the DemocRATS) has -
cancelled- Yucca Mountain Waste Repository,cut off it's funding,with NO
plans for any other site.
and California eco-nuts are against nuclear power and also high voltage
transmission lines to deliver more power from ANY new electric source.
then add in his plans for putting the coal industry out of business,his
position of no new oil or gas drilling/production.
-CONNECT THE DOTS-!!
Obama has SAID publicly that he intends for energy costs to climb
drastically. Obama wants us to reduce our lifestyles.
Wake up.
Jim Yanik
"recycle" water for electric generation?
talk about repealing the laws of physics.
water turbines require water flow from a water source ABOVE the
turbines,once the water is below the turbines,it has no remaining potential
energy.WHERE does this guy think the water gets it's energy from????
geez,people should HAVE to take physics/science in high school.
Or have schools dumbed that down to worthless,like much of the other
fields?
Jim Yanik
Well,governments are exploring the GPS based "miles-driven" tax on your
vehicles.Every registered vehicle will HAVE to have a GPS transponder that
gets read periodically by some gov't entity so you can be taxed on the
mileage.
(in ADDITION to existing fuel and other taxes...,of course.)
But electric vehicles/alternative fuel vehicles are not going to be any
significant portion of vehicular traffic for quite some time.
they just are not practical right now. No infrastructure for them,either.
Jim Yanik
EVERYBODY benefits from the roads.
Government's problem is that it spends too much on social projects and "big
government".
>
> Are you suggesting privatization? Tolls?
>
--
Brent
> Obama has SAID publicly that he intends for energy costs to climb
> drastically. Obama wants us to reduce our lifestyles.
Both parties want that. Both have acted in that direction. They are owned
by interests that benefit from such conditions.
> Wake up.
rsh...@gmail.com
That sir is a crock
you have no idea what you are talking about
the old bridge was built in the 1920's as a swing bridge
never maintained???
for once why don't you talk about something you know about???
it was very well maintained, in an effort to keep it open
but it became structurally unsound and NJDOT ordered it closed
> Giving them more money won't change that.
>
> > had you car damaged due to potholes? how about increasing accidents
>
> Giving them more money won't change that.
>
> > you think you are hurting "them". they have multiple sources of
> > income. if not transportation, then education, hospitals, or
> > something else
>
> Giving them more money won't change that.
>
> > you only think you are smart
>
> Giving them more money won't change things. It will just be giving them
> more money.
>
> Give a crack whore $3000 to get herself an apartment and some new clothes
> to get her life back on track. What's the crack whore going to do with
> it? Buy more crack. Your elected rulers will do the same thing with more
> money they do with the present money, mismanage and steal it.
http://www.azdot.gov/MPD/priority_Programming/PDF/pio.pdf
This is the AzDOT 5 yr const program
$600M in fy 2010
now how did they rebuild I-10 thru Tucson if it was all stolen
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/capital/stip1019/sec2/pdf/table3.pdf
here is NJDOT's
$2.14B fy 2010
all of it stolen?
I don't believe it for a minute
I know people that work for the city, Union and Middlesex Co's and
NJDOT
they are NOT criminals, and if you think they are you
are very wrong
comparing elected officials to crack whores leads me to wonder about
your sanity paranoia WILL destroy you
do you work for a company, do they have any govt contracts?
everybody that works for govt is NOT a criminal
was Rick Powell, how about John Lansford?
Alan Baker
richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 23:53:55 -0400, elmer wrote:
>
> > There is no free lunch. The proponents of Electric Cars haven't got a
> > clue or are just trying to feather their pockets.
> > It takes the same amount of energy to move x vehicle regardless of that
> > form of energy.
> > There are many jokes about everybody plugging in at the same time but it
> > is no joke.
> > Take Southern California where the this lunacy is at it's zenith.
> > If one tenth of the vehicles become electric and plug in to recharge,
> > after a long commute, on a hot August day, there is going to be a brown
> > out and possibly a collapse of the grid. Of course they are going to
> > eliminate big screen tv's and turn off their air conditioning etc except
> > at times when no one wants to use them, so maybe that will make uo the
> > difference. NOT
> > Turning energy into electricity by fossil fuel means or nuclear, which
> > is a bad word, and isn't going to be allowed in Southern California,
> > uses three or four watts to make and transmit one watt.
> > The joke is true. Cities will have to turn off everything to recharge
> > the cars so to speak. Hybrids will have to be plugged in too unless the
> > commute is long enough for the fossil fueled engine to kick in and
> > charge the batteries. Part of the electric car energy cost is the
> > frequent replacement of expensive battery packs.
> > The cost of electric vehicles will be far greater than gasoline engines
> > and far dirtier as producing the electricity uses far more fuels for the
> > same equivalent energy.
>
> The next phase of the electric development is to have the car charge
> itself. Why not? The standard car today already charges it's own battery.
> Why can't an electric do the same thing?
How would it do this? Magic. The energy still has to come from
somewhere..
>
> One vehicle I saw recently, the owner swapped the lead acid batteries for
> lithium-ion ones. Doing so decreased the weight and improved the
> horsepower.
>
> There is development in progress of power sources outside the standard
> power company. Localized fuel cell stations could supply power for an
> entire block of homes. Every home in the country could literally produce
> it's own required power. What you'd have left would never result in even
> one little "brown out", any where.
Again, the energy comes from...
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
Alan Baker
Scott in SoCal <scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Last time on rec.autos.driving, elmer <e...@f.udd> said:
>
> >There is no free lunch. The proponents of Electric Cars haven't got a
> >clue or are just trying to feather their pockets.
> >It takes the same amount of energy to move x vehicle regardless of that
> >form of energy.
> >There are many jokes about everybody plugging in at the same time but it
> >is no joke.
> >Take Southern California where the this lunacy is at it's zenith.
> >If one tenth of the vehicles become electric and plug in to recharge,
> >after a long commute, on a hot August day, there is going to be a brown
> >out and possibly a collapse of the grid.
>
> Solution: don't charge your car during periods of peak demand. A
> simple timer will allow it to be charged late at night when demand is
> lowest and supply is more than ample.
And then you have a car which is of no utility if you suddenly need to
make a trip. You can delay "charging" an internal combustion engine
vehicle because if the "battery", or rather tank, is low, you can fill
it in almost zero time, but a real battery takes hours to charge.
So people will want to charge them immediately.
>
> >The joke is true.
>
> The joke is you and your ridiculous post.
>
> >Cities will have to turn off everything to recharge
> >the cars so to speak.
>
> Even if a grain of your hyperbole were true, a couple of solar panels
> on the garage roof would solve the problem.
Hmmm...
What happens shortly after people get home from work. Something to do
with the sun...
>
> OBTW, if you're going to present a fallacious argument, you should at
> least learn how to spell the word.
LOL
Alan Baker
Scott in SoCal <scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Bernd Felsche
> <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> said:
>
> >Scott in SoCal <scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>Last time on rec.autos.driving, elmer <e...@f.udd> said:
> >
> >>>There is no free lunch. The proponents of Electric Cars haven't got a
> >>>clue or are just trying to feather their pockets.
> >>>It takes the same amount of energy to move x vehicle regardless of that
> >>>form of energy.
> >>>There are many jokes about everybody plugging in at the same time but it
> >>>is no joke.
> >>>Take Southern California where the this lunacy is at it's zenith.
> >>>If one tenth of the vehicles become electric and plug in to recharge,
> >>>after a long commute, on a hot August day, there is going to be a brown
> >>>out and possibly a collapse of the grid.
> >
> >>Solution: don't charge your car during periods of peak demand. A
> >>simple timer will allow it to be charged late at night when demand is
> >>lowest and supply is more than ample.
> >
> >Only until electric cars become more common. At which point,
> >charge-time becomes peak-time.
>
> Only when electric cars suck more juice than a pair of 5-ton air
> conditioners.
Again, people will want their electric vehicles to become useful again
as soon as they can...
>
> >Keep in mind that e.g. a Tesla draws 70A from a 240V outlet for a
> >period of 3.5 hours on fast-charge. That's roughly 60 kWh. Much more
> >than a residence (other than Al Gore's) would consume over 24 hours.
> >In fact, it's about 9 times as much as I use. In less than one
> >sixth of the day. i.e. the rate of power consumption (and required
> >generation) is around 60 times higher than my average domestic
> >electricity consumption.
>
> Assuming your figures are correct, why would you fast-charge a car
> that's going to be sitting unused in the garage all night?
>
> As for your figures themselves, ISTR that the numbers quoted for the
> Chevy Volt are a lot lower.
>
> >What do electric cars mean for electricity supply grid? Can it
> >supply power at a rate 60 times higher than at present?
>
> Sounds suspiciously like a strawman argument. There were thousands of
> EV-1s on the road in CA (land of the Rolling Blackout) for several
> years and yet somehow there were no power disruptions caused by
> charging those vehicles, nor did their owners complain about their
> electric bills being 60 times higher than normal.
You really think you're making an argument with a few thousand vehicles?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Brent
It's pointless having a discussion with you. Nobody said it was 'all'
stolen. You keep doing that, so good bye.
rsh...@gmail.com
> On 2009-10-31, rshe...@gmail.com <rshe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > now how did they rebuild I-10 thru Tucson if it was all stolen
>
> It's pointless having a discussion with you. Nobody said it was 'all'
> stolen. You keep doing that, so good bye.
and you are nothing more then a paranoid fuck
why don't you get help
and btw, how much is stolen
10%, 20%, 30%????
are all the const estimates phonied for the theft
have you ever phonied up a const estimate
do you know anyone that has
Brent
> On Oct 31, 7:41�pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 2009-10-31, rshe...@gmail.com <rshe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > now how did they rebuild I-10 thru Tucson if it was all stolen
>>
>> It's pointless having a discussion with you. Nobody said it was 'all'
>> stolen. You keep doing that, so good bye.
>
> and you are nothing more then a paranoid fuck
It's funny how people who are affraid their neighbors are going to kill
and steal from them think that those people in government don't use the
power to get away with it.
> why don't you get help
> and btw, how much is stolen
>
>
> 10%, 20%, 30%????
>
> are all the const estimates phonied for the theft
>
> have you ever phonied up a const estimate
>
> do you know anyone that has
Pick a project. Read the local newspapers. DUH.
Start with the "big dig" and work your way smaller.
Do I have to do everything for you?
Ashton Crusher
>There is no free lunch. The proponents of Electric Cars haven't got a
>clue or are just trying to feather their pockets.
>It takes the same amount of energy to move x vehicle regardless of that
>form of energy.
>There are many jokes about everybody plugging in at the same time but it
>is no joke.
>Take Southern California where the this lunacy is at it's zenith.
>If one tenth of the vehicles become electric and plug in to recharge,
>after a long commute, on a hot August day, there is going to be a brown
>out and possibly a collapse of the grid. Of course they are going to
>eliminate big screen tv's and turn off their air conditioning etc except
>at times when no one wants to use them, so maybe that will make uo the
>difference. NOT
>Turning energy into electricity by fossil fuel means or nuclear, which
>is a bad word, and isn't going to be allowed in Southern California,
>uses three or four watts to make and transmit one watt.
>The joke is true. Cities will have to turn off everything to recharge
>the cars so to speak. Hybrids will have to be plugged in too unless the
>commute is long enough for the fossil fueled engine to kick in and
>charge the batteries. Part of the electric car energy cost is the
>frequent replacement of expensive battery packs.
>The cost of electric vehicles will be far greater than gasoline engines
>and far dirtier as producing the electricity uses far more fuels for the
>same equivalent energy.
Troll
Bernd Felsche
>Last time on rec.autos.driving, Bernd Felsche
><ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> said:
>>Scott in SoCal <scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>Last time on rec.autos.driving, elmer <e...@f.udd> said:
>>>>There is no free lunch. The proponents of Electric Cars haven't got a
>>>>clue or are just trying to feather their pockets.
>>>>It takes the same amount of energy to move x vehicle regardless of that
>>>>form of energy.
>>>>There are many jokes about everybody plugging in at the same time but it
>>>>is no joke.
>>>>Take Southern California where the this lunacy is at it's zenith.
>>>>If one tenth of the vehicles become electric and plug in to recharge,
>>>>after a long commute, on a hot August day, there is going to be a brown
>>>>out and possibly a collapse of the grid.
>>>Solution: don't charge your car during periods of peak demand. A
>>>simple timer will allow it to be charged late at night when demand is
>>>lowest and supply is more than ample.
>>Only until electric cars become more common. At which point,
>>charge-time becomes peak-time.
>Only when electric cars suck more juice than a pair of 5-ton air
>conditioners.
Since when is the mass of an airconditioning system indicative of
power consumption?
Is that what you have at your mansion?
My airconditioner weighs in at less than 50kg.
It runs for about 4 months of the year.
>>Keep in mind that e.g. a Tesla draws 70A from a 240V outlet for a
>>period of 3.5 hours on fast-charge. That's roughly 60 kWh. Much more
>>than a residence (other than Al Gore's) would consume over 24 hours.
>>In fact, it's about 9 times as much as I use. In less than one
>>sixth of the day. i.e. the rate of power consumption (and required
>>generation) is around 60 times higher than my average domestic
>>electricity consumption.
>Assuming your figures are correct, why would you fast-charge a car
>that's going to be sitting unused in the garage all night?
You don't have to assume. I checked the figures shortly before
posting.
>As for your figures themselves, ISTR that the numbers quoted for the
>Chevy Volt are a lot lower.
The range is a lot shorter.
>>What do electric cars mean for electricity supply grid? Can it
>>supply power at a rate 60 times higher than at present?
>Sounds suspiciously like a strawman argument. There were thousands of
>EV-1s on the road in CA (land of the Rolling Blackout) for several
Thousands? Only 1200 were ever made.
>years and yet somehow there were no power disruptions caused by
>charging those vehicles, nor did their owners complain about their
>electric bills being 60 times higher than normal.
Read again what I wrote. The power consumption (rate of energy flow)
is 60 times higher than the average in my household. The amount of
energy to (fully) charge the battery is 9 times greater than the
amount of energy consumed in the household during the day.
You do understand the difference between power and energy, don't
you?
The EV-1 battery capacity varied, depending on model, from one
quarter (16.5 kWh) to about a half (26.4) of the capacity of the
Tesla's (53 kWh). The range of the EV-1 limited it to being strictly
a commuter car ... less than 100 miles (initially just 55 miles).
The Tesla is supposed to go more than 200 miles (when new). If
onehowever makes the mistake of driving the roadster like a sports
car for a significant period, then you lose perhaps 50% of the
range. The manufacturers rate the battery system to have 70% of
original capacity after 5 years of "typical" use. i.e. the range is
down to about 140 miles.
Having battery systems that require power to keep them safe to use
in typical road conditions is a major handicap for electric
vehicles. The lithium-based battery system in the Tesla Roadster can
only supply power when it remains cool enough ... definitely below
55 degrees C. What's the on-tarmac temperature under CA sun? I can
tell you that it's around 60 degrees C in this southern part of
Australia.
Automotive temperature range for vehicle components is generally up
to 85 degrees C.
Therein lies another fundamental problem of battery systems used for
traction power on roads. LiFePO4 seems to be an appropriate
technology in terms of operating temperatures. They squeak in at the
top end. But their energy density is significantly lower than
Li-Poly used in the Tesla. So a LiFePO4 system to store the same
amount of energy would be larger and heavier.
There are apparently material limits that impose a barrier to
electrolytes; in terms of being able to take an electrical charge,
holding it, and releasing it in a controlled manner. Lithium
chemistry seems to be fairly close to those physical limits.
One rational option is to seek to produce chemical bonds in
materials to produce a stable, synthetic compound; i.e. efficiently
put the energy into a compound from a convenient energy source (e.g.
nuclear). Then put that compound into the vehicle (a liquid is
easiest to handle) and then to collect the energy as the chemical
bonds are released, as required by the vehicle.
Two parts of that cycle already exist. The last stage is a fuel
cell. The first part needs to do that process backwards.
Such a cycle is the least-disruptive in terms of existing
infrastructures.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Those who can make you believe absurdities
X against HTML mail | can make you commit atrocities.
/ \ and postings | -- Voltaire
rsh...@gmail.com
> On 2009-11-01, rshe...@gmail.com <rshe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 31, 7:41 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On 2009-10-31, rshe...@gmail.com <rshe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > now how did they rebuild I-10 thru Tucson if it was all stolen
>
> >> It's pointless having a discussion with you. Nobody said it was 'all'
> >> stolen. You keep doing that, so good bye.
>
> > and you are nothing more then a paranoid fuck
>
> It's funny how people who are affraid their neighbors are going to kill
> and steal from them think that those people in government don't use the
> power to get away with it.
>
> > why don't you get help
> > and btw, how much is stolen
>
> > 10%, 20%, 30%????
>
> > are all the const estimates phonied for the theft
>
> > have you ever phonied up a const estimate
>
> > do you know anyone that has
>
how come you cannot answer the question?
it is so simple even you can do it
> Pick a project. Read the local newspapers. DUH.
> Start with the "big dig" and work your way smaller.
>
> Do I have to do everything for you?
you don't have to lift a finger
every proj is just like the big dig huh???
just like everyone that works for a dot is a thief
ok, the Ravenal Br in Charleston, SC
how many indictments were handed down for that
Fort Washington Way, Cincinnati
and I will repeat this and I would appreciate an answer
Bernd Felsche
>Last time on rec.autos.driving, elmer <e...@f.udd> said:
>>solar cells at night or evening? Interesting.
>You could certainly use solar to charge your car while it sits in the
>parking lot all day at work. If you have storage batteries at home,
With power leads across the parking lot, no doubt feeding your car
at your employer's cost?
>you could charge those with solar and transfer the stored charge to
>your car when you get home. Or use the panels to charge your other two
>vehicles - the ones you don't use for commuting.
Study "recovery losses". It reduces PV solar efficiency from 12% to
something like 8%, depending on how you store the electricity.
And what "other 2 vehicles"? What use, other than commuting is there
for an electric car? You can't take it for a trip further than 100
miles from base unless you're absolutely certain of being able to
charge it along the way, and have half a day to spare to recharge
batteries every 200 miles.
>>So you get home wait until when to plug in? When will the load go down.
>The power utility itself can tell you. Already there are devices which
>will shut off your air conditioner during periods of peak demand, as
Yes ... such as the hottest days when the airconditioning load
dominates, the utility shuts off airconditioners.
>well as meters which charge different rates at different times of the
>day depending on demand. If electric cars start to cause stress to the
>system, it will be trivial to provide this data.
>>There is no magic. Power out means power in.
>There is no magic source of fossil fuels, either - when the oil runs
>out, the oil runs out. On that day, we'll need something else to power
>our vehicles. If not electricity, then what? Ethanol? Hydrogen? Both
>cost even MORE in terms of energy inputs than you can recover in
>energy outputs. ISTM that electric vehicles are the best option we
>will have for the forseeable future.
Supporting a significant fleet of electric vehicles is highly
disruptive to a wide range of infrastructure components.
If the dialy commute by electric car increases the electrical energy
required every day 5- to 10-fold; and it would do at least the lower
figure, then what is going to produce that electricty? Electricity
utilities are already struggling to match demand.
>Now is the time to start preparing for the end of cheap oil. If the
>electric grid needs to be built up to handle electric cars, then let's
>get started. Let's not wait until the last drops are trickling out of
>the barrel and everyone is in a panic before we begin to act.
Electric cars, charged from the grid aren't an appropriate
technology. No amount of money, wishfull thinking or preaching is
going to change the physical laws of nature that are in the way.
You may not have noticed, but "cheap oil" is long gone. The
automotive industry has mostly adapted by substantial improvements
in fuel efficiency within the vehicles themselves. This has
typically reduced fuel consumption to about half of what it was 20
years ago.
Road and highway infrastructures, as well as driving behaviour can
reduce fuel consumption; in practice. Simple driver training has the
potential to reduce fuel consumption for most drivers by 20% to 30%.
Without restricting their freedom of movement.
Better roads and improved traffic conditions (in part due to driver
training) reduce fuel consumption another 5% to 10%. Look at the
"gap" between "urban" and "highway" fuel consumption ratings. If all
driving were at "highway", then that substantially reduces the fuel
required by a nation. And the world.
We simply do not know how much oil there is as fossil fuel. Known
resources will take the world perhaps 50 years to consume. Longer if
consciousness of fuel use if maintained and technology as well as
efficient habits propagate.
As known oil resources diminish, it puts pressure not only on
further exploration, but also on development of other technologies.
e.g. extraction of oil from shale and sands, or fuel synthesis from
coal.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Can the electric power grids keep up with that in the short term
Do you remember 1974 and 1979?
Do you think the Russians and Chinese are our friends?
Do you think critical oil ports, refineries, oil fields and pipelines
worldwide are secured against a suicide bomber or political maverick?
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Businesses are not going to install solar panels and the other necessary
> equipment to charge their employees autos.
Why not? They spend an awful lot of money now building and
maintaining those parking garages for their employees.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Nobody said it was 'all'
> stolen.
Actually, you did.
Bernd Felsche
>Last time on rec.autos.driving, Bernd Felsche
><ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> said:
>>>Assuming your figures are correct, why would you fast-charge a car
>>>that's going to be sitting unused in the garage all night?
>>
>>You don't have to assume. I checked the figures shortly before
>>posting.
>Why would you fast-charge a car that's going to be sitting unused in
>the garage all night?
Because "fast" means that it's charging for half the night anyway.
A slow charge takes 14 hours. FOURTEEN.
>>>As for your figures themselves, ISTR that the numbers quoted for the
>>>Chevy Volt are a lot lower.
>>The range is a lot shorter.
>It's also a lot more typical of what the first electrics will be like
>in terms of power consumption. Of course, it doesn't help your
>fear-mongering agenda to note that very few people will be plugging in
No fear-mongering. It's a scale analysis. It's what responsible
Engineers do to test the viability of concepts.
>$100,000++ sports cars and most will be plugging in Volt-like cars
The Tesla Roadster is demonstrably NOT a sports car.
>where each charge takes 6.5 hours and costs $0.80 worth of
>electricity.
Electricity is measured in kWh, not dollars and cents.
>Source: http://gm-volt.com/chevy-volt-faqs/
That car is a hybrid. The stated range of the car without the
on-board generator kicking in, is 40 miles. Less than the range of
an EV-1.
Brent
Cite it.
Bernd Felsche
><ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> said:
>>With power leads across the parking lot, no doubt feeding your car
>>at your employer's cost?
>I think most employers can afford to offer an eighty-cent-per-day
>perk.
The cost of charging is much greater than the WHOLESALE price of
electricity; even if it were available. Installing the
infrastructure would costs thousands per vehicle.
You argument is circular anyway. Peak electricity consumption is
already around business hours. The premises' sub-station would have
to be significantly upgraded in most cases.
>>And what "other 2 vehicles"?
>Don't most households have at least 3 cars these days? Certainly
>nobody has just one...
Certainly this one does. The other car is the company's.
>>What use, other than commuting is there for an electric car?
>If you can't come up with any, then feel free to stick with gasoline
>engine cars for your other two.
Why should I buy an electric car? Insure it. Pay licencing and other
registration fees. Maintain it. When there's a perfectly good diesel
car sitting in the garage.
Who'd pay to extend the garage? Who'd pay to upgrade the local
electricity grid to facilitate charging of electric vehicles?
Who'll pay to upgrade the power stations to supply at least 5 times
as much electricity over 24 hours than they do at present? What's
the source of energy for the power stations?
>>>The power utility itself can tell you. Already there are devices
>>>which will shut off your air conditioner during periods of peak
>>>demand, as
>>Yes ... such as the hottest days when the airconditioning load
>>dominates, the utility shuts off airconditioners.
>It's clear you have some sort of agenda against this concept. Why?
I have an agenda against stupidity.
Turning off people's airconditioners in a heat-wave isn't just
stupid; IMHO, it borders on the criminally insane.
elmer
> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
> said:
>
>> You really think you're making an argument with a few thousand vehicles?
>
> assumes that all the hundreds of millions of registered vehicles in
> the US will be replaced with electrics overnight.
>
> The truth is, the changeover will happen slowly by attrition, and the
> grid will have time to adapt. So save your LOLOLOLOL responses for the
> fear-mongers.
I had no idea a little thought on the subject would cause fear.
rsh...@gmail.com
> On 2009-11-01, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com <hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 31, 7:41 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Nobody said it was 'all'
> >> stolen.
>
> > Actually, you did.
>
> Cite it.
Give a crack whore $3000 to get herself an apartment and some new
clothes
to get her life back on track. What's the crack whore going to do with
it? Buy more crack. Your elected rulers will do the same thing with
more
money they do with the present money, mismanage and steal it.
that is what you said
if you want to continue in your paranoid state where everyone is a
thief except you
you are welcome to
frankly I don't believe you are any less a thief then anyone else
and probably more of one
now please answer the following
James Robinson
>
> James Robinson <was...@212.com> wrote:
>>
>> Brent <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> James Robinson <was...@212.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Brent <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> change. Fuel taxes have been poorly managed for DECADES, and
>>>>>> haven't even kept pace with inflation. Alternative vehicle fuels
>>>>>> are going to be the death knell for fuel taxes. Of the remaining
>>>>>> alternatives, tolls are certanly the most fair. If a way can be
>>>>>> found to administer them efficiently without sacrificing privacy,
>>>>>> then that may be the best way to go.
>>>>>
>>>>> So the answer to poorly run government is more poorly run
>>>>> government and less freedom for us. Governments mis-manages the
>>>>> fuel taxes by diverting them to other purposes. The federal
>>>>> government causes the inflation by monkeying around with the
>>>>> economy and over spending. Governments squander the money through
>>>>> mis-management and fraud in road projects. This doesn't change
>>>>> with tolls. Look at the IL tollway authority.
>>>>
>>>> ....
>>>
>>> The solution starts with stop rewarding government failure with more
>>> government. People need to realize that first otherwise anything
>>> else is pointless and tilting at windmills.
>>
>> And how do you propose to do that? What are the details of your
>> proposal such that highway costs are appropriately apportioned to the
>> users?
>
>
> that.
>
> Suppose you tell me how giving the same people who have failed in the
> past, abused power and mismanaged money, more money and more power is
> going to solve anything?
>
> Furthermore, show that there is a problem with road funding levels as
> they are first. It's the funds for the roads that are in surplus and
> raided for other purposes.
Funds for roads aren't in surplus. The most recent year data shows that
user revenues only could cover about 78 percent of expenditures. That is
typical from year to year:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2007/hf10.cfm
Some money is spent on mass transit, and some on things like the leaking
underground storage tank fund, but those are more than made up by
payments transferred into roads highways from the General Funds at all
levels.
The end result, simply, is that highway user fees are currently not high
enough to cover all the highway expenditures, and the problem is getting
progressively worse.
The problem in the future is that as cars get more energy efficient, even
less money will be collected per vehicle-mile because of that alone,
making the problem even worse without considering alternative fueled
vehicles.
On top of that, alternative fueled vehicles either pay no fuel taxes
today, or only a very small amount. As they become more popular, and a
greater proportion of the vehicle miles are driven by such vehicles, the
amount of money collected from users will drop even more.
That is the problem. Ever reducing revenue, and inequitable collection
of user fees. The gasoline tax will be less and less useful as time
passes.
Brent
>> On 2009-11-01, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com <hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Oct 31, 7:41�pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Nobody said it was 'all'
>> >> stolen.
>>
>> > Actually, you did.
>>
>> Cite it.
>
> Give a crack whore $3000 to get herself an apartment and some new
> clothes
> to get her life back on track. What's the crack whore going to do with
> it? Buy more crack. Your elected rulers will do the same thing with
> more
> money they do with the present money, mismanage and steal it.
>
> that is what you said
mismanage _AND_ steal it does NOT equal 'steal all of it'. DUH.
Basic reading comprehension problems is why you're not worth discusing
anything with. Not to mention your crappy formating.
rsh...@gmail.com
and you do nothing but fudge
and frankly I do not give a flying fiddlers #### what you think
you are nothing but a paranoid fuck who is nothing, knows nothing and
keeps repeating the same old shit to the same old shitheads on rad
get your head screwed on straight and get a life
Brent
After the funds are raided for everything from college grants to parks to
police checkpoints, yes the money is gone. Government accounting doesn't
tell you that.
> http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2007/hf10.cfm
> Some money is spent on mass transit, and some on things like the leaking
> underground storage tank fund, but those are more than made up by
> payments transferred into roads highways from the General Funds at all
> levels.
You're playing the same game the feds play. They say the fuel taxes
aren't keeping up when really they are. It's the heavy truck sales taxes
that aren't.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/26/2635.asp
"The American Road and Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA)
crunched the numbers and found this assertion to be entirely untrue. In
fiscal 2007, the US Treasury reported that a total of $29.4 billion was
collected from the taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel. In 2008, the total
figure grew by $185 million to $29.6 billion. Lower traffic volumes did
cause gasoline tax revenue to drop $70 million, but this figure was more
than offset by a $256 million increase in revenue from the tax on diesel,
which is primarily paid by the commercial trucking industry. View revenue
chart.
These truckers, hit by tough economic times, cut expenses significantly.
Sales of new rigs plunged in 2008. That caused a $2.4 billion drop in
revenue from the 12 percent tax on the retail sales of trucks and
trailers. An accounting change in the way kerosene and similar taxes were
transferred ended up showed a paper loss of $722 million from the fund.
Together these factors, which are unrelated to the number of vehicle
miles traveled (VMT) in 2008, accounted for the $3 billion drop in trust
fund revenue."
Also see:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/28/2899.asp
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/04/415.asp
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/27/2789.asp
Of course the government wants a tracking system, so it misrepresents
what is actually happening.
> The end result, simply, is that highway user fees are currently not high
> enough to cover all the highway expenditures, and the problem is getting
> progressively worse.
The funds have been diverted out of roads for decades now and has been
getting worse each year.
> The problem in the future is that as cars get more energy efficient, even
> less money will be collected per vehicle-mile because of that alone,
> making the problem even worse without considering alternative fueled
> vehicles.
Not an excuse for tracking everyone. Fuel consumption is still
proportional to vehicle weight and distance driven no matter how the
technology approves.
> On top of that, alternative fueled vehicles either pay no fuel taxes
> today, or only a very small amount. As they become more popular, and a
> greater proportion of the vehicle miles are driven by such vehicles, the
> amount of money collected from users will drop even more.
Illinois sends collection agents to the homes of people that make their
own bio fuel to collect taxes including very high 'bonds' to put up. To
follow the law with such alternative fuel vehicles in IL means paying a
lot more. Anyway, there is no reason why alternative fuels cannot be
taxed. This is not an excuse to track everyone's driving.
> That is the problem. Ever reducing revenue, and inequitable collection
> of user fees. The gasoline tax will be less and less useful as time
> passes.
No it does not. The fundamental problem is inflation, caused by the
expansion of the money supply by the federal reserve and the federal
government. Government should solve this root cause problem of
it's own making.
Do you really want the political class and government employees to have
access to where and when you drive?
rsh...@gmail.com
and I believe everything "the Newspaper" says
just like I believe everything the lying liars at Fox News say
it is nothing but crapola put out by the ATA, a notorious bunch of
liars
coming from someone like you that does not know what a stip is
doesn't know the first thing about transportation programming
and thinks the idiot truckers can do no wrong
you gave yourself away quoting lying bastards at
the newspaper
trucks and idiot truckers are the biggest problem on the roads
more of the idiots should go bust
not nearly enough do
Alan Baker
Scott in SoCal <scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
> said:
>
> >You really think you're making an argument with a few thousand vehicles?
>
> Oddly enough, the FUD story to which I am responding apparently
> assumes that all the hundreds of millions of registered vehicles in
> the US will be replaced with electrics overnight.
>
> The truth is, the changeover will happen slowly by attrition, and the
> grid will have time to adapt. So save your LOLOLOLOL responses for the
> fear-mongers.
Sorry, but you're the one who suggested that the fact that a few
thousand cars out of literally *millions* meant something.
Alan Baker
Scott in SoCal <scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Bernd Felsche
> <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> said:
>
> >>Assuming your figures are correct, why would you fast-charge a car
> >>that's going to be sitting unused in the garage all night?
> >
> >You don't have to assume. I checked the figures shortly before
> >posting.
>
> Why would you fast-charge a car that's going to be sitting unused in
> the garage all night?
Because -- unlike an IC vehicle -- the only way to ensure that the
electric car is available, should you discover you need it, is to charge
it as soon as and as quickly as you can.
Alan Baker
Scott in SoCal <scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Bernd Felsche
> <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> said:
>
> >With power leads across the parking lot, no doubt feeding your car
> >at your employer's cost?
>
> I think most employers can afford to offer an eighty-cent-per-day
> perk.
>
> >And what "other 2 vehicles"?
>
> Don't most households have at least 3 cars these days? Certainly
> nobody has just one...
>
> >What use, other than commuting is there for an electric car?
>
> If you can't come up with any, then feel free to stick with gasoline
> engine cars for your other two.
So your answer to how to make the electric vehicle practical is to tell
people to own a second vehicle?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL<>
Floyd Rogers
>>Only when electric cars suck more juice than a pair of 5-ton air
>>conditioners.
>
> Since when is the mass of an airconditioning system indicative of
> power consumption?
>
> Is that what you have at your mansion?
> My airconditioner weighs in at less than 50kg.
> It runs for about 4 months of the year.
It is to laugh. You're criticizing a statement when you don't
have the slightest idea what the statement says. In north america,
"ton" refers to a/c capacity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ton, about
1/2 way down. It's 12,000 btu, or if you prefer, 3517 watts.
FloydR
James Robinson
The summary sheet tells you exactly where the money is going. There is
line item for non-highway use. There is also a line item for transfers
in from the general fund.
The problem is that while there is money diverted from the trusts, more
money is coming in from the general funds that what is taken out. It's a
bit of a shell game where government essentially borrow from the trust
funds when they find themselves short of cash, to keep from going into
deficit from year to year.
However, even with the contributions from the general fund, the size of
the trusts is shrinking, meaning that highways are not fully-funded by
the users. There is no surplus, contrary to your suggestion above.
You are still missing the fact that more money comes in from the general
fund to support highway programs that is taken out for other uses. The
user fees are not sufficient to support highway programs alone, and have
been short for many years. At the moment only covering 78 percent of
expenditures. That percentage is before the amounts diverted to other
uses are taken into consideration.
The problem is only going to get worse at time passes, when considering
inflation, more fuel-efficient vehicles, and the greater use of
alternate-fueled vehicles, unless the fee structure is changed.
>> The problem in the future is that as cars get more energy efficient,
>> even less money will be collected per vehicle-mile because of that
>> alone, making the problem even worse without considering alternative
>> fueled vehicles.
>
> Not an excuse for tracking everyone. Fuel consumption is still
> proportional to vehicle weight and distance driven no matter how the
> technology approves.
That is completely wrong.
In the first place, there are economies of scale with weight, otherwise a
fully-loaded truck would only get about 1 mile a gallon to compare with a
car that gets 25 mpg.
Further, as the efficiency of engines improves, vehicles use less fuel.
You can see that if you ever drive a performance car built in the 1960s.
8-11 mpg gets pretty expensive on longer trips.
I'm not suggesting that you need to track everyone to change how people
are charged for the use of roads, however, the proposals under the
intelligent transportation initiatives now suggest that new cars will be
equipped with transponders so they can be part of anti-collision or
automatic guidance systems. Once those transponders are in place, they
will be too attractive to avoid their use for vehicle tolling. Like it
or not, it is the way the future will likely unfold.
>> On top of that, alternative fueled vehicles either pay no fuel taxes
>> today, or only a very small amount. As they become more popular, and
>> a greater proportion of the vehicle miles are driven by such
>> vehicles, the amount of money collected from users will drop even
>> more.
>
> Illinois sends collection agents to the homes of people that make
> their own bio fuel to collect taxes including very high 'bonds' to put
> up. To follow the law with such alternative fuel vehicles in IL means
> paying a lot more. Anyway, there is no reason why alternative fuels
> cannot be taxed. This is not an excuse to track everyone's driving.
Just how do you tax electric vehicles that can plug into the power grid
anywhere, or where the owners have their own solar arrays or wind power
they can use to charge batteries? How do you tax someone who makes
biodiesel out of vegetable oils they make themselves?
At least today, gasoline is both difficult to make, and cheap enough from
available sources that people aren't encouraged to seek alternatives, so
it is relatively easy to both track motor fuels where they are made, and
apply a simplistic tax.
>> That is the problem. Ever reducing revenue, and inequitable
>> collection of user fees. The gasoline tax will be less and less
>> useful as time passes.
>
> No it does not. The fundamental problem is inflation, caused by the
> expansion of the money supply by the federal reserve and the federal
> government. Government should solve this root cause problem of
> it's own making.
>
> Do you really want the political class and government employees to
> have access to where and when you drive?
There will always be inflation, as the general economic theories suggest
that a 2 to 3 percent inflation rate is healthy for any economy.
The government can already follow where I drive through licence plate
recognition on surveillance cameras, tracking of toll transponders, the
use of my credit card when I fill up the gas tank, the GPS built into my
cell phone. I don't really care.
Further, just like there are taxes applied to my telephone calls without
the government knowing specifically who I call, I expect that a toll
system for taxing vehicle use based on GPS technology would be
sufficiently isolated from the government that they would need a warrant
to get more details from the system than simply the total miles driven
each year. The courts have already ruled that the government can't apply
a GPS tracker to my car to track my movements without a court order.
Bernd Felsche
I admit that I was ignorant of such obtuseness. I was trained in the
civilised world where a SI units are fundamental to Engineering
practice.
"A "ton of refrigeration" is defined as the cooling power of
one short ton (2000 pounds or 907 kilograms) of ice melting
in a 24-hour period."
The USA seems to hold the world record for non-use of an adopted
measurement system. No wonder you miss small a planet with a probe.
Hey look mom, I can lift this 2-ton airconditoner!
Jim Yanik
it's not "fear",it's thinking in PRACTICAL terms,not Utopian wishful
dreaming.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com
John A. Weeks III
Bernd Felsche <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote:
> "Floyd Rogers" <fbloo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >"Bernd Felsche" <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote
> >> Scott in SoCal <scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>Only when electric cars suck more juice than a pair of 5-ton air
> >>>conditioners.
> >>
> >> Since when is the mass of an airconditioning system indicative of
> >> power consumption?
>
> >> Is that what you have at your mansion?
> >> My airconditioner weighs in at less than 50kg.
> >> It runs for about 4 months of the year.
>
> >It is to laugh. You're criticizing a statement when you don't
> >have the slightest idea what the statement says. In north america,
> >"ton" refers to a/c capacity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ton, about
> >1/2 way down. It's 12,000 btu, or if you prefer, 3517 watts.
>
> I admit that I was ignorant of such obtuseness. I was trained in the
> civilised world where a SI units are fundamental to Engineering
> practice.
I'm sorry about your handicap.
> The USA seems to hold the world record for non-use of an adopted
> measurement system. No wonder you miss small a planet with a probe.
OK, tell me about all the important inventions that came from
your nation during the 20th century, and about the times that
people from your nation walked on the moon. Perhaps you wouldn't
live in such a backwards place if your countrymen would adopt
standard American units and drive on the proper side of the road.
-john-
--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III � � � � � 612-720-2854 � � � � � �jo...@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications � � � � � � � � � � � � http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================
Larry Sheldon
> I admit that I was ignorant of such obtuseness. I was trained in the
> civilised world where a SI units are fundamental to Engineering
> practice.
>
> "A "ton of refrigeration" is defined as the cooling power of
> one short ton (2000 pounds or 907 kilograms) of ice melting
> in a 24-hour period."
>
> The USA seems to hold the world record for non-use of an adopted
> measurement system. No wonder you miss small a planet with a probe.
Would have made a great deal of sense to use the intuitive "British
Thermal Unit" -- I mean, who in the world can visualize the effect of a
ton of ice melting?
--
Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to
learn from their mistakes.
Eppure si rinfresca
ICBM Targeting Information:
http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
Floyd Rogers
> "Floyd Rogers" <fbloo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>"Bernd Felsche" <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote
>>> Scott in SoCal <scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
My criticism was warranted, my sarcasm wasn't.
I'm just *really* tired of un-informed, un-thinking, science-
deprived posts by idiots and "right"-and-"left"-thinking fools.
I actually agree with the main thesis of the OP: there isn't
enough electricity. Everyone thinks that the smart grid will
solve all the problems related to energy and global warming.
It won't. Take away the 50% generated by coal, and the
20% or so by other hydro-carbon burning (natural gas, etc.).
Where are you going to get the replacement? (AFAIK OZ is
actually in worse shape than the US in this regard.) The
options are nuclear, wind and photo-voltaic, in that order.
All are expensive and have major hurdles to cross.
The one thing the smart grid hopefully will be able to do is to
balance the load into non-peak times, and that will help
push load into wind-power peaks (in Texas, the wind blows
at night). And adding additional powerlines to better utilize
existing energy sources.
But it doesn't help when people make foolish claims and
non-tenable arguments that depend upon bad science and
assumptions.
TANSTAAFL.
FloydR
Daniel W. Rouse Jr.
news:h280s6x...@innovative.iinet.net.au...
[snip...]
> I admit that I was ignorant of such obtuseness. I was trained in the
> civilised world where a SI units are fundamental to Engineering
> practice.
>
> "A "ton of refrigeration" is defined as the cooling power of
> one short ton (2000 pounds or 907 kilograms) of ice melting
> in a 24-hour period."
>
> The USA seems to hold the world record for non-use of an adopted
> measurement system. No wonder you miss small a planet with a probe.
>
The problem with SI units is that they are totally impractical for every day
use because nearly every conversion from conventional to SI is not a whole
number. Consider the following...
I can put my index finger and middle finger together, measure in between two
lines on paper or two objects placed apart from each other, and roughly
estimate that as close to 1 inch. I can verify that estimate using a ruler,
and it's relatively close to one inch. In SI units, I have to call that 2.54
centimeters--certainly not a nice whole number, and introduces the whole
significant digits issue in paper and pencil plus calculator math, or
floating point issues when using a computer to calculate.
Same goes for a foot. If someone has a foot measurement of 12 inches, they
can easily estimate distance with just their foot. The conversion is once
again not a whole number in SI units (it's 12 x 2.54 cm = 30.48 cm).
A yard vs. a meter. A yard is a nice even 36 inches. A meter is once again
not a whole number in the conversion (1 yard = 39.37 cm). While the mile is
5280 feet, that's still a whole number. Something like a 5k, that works out
to 3.2 miles so yet another case of a non-whole number.
If I want to measure the freefall of an object, the non-SI measurement is 32
ft/s^2. For some reason, SI once again uses non whole numbers, 9.8 m/s^2 for
gravity.
Liquid measure: 8 fluid ounces is a cup, 2 cups makes a pint, 2 pints makes
a quart, 2 quarts makes one half gallon, 4 quarts is a gallon. Nice simple
whole numbers, all divisible by two for doubling or halving a quantity. SI
unit conversions... forget about whole numbers, the popular 2 Liter bottle
is 67.6 fluid ounces.
Solid weight measure, where the kilogram is based on some weight in an
international lab--that's not something I can use as an everyday estimate,
and since 2.2 kilograms is the conversion for 1 pound it's not a whole
number once again. Yet, I can find any boxed product that says net weight 1
lb (16 oz) and that's a good everyday estimate for one pound. A Ton is 2000
of those pounds. Somehow, despite all the disparaging of the US conventional
system vs. SI, the US conventional system managed to keep the numbers whole,
or use easy fractions in most cases (e.g., x/4, 1/2, x/3, x/8, x/16). In
some cases, it is possible that the kilogram measurement may also be a whole
number (see 2000 lbs is 907 kg above) but in the majority of cases, the
conversion will not be a whole number.
You get the idea. SI units may be required for engineering purposes (yeah, I
had to deal with all that in Physics classes), but the translation from
conventional units used in the USA to SI units is always fractional, so will
always have some error due to rounding or truncation when respecting
significant digits. In terms of every day, non-engineering use, nice whole
numbers are always preferable to quantities with fractional amounts. So in
terms of discussion, one must expect to hear 1 inch instead of 2.54 cm, 1
yard instead of 39.37 cm, and so on.
Others may vary, of course. I prefer to use whole numbers as much as
possible for non-engineering type calculations, which is why I avoid using
SI units--it means less chance for error due to rounding, truncation, or
even some sort of floating point math bug with the device or program doing
the calculation.
Clark F Morris
<was...@212.com> wrote:
>> much snipped
>
>I'm not suggesting that you need to track everyone to change how people
>are charged for the use of roads, however, the proposals under the
>intelligent transportation initiatives now suggest that new cars will be
>equipped with transponders so they can be part of anti-collision or
>automatic guidance systems. Once those transponders are in place, they
>will be too attractive to avoid their use for vehicle tolling. Like it
>or not, it is the way the future will likely unfold.
>
>> more snipped
>
>The government can already follow where I drive through licence plate
>recognition on surveillance cameras, tracking of toll transponders, the
>use of my credit card when I fill up the gas tank, the GPS built into my
>cell phone. I don't really care.
>
>Further, just like there are taxes applied to my telephone calls without
>the government knowing specifically who I call, I expect that a toll
>system for taxing vehicle use based on GPS technology would be
>sufficiently isolated from the government that they would need a warrant
>to get more details from the system than simply the total miles driven
>each year. The courts have already ruled that the government can't apply
>a GPS tracker to my car to track my movements without a court order.
If the phone company knows, the government can and will find out when
it wants/needs to. Information once captured can be stored and
monitored. Criminals take advantage of this with various mechanisms
such as trojans for computers and receivers that can pick up the
signal transmitted by your electronic car door opener (reported by the
Chronicle Herald, the major provincial newspaper for Nova Scotia).
Data mining is becoming more efficient. Given all of this, what are
we willing to tolerate in terms of tolling and payment mechanisms?
Jim Yanik
HJXDXnZ2dn...@posted.palinacquisition:
> "Bernd Felsche" <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote
>> "Floyd Rogers" <fbloo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>"Bernd Felsche" <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote
>>>> Scott in SoCal <scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> My criticism was warranted, my sarcasm wasn't.
>
> I'm just *really* tired of un-informed, un-thinking, science-
> deprived posts by idiots and "right"-and-"left"-thinking fools.
>
> I actually agree with the main thesis of the OP: there isn't
> enough electricity. Everyone thinks that the smart grid will
> solve all the problems related to energy and global warming.
> It won't. Take away the 50% generated by coal, and the
> 20% or so by other hydro-carbon burning (natural gas, etc.).
> Where are you going to get the replacement? (AFAIK OZ is
> actually in worse shape than the US in this regard.) The
> options are nuclear, wind and photo-voltaic, in that order.
> All are expensive and have major hurdles to cross.
Nuclear is expensive because of the excessive gov't red tape and lack of
standardization;in essence,each nuclear plant is a new design.
Instead,build one design and add units for more capacity.
Nuclear is the best option we have for energy.
Also,Obama is blocking new nuke plants "until safe storage facilities are
available",but he also cut funding for Yucca Mountain Repository,so there
are and will be no safe storage sites;that effectively kills nuclear power.
Because Obama wants energy prices to rise drastically,so he can implement
his socialist agenda.He's said so.(in one of his books,IIRC)
He wants -us- to lower our standard of living.(but not him and his pals)
wind and photovoltaic are of limited use,and actually bad for the ecology.
Wind kills birds,solar requires stripping the land of vegetation.A recent
local news segment was bragging about their new solar PV field and how they
had to strip the land bare.Can't have vegetation blocking the light or
hampering maintenance.Solar PV also needs WATER to rinse off the panels.
>
> The one thing the smart grid hopefully will be able to do is to
> balance the load into non-peak times, and that will help
> push load into wind-power peaks (in Texas, the wind blows
> at night). And adding additional powerlines to better utilize
> existing energy sources.
note the econuts in California protested against new power line
construction,ISTR that they stopped one project.
>
> But it doesn't help when people make foolish claims and
> non-tenable arguments that depend upon bad science and
> assumptions.
>
> TANSTAAFL.
>
> FloydR
>
>
>
--
James Robinson
All true. The questions are: how secure can such a system be made, and
what alternatives are there? The status quo cannot be the answer if
alternate energy sources for vehicles become widespread.
Oregon has experimented with a system that simply records the total miles
driven. Whenever the vehicle is refueled, the miles since the last fill
are calculated, and a per-mile fee is charged by the gas pump as a
highway use tax. (the fuel was tax-free) That experiment demonstrated
that such a system could work.
One way of using such a system while acknowledging the concern of those
who don't want detailed tracking data kept, would be to only keep track
of the total owed for the use of the road network on the car itself.
Tariffs could be preprogrammed to take into account the time of day,
perhaps routes traveled with a GPS receiver, and then it could apply
appropriate tariffs to reflect traffic demand or the specific tolls on
various roads. When the vehicle is refueled, a total charge is passed on
for the use of the highway network, with no detailed data on where the
car was operated.
Jim Yanik
news:Xns9CB699CD2A7...@94.75.244.46:
And what happens if the devices malfunction? maybe logging you for much
more miles driven than actual? can they be hacked?
IMO,local roads should not have tolls.
Once again,EVERYBODY benefits from roads.the food you eat gets delivered on
those roads,fire and EMTs arrive on those roads to save your butts.
trying to shift more of the costs to users,that will be the result of such
tracking systems.
Also,I'd like to remind folks that courts have ruled that the data in car's
"black boxes" can be subpoenaed as evidence that can be used against you in
a trial. With tracking data,they can find out where you've been.And gov't
is notorious for MISusing colected data.
witness BJ and Hillary Clinton's use of IRS data to go after their enemies.
Then there's Obama's Enemies List.Witness his attacks against those who
disagree with or oppose him,like Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin.
We do NOT need more gov't intrusion into our lives.
We need LESS government;THAT is the American Way,one of freedom.
AZ Nomad
>On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 23:53:55 -0400, elmer wrote:
>> There is no free lunch. The proponents of Electric Cars haven't got a
>> clue or are just trying to feather their pockets.
>> It takes the same amount of energy to move x vehicle regardless of that
>> form of energy.
>> There are many jokes about everybody plugging in at the same time but it
>> is no joke.
>> Take Southern California where the this lunacy is at it's zenith.
>> If one tenth of the vehicles become electric and plug in to recharge,
>> after a long commute, on a hot August day, there is going to be a brown
>> out and possibly a collapse of the grid. Of course they are going to
>> eliminate big screen tv's and turn off their air conditioning etc except
>> at times when no one wants to use them, so maybe that will make uo the
>> difference. NOT
>> Turning energy into electricity by fossil fuel means or nuclear, which
>> is a bad word, and isn't going to be allowed in Southern California,
>> uses three or four watts to make and transmit one watt.
>> The joke is true. Cities will have to turn off everything to recharge
>> the cars so to speak. Hybrids will have to be plugged in too unless the
>> commute is long enough for the fossil fueled engine to kick in and
>> charge the batteries. Part of the electric car energy cost is the
>> frequent replacement of expensive battery packs.
>> The cost of electric vehicles will be far greater than gasoline engines
>> and far dirtier as producing the electricity uses far more fuels for the
>> same equivalent energy.
>The next phase of the electric development is to have the car charge
>itself. Why not? The standard car today already charges it's own battery.
>Why can't an electric do the same thing?
it's call a hybrid, dumbass
Floyd Rogers
> "Bernd Felsche" <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote
>> I admit that I was ignorant of such obtuseness. I was trained in the
>> civilised world where a SI units are fundamental to Engineering
>> practice.
>>
> day use because nearly every conversion from conventional to SI is not a
> whole number. Consider the following...
I just want to point out that we electrical engineers are smarter than
the other disciplines, as our measurement system (volts, ohms, amps,
etc.) ARE SI AND ALWAYS HAVE BEEN the SI system. (Of
course, we're also the newest... but still.)
FloydR
Larry G
they can please everyone. Just have a transponder with an option...
either pay as you go (tolls) or when you gas up.. have the transponder
tell the gas pump your VIN and it will automatically compute a default
tax.
and if you don't have a functioning transponder..then you get the
default pump tax.
Larry G
> Last time on rec.autos.driving, "Floyd Rogers"
> <fbloogy...@hotmail.com> said:
>
> >I actually agree with the main thesis of the OP: there isn't
> >enough electricity. Everyone thinks that the smart grid will
> >solve all the problems related to energy and global warming.
> >It won't.
>
>
> Tell me, how much electrical generating capacity existed in the US in
> 1850? That's right, ZERO. Yet somehow our generating capacity grew to
> support the enormous demand we have today - a level of demand that
> Samuel Insull never even dreamed of.
>
> What makes you think that the generating capacity of the grid will
> remain stagnant despite new demand, whether it be from electric cars,
> or an influx of population, or any othe reason? What makes you think
> that battery, solar, wind, hydro, and other power technologies will
> also remain stagnant and never improve?
>
> It will be YEARS before electric cars are in use in sufficient numbers
> to tax even today's electric grid; by then, the grid will have grown
> and adapted to service the new demand.
I generally agree... no one want to end up with a grid with widespread
brown outs/black outs.. so when the utility companies say we need more
generating capacity - we're not going to say "no".
but the bigger question is - how will they provide it - and so far..
it's going to be with coal - it's the easiest and cheapest and much
easier to get permitted than nukes.
right now.. the energy world is so dynamic and so chaotic in terms of
technologies and potential energy sources that investment money is
uncertain where to go....
if you put money on a path that doesn't pan out - you lose.
Brent
> The problem is that while there is money diverted from the trusts, more
> money is coming in from the general funds that what is taken out. It's a
> bit of a shell game where government essentially borrow from the trust
> funds when they find themselves short of cash, to keep from going into
> deficit from year to year.
>
> However, even with the contributions from the general fund, the size of
> the trusts is shrinking, meaning that highways are not fully-funded by
> the users. There is no surplus, contrary to your suggestion above.
You're talking about very local roads funded by property and other
taxes. Also, many states like IL charge a sales tax on fuel which is
'general fund'. I suspect that this alone exceeds what goes to the very
local roads funded by property and other local taxes.
Often when the political power structure wants to raise taxes they claim
there is no money for the roads. That's because it's what people care
about. (other times are 'no money for police and fire departments) The
first place the political power structure looks for money when they are
running short are the road funds.
>> Not an excuse for tracking everyone. Fuel consumption is still
>> proportional to vehicle weight and distance driven no matter how the
>> technology approves.
> That is completely wrong.
> In the first place, there are economies of scale with weight, otherwise a
> fully-loaded truck would only get about 1 mile a gallon to compare with a
> car that gets 25 mpg.
That's meaningless. It's the wear and tear to the road surface which is
exponentionally increases with vehicle weight.
> Further, as the efficiency of engines improves, vehicles use less fuel.
> You can see that if you ever drive a performance car built in the 1960s.
> 8-11 mpg gets pretty expensive on longer trips.
So what? Change the amount of tax per unit volume of fuel.
> I'm not suggesting that you need to track everyone to change how people
> are charged for the use of roads, however, the proposals under the
> intelligent transportation initiatives now suggest that new cars will be
> equipped with transponders so they can be part of anti-collision or
> automatic guidance systems. Once those transponders are in place, they
> will be too attractive to avoid their use for vehicle tolling. Like it
> or not, it is the way the future will likely unfold.
Once any such system is in place it will be attractive to abuse in all
sorts of ways. Any promise not abuse it I consider about as solid as the
part of the social security act regarding the use of the SS#.
>>> On top of that, alternative fueled vehicles either pay no fuel taxes
>>> today, or only a very small amount. As they become more popular, and
>>> a greater proportion of the vehicle miles are driven by such
>>> vehicles, the amount of money collected from users will drop even
>>> more.
>>
>> Illinois sends collection agents to the homes of people that make
>> their own bio fuel to collect taxes including very high 'bonds' to put
>> up. To follow the law with such alternative fuel vehicles in IL means
>> paying a lot more. Anyway, there is no reason why alternative fuels
>> cannot be taxed. This is not an excuse to track everyone's driving.
> Just how do you tax electric vehicles that can plug into the power grid
> anywhere, or where the owners have their own solar arrays or wind power
> they can use to charge batteries?
The number of people who can have wind power or solar generation without
government permission are few and far between these days. At present
technology levels the paypack time has got to be considerable. Anyway, a
simple meter on the car that reported the amount energy used would be
enough. No reason to track.
> How do you tax someone who makes biodiesel out of vegetable oils they
> make themselves?
IL gladly sends revenue agents out to collect it.
> At least today, gasoline is both difficult to make, and cheap enough from
> available sources that people aren't encouraged to seek alternatives, so
> it is relatively easy to both track motor fuels where they are made, and
> apply a simplistic tax.
Ethanol conversions are rather easy, yet most people don't do it because
making your own ethanol isn't exactly the way most people want to spend
their time. Bio diesel has been around for people's diesel cars for ages.
Still they can get give-away used fry grease, so it has yet to get
popular. Still more difficult than most people want to deal with. People
just have better things to do than brew their own fuel.
Now, if there are plans to tax the bejebus out of motorists, then it
might become worth it for people to do. A tracking tax system would be a
move to make prior to deciding to put putitive taxes on motorists.
>> Do you really want the political class and government employees to
>> have access to where and when you drive?
> There will always be inflation, as the general economic theories suggest
> that a 2 to 3 percent inflation rate is healthy for any economy.
Healthy for the government, healthy for select interests. Not us. You
have to remember where most economists get their pay checks.
> The government can already follow where I drive through licence plate
> recognition on surveillance cameras, tracking of toll transponders, the
> use of my credit card when I fill up the gas tank, the GPS built into my
> cell phone. I don't really care.
Most of the existing covers very little in the US. You can also pay cash
for fuel and where you buy fuel doesn't really tell anyone where you've
gone inside the range of your vehicle. It's all rather poor for tracking
people.
You don't really care... gee. that's nice. Hope you never upset anyone
with a government office or job. Some people can be very very petty and
will do anything from ruin a person's day or their life for the most
trivial reasons.
> Further, just like there are taxes applied to my telephone calls without
> the government knowing specifically who I call, I expect that a toll
> system for taxing vehicle use based on GPS technology would be
> sufficiently isolated from the government that they would need a warrant
> to get more details from the system than simply the total miles driven
> each year.
Let's say they hire a contractor to take care of it for them. They'll do
as they've done with the phone companies already. The NSA will have their
own rooms that sift through the information. (it's not conspiracy theory,
it's court record, http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/04/70619 )
Failing that level they'll just make the contractor hand over the
information without warrant as they did with the phone companies.
Meanwhile this is a very costly collection system. It will require a good
sized increase in taxes just to pay for the collection of the tax.
> The courts have already ruled that the government can't apply
> a GPS tracker to my car to track my movements without a court order.
They'll just make a law instead.
Brent
> What makes you think that the generating capacity of the grid will
> remain stagnant despite new demand, whether it be from electric cars,
> or an influx of population, or any othe reason? What makes you think
> that battery, solar, wind, hydro, and other power technologies will
> also remain stagnant and never improve?
The political factor. That's what didn't exist before. Now everything
regarding power generation must go through our wise leaders. Bringing new
generation plants of any kind online could take decades of regulatory and
court battles.
Bernd Felsche
>>I actually agree with the main thesis of the OP: there isn't
>>enough electricity. Everyone thinks that the smart grid will
>>solve all the problems related to energy and global warming.
>>It won't.
>Such a pessimist.
>Tell me, how much electrical generating capacity existed in the US in
>1850? That's right, ZERO. Yet somehow our generating capacity grew to
>support the enormous demand we have today - a level of demand that
>Samuel Insull never even dreamed of.
>What makes you think that the generating capacity of the grid will
>remain stagnant despite new demand, whether it be from electric cars,
>or an influx of population, or any othe reason? What makes you think
>that battery, solar, wind, hydro, and other power technologies will
>also remain stagnant and never improve?
Because the Government prevents it in line with "green" policies.
Politics (aka collaborative stupidity) triumphs over technology.
Notwithstanding that, electrolyte electrical storage systems
appear to have hit the wall in terms of storage density and the
suitability for traction power. The most likely process to power
electric cars in future is not from the battery, charged from the
grid, but from a fuel cell, with energy stored by synthesis of a
stable (probably liquid) fuel.
Solar and wind power are both too diffuse and unreliable to collect
sufficient energy for traction power. Germany can't even reliably
power the grid with a wind power nameplate capacity sometimes 50
times higher than what it actually delivers.
Making most of the landscape look like this:
<http://www.wilfriedheck.de/norddeutsche_Landschaft.jpg>
and this:
<http://nature2000.tripod.com/naturstrom/Windparklandschaft.jpg>
and producing SFA:
<http://nature2000.tripod.com/naturstrom/Gesicherte_Leistung2008.htm>
Quarter-hourly feed-in from wind power generators for 2008.
The bottom blue line above the axis is the "ensured power delivery" -
6% of nominal "installed capacity" (of around 22 GW).
And there are long periods when it fails to deliver even the 6%
trickle, identified by the yellow bars and totalled for each month.
And solar?
<http://nature2000.tripod.com/naturstrom/Solar_Kollektor_Schnee.jpg>
>It will be YEARS before electric cars are in use in sufficient
>numbers to tax even today's electric grid; by then, the grid will
>have grown and adapted to service the new demand.
Gary V
> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Larry G <gross.la...@gmail.com> said:
>
> >they can please everyone. Just have a transponder with an option...
> >either pay as you go (tolls) or when you gas up.. have the transponder
> >tell the gas pump your VIN and it will automatically compute a default
> >tax.
>
> (or when I buy or sell a car) and charge me based on my actual
> mileage. Simple, cheaper to implement, and completely lacking in Big
> Brother side effects.
Except you have to pay for some "theys" to do the checking. That
kinda eliminates mail-in or electronic registration renewals.
Plus, it gives people a yearly big tax bill, instead of incremental
weekly ones at the pump. Some "poor people" might not be able to
afford a few hundred $ extra at registration time. And everyone gets
the true hit of being taxed. That switches the blame from money-
grubbing big oil to rapacious big govt.
Still, I agree it would be a far simpler system to implement and
administer.
Larry G
> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Larry G <gross.la...@gmail.com> said:
>
> >either pay as you go (tolls) or when you gas up.. have the transponder
> >tell the gas pump your VIN and it will automatically compute a default
> >tax.
>
> (or when I buy or sell a car) and charge me based on my actual
> mileage. Simple, cheaper to implement, and completely lacking in Big
> Brother side effects.
but some would end up with a substantial bill... ever thought about
how much a year worth of gas tax is? and I think this would lead to
schemes to avoid paying the tax... selling it of state.. messing with
the odometer, etc.
Brent
> On Nov 2, 12:33�am, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Larry G <gross.la...@gmail.com> said:
>>
>> >they can please everyone. Just have a transponder with an option...
>> >either pay as you go (tolls) or when you gas up.. have the transponder
>> >tell the gas pump your VIN and it will automatically compute a default
>> >tax.
>>
>> It would please me more if they simply checked my odometer once a year
>> (or when I buy or sell a car) and charge me based on my actual
>> mileage. Simple, cheaper to implement, and completely lacking in Big
>> Brother side effects.
>
> Except you have to pay for some "theys" to do the checking. That
> kinda eliminates mail-in or electronic registration renewals.
The tracking systems are very expensive to set up and require a lot of
people to be employed to keep them up and running.
> Plus, it gives people a yearly big tax bill, instead of incremental
> weekly ones at the pump. Some "poor people" might not be able to
> afford a few hundred $ extra at registration time. And everyone gets
> the true hit of being taxed. That switches the blame from money-
> grubbing big oil to rapacious big govt.
That's the real reason for inflation. So people blame price gouging
companies instead of the government spending.
Larry G
I think the idea behind the gas tax and the sales tax is if people pay
by the transaction rather than get one whopping bill every six months
or a year that it will be easier to collect and will have less
delinquency issues - which themselves add expense to the overall
collection costs.
Of course one much easier way to implement an increase would be to
just allow the sales tax to be put on gasoline also. 5% would be a
nickel per dollar... about 12 cents per gallon.. and it would be
automatically indexed for inflation.
but in the end - if there is no increase in the gas tax ... I think
electronic tolls are going to be easier to do than taxing by the mile
with GPS.... I just don't see that system every really becoming a
reality because people do not want the gov to have a device in their
car... or the perception of it...
I would think if you forced people to choose between a gas tax at the
pump and a device in your car that "reports" to the govt.. (in folks
minds).. they're not going to accept the later option...
rsh...@gmail.com
half a trillion for the corrupt, criminal, useless military in fy 2010
a billion for roads to nowhere like corridor H
Floyd Rogers
>> ...
> Solar and wind power are both too diffuse and unreliable to collect
> sufficient energy for traction power. Germany can't even reliably
> power the grid with a wind power nameplate capacity sometimes 50
> times higher than what it actually delivers.
Wow. I knew that the German govt had heavily subsidized their wind
and solar installations. But the wind-power utilization is horrid. Shows
what happens to good things when over-subsidization happens.
FloydR
Larry G
> "Bernd Felsche" <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote
>
> >>Last time on rec.autos.driving, "Floyd Rogers" said:
> >> ...
> > Solar and wind power are both too diffuse and unreliable to collect
> > sufficient energy for traction power. Germany can't even reliably
> > power the grid with a wind power nameplate capacity sometimes 50
> > times higher than what it actually delivers.
>
> Wow. I knew that the German govt had heavily subsidized their wind
> and solar installations. But the wind-power utilization is horrid. Shows
> what happens to good things when over-subsidization happens.
there's an issue here involving efficiency - at the site that power is
being produced - from coal, nukes, winds, solar and then further
efficiency issues in the transmission of electricity no matter how it
is generated at it's source.
Wind and Solar don't HAVE TO BE generated remotely in every case.
In fact, the case can be made in some (if not all) situations that
local siting of solar/wind can .. recoup some lost efficiencies in the
distribution.
Solar panels on the roof and integrated into siding on the south wall
of structures - as well as places like the land inside of
interchanges...power line and highway and pipeline rights-of-ways..
perhaps even bridge structures... could.. essentially convert to local-
site power source some things that currently consume power via
distribution via remote generation sources.
I'm not sure I've ever seen a study comparing the pros and cons of
using a remote mega solar generation site that feeds into the grid
verses allocating out the equivalent solar power generation to on-site
generation and use.
sometimes in all of this discussion about our "options", I feel that
common sense sometimes gets overlooked...
I know that GOOGLE has built car ports with solar roofs.
You could do this for a shopping center - and kill two birds with one
stone in that not only would you get local site power - but you would
improve water quality by shielding the parking from rain wash that
puts contaminates into the local streams.
A solar panel covered parking lot would function not unlike a parking
garage in terms of sequestering oil, anti-freeze, etc on a surface
that will not receive rainfall and have subsequent runoff issues.
I'm not sure how smart we are sometimes.. when we talk about "smart
grids" but overlook the issue of local solar site generation verses
generating solar power like we do coal-power generation. There is a
reason why we don't site coal plants near where the power is consumed.
That is not a valid reason for solar so what is the reason for siting
solar or wind remote from where they will be used in the first place
and saying that we really cannot do this until we have a "smart grid".
How "smart" is that?
Larry G
> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Bernd Felsche
> <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> said:
>
> >>What makes you think that the generating capacity of the grid will
> >>remain stagnant despite new demand, whether it be from electric cars,
> >>or an influx of population, or any othe reason? What makes you think
> >>that battery, solar, wind, hydro, and other power technologies will
> >>also remain stagnant and never improve?
>
> >Because the Government prevents it in line with "green" policies.
> >Politics (aka collaborative stupidity) triumphs over technology.
>
> the "electricity crisis" in California a few years ago? Suddenly we
> went from no new power plants in decades to several new plants being
> brought online at once, including a plant in Hanford, CA, that came
> online in only 88 days. It seems that when the rolling blackouts hit,
> the green ideology flies out the window somewhat.
>
> >Notwithstanding that, electrolyte electrical storage systems
> >appear to have hit the wall in terms of storage density and the
> >suitability for traction power. The most likely process to power
> >electric cars in future is not from the battery, charged from the
> >grid, but from a fuel cell, with energy stored by synthesis of a
> >stable (probably liquid) fuel.
>
>
> Not long ago a group of grade school kids created an induction-powered
> model car for a science project. Their model car received its motive
> power from the lamp posts.
>
> The point is, you can't judge the viability of future electric cars
> based on today's technology and political conditions.
you make a good point - about technology in general.
ten years ago.. maybe 15.. if you asked folks about the emerging
technologies of cell phone and car GPS systems... a lot of folks would
have not predicted what eventually came to be.
Technology moves very, very quickly now days.. and in fact.. it moves
so quickly that investment money has become more timid because
committing money to one technology over another may lose you your
money.
ask Blockbuster video about investing in the wrong technology... or
Kodak or Polaroid or other kinds of recording media... all replaced
with "bits"...
transponders .. now complimented with pattern-recognition cameras that
allow not only tolling without a transponder but allow service
stations to use it to recognize your vehicle.. police in their
cruisers moving down the road... "reading" license plates and getting
an audible warning when they get a "hit" on their database.
People cannot deal with the firehouse nature of technology changes
these days.
James Robinson
>
> I think electronic tolls are going to be easier to do than taxing by
> the mile with GPS.... I just don't see that system every really
> becoming a reality because people do not want the gov to have a device
> in their car... or the perception of it...
>
> I would think if you forced people to choose between a gas tax at the
> pump and a device in your car that "reports" to the govt.. (in folks
> minds).. they're not going to accept the later option...
I would have thought the same, except there has been no uproar over the use
of GPS in cell phones, data recorders have been added to car electrical
systems without any major protest, and people seem to think that GM's
OnStar is a decent system.
People also use transponders for toll roads, rather than pay cash at the
toll booths.
It all depends on how the system is implemented. If GPS appears on cars as
part of an anti-collision system, people may accept it as good for them.
Using it for tolling could then be optional, just like the use of a
transponder is optional. If most people accept the system, then it will
considered a normal part of driving, just like a toll transponder.
Jim Yanik
> Larry G <gross...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I think electronic tolls are going to be easier to do than taxing by
>> the mile with GPS.... I just don't see that system every really
>> becoming a reality because people do not want the gov to have a
>> device in their car... or the perception of it...
>>
>> I would think if you forced people to choose between a gas tax at the
>> pump and a device in your car that "reports" to the govt.. (in folks
>> minds).. they're not going to accept the later option...
>
> I would have thought the same, except there has been no uproar over
> the use of GPS in cell phones, data recorders have been added to car
> electrical systems without any major protest, and people seem to think
> that GM's OnStar is a decent system.
but GOVERNMENT is not TAXING you based on data from those systems.
Gov't doesn't get to see data from those systems at all,except by court
order.
>
> People also use transponders for toll roads, rather than pay cash at
> the toll booths.
but they have a CHOICE about using them,and also the choice of taking non-
toll roads.
People -volunteer- for those transponders,to be registered in that system.
>
> It all depends on how the system is implemented. If GPS appears on
> cars as part of an anti-collision system, people may accept it as good
> for them. Using it for tolling could then be optional, just like the
> use of a transponder is optional. If most people accept the system,
> then it will considered a normal part of driving, just like a toll
> transponder.
>
If most people accept totalitarianism,then it will be a "normal" part of
life....