Another thing EVs do not do to the environment
James Salsman
Marty Bernard <stn...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > > Another thing EVs do not do to the environment
> > > Electric vehicles do not pollute ground water the way engined vehicles
> > > do. The GIF at [http://www.stncar.com/oilstain.html] is worth a 1000
> > > words. Please check it out.
>
> I hope soon to post new data (it has not yet been released) that shows
> in urban stop and go driving an EV is 8 times more efficient on a net
> energy basis than an equivalent ICE car. If so, even battery charging
> power from an eastern coal power plant will much be cleaner air
> pollution wise on each pollutant than an ICE car polluting at street level.
Agreed. Eight times sounds approximatly in line with DARPA findings
although the State government of California will probably end up
claiming around six due to lobbyist interests. If they claim less
than four, we can potentially defeat them in most counties.
> Also note that particulate rubber from tire ware is a ground water
> pollution source that EVs will not stop.
Removing rubber and rubber pyrolytes from water is perhaps nine
orders of decimal magnitude easier than removing petroleum pyrolytes
from human lung tissue, as Gulf War victims have demonstrated.
I would like to know how I can invest in station cars and station
car technology. So would a lot of socially-responsible mutual
funds, I understand.
Sincerely,
:James Salsman
JJP
>I would like to know how I can invest in station cars and station
>car technology. So would a lot of socially-responsible mutual
>funds, I understand.
>
>Sincerely,
>:James Salsman
>
As an economist and resource analyst in the utility industry,
specializing for the last twelve years in demand-side management
technologies (including NGV's and EV's), I have some investment advice
for you ... DON'T INVEST IN ELECTRIC VEHICLES (unless, of course, you
want to lose all of your money).
David Lloyd-Jones
JJP <jo...@on-ramp.ior.com> wrote:
The point these two posts make together is this: when you invest "by
industry" it is not important to know whether the industry is any good
or not. The important points are do you know more about the industry
than everybody else does, and do you know what everybody else is aware
of and how they are reacting to that information?
JonP and JJS, above, disagree on where electric vehicles are going.
Nothing could be less important. Aluminum and civilian airlines have
huge roles in the modern world, yet neither industry has made a cent
in profit to date -- and huge fortunes have been made and lost in both
of these industries and in financing both of these industries, despite
the fact that they are money-losers to date.
-dlj.
All locked up and nowhere to go
d...@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
>Aluminum and civilian airlines have
>huge roles in the modern world, yet neither industry has made a cent
>in profit to date
You are either misinformed, deluded or lying.
David Lloyd-Jones
I just love being called names by anonymous twits.
Civil aviation is no contest: add it up every year to the present, and
it's under water. When a company makes a profit it's a million here,
a few million there. When the write-offs and the bankruptcies hit,
it's billions or tens of billions. The thing is a money loser even
before you think about the government subsidies starting from square
two, Langley.
Airplane construction is a loser. In civil aircraft Boeing's profits
are not equal to everybody else's losses. In the rest, most aircraft
weighing over a ton are used for bombing or shooting people; the ones
that don't get used are a 100% loss; the ones that _do_ get used are
far more than 100% loss.
Aluminum is a little more difficult. It was under water as a straight
balance sheet proposition until at least the 1960's. It is still
highly likely to be behind the eight ball in that the profits to date
are less than the undepreciated value of the capital invested, so it's
been a net money eater. The big thing about aluminum is that the
pitifully small balance-sheet profits over the years don't come
remotely close to paying for the fishing industry destroyed by the
dams.
-dlj.
John McCarthy
The low profits of airplane manufacture and aluminum are due to fierce
competition. From the point of view of society both aluminum and air
travel are more than worth what they cost.
It isn't the profits of the aluminum industry that should be weighed
against the fish, except perhaps locally.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
David Lloyd-Jones
j...@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) wrote:
>The low profits of airplane manufacture and aluminum are due to fierce
>competition. From the point of view of society both aluminum and air
>travel are more than worth what they cost.
But where does the competition come from? Mainly the war machine,
would be my guess. We gotta have planes because they do, and vice
versa. Your basic negative sum game.
Given a background of peace, I don't think one would normally expect
the development of 747's buzzing all around the place -- though the
demand for FedEx _might_ make it possible. Overnight sleepers on
trains, ocean liners with staterooms, month long vactions with your
suppliers and their families, all seemed to help business get along at
far greater rates of productivity gain than we enjoy today.
>It isn't the profits of the aluminum industry that should be weighed
>against the fish, except perhaps locally.
John,
I don't understand what you are trying to say here. There's nothing
particularly local about either a hydroelectric dam or a fish.
-dlj.
Mike Jamison
In article <4tsrsv$8...@news.inforamp.net>, d...@inforamp.net says...
>
>j...@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) wrote:
>
>>The low profits of airplane manufacture and aluminum are due to fierce
>>competition. From the point of view of society both aluminum and air
>>travel are more than worth what they cost.
>
>But where does the competition come from? Mainly the war machine,
>would be my guess. We gotta have planes because they do, and vice
>versa. Your basic negative sum game.
Perhaps Airbus?
Do you have stats on the number of commercial airplanes produced vs.
the number of military planes? [I don't]. How about cost of each?
Last I heard [several years ago] a 747 cost on the order of
$200 million. An F-15 would go for maybe 1/10th that price.
>Given a background of peace, I don't think one would normally expect
>the development of 747's buzzing all around the place -- though the
>demand for FedEx _might_ make it possible.
So you're saying that if there weren't any wars not nearly so many
people would want to go anywhere fast??? Macdac and Boeing are now
designing 800 passenger commercial airliners because of wars???
>Overnight sleepers on
>trains, ocean liners with staterooms, month long vactions with your
>suppliers and their families, all seemed to help business get along at
>far greater rates of productivity gain than we enjoy today.
Maybe because there wasn't nearly so much of it as there is now. It's
impossible to continue to grow at 30% or more per year forever - there
are only so many people who will buy new computers/cars/houses each
year.
Mike Jamison
John McCarthy
In article <4tsrsv$8...@news.inforamp.net> d...@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) writes:
j...@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) wrote:
>The low profits of airplane manufacture and aluminum are due to fierce
>competition. From the point of view of society both aluminum and air
>travel are more than worth what they cost.
But where does the competition come from? Mainly the war machine,
would be my guess. We gotta have planes because they do, and vice
versa. Your basic negative sum game.
the development of 747's buzzing all around the place -- though the
trains, ocean liners with staterooms, month long vactions with your
suppliers and their families, all seemed to help business get along at
far greater rates of productivity gain than we enjoy today.
>against the fish, except perhaps locally.
John,
I don't understand what you are trying to say here. There's nothing
particularly local about either a hydroelectric dam or a fish.
-dlj.
would assume that the defense industries generate about the same
fraction of business travel.
2. A region, say British Columbia, may have both a hydroelectric dam
and an aluminum plant getting its electricity from the plant and also
a salmon fishing industry harmed by the hydroelectric plant. Its
officials may well weigh the tax take from the aluminum plant against
the tax take from the fishing industry and also listen to lobbyists
from both interests. That's what I meant by local; sorry I was
obscure.
David Lloyd-Jones
j...@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) wrote:
>
>1. Slightly less than 5 percent of the U.S. GDP goes to defense. I
>would assume that the defense industries generate about the same
>fraction of business travel.
Vastly implausible. I would be amazed if that were true within a
factor of five for mere executive travel. Add in training flights,
testing flights, generals on inspection tours, and I doubt that 25% of
the Avgas sold in the US goes for civilian purposes.
>2. A region, say British Columbia, may have both a hydroelectric dam
>and an aluminum plant getting its electricity from the plant and also
>a salmon fishing industry harmed by the hydroelectric plant. Its
>officials may well weigh the tax take from the aluminum plant against
>the tax take from the fishing industry and also listen to lobbyists
>from both interests. That's what I meant by local; sorry I was
>obscure.
OK. Now I see what you mean, and it's wrong. Fish don't speak
English, and they don't read maps.
The dams at Kitimat were built for Alcoa, to make American aircraft
for the British and the Russians. To fight the Germans and the
Japanese, in Europe and China.
The fishery they harmed and harm was in Canada, the US, the Alaska
Territory, Russia and Japan.
Local? Not.
As for your fictional official who weighs the tax from one against the
tax from the other, I don't think that sort of back of the envelope
environmental CBA has made it through the system yet in 1996, let
alone in 1940.
-dlj.
An incidental factoid that brings all of this together in a sense. A
few years ago, in 1971 or '72 a couple of friends bought a farm in
upstate Vermont where the land has only spottily been platted. When
they picked up their map from the local registry office they found
that there was a pipeline running across their land, but nobody had
ever granted an easment for it. They were preparing to make a fuss,
but were told to forget about it, that was not the way things were
done.
Whose pipeline? USAAF, installed in 1938!
-d.
David Lloyd-Jones
edw...@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison) wrote:
>In article <4tsrsv$8...@news.inforamp.net>, d...@inforamp.net says...
>>
>>j...@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) wrote:
>>>The low profits of airplane manufacture and aluminum are due to fierce
>>>competition. From the point of view of society both aluminum and air
>>>travel are more than worth what they cost.
>>
>>But where does the competition come from? Mainly the war machine,
>>would be my guess. We gotta have planes because they do, and vice
>>versa. Your basic negative sum game.
>Perhaps Airbus?
Mike,
Airbus is part of the competition that needs to be explained.
>Do you have stats on the number of commercial airplanes produced vs.
>the number of military planes? [I don't]. How about cost of each?
I don't, but I do remember a time when I was a kid when the numbers
were 3,000 commercial and 22,000 military. During 1945 there were
several countries simultaneously producing planes at the rate of
thousands per month.
>Last I heard [several years ago] a 747 cost on the order of
>$200 million. An F-15 would go for maybe 1/10th that price.
I'd like to know the price of rebuilding a B-52. B-2's are an
accountant's dream: what do you want them to cost? I doubt that any
number under a billion apiece for marginal and $2.5B for average would
be fair. Air Force One, a B-747, cost over a billion, and AWACs seem
to be in that sort of range.
>>Given a background of peace, I don't think one would normally expect
>>the development of 747's buzzing all around the place -- though the
>>demand for FedEx _might_ make it possible.
>So you're saying that if there weren't any wars not nearly so many
>people would want to go anywhere fast???
No. I'm saying that absent wars people would have been happy with
"fast" at train speeds like 300 kph -- and that there would not have
been the budgets available to develop things like the 747 Jumbo.
> Macdac and Boeing are now
>designing 800 passenger commercial airliners because of wars???
No, because of 747's, because of 707's, because of B-52's.
>>Overnight sleepers on
>>trains, ocean liners with staterooms, month long vactions with your
>>suppliers and their families, all seemed to help business get along at
>>far greater rates of productivity gain than we enjoy today.
>Maybe because there wasn't nearly so much of it as there is now. It's
>impossible to continue to grow at 30% or more per year forever - there
>are only so many people who will buy new computers/cars/houses each
>year.
If you could just work that paragraph out a little more clearly,
there's a plane ticket to Stockholm waiting for you... :-)
-dlj.
>Mike Jamison
JJP
Investing 101 ... you will receive no return on investment unless your
product provides a valuable service and does so better than the
competition.
Electric vehicles do not do this. They are too limited in range, not
durable, costly, not available, have poor performance and are difficult
to find a location to 'refuel'.
NGV's are only slightly better than this, in either dedicated NGV or
duel-fuel (natural gas or gasoline) versions. Propane is substantially
better in all regards (and incidentally was developed without massive
utility and DOE subsidization).
It is time for both NGV's and EV's to produce a salable product or go
away.
All locked up and nowhere to go
I have to believe that Lloyd-Jones is having a laugh at the net's
expense. It is impossible to take his position seriously.
Detailed commentary below. Vast amounts of verbiage elided.
d...@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
>edw...@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison) wrote:
>>In article <4tsrsv$8...@news.inforamp.net>, d...@inforamp.net says...
>>>j...@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) wrote:
>>>>The low profits of airplane manufacture and aluminum are due to fierce
>>>>competition. From the point of view of society both aluminum and air
>>>>travel are more than worth what they cost.
>>>But where does the competition come from? Mainly the war machine,
>>>would be my guess. We gotta have planes because they do, and vice
>>>versa. Your basic negative sum game.
>>Do you have stats on the number of commercial airplanes produced vs.
>>the number of military planes? [I don't]. How about cost of each?
>
>I don't, but I do remember a time when I was a kid when the numbers
>were 3,000 commercial and 22,000 military. During 1945 there were
>several countries simultaneously producing planes at the rate of
>thousands per month.
Ah, obviously the trucking industry would not exist if it weren't
for the subsidized market for medium and heavy military vehicles,
and the entire industry operates at a loss. It follows from the
same logic Lloyd-Jones applies to the aircraft and aluminum
industries, if you use the same amount of supporting data he has
shown thus far.
>I'd like to know the price of rebuilding a B-52. B-2's are an
>accountant's dream: what do you want them to cost? I doubt that any
>number under a billion apiece for marginal and $2.5B for average would
>be fair. Air Force One, a B-747, cost over a billion, and AWACs seem
>to be in that sort of range.
And the accounting.... when the outlay is for fire insurance or police
protection, the cost of defending assets against losses is obviously
not at all similar to expenditures for the military to accomplish the
same goal against a somewhat different set of threats. It is
COMPLETELY different and payrolls of police officers and profits of
their suppliers cannot be in the least comparable to the same for
military personnel and suppliers.
Pardon the sarcasm, but the premise is ridiculous.
>No. I'm saying that absent wars people would have been happy with
>"fast" at train speeds like 300 kph -- and that there would not have
>been the budgets available to develop things like the 747 Jumbo.
The DC-3 was a vehicle developed in peacetime for the civilian market,
and was pushing speeds near 300 KPH in the 1930's. It proved that
there was a demand for transportation at speeds considerably greater
than trains could travel. The state of American military aircraft
in the same period was considerably inferior to the civilian
transports, so it cannot be argued that military funding was the
driver for the civil aviation improvements and subsidized them.
Lloyd-Jones argues that no significant demand would have developed
for higher speeds, over more than half a century, in an industry which
was already growing due to its ability to satisfy an increasing demand
for faster and faster travel.
I cannot possibly be the only person to find this ridiculous.
>> Macdac and Boeing are now
>>designing 800 passenger commercial airliners because of wars???
>No, because of 747's, because of 707's, because of B-52's.
Why don't you continue this to military machines of the two hot
wars previous? Oh, yes, going back to WWI would remind people
that the Wright Flyer was invented and developed as a civilian
endeavor until the military offered a potential market, which
shows the fatal defect in the root of the argument. This and
other omissions are the essence of the prank.
Lloyd-Jones has got to be advancing this as a joke. No other
explanation fits anywhere near well enough.
David Lloyd-Jones
All locked up and nowhere to go <ca...@critech.com> wrote:
>Why don't you continue this to military machines of the two hot
>wars previous? Oh, yes, going back to WWI would remind people
>that the Wright Flyer was invented and developed as a civilian
>endeavor until the military offered a potential market, which
>shows the fatal defect in the root of the argument. This and
>other omissions are the essence of the prank.
Good example. Without the military the Wright flyer would probably
have been a curiosity -- unable to compete with trains at delivering
the mail. Sorta like the autogiro, the ornithopter, and other cunning
inventions which have gone nowhere because they had no military
application.
In total hours per day, after seleeping, the major activity of men is
being in the military; the major activity of women is carrying water.
Mr. Up refers earlier to the truck, and claims that by my logic the
truck would not have developed without the military. Up fails to
notice that I argue not merely from logic but also from empirical
observation.
There is much to that argument about the truck. Highways for trucks
were eventually brought about in the United States as the Interstates,
Eisenhower's National Defense Highways Act of the 1950's. It's worth
remembering that Eisenhower's first major career move, in about 1926
or so, had been the organization of a truck convoy from the east to
the west coast over the roads of the day. It took something like two
months to get to the Pacific at an average of about 6 mph.
It is also noteworthy that this project equipped him for leadership in
WWII, the logistics war. His highway experiment was as important, or
more so, than that of other young officers of the time, like Guderian,
who was trying out radios in tanks, or not so young Churchill, who was
just finishing off putting diesels into the Royal Navy. A decade
later Hitler was building the autobahns, despite the fact that almost
nobody had cars: communications on internal lines for a militarised
state.
Without the Interstates, most freight would still move by rail. The
original roads of Europe and Asia are those built by the Romans to
make their legions mobile, and by Alexander and the Khans for their
messengers. The Silk Road is a trade route, but "trade follows the
flag."
-dlj.
All locked up and nowhere to go
JJP <jo...@on-ramp.ior.com> wrote:
>NGV's are only slightly better than this, in either dedicated NGV or
>duel-fuel (natural gas or gasoline) versions. Propane is substantially
>better in all regards (and incidentally was developed without massive
>utility and DOE subsidization).
Both propane and NG vehicles were developed as tests and as hobbyist
projects long before pollution/alternative fuel became a big issue.
People react to the availability of cheap or even free fuel. At some
times and places, propane has been considerably cheaper than gasoline,
creating a strong economic incentive to use "alternate" fuel. Natural
gas at $.50/therm (100,000 BTU) is quite a bit cheaper than gasoline
at $1.00/gallon (roughly 119,000 BTU). Methane from sewage treatment
processes or landfills is cheaper yet, and some employees with
permission to tinker have been running cars off of sewer gas and the
like for a very long time.
>It is time for both NGV's and EV's to produce a salable product or go
>away.
All the technical necessities for NGV's are already available; many of
the technologies for propane translate almost directly to methane (such
as fuel metering). Neither is the infrastructure for NGV's terribly
difficult. When the economics are there, you will see NGV's and NG
fuelling stations multiply. If imported oil suddenly becomes expensive
or a carbon tax makes hydrogen-rich methane enough cheaper than gasoline
to make the extra up-front cost worthwhile, people will start demanding
NGV's and manufacturers and filling stations will respond very quickly.
Scott Nudds
JJP <jo...@on-ramp.ior.com> wrote:
: DON'T INVEST IN ELECTRIC VEHICLES (unless, of course, you
: want to lose all of your money).
The best investment would be the purchase and use of one.
--
<---->
Dennis Jensen
In article <4tsrsv$8...@news.inforamp.net>,
d...@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
>j...@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) wrote:
>
>>The low profits of airplane manufacture and aluminum are due to fierce
>>competition. From the point of view of society both aluminum and air
>>travel are more than worth what they cost.
>
>But where does the competition come from? Mainly the war machine,
>would be my guess. We gotta have planes because they do, and vice
>versa. Your basic negative sum game.
>
>the development of 747's buzzing all around the place -- though the
>demand for FedEx _might_ make it possible.
Actually, the development of the 747 and the 707 were both company funded (in
the case of the 747, in combination with Juan Trippe's Pan Am). In effect,
Boeing bet the company on both of these, and won. And these were not military
aircraft (okay, so the 707 became the 717 or KC-135).
Dennis
Overnight sleepers on
>trains, ocean liners with staterooms, month long vactions with your
>suppliers and their families, all seemed to help business get along at
>far greater rates of productivity gain than we enjoy today.
>
David Lloyd-Jones
d.je...@geel.dwt.csiro.au (Dennis Jensen) wrote:
>Actually, the development of the 747 and the 707 were both company funded (in
>the case of the 747, in combination with Juan Trippe's Pan Am). In effect,
>Boeing bet the company on both of these, and won. And these were not military
>aircraft (okay, so the 707 became the 717 or KC-135).
This is certainly true, but both planes were made from off the shelf
components developed either by others or by Boeing in the course of
the B-52 drive.
Aircraft assemblers make a lot of noise about the huge costs of R&D,
but the largest of these is simply the negative cash flow of tooling
up before the first plane comes off the line, and buying the engines
before you sell them. Boeing's skill is not metallurgy, electronics,
or jet propulsion; it is in two businesses, purchase and assembly, and
sales and customer afterservice.
All of their suppliers, on the other hand, are also contractors to
Lockheed, Martin, Grumann, etc. The engines and avionics come from
such outsiders, military specialists who are in the business of
sticking the taxpayer for everything in the joint.
-dlj.
Factoid: from its founding until Neil Armstrong walked on the Moon,
50% of everything IBM ever did or made went to the US Government.
Dennis Jensen
In article <4u3t6v$r...@news.inforamp.net>,
d...@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
>d.je...@geel.dwt.csiro.au (Dennis Jensen) wrote:
>
>
>>Actually, the development of the 747 and the 707 were both company funded
(in
>>the case of the 747, in combination with Juan Trippe's Pan Am). In effect,
>>Boeing bet the company on both of these, and won. And these were not
military
>>aircraft (okay, so the 707 became the 717 or KC-135).
>
>This is certainly true, but both planes were made from off the shelf
>components developed either by others or by Boeing in the course of
>the B-52 drive.
>
is no commonality whatsoever between the 707 and the B-52, even the engine
podding is different.
In the case of the 747, there is no commonality whatsoever. No common parts.
Even the engines were privately developed (where do you see the JT-9D in prior
applications to the 747?
Dennis
charliew
In article <4u3aaj$s...@condor.ic.net>,
You might want to watch for hidden assumptions here. It is
likely that carbon-carbon bonds contain more energy than
carbon-hydrogen bonds (in molecules). Thus, 1 pound of
gasoline can probably propel an automobile farther than 1
pound of natural gas, which would partially offset the
"carbon tax advantage" that methane seems to have.
David Lloyd-Jones
d.je...@geel.dwt.csiro.au (Dennis Jensen) wrote:
> d...@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
>>d.je...@geel.dwt.csiro.au (Dennis Jensen) wrote:
>>>Actually, the development of the 747 and the 707 were both company funded
>(in
>>>the case of the 747, in combination with Juan Trippe's Pan Am). In effect,
>>>Boeing bet the company on both of these, and won. And these were not
>military
>>>aircraft (okay, so the 707 became the 717 or KC-135).
>>
>>This is certainly true, but both planes were made from off the shelf
>>components developed either by others or by Boeing in the course of
>>the B-52 drive.
>>
>What off the shelf components for the 707, apart from engines, were these. The
>is no commonality whatsoever between the 707 and the B-52, even the engine
>podding is different.
force, trained through years of making weapons; design skills ditto.
>In the case of the 747, there is no commonality whatsoever. No common parts.
>Even the engines were privately developed (where do you see the JT-9D in prior
>applications to the 747?
As with a human being, the cost of the elements that go into a plane
is derisory; what's important is the arrangement. Learning the
arrangements that work and the ones that don't was done over 40 years
of war work.
-dlj.
Scott Nudds
(John McCarthy) wrote:
: The low profits of airplane manufacture and aluminum are due to fierce
: competition.
DLJ is not saying "low profits" Mr. McCarthy. He is saying industry
wide losses.
---
It can be taken for granted that before 1980 ships, aircraft,
locomotives and even automobiles will be atomically fueled. - David
Sarnoff 1955
--
<---->
Steinn Sigurdsson
Without the Interstates, most freight would still move by rail. The
original roads of Europe and Asia are those built by the Romans to
make their legions mobile, and by Alexander and the Khans for their
messengers. The Silk Road is a trade route, but "trade follows the
flag."
Yeah but much of the US and European rail system was
also militarily motivated. British Rail was mostly built
to enable war material shipment from the northern industrial
areas. The German lines were built to enable fast switching
from the west and east front in the lead up to WWI and
the US rail system got its biggest boost through the Civil
War and subsequent skirmishing with the natives in the west.
I thing even now main rail arteries in Africa and Asia
can be directly traced to military supply lines mostly
built by the british.
David Lloyd-Jones
ste...@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk (Steinn Sigurdsson) wrote:
>In article <4u2hj3$j...@news.inforamp.net> d...@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) writes:
> Without the Interstates, most freight would still move by rail. The
> original roads of Europe and Asia are those built by the Romans to
> make their legions mobile, and by Alexander and the Khans for their
> messengers. The Silk Road is a trade route, but "trade follows the
> flag."
>Yeah but much of the US and European rail system was
>also militarily motivated. British Rail was mostly built
>to enable war material shipment from the northern industrial
>areas.
Quite possibly. Why would this be a "Yeah but"?
-dlj.
All locked up and nowhere to go
char...@hal-pc.org (charliew) wrote:
>You might want to watch for hidden assumptions here. It is
>likely that carbon-carbon bonds contain more energy than
>carbon-hydrogen bonds (in molecules). Thus, 1 pound of
>gasoline can probably propel an automobile farther than 1
>pound of natural gas, which would partially offset the
>"carbon tax advantage" that methane seems to have.
Your homework is to look up the heat of combustion of methane
and octane in kcal/mole, convert this to BTU/lbm or J/kg (your
option), and post the results.
George Acton
ste...@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk (Steinn Sigurdsson) wrote:
>In article <4u2hj3$j...@news.inforamp.net> d...@inforamp.net (David
>Lloyd-Jones) writes:
>
> Without the Interstates, most freight would still move by rail. The
> original roads of Europe and Asia are those built by the Romans to
> make their legions mobile, and by Alexander and the Khans for their
> messengers. The Silk Road is a trade route, but "trade follows the
> flag."
>
>Yeah but much of the US and European rail system was
>the US rail system got its biggest boost through the Civil
>War and subsequent skirmishing with the natives in the west.
>
of emphasis on the rail system in general accounts of the military
action. Most of the rail system was built after that war, and
military considerations weren't important. In keeping with the
beginning of this thread, the rail system may have been a net
investment loss for investors as a class, since much of it was
financed on bonds which were sold to Europeans, and on which the
issuers defaulter. This is true of the current American airline
system as well. The industry had net positive earnings until
the late 70's but the calamatous losses since have wiped out all
the earlier gains. Since the losses coincided with the beginning
of deregulation, one can argue that the airlines were a good
capitalist investment as long as the government provided the
implicit subsidy of shielding them from the competition of a
free market.
--George Acton
William R Stewart
JJP wrote:
>
> Investing 101 ... you will receive no return on investment unless your
> product provides a valuable service and does so better than the
> competition.
>
> Electric vehicles do not do this. They are too limited in range,
What are the range requirements? EVs are going well over 300 miles per
charge now. In a 2 car family, the commuting and errands can be accomplished
> not durable,
Please present empirical data. I've been following EVs and never seen any
trends concerning durability.
> costly,
They are just getting out of the prototype phase. Volume production will
drive down prices.
> not available,
What does this have to do with Investing 101? The automakers have fought
efforts to encourage EV production. Is it any wonder when the Big 3 have
oil company execs on their board of directors? Availability is rising,
though. You will be able to buy EVs this fall, though they are initially
limited to Southern California and Arizona.
> have poor performance
Where do you get your disinformation?
For the GM EV1 http://www.saturncars.com/EV1/;
- Accelerates from 0 to 60 mph in less than 9 seconds
- Maximum speed of 80 mph (electronically regulated)
- Prototype set land-speed record for electric cars: 183 mph
- 137-horsepower, three-phase AC induction motor
- 0.19 drag coefficient -- 30% less than any production car
- Driving range: 70 miles city, 90 miles highway
- 3-hour charge time using 220-volt, 6.6-kW charger
- Regenerative brakes that help charge the batteries
- World's lightest and stiffest spaceframe for any vehicle its size
> and are difficult to find a location to 'refuel'.
You can refuel at home. Try that with your car.
Some places, such as Southern California, have 100s of refuel sites
for the relatively small number of EVs in existence so far.
Cheers,
--
Will Stewart
http://www.patriot.net/users/wstewart/first.htm
"The truth will set you free." - J.C.
Willem-Jan Markerink
In article <4u4tjp$3...@news.inforamp.net>,
d...@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
>ste...@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk (Steinn Sigurdsson) wrote:
>
>>In article <4u2hj3$j...@news.inforamp.net> d...@inforamp.net (David
Lloyd-Jones) writes:
>> Without the Interstates, most freight would still move by rail. The
>> original roads of Europe and Asia are those built by the Romans to
>> make their legions mobile, and by Alexander and the Khans for their
>> messengers. The Silk Road is a trade route, but "trade follows the
>> flag."
>
>>Yeah but much of the US and European rail system was
>>to enable war material shipment from the northern industrial
>>areas.
>
>Quite possibly. Why would this be a "Yeah but"?
>
> -dlj.
>
On a side note: the size of the Leopard tank was determined by the maximum
width that could be transported by rail. So it also works the other way
around....
Bye,
W.J. Markerink
<w.j.ma...@a1.nl> (a-one & en-el)
The desire to understand
is sometimes far less intelligent than
the inability to understand
Bill Anthony
> For example, Boeing was involved in war work in WW2, developing the B-17 and
> B-29. But where did the knowledge base and skills come from-peacetime work! In
> particular, although Boeing had developed many good aircraft in the 1920's,
> the real development of skills and techniques with Boeing was a result of work
> done on the Boeing Model 247, a civilian aircraft from the early 1930's that
> had a cantilever, stressed skin aluminium airframe, twin engines and a
> retractable undercarriage. I would therefore assert that all of Boeings
> wartime advances were a result of peacetime work.
>
> Dennis
If you read in the book about Boeing called "Legend & Legacy" you will find that
before Boeing came out with the 247 there was a plane prior to that called a P-29.
A little fighter plane, seems that the Army loved the thing.
.
Dennis Jensen
In article <4u43ig$1...@news.inforamp.net>,
You are starting to draw a veerrrryyy long bow. By this token, mankind has
been involved in warfare since recorded history. Therefore, every single
invention that has ever happened is a result of military based work. Think
about metallurgy for instance; iron, steel and bronze were originally used for
weapons and armour; therefore, by that token, anything that has those
materials in it was a result of war work. But then again, you could draw a
similar argument that all war developments are a result of peacetime work!
David Lloyd-Jones
d.je...@geel.dwt.csiro.au (Dennis Jensen) wrote:
>David
>You are starting to draw a veerrrryyy long bow. By this token, mankind has
>been involved in warfare since recorded history. Therefore, every single
>invention that has ever happened is a result of military based work. Think
>about metallurgy for instance; iron, steel and bronze were originally used for
>weapons and armour; therefore, by that token, anything that has those
>materials in it was a result of war work.
Well, Dennis, I think you have a good point there. I have always
thought that the biggest thing wrong with Adam Smith was that he never
mentions the Royal Navy. Seems to me the masts and spars of Maine,
and the turpentine, oakum and hemp, were more important in North
America than Christianizing the Indians.
Of course tobacco was a big source of wealth, which seems odd since it
kills. I'm not claiming an economy has only _one_ cornerstone. Maybe
drugs are another: tea, coffee, opium, tobacco, etc....
Still there's no denying that as far back as you go, six thousand
years or ten, military technology is the first technology that counts.
Somehow we don't hear enough about it in our economics classes, it
seems to me.
> But then again, you could draw a
>similar argument that all war developments are a result of peacetime work!
Nawww! That would be post hoc ergo propter hoc -- assuming you could
ever find two years of uninterrupted peace, that is. :-)
-dlj.
da...@apertus.com
In article <4ttuga$o...@news.inforamp.net>, <d...@inforamp.net> writes:
> edw...@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison) wrote:
> >So you're saying that if there weren't any wars not nearly so many
> >people would want to go anywhere fast???
>
> No. I'm saying that absent wars people would have been happy with
> "fast" at train speeds like 300 kph -- and that there would not have
> been the budgets available to develop things like the 747 Jumbo.
As a person who routinely travels between the US and Australia,
I find the above completely laughable.
Cheers,
Dave Johnson
JJP
>All the technical necessities for NGV's are already available; many of
>the technologies for propane translate almost directly to methane (such
>as fuel metering). Neither is the infrastructure for NGV's terribly
>difficult. When the economics are there, you will see NGV's and NG
>fuelling stations multiply. If imported oil suddenly becomes expensive
>or a carbon tax makes hydrogen-rich methane enough cheaper than gasoline
>to make the extra up-front cost worthwhile, people will start demanding
>NGV's and manufacturers and filling stations will respond very quickly.
I recall an interesting true story from, I believe, 1990. The gas utility industry and auto industry was doing a promotion of NGV's=
with the help of legislation, in California, to require low-emission vehicles as a certain percentage of the state fleet by some fa=
r off future date (read this, after everyone in the legislature has retired).
SoCal Gas took the lead and drove their duel-fuel NGV to Sacramento so that the Governor could sign the legislation and then drive o=
ff in the NGV as a photo op for the press.
Problem was, the press found out two things. First, SoCal Gas drove it from LA to Sacramento using gasoline (leaded premium, in fac=
t) because there was not a single refueling station for natural gas along their route. Secondly, the car wouldn't reliably start in=
the NGV mode, so, taking no chances, they had the car running on leaded premium gasoline when the Governor drove off in it.
True story. A technology whose time is definitely not here, and probably never will be.
JJP
William R Stewart <wste...@patriot.net> wrote:
>What are the range requirements? EVs are going well over 300 miles per
>charge now. In a 2 car family, the commuting and errands can be accomplished
Then why does every manufacturer I have ever questioned concede an 80 to 100 mile range (without reserve)
>> not durable,
>
>Please present empirical data. I've been following EVs and never seen any
>trends concerning durability.
Every one of the several that I have seen and driven have been made of lightweight (and structurally questionable) materials
>> costly,
>They are just getting out of the prototype phase. Volume production will
>drive down prices.
Yeah, heard that. Heard it twelve years ago and heard it at every conferance I've attended on 'new fuel' vehicles since.
> not available,
I have yet to see "John Smith's Chevrolet and Electric Vehicle" dealerships around town. They will not achieve a meaningful penetra=
tion without that retail infrastructure.
>What does this have to do with Investing 101? The automakers have fought
>efforts to encourage EV production. Is it any wonder when the Big 3 have
>oil company execs on their board of directors? Availability is rising,
>though. You will be able to buy EVs this fall, though they are initially
>limited to Southern California and Arizona.
>
>
>> have poor performance
>Where do you get your disinformation?
Drove them. They're dogs.
>
>For the GM EV1 http://www.saturncars.com/EV1/;
>
> - Accelerates from 0 to 60 mph in less than 9 seconds
> - Maximum speed of 80 mph (electronically regulated)
> - Prototype set land-speed record for electric cars: 183 mph
> - 137-horsepower, three-phase AC induction motor
> - 0.19 drag coefficient -- 30% less than any production car
> - Driving range: 70 miles city, 90 miles highway
> - 3-hour charge time using 220-volt, 6.6-kW charger
> - Regenerative brakes that help charge the batteries
> - World's lightest and stiffest spaceframe for any vehicle its size
>
The acid test is this ... if they are so damned good, why are they in need of constant subsidization. Get a model in the market and=
out on the streets without going to the DOE or the electric utility industry for a subsidy and then you will have proven your point=
The EV industry has had decades to do this and are still an 'infant industry'. My opinion is that it is a perpetually infant ind=
ustry (perhaps an 'infantile industry'). (By the way, I make most of the decisions concerning what 'market transformation' energy e=
fficiency efforts my utility will support, and it ain't gonna be EV's).
>> and are difficult to find a location to 'refuel'.
>You can refuel at home. Try that with your car.
That's nice. I can refuel my 80 mile range car at home. This means that I have a 30 mile round trip range with a 25% reserve. Sou=
nds like if I have to run a few errands or have a long commute I'll need a very long extension cord. Or maybe I'll just drive my pr=
oven-technology gas car with a longer range and a refueling station on every corner.
>
>Some places, such as Southern California, have 100s of refuel sites
>for the relatively small number of EVs in existence so far.
Massively subsidized by SCE, which does not prove that it is a technology that can stand on it's own.
Steinn Sigurdsson
>In article <4u2hj3$j...@news.inforamp.net> d...@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) writes:
> Without the Interstates, most freight would still move by rail. The
> original roads of Europe and Asia are those built by the Romans to
> make their legions mobile, and by Alexander and the Khans for their
> messengers. The Silk Road is a trade route, but "trade follows the
> flag."
>Yeah but much of the US and European rail system was
>also militarily motivated. British Rail was mostly built
>to enable war material shipment from the northern industrial
>areas.
Quite possibly. Why would this be a "Yeah but"?
Your argument was that modern transport was in place
because of a military subsidy, and without it we'd be
using older transport (eg rail instead of interstates/auobahns).
Point is the older transport system also came into being
in large part through an effective military subsidy, the
particular example being the railway grid. Makes it a somewhat
different distortion.
Duane C. Johnson
William R Stewart wrote:
>
> JJP wrote:
> >
> > Investing 101 ... you will receive no return on investment unless your
> > product provides a valuable service and does so better than the
> > competition.
> >
> > Electric vehicles do not do this. They are too limited in range,
>
> charge now. In a 2 car family, the commuting and errands can be accomplished
To bolster the argument for EVs I read in a study that 95% of all commuter
trafic is 25 miles round trip or less. I wish I could give the reference but
I don't remember it.
The comparison of Evs to Gas Cars on the basis of range is not valid.
If one had a gasoline pump in the home garage then Gas Cars wouldn't
need to carry as much fuel either.
It is convenient to plug in over night. It is not convenient to fuel up
every day.
I usually counsel prospective EV buyers that when the infrequent trip is
needed to rent a station wagon. This is very cost effective.
I usually councel prospective EV buyers that commute over 25 miles round trip
to buy a Gas Car. They will be happier with the Gas Car in the long run
and won't be giving EVs a bad word.
> > not durable,
>
> Please present empirical data. I've been following EVs and never seen any
> trends concerning durability.
>
> > costly,
>
> They are just getting out of the prototype phase. Volume production will
> drive down prices.
>
> > not available,
>
> What does this have to do with Investing 101? The automakers have fought
> efforts to encourage EV production. Is it any wonder when the Big 3 have
> oil company execs on their board of directors? Availability is rising,
> though. You will be able to buy EVs this fall, though they are initially
> limited to Southern California and Arizona.
>
> > have poor performance
>
> Where do you get your disinformation?
>
> For the GM EV1 http://www.saturncars.com/EV1/;
>
> - Accelerates from 0 to 60 mph in less than 9 seconds
> - Maximum speed of 80 mph (electronically regulated)
> - Prototype set land-speed record for electric cars: 183 mph
> - 137-horsepower, three-phase AC induction motor
> - 0.19 drag coefficient -- 30% less than any production car
> - Driving range: 70 miles city, 90 miles highway
> - 3-hour charge time using 220-volt, 6.6-kW charger
> - Regenerative brakes that help charge the batteries
> - World's lightest and stiffest spaceframe for any vehicle its size
>
> > and are difficult to find a location to 'refuel'.
>
> You can refuel at home. Try that with your car.
>
> Some places, such as Southern California, have 100s of refuel sites
> for the relatively small number of EVs in existence so far.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Will Stewart
> http://www.patriot.net/users/wstewart/first.htm
> "The truth will set you free." - J.C.
--
CUL8ER
Duane C. Johnson
WA0VBE
Red Rock Energy
1825 Florence St.
White Bear Lake, MN, USA 55110-3364
red...@pclink.com
dc...@PO8.RV.unisys.com
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/3027/
All locked up and nowhere to go
<story of poor-running SoCal Gas NGV elided>
You are guilty of generalizing to an entire technology from a single
example. A similar sin would be to blast Honda for unreliability
after seeing a single Yugo.
>True story. A technology whose time is definitely not here,
>and probably never will be.
(Aside: would it trouble you to use a reasonable line-length?)
It would surprise Impco, a big maker of both propane and natural gas
fuel systems for engines, that NGV's are technologically immature.
They use almost the same system for NG as for propane. I'm also sure
that it would suprise Ford Motor Company, which has run many passenger
cars and light trucks on natural gas. Other car makers have done the
same. The major disadvantage of NG over propane is that the tanks
are heavier, bulkier and more expensive. If demand for propane (which
is a byproduct of oil refining) pushes its price close to gasoline,
the cost advantage will shift to methane.
I'm sure the SoCalGas vehicle's problems had nothing to do with the
fuel. Natural gas has some substantial advantages over gasoline as
a fuel. It requires no cold-start enrichment to get an adequate
mixture, and natural gas does not wet the cylinder walls and wash
off the oil. Oil contamination is similarly reduced. Experience
with methane-fueled engines shows that they typically have longer
life and stay much cleaner.
Steven Vincent
Steinn Sigurdsson wrote:
>
> In article <4u4tjp$3...@news.inforamp.net> d...@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) writes:
>
> >In article <4u2hj3$j...@news.inforamp.net> d...@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) writes:
> > Without the Interstates, most freight would still move by rail. The
> > original roads of Europe and Asia are those built by the Romans to
> > make their legions mobile, and by Alexander and the Khans for their
> > messengers. The Silk Road is a trade route, but "trade follows the
> > flag."
Even in the States most Freight moves by Rail or Water. The Silk Road
follows
rivers and water lines in a fashion dictated by topology and little
else. Yes
the Silk Road was a route followed by military armies as well and in
many cases
the route was improved to meet the needs of organised military forces
rather
than trade BUT the route pre-existed Organised Armies.
>
> >Yeah but much of the US and European rail system was
> >also militarily motivated. British Rail was mostly built
> >to enable war material shipment from the northern industrial
> >areas.
Utterly false. The British Rail Network was nationalised from a large
number of private rail networks developed and funded by private ventures
to economically move industrial products from the Mill Towns of the
Midlands
and North to the major Ports and Markets of Liverpool, London, Edinburg
and
the Clyde. These were mostly developed towards the end of the 19th
Century
when British Forces were mostly Naval and moved by ship. Also at that
time the
thought of Fighting a War on British Soil was just about unthinkable.
During the thirties the British Goverment subsidesed certain truck
designs that
met military specification and would be available for mobilisation but
did not
subsidise or rationalise the Rail network at all. (Clear evidence for
this is
the poor positioning of many rail termini compared to military
installations etc).
The East-West routes in the US developed due to the movement of Migrants
to
the West Coast. The Army followed these routes to protect these movement
of
people and gradually came to dominate the land in between. The presence
of
settled populations round the forts then made the construction of
railways
more economic but the big win was the ability to transport civil goods
between
the Atlantic and Pacific ports w/o having to sail it round.
>
> Quite possibly. Why would this be a "Yeah but"?
>
> Your argument was that modern transport was in place
> because of a military subsidy, and without it we'd be
> using older transport (eg rail instead of interstates/auobahns).
Well the German Autobaun system was put in place because of
Military subsidy and many of the African Railways were put in
place by Colonial powers to enable smaller garrisons to control
a larger area but most transport systems have developed organicly
to meet the needs of trade and commerce, only being exploted by
the military after the event.
> Point is the older transport system also came into being
> in large part through an effective military subsidy, the
> particular example being the railway grid. Makes it a somewhat
> different distortion.
Also Canals pre-existed Rail. In very few cases were Canals developed
for Military purposes even in Europe. In any case Canals were to easy
to put out of action to have a reliable military use. There are Military
canals in Europe (There is one in Kent for instance) but these are often
short "bypasses" to enable shipping to safely pass a narrow straight.
If the Military was resposible for development of the Transport networks
they
would all stop about a day's travel from the Borders so that defence was
easy.
Extending the network to the border would be considered a treatening
action by
a neighbouring country! Not what you see in or around Europe.
David Lloyd-Jones
JJP <jo...@on-ramp.ior.com> wrote:
>William R Stewart <wste...@patriot.net> wrote:
>> not available,
>I have yet to see "John Smith's Chevrolet and Electric Vehicle" dealerships around town. They will not achieve a meaningful penetra=
>tion without that retail infrastructure.
Can you spell WalMart? There I knew you could. And something like
6,000 Sears locations have auto repair bays built in.
When it happens it will happen overnight.
-dlj.
David Lloyd-Jones
da...@apertus.com wrote:
What's your theory, that they weren't thinking of the military, they
knew about you?
:-)
-dlj.
David Lloyd-Jones
Steven Vincent <ste...@mv.mv.com> wrote:
>If the Military was resposible for development of the Transport networks
>they
>would all stop about a day's travel from the Borders so that defence was
>easy.
>Extending the network to the border would be considered a treatening
>action by
>a neighbouring country! Not what you see in or around Europe.
This doesn't compute. When in the last 1500 years has there been a
time that European countries weren't threatening their neighbours?
In any event it doesn't take account of how easy it is to build
railways, once they've been surveyed and the materiel collected.
The entire US rail system was rebuilt to 4'8.5" in a single day in
1884. The main reason US railways were built so slowly -- only a few
tens of miles per day! -- was the difficulty of deliverying ties and
steel to the front of a single line.
The only reason railway war did so much to harm the Confederacy was
that the Feds burned the ties and de-quenched the rails in the fires,
and Johnny Reb without a steel mill in the entire Confederacy.
-dlj.
Simon Tortike
Dennis Jensen (d.je...@geel.dwt.csiro.au) wrote:
: For example, Boeing was involved in war work in WW2, developing the B-17 and
: B-29. But where did the knowledge base and skills come from-peacetime work! In
: particular, although Boeing had developed many good aircraft in the 1920's,
: the real development of skills and techniques with Boeing was a result of work
: done on the Boeing Model 247, a civilian aircraft from the early 1930's that
: had a cantilever, stressed skin aluminium airframe, twin engines and a
: retractable undercarriage. I would therefore assert that all of Boeings
: wartime advances were a result of peacetime work.
Interesting you should say this. An article I was reading last night
quoted a study claiming that the DC-3 was the last major innovation in
aeroplane design until the appearence of commercial jet engines in the
1950s (cf. the Dodge steel shell auto body in mid-20s). Fundamentally
your statement is correct wrt the industry developments in general
through the 1930s rather than just Boeing's innovations.
--
Dr. W.S. (Simon) Tortike, CPEng.
Senior Reservoir Engineer | WWW: http://www.mincom.com
Mincom Petroleum Technology |
Mincom Pty Ltd | Tel: +61 7 3364-9821 (UTC/GMT +10)
138 Juliette Street | Fax: +61 7 3364-9802
Greenslopes Qld 4120 | e-mail: tor...@mincom.com | | | | | |
PO-Mail: PO Box 72, Stones Corner, Qld 4120, Australia |M|I|N|C|O|M
Dennis Jensen
In article <4u7ovb$o...@news.inforamp.net>,
etc. were all thinking of military applications? Come on, since the dawn of
time man has wanted to fly; aircraft were developed, AND THEN the military
thought "hey, great idea, we'll be able to use those". As I have stated
previously, the 747 and 707, DC-10 and L1011, and all the Airbus products were
developed with civil use in mind. If you suggest, as you have, that these were
the result of WW2 military development, then I say, as I have previously, that
the WW2 developments were based on aircraft like the Boeing 247 (significant
advance) and DC-3. If you try going back to WW1, I can point out that all that
occurred in WW! was based on technologies developed prior to WW1, with no
military or war development.
You seem to forget that sometimes things are developed originally for the pure
wonder of it. Aircraft are a case in point. Try to name one significant
aviation technological breakthrough that came as a result of war work, and I
will be able to point you to prior peacetime work (I am not talking about
placement of guns or lugging bombs, which is only applicable to war; I am
talking about pure aviation related development).
Dennis
Dennis Jensen
In article <4u7tsp$p...@news.inforamp.net>,
d...@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
>Steven Vincent <ste...@mv.mv.com> wrote:
>
>
>>If the Military was resposible for development of the Transport networks
>>they
>>would all stop about a day's travel from the Borders so that defence was
>>easy.
>>Extending the network to the border would be considered a treatening
>>action by
>>a neighbouring country! Not what you see in or around Europe.
>
>This doesn't compute. When in the last 1500 years has there been a
>time that European countries weren't threatening their neighbours?
>
>In any event it doesn't take account of how easy it is to build
>railways, once they've been surveyed and the materiel collected.
>The entire US rail system was rebuilt to 4'8.5" in a single day in
>1884. The main reason US railways were built so slowly -- only a few
>tens of miles per day! -- was the difficulty of deliverying ties and
>steel to the front of a single line.
Where the hell do you come up with "all changed in one day"? This would be
absolutely impossible, even using todays technology. And it only took about a
month to build a railway across the states, did it? (Few tens of miles per
day). Think about this; it took years to build the Trans Siberian railway
(5-10), and given that this distance is only about double the east west
distance in the US, you are saying that US railway builders in the late 19th
century were 30-60 times more efficient than the Russian counterparts in the
early 20th century? I'll agree that they were more efficient, but not 1.5
orders of magnitude more efficient!
Try checking your facts before posting, Dave!
Dennis
JJP
Clearly I disagree with the EV/NGV advocates. Let me briefly state my
observations. In 12 years as a conservation analyst and economist for two
different duel utilities (natural gas and electric) I have reviewed proposals
for and completed measurement and evaluation projects on several alternate
fuel vehicle programs.
None of those programs were able to compete on the basis of value with the
traditional IC engine. Utility sponsorship of those programs completely
failed to remove any of the technical, infrastructure or market barriers to
developing a competitive product. The unnamed utility that I am currently
working for sold all of but a few samples of their fleet of NGV's two years
ago and discontinued all efforts to promote market adoption of these
technologies, a decision which I contributed to and I wholeheartedly approve
of the decision to drop the programs.
Of the hundreds of utility analysts that I have worked with I have never met
one that was favorably disposed to these programs. (Analysts tend to be free
of the foo-foo mindless enthusiasm of the marketing departments or the
toy-happy engineer mentality ... when there is a massive consensus of opinion
among utility analysts they are invariably proven to be correct).
JJP
"Duane C. Johnson" <red...@pclink.com> wrote:
>To bolster the argument for EVs I read in a study that 95% of all commuter
>trafic is 25 miles round trip or less. I wish I could give the reference but
>I don't remember it.
>
>I usually counsel prospective EV buyers that when the infrequent trip is
>needed to rent a station wagon. This is very cost effective.
>
>I usually councel prospective EV buyers that commute over 25 miles round trip
>to buy a Gas Car. They will be happier with the Gas Car in the long run
>and won't be giving EVs a bad word.
Two points ... (1) if you expect people to rent a car anytime they have to
travel more than 25 miles from home you are dooming EV's to oblivion and (2) I
agree with your counselling of anyone considering the purchase of an EV, I too
think that anyone considering such a purchase should consider professional
counselling.
David Lloyd-Jones
d.je...@geel.dwt.csiro.au (Dennis Jensen) wrote:
>Where the hell do you come up with "all changed in one day"? This would be
>absolutely impossible, even using todays technology.
An American Heritage article a few years ago. The only technology
involved is crow bars and hammers.
> And it only took about a
>month to build a railway across the states, did it? (Few tens of miles per
>day).
Nope. The mountains and rivers slowed it down. The tens of miles per
day is the rate on open prairie. (You should have known this from
context if you had been thinking rather than rushing to try for a
cheap debating point: I was giving an example of track-laying at its
fastest, not the average rate of crossing a continent. )
>Try checking your facts before posting, Dave!
You too, Dennis.
-dlj.
David Lloyd-Jones
d.je...@geel.dwt.csiro.au (Dennis Jensen) wrote:
> Are you saying that Lilienthal, the Wright Brothers, Santos Dumont, Bleriot
>etc. were all thinking of military applications?
No. I'm saying that without the military they would not have had the
funding to beat the trains.
> Come on, since the dawn of
>time man has wanted to fly; aircraft were developed, AND THEN the military
>thought "hey, great idea, we'll be able to use those".
Without the military it is entirely possible that we would have saved
most of the resources that went into military aircraft -- and have
cheap recreational gliders instead.
<snip>
>You seem to forget that sometimes things are developed originally for the pure
>wonder of it. Aircraft are a case in point.
Things are _invented_ for the wonder of it. They are developed where
the money leads. All the big money in this century has been military.
-dlj.
David Lloyd-Jones
JJP <jo...@on-ramp.ior.com> wrote:
>Of the hundreds of utility analysts that I have worked with I have never met
>one that was favorably disposed to these programs. (Analysts tend to be free
>of the foo-foo mindless enthusiasm of the marketing departments or the
>toy-happy engineer mentality ... when there is a massive consensus of opinion
>among utility analysts they are invariably proven to be correct).
This is one of the largest possible fibs imaginable in the entire
field of economics! I think everyone agrees that the utilities have
routinely hired many of the best people, and routinely given them the
best tools to work with. Much of the best research on forecasting has
come out of utilities over the years.
The fact remains that econometricians, forecasters, demand analysts,
and bladder thumpers at utilities in general have a stunning record of
getting things wrong over the 25 years since the oil shocks.
They have been continually and erratically wrong, on interest rates,
on aggregate energy demand, on construction costs, on the
profitability of investing in savings and loan subsidiaries, and on
the relative costs of nuclear, coal, and gas as fuels.
If a utility analyst told me that the Chicago Bulls were going to beat
the midget women's basketball team of Luxembourg, Second Division, I'd
bet on the Europeans.
-dlj.
Dennis Jensen
In article <4u96v2$7...@news.inforamp.net>,
d...@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
>d.je...@geel.dwt.csiro.au (Dennis Jensen) wrote:
>
>>Where the hell do you come up with "all changed in one day"? This would be
>>absolutely impossible, even using todays technology.
>
>An American Heritage article a few years ago. The only technology
>involved is crow bars and hammers.
>
Neverhteless, one day. How many people would you need to even move one rail
across a few inches for all the miles of track extant at the time. Maybe the
American Heritage article said that the standard changed in a day, but it
would have been absolutely impossible to physically change all of those tracks
in one day.
>> And it only took about a
>>month to build a railway across the states, did it? (Few tens of miles per
>>day).
>
>Nope. The mountains and rivers slowed it down. The tens of miles per
>day is the rate on open prairie. (You should have known this from
>context if you had been thinking rather than rushing to try for a
>cheap debating point: I was giving an example of track-laying at its
>fastest, not the average rate of crossing a continent. )
>
I don't see the context of where it said that this was to be open prairie. And
even then, I think tens of miles per day would be very optimistic. Just think
of how much time it would physically take you to walk tens of miles. (4mph,
full 10hr working day = 40 miles). I don't think you could find a railway team
that could lay the sleepers, align the rails and hammer them down at a fast
walking pace. This is starting to sound a little like the circumulative
argument about aircraft development; you still haven't answered the points
that I made (in other words, all civil airliners can trace their heritage back
to the Boeing 247, which was a civil development. This includes WW2 bombers,
etc.)
Dennis
George Acton
d.je...@geel.dwt.csiro.au (Dennis Jensen) wrote:
>
>You seem to forget that sometimes things are developed originally for >the pure wonder of it. Aircraft are a case in point. Try to name one
>significant aviation technological breakthrough that came as a result
>of war work,
Radar.
>and I will be able to point you to prior peacetime work
Of course, the physics goes back to Maxwell, Hertz, et al. But
the Received Idea is that it's a great triumph of the mobilization
of scientific talent since WWII. In favor of the Received Idea is
that the physics had been around for decades, but only the military
had the recources to develop the ideas.
I think that there are many cases on both sides of this issue.
You're correct that curiosity comes first. But for many ideas in
science, the only institutions that have any reason to sponsor the
research are military, so the military gets credit for fostering
progress or blame for corrupting pure science, depending on ones
point of view.
--George Acton
George Acton
I should probably add, to preserve some tenuous connection to
investments, that most new technology, and even most new development,
doesn't make money for investors. If you had bought an
equal-weighted sample of all the new automobile companies early
in this century, your General Motors stock would be very valuable,
but you would have had a net loss for a long time and would't
have a huge gain relative to the market. The same would be
true of personal computers, equally weighted with Apple, Compaq
Eagle and Commodore. And you would be getting for free all
the development work on transistors and microprocessors that
was subsidized by the DOD, beginning in the 50's. It isn't
clear that the private market does a more efficient job of
funding basic research than the government does through the
military, NIH and NSF.
--George Acton
David Lloyd-Jones
d.je...@geel.dwt.csiro.au (Dennis Jensen) wrote:
>In article <4u96v2$7...@news.inforamp.net>,
> d...@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
>>d.je...@geel.dwt.csiro.au (Dennis Jensen) wrote:
>>
>>>Where the hell do you come up with "all changed in one day"? This would be
>>>absolutely impossible, even using todays technology.
>>
>>An American Heritage article a few years ago. The only technology
>>involved is crow bars and hammers.
>>
>Neverhteless, one day. How many people would you need to even move one rail
>across a few inches for all the miles of track extant at the time.
I forget the number, but it was basically every soldier, cowboy, and
past or present rail hand in the country.
When you found yourself wildly wrong about the technology, why would
you think you had any credibility, even to yourself, on the rest of
the question?
-dlj.
Scott Nudds
JJP wrote:
: Investing 101 ... you will receive no return on investment unless your
: product provides a valuable service and does so better than the
: competition.
Pet rock.
JJP wrote:
: Electric vehicles do not do this. They are too limited in range, not
: durable, costly, not available, have poor performance and are difficult
: to find a location to 'refuel'.
And are not being designed to succeed in the marketplace.
JJP wrote:
: It is time for both NGV's and EV's to produce a salable product or go
: away.
Why does JJP wish to banish technology? He must have investments in
the oil industry that he wishes to protect.
---
"You don't have to answer the question why the auto companies have been
promising electric cars for all these years. I saw it at the 1939
World's Fair at the GM exhibit. And now the head of the Automobile
Manufacturer's Association is quoted in the press as saying it's still
ten years off. They've had vans and light utility vehicles in London for
years with electric systems of propulsion. There's nothing unique about
this. It's just that the auto companies believe in product fixing among
themselves. For which they were caught once in the early 1970s by the
Justice Department for product fixing smog control technology. They all
agreed not to move forward on controlling air pollution by new
technologies in motor vehicles. That was considered a conspiracy and
violation of the antitrust laws. The auto industry settled the case." -
Ralph Nader
--
<---->
Dennis Jensen
In article <4ua74n$4...@server4.softdisk.com>,
pure wonder of it. Aircraft are a case in point. Try to name one
>>significant aviation technological breakthrough that came as a result
>>of war work,
>
>Radar.
>
>>and I will be able to point you to prior peacetime work
>
>Of course, the physics goes back to Maxwell, Hertz, et al. But
>the Received Idea is that it's a great triumph of the mobilization
>of scientific talent since WWII. In favor of the Received Idea is
>that the physics had been around for decades, but only the military
>had the recources to develop the ideas.
> I think that there are many cases on both sides of this issue.
>You're correct that curiosity comes first. But for many ideas in
>science, the only institutions that have any reason to sponsor the
>research are military, so the military gets credit for fostering
>progress or blame for corrupting pure science, depending on ones
>point of view.
> --George Acton
>
I agree that it is simplistic to say that any invention in the 20th century is
the result of either peace work or war work. I do think that the military has
thrown money at pre-existing ideas to get them to work; on the other hand, I
think that the military has come up with very, very little that is truly new.
Money can sometimes be thrown at non-military applications; it just has to be
politically expedient at the time (e.g. space race, particle colliders). It is
just a pity that there is such a lack of funding for non-military
applications. But getting back to the original argument, it is ridiculous to
say that the 747 is a result of war work only.
Dennis
All locked up and nowhere to go
d...@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
>Without the military it is entirely possible that we would have saved
>most of the resources that went into military aircraft -- and have
>cheap recreational gliders instead.
It may have escaped your attention, but we do have (relatively) cheap
recreational gliders. The field was not fallow between Otto Lilienthal
and the first amateur running down a hill under a Rogallo kite.
I don't know where to follow this up to.
All locked up and nowhere to go
>traditional IC engine.
That is a very odd statement with respect to NGV's, since they are "traditional
IC engines" with slightly different fuel systems. The wide availability of
dual-fuel vehicles proves this point. The original ICE's were run
on city lighting gas, if memory serves, and there was a period of time when
one of the biggest difficulties with automobile propulsion was the lack of
a means of metering liquid fuels accurately. To be correct, it is the
gasoline-burning automobile which has the "non-traditional IC engine".
Which has no bearing on the very pertinent point that the NG fuel system,
specifically the tanks, is quite a bit heavier, bulkier and more expensive
than the gasoline tank giving the same range. Yes, NG cannot compete on
that basis. However, there are several considerations which can change
this, either locally or globally:
1.) Strict local anti-pollution regulations. These may be imposed in
some cities, and affect mainly diesels. Diesels can be retrofitted to
burn methane with available kits. Particulate emissions from NGV's
are essentially nil.
2.) Fleet use. If an NGV costs $3000 more than a gasoline car and both
get the energy-equivalent of 25 miles/gallon, if gasoline costs $1.20 per
gallon over NG's $.70/gallon-equivalent and the vehicle lasts 5 years
then the break-even point is around 30,000 miles per year. Many fleets,
especially the likes of New York taxis, beat this figure by wide margins.
3.) Oil supply disruption. If gasoline suddenly costs $2.00 per gallon,
NGV's and retrofit services will sell like hotcakes.
4.) Carbon taxes. If the cost advantage of methane over gasoline is
further increased by the 26% greater energy per unit of carbon, the cost
advantage can shift.
Dennis Jensen
In article <4ua7la$c...@news.inforamp.net>,>>In article <4u96v2$7...@news.inforamp.net>,
>> d...@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
>>>d.je...@geel.dwt.csiro.au (Dennis Jensen) wrote:
>>>
>>>>absolutely impossible, even using todays technology.
>>>
>>>An American Heritage article a few years ago. The only technology
>>>involved is crow bars and hammers.
>>>
>
>>Neverhteless, one day. How many people would you need to even move one rail
>>across a few inches for all the miles of track extant at the time.
>
>I forget the number, but it was basically every soldier, cowboy, and
>past or present rail hand in the country.
>
>When you found yourself wildly wrong about the technology, why would
>you think you had any credibility, even to yourself, on the rest of
>the question?
>
> -dlj.
Wildly wrong about the technology? Come on David, the original thread was you
stating that aircraft such as the 747 were a result of war work. I stated that
you could just as easily have said peace work, and quoted the Boeing 247. I
have noticed a conspicuous absence of a reply on your part on that comment.
Okay, here goes. You want to talk of war work, here are factors in aviation
that were a result of peace work:
First flight of heavier than air craft.
First all metal aircraft
First monoplance
First cantilever wing aircraft
First stressed skin aircraft
First retractable undercarriage
First jet aircraft
First supersonic flight
Now you go ahead and try a similar list that are a direct result of war work.
I look forward to the absence of a reply:)
Dennis
John Hess
In article <4ub638$k...@condor.ic.net>, ca...@critech.com says...
The one thing I can't get EV proponents to talk about is the lower efficiency
involved in generating electricity, storing that electricity, and then using
the electricity to run an electric motor, rather than using the energy source
to directly power the vehicle. Not only do they _refuse_ to talk about it,
they refuse to acknowledge that the disparity exists. They continuall support
_only_ the position that the electric motor is not poluting and refuse to
discuss the health and environmental concerns of generating, storing, and
utilizing it to power a vehicle.
charliew
> I'm moderately read in Civil War history, and there's
not a lot
>of emphasis on the rail system in general accounts of the
military
>action. Most of the rail system was built after that war,
and
>military considerations weren't important. In keeping with
the
>beginning of this thread, the rail system may have been a
net
>investment loss for investors as a class, since much of it
was
>financed on bonds which were sold to Europeans, and on which
the
>issuers defaulter. This is true of the current American
airline
>system as well. The industry had net positive earnings
until
>the late 70's but the calamatous losses since have wiped out
all
>the earlier gains. Since the losses coincided with the
beginning
>of deregulation, one can argue that the airlines were a good
>capitalist investment as long as the government provided the
>implicit subsidy of shielding them from the competition of a
>free market.
> --George Acton
>
>
You may get your chance to say the same thing about the U.S.
refining industry in your lifetime, if things keep going in
the present direction. At this point, I'm not at all sure
that these theoretical arguments in favor of free trade make
sense when large numbers of people either have to work for
less pay in another industry, or wind up unemployed. I
wonder how this country will benefit from eroding their own
tax base.
da...@apertus.com
In article <4u3aaj$s...@condor.ic.net>, <ca...@critech.com> writes:
> All the technical necessities for NGV's are already available; many of
> the technologies for propane translate almost directly to methane (such
> as fuel metering). Neither is the infrastructure for NGV's terribly
> difficult. When the economics are there, you will see NGV's and NG
> fuelling stations multiply. If imported oil suddenly becomes expensive
> or a carbon tax makes hydrogen-rich methane enough cheaper than gasoline
> to make the extra up-front cost worthwhile, people will start demanding
> NGV's and manufacturers and filling stations will respond very quickly.
Just to provide an example, where I live now, Melbourne, Australia,
all of the taxis use propane. Reason: it's much cheaper than gasoline.
All they required was a small modification (I believe to the injection
system, it's been a few years since I asked) and a tank placed in the
trunk. They seem to have, as the cabbies will happily demonstrate,
all of the power and responsiveness of gasoline powered vehicles with
less cost and less pollution. A win/win to me.
Cheers,
Dave Johnson
charliew
In article <4ubiem$o...@herald.concentric.net>,
If you use solar cells for this, there will be no pollution
involved in the electricity generation. Admittedly, more R&D
has to be done to make this practical, and the manufacturing
process for solar cells will have to be evaluated for
environmental impact. However, these problems are probably
not insurmountable.
Steve Cutchen
Doesn't this belong in rec.woodworking? :-)
---Steve O- | Freedom is not Permission
scut...@phoenix.net | Empowerment is not Anarchy
| Diversity is not Contrariety
| Consensus is not Leadership
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Nudds
JJP <jo...@on-ramp.ior.com> wrote:
: First, SoCal Gas drove it from LA to Sacramento using gasoline (leaded
: premium, in fact) because there was not a single refueling station
: for natural gas along their route. Secondly, the car wouldn't reliably
: start in the NGV mode, so, taking no chances, they had the car running
: on leaded premium gasoline when the Governor drove off in it.
: True story.
A doubtful story. Since Natural Gas readily mixes with air, an is
explosive in the right proportions, there should be no problem in
starting an engine powered by Natural Gas. In fact, it is a well known
fact that these vehicles are known to have a easier time starting than
gasoline powered vehicles, particularly on cold days, when carburetors
have difficulty atomizing the fuel.
Your "true story" has considerably reduced your credibility JJP.
--
<---->
Scott Nudds
JJP wrote:
: The EV industry has had decades to do this and are still an 'infant
: industry'. My opinion is that it is a perpetually infant industry
: (perhaps an 'infantile industry').
How many decades did the industry delay in adding safety features such
as padded dashboards, seat belts and collapsible steering columns to
their automotive designs?
Why are electric cars being targeted at the luxury market when their
characteristics are most suitable for the commuter market?
Clearly the automotive industry is dragging its feet, and has no
interest in producing electric vehicles.
Scott Nudds
(charliew) wrote:
: You might want to watch for hidden assumptions here. It is
: likely that carbon-carbon bonds contain more energy than
: carbon-hydrogen bonds (in molecules).
Probably? Gee Charliew, for a chemical engineer who spent 15 years
"paying his dues" getting an education and 15 years "working <his> ass
off" in industry, I would expect better than "it is likely".
Don't you know?
Let me do you homework for you...
Average bond energies... P473 - Mortimer - Chemistry - ISBN 0-442-25554-3
C-C 347 kJ/Mole
C-H 414 kJ/Mole
H-H 435 kJ/Mole
C=C 619 kJ/Mole
--
<---->
Patrick Reid
[Posted to sci.energy]
af...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) wrote:
> Why are electric cars being targeted at the luxury market when their
>characteristics are most suitable for the commuter market?
Au contraire! Both Honda and Bombardier are demonstrating concept EVs
which are focussed on the commuter market. Bombardier's in particular
is sort of a glorified golf cart, designed for use in small suburban
areas. This was in a recent Maclean's.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Patrick Reid | e-mail: pjr...@mi.net |
| ALARA Research, Incorporated | Voice: (506) 674-9099 |
| Saint John, NB, Canada | Fax: (506) 674-9197 |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - - - - - Opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone: - - - - |
| - - - - - - - - - -don't blame them on anyone else - - - - - - - - |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
David Lloyd-Jones
af...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) wrote:
> In fact, it is a well known
>fact that these vehicles are known to have a easier time starting than
>gasoline powered vehicles, particularly on cold days, when carburetors
>have difficulty atomizing the fuel.
> Your "true story" has considerably reduced your credibility JJP.
And the car with a carburetor is: ? While on the subject of
credibility and all that...
-dlj.
David Lloyd-Jones
d.je...@geel.dwt.csiro.au (Dennis Jensen) wrote:
>In article <4ua7la$c...@news.inforamp.net>,
> d...@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
>>d.je...@geel.dwt.csiro.au (Dennis Jensen) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <4u96v2$7...@news.inforamp.net>,
>>> d...@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
>>>>d.je...@geel.dwt.csiro.au (Dennis Jensen) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Where the hell do you come up with "all changed in one day"? This would be
>>>>>absolutely impossible, even using todays technology.
>>>>
>>>>An American Heritage article a few years ago. The only technology
>>>>involved is crow bars and hammers.
>>>>
>>
>>>Neverhteless, one day. How many people would you need to even move one rail
>>>across a few inches for all the miles of track extant at the time.
>>
>>I forget the number, but it was basically every soldier, cowboy, and
>>past or present rail hand in the country.
>>
>>When you found yourself wildly wrong about the technology, why would
>>you think you had any credibility, even to yourself, on the rest of
>>the question?
>>
>> -dlj.
>Wildly wrong about the technology?
My point is that the technology used in moving railway tracks was
perfectly adequate. There is nothing in "today's technology" that
makes it any easier to change all the guages in a day.
On the 747 I have answered your query elsewhee.
-dlj.
David Lloyd-Jones
d.je...@geel.dwt.csiro.au (Dennis Jensen) wrote:
>Okay, here goes. You want to talk of war work, here are factors in aviation
>that were a result of peace work:
>First flight of heavier than air craft.
But the Wrights only went into production when they had Federal
contracts.
>First all metal aircraft
>First monoplance
>First cantilever wing aircraft
>First stressed skin aircraft
>First retractable undercarriage
All of the above done by companies which would not have exsted had it
not been for the flow of military contracts -- leaving aside the fact
that all of these were done with the prospect of military work in
sight.
>First jet aircraft
Messerschmitts were peace time aircraft? Frank Whittle ws working
where?
>First supersonic flight
The X1 was dropped from a B52.
Even when you're stretching you can't get a bunch of examples that
aren't entangled with the military at every stage.
-dlj.
David Lloyd-Jones
All locked up and nowhere to go <ca...@critech.com> wrote:
>d...@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
>>Without the military it is entirely possible that we would have saved
>>most of the resources that went into military aircraft -- and have
>>cheap recreational gliders instead.
>It may have escaped your attention, but we do have (relatively) cheap
>recreational gliders. The field was not fallow between Otto Lilienthal
>and the first amateur running down a hill under a Rogallo kite.
Fair enough. What I had in mind was that without all the brains and
capital going into F-16s and such the $30,000 salplanes might be as
chape as Honda Civics.
Your point about the aluminum pipe and cloth hang gliders is quite
right in its league: it's what's left for the rest of us when the
military skims the big toys.
-dlj.
Arne H|eg
In article <4u6p1t$4...@express.ior.com>, JJP <jo...@on-ramp.ior.com> writes:
>
>>All the technical necessities for NGV's are already available; many of
>>the technologies for propane translate almost directly to methane (such
>>as fuel metering). Neither is the infrastructure for NGV's terribly
>>difficult. When the economics are there, you will see NGV's and NG
>>fuelling stations multiply. If imported oil suddenly becomes expensive
>>or a carbon tax makes hydrogen-rich methane enough cheaper than gasoline
>>to make the extra up-front cost worthwhile, people will start demanding
>>NGV's and manufacturers and filling stations will respond very quickly.
>
> with the help of legislation, in California, to require low-emission vehicles as a certain percentage of the state fleet by some fa=
>r off future date (read this, after everyone in the legislature has retired).
>
>SoCal Gas took the lead and drove their duel-fuel NGV to Sacramento so that the Governor could sign the legislation and then drive o=
>ff in the NGV as a photo op for the press.
>
>Problem was, the press found out two things. First, SoCal Gas drove it from LA to Sacramento using gasoline (leaded premium, in fac=
>t) because there was not a single refueling station for natural gas along their route. Secondly, the car wouldn't reliably start in=
> the NGV mode, so, taking no chances, they had the car running on leaded premium gasoline when the Governor drove off in it.
>
>
In Oslo, Norway, many taxis are driving on methane much of the time.
In Bergen, Norway, a company converts standard cars to dual fuel for
about $2000 (a standard car costs $30000 in Norway)
In Trondheim, Norway, some buses use natural gas, but I don't know if they are sponsored.
Volvo is marketing a bi-fuel 850, which use methane as the other fuel. This car is ecomomically sound as long as you drive much of the time in cities with gas stations. You still have the petrol tank.
Arne Hoeg.
Matt Kennel
John Hess (john...@cris.com) wrote:
: The one thing I can't get EV proponents to talk about is the lower efficiency
: involved in generating electricity, storing that electricity, and then using
: the electricity to run an electric motor, rather than using the energy source
: to directly power the vehicle. Not only do they _refuse_ to talk about it,
: they refuse to acknowledge that the disparity exists. They continuall support
: _only_ the position that the electric motor is not poluting and refuse to
: discuss the health and environmental concerns of generating, storing, and
: utilizing it to power a vehicle.
I'll perfectly admit to it, but on the other hand, the net amount of 'energy'
is not really the issue, it's what has to be destroyed in order to make it.
For instnace, if I had big 'cold fusion' plants but they were only "5%
efficient" in some naive-Joule counting mode, would it matter?
* Oil is very useful to produce complex materials other than heat, in
contrast to a number of other fuels.
* Production of electricity can occur by thermodynamically superior loops
compared to an internal combustion engine.
* Pollution is not concentrated near people, and pollution is monitored
with more care.
* Electrical power generators can use a wider variety of fuel sources
compared to one refined end product (which takes energy and money) of
petroleum.
--
Matthew B. Kennel/m...@caffeine.engr.utk.edu/I do not speak for ORNL, DOE or UT
Oak Ridge National Laboratory/University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN USA/
I would not, could not SAVE ON PHONE,
I would not, could not BUY YOUR LOAN,
I would not, could not MAKE MONEY FAST,
I would not, could not SEND NO CA$H,
I would not, could not SEE YOUR SITE,
I would not, could not EAT VEG-I-MITE,
I do *not* *like* GREEN CARDS AND SPAM! Mad-I-Am! (inspired: PvdL)
David C. Schooley
In article <4uis5k$h...@gaia.ns.utk.edu>, ken...@msr.epm.ornl.gov wrote:
[snip]
>
> * Oil is very useful to produce complex materials other than heat, in
> contrast to a number of other fuels.
>
> * Production of electricity can occur by thermodynamically superior loops
> compared to an internal combustion engine.
>
> * Pollution is not concentrated near people, and pollution is monitored
> with more care.
According to the EPA, Atlanta's air quality is marginal, even with
emission standards and required testing for automobiles. Due to changes in
work schedules and the emphasis on public transportation during the
Olympics, the local ozone levels dropped approximately 30% according to
the last estimate I heard. I don't know the numbers for other pollutants.
Unfortunately, most people seem to be returning to their cars.
The vast majority of commutes within the Atlanta area could be served by
EV's. Even a 10-15% penetration of EV's would have a measurable impact on
air quality.
>
> * Electrical power generators can use a wider variety of fuel sources
> compared to one refined end product (which takes energy and money) of
> petroleum.
>
Please add...
* EV's are very quiet, especially compared to vehicles with internal
combustion engines.
later,
---Dave---
========================================================================
David C. Schooley |
Ph.D. in progress | Technology Volunteer
Georgia Tech Electric Power | Centennial Olympic Games
email: scho...@ece.gatech.edu | Atlanta 1996
http://www.ee.gatech.edu/users/schooley/ |
Rod Adams
William R Stewart <wste...@patriot.net> wrote:
>Where do you get your disinformation?
>
>For the GM EV1 http://www.saturncars.com/EV1/;
>
> - Accelerates from 0 to 60 mph in less than 9 seconds
Carrying how much weight?
> - Maximum speed of 80 mph (electronically regulated)
> - Prototype set land-speed record for electric cars: 183 mph
> - 137-horsepower, three-phase AC induction motor
> - 0.19 drag coefficient -- 30% less than any production car
It is much smaller than any production car!
> - Driving range: 70 miles city, 90 miles highway
What is the driving range in hilly terrain? How does it change if
the weather is cold? What is the driving range in south Florida
with the A/C running full blast? (Oh. I guess that is not
fair since most EVs do not have air conditioners.)
> - 3-hour charge time using 220-volt, 6.6-kW charger
> - Regenerative brakes that help charge the batteries
> - World's lightest and stiffest spaceframe for any vehicle its size
>
>> and are difficult to find a location to 'refuel'.
>
>You can refuel at home. Try that with your car.
My home service is somewhat limited. Your 6.6kW charger requires
30 amps at 220, but that is what my entire house current is. Do I
have to stop doing everything else in order to refuel or do I have
to pay the electric company to completely rewire my distribution line
along with anyone else who purchases such a vehicle.
>
>Some places, such as Southern California, have 100s of refuel sites
>for the relatively small number of EVs in existence so far.
Great. Are they convenient to where I live now. What do we all
do while waiting for the 3 hours it takes to refuel using that
6.6 kW charger system you mentioned?
>
>Cheers,
>--
>Will Stewart
>http://www.patriot.net/users/wstewart/first.htm
>"The truth will set you free." - J.C.
Rod Adams
A great believer in the truth of your quotation from J. C.
Ernst G. Knolle
Patrick Reid (pjr...@mi.net) wrote:
: [Posted to sci.energy]
: af...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) wrote:
: > Why are electric cars being targeted at the luxury market when their
: >characteristics are most suitable for the commuter market?
: is sort of a glorified golf cart, designed for use in small suburban
: areas. This was in a recent Maclean's.
As much as I can make out, EVs are targeted for a low form of inhuman life!
Ernst
Dennis Jensen
In article <4uepsd$7...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>,
af...@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) wrote:
>JJP wrote:
>: The EV industry has had decades to do this and are still an 'infant
>: industry'. My opinion is that it is a perpetually infant industry
>: (perhaps an 'infantile industry').
>
> How many decades did the industry delay in adding safety features such
>as padded dashboards, seat belts and collapsible steering columns to
>their automotive designs?
>
>characteristics are most suitable for the commuter market?
>
>interest in producing electric vehicles.
>
Did you know around the turn of the century there was a lot of discussion as
to whether petrol cars, steam cars or EV's were the best. All were being
developed and sold at the time; the market decided on the ICE. 100 odd years
later, the situation with regard to the effectiveness of the various
technologies has not changed.
Dennis
Scott Nudds
Ernst G. Knolle (kno...@crl.com) wrote:
: As much as I can make out, EVs are targeted for a low form of inhuman life!
I wasn't aware that Republicans were the target market...
T. S. BROWN
PLEASE, 30 TIMES OVER, GET THIS JUNK OFF OF THIS NEWS GROUP. If
there is a lot of interest in this subject get your own news
group. I have enough stuff to plow through each day without this
mindless drivel. PLEASE PLEASE.
--
T.S. Brown -- CAEX SERVICES Inc.
5555 San Felipe--Ste. 500 -- Houston, Tx. 77042
Pots: 713.855.8255 Fax: 713.850.8256
email: tbr...@caexserv.com
bogie
>>Some places, such as Southern California, have 100s of refuel sites
>>for the relatively small number of EVs in existence so far.
>
>Great. Are they convenient to where I live now. What do we all
>do while waiting for the 3 hours it takes to refuel using that
>6.6 kW charger system you mentioned?
around a gas station watching the pump numbers change...
T A Konczalik
All locked up and nowhere to go <ca...@critech.com> wrote:
>char...@hal-pc.org (charliew) wrote:
>>You might want to watch for hidden assumptions here. It is
>>likely that carbon-carbon bonds contain more energy than
>>carbon-hydrogen bonds (in molecules). Thus, 1 pound of
>>gasoline can probably propel an automobile farther than 1
>>pound of natural gas, which would partially offset the
>>"carbon tax advantage" that methane seems to have.
>Your homework is to look up the heat of combustion of methane
>and octane in kcal/mole, convert this to BTU/lbm or J/kg (your
>option), and post the results.
Are you talking weight?...or pressure?...for the natural gas.
T A Konczalik
Pete Owens
John Hess (john...@cris.com) wrote:
: The one thing I can't get EV proponents to talk about is the lower efficiency
: involved in generating electricity, storing that electricity, and then using
: the electricity to run an electric motor, rather than using the energy source
: to directly power the vehicle.
That is because it is simply not the case.
True, if you run an IC engine under optimal condititions you will
get more power out of it per unit supplied than for an electric.
But an IC engine running in as car is very rarely running
under optimium conditions. The power requirements in normal
driving vary enormously so you need to provide a sufficiently
large engine to accelerate the vehicle even though only a
fraction of the power is used when cruising, thus for most
of the time the engine is running at only a fraction
of its capacity in a regime which will tend to be less efficient.
(This feature is exploited by hybrids.) The situation
becomes even worse in typical urban stop start driving
conditions where an IC engine consumes energy while you
are waiting for the lights to change demanding no power at all.
: Not only do they _refuse_ to talk about it,
: they refuse to acknowledge that the disparity exists.
That is because it doesn't.
: They continuall support
: _only_ the position that the electric motor is not poluting and refuse to
: discuss the health and environmental concerns of generating, storing, and
: utilizing it to power a vehicle.
Even if ICs were as efficient as electrics it would still be better
to remove the pollution from the streets where folk are breathing it.
---
Pete Owens
P.O...@dl.ac.uk
David Lloyd-Jones
p...@mserv1.dl.ac.uk (Pete Owens) wrote:
>John Hess (john...@cris.com) wrote:
>: Not only do they _refuse_ to talk about it,
>: they refuse to acknowledge that the disparity exists.
>That is because it doesn't.
>: They continuall support
>: _only_ the position that the electric motor is not poluting and refuse to
>: discuss the health and environmental concerns of generating, storing, and
>: utilizing it to power a vehicle.
>Even if ICs were as efficient as electrics it would still be better
>to remove the pollution from the streets where folk are breathing it.
Apart from which there are huge economies of scale to cutting down
pollution at the multi-megawatt generating plant, rather than on a
zillion different users, often with owners indifferent to their
maintenance.
-dlj.
DaveHatunen
In article <4upig5$4...@mserv1.dl.ac.uk>,
>: involved in generating electricity, storing that electricity, and then using
>: the electricity to run an electric motor, rather than using the energy source
>: to directly power the vehicle.
>
>That is because it is simply not the case.
>True, if you run an IC engine under optimal condititions you will
>get more power out of it per unit supplied than for an electric.
>But an IC engine running in as car is very rarely running
>under optimium conditions. The power requirements in normal
>driving vary enormously so you need to provide a sufficiently
>large engine to accelerate the vehicle even though only a
>fraction of the power is used when cruising, thus for most
>of the time the engine is running at only a fraction
>of its capacity in a regime which will tend to be less efficient.
To state this obvious fact is not to counter the argument made. it is
*still* possible that the overall IC engine. Numbers are needed.
>(This feature is exploited by hybrids.) The situation
>becomes even worse in typical urban stop start driving
>conditions where an IC engine consumes energy while you
>are waiting for the lights to change demanding no power at all.
Um. There's still some poer demand, including the airconditioner. Does
the EV have an airconditioner? Can you keep it running while you're
stuck for fifteen minutes in a traffic jam on a hot summer day? Or how
about keeping the EVs heater (it does have a heater, doesn't it)
running while you're stuck in a traffic jam for a half-hour during a
snow storm?
[...]
>Even if ICs were as efficient as electrics it would still be better
>to remove the pollution from the streets where folk are breathing it.
And spread it out among people who don't count, like the Navajo and
Ute. Perhaps it would be better to spread it out, but acting like it's
"out of sight, out of mind" is not such a great approach.
--
********** DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@netcom.com) **********
* Daly City California *
* Between San Francisco and South San Francisco *
*******************************************************
DaveHatunen
In article <4uq2tv$f...@news.inforamp.net>,
David Lloyd-Jones <d...@inforamp.net> wrote:
[...]
>Apart from which there are huge economies of scale to cutting down
>pollution at the multi-megawatt generating plant, rather than on a
>zillion different users, often with owners indifferent to their
>maintenance.
is it your stance that air pollution is the only pollution we need
concern ourselves about?
David Lloyd-Jones
hat...@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) wrote:
>In article <4uq2tv$f...@news.inforamp.net>,
>David Lloyd-Jones <d...@inforamp.net> wrote:
>>Apart from which there are huge economies of scale to cutting down
>>pollution at the multi-megawatt generating plant, rather than on a
>>zillion different users, often with owners indifferent to their
>>maintenance.
>is it your stance that air pollution is the only pollution we need
>concern ourselves about?
No. Nor does anything in my post suggest that it is. What is your
point?
-dlj.
All locked up and nowhere to go
p...@mserv1.dl.ac.uk (Pete Owens) wrote:
>But an IC engine running in as car is very rarely running
>under optimium conditions.
True so far.
>The power requirements in normal
>driving vary enormously so you need to provide a sufficiently
>large engine to accelerate the vehicle even though only a
>fraction of the power is used when cruising, thus for most
>of the time the engine is running at only a fraction
>of its capacity
Still true so far, but...
>in a regime which will tend to be less efficient.
This is NOT necessarily true. Most internal combustion engines
attain their maximum efficiency considerably below their maximum
power. These conditions are usually, but not always, low speed
and maximum or near-maximum torque. This minimizes flow and
friction losses.
If the transmission allows the engine to be operated in the
most efficient regime during cruise, the vehicle can be very
efficient. This is why continuously-variable transmissions
are so attractive.
>(This feature is exploited by hybrids.) The situation
>becomes even worse in typical urban stop start driving
>conditions where an IC engine consumes energy while you
>are waiting for the lights to change demanding no power at all.
More typically, hybrids exploit the ability to optimize all
tuning parameters for one condition of speed and load. This
is a luxury that a vehicle without energy storage does not have.
During cruise, hybrids are not terribly different.
DaveHatunen
In article <4uqa05$h...@news.inforamp.net>,
David Lloyd-Jones <d...@inforamp.net> wrote:
>hat...@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) wrote:
>
>>In article <4uq2tv$f...@news.inforamp.net>,
>>David Lloyd-Jones <d...@inforamp.net> wrote:
>
>>>Apart from which there are huge economies of scale to cutting down
>>>pollution at the multi-megawatt generating plant, rather than on a
>>>zillion different users, often with owners indifferent to their
>>>maintenance.
>
>>is it your stance that air pollution is the only pollution we need
>>concern ourselves about?
>
>No. Nor does anything in my post suggest that it is. What is your
>point?
The pollution you wish to transfer from your local street will result
in pollution at some distance site. But now not only will there be some
air pollution, there will also be a lot of other types of pollution, if
- especially - coal is used. There is ground and stream pollution at
the minesite, not to mention the devestation of the land. And all that
air pollution that the power plant is controlling becomes ground
pollution in the form of fly ash slurry and acids stored in settling
ponds.
charliew
In article <hatunenD...@netcom.com>,
hat...@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) wrote:
>In article <4upig5$4...@mserv1.dl.ac.uk>,
>Pete Owens <p...@mserv1.dl.ac.uk> wrote:
>>John Hess (john...@cris.com) wrote:
>>
>>: The one thing I can't get EV proponents to talk about is
the lower efficiency
>>: involved in generating electricity, storing that
electricity, and then using
>>: the electricity to run an electric motor, rather than
using the energy source
>>: to directly power the vehicle.
>>
>>That is because it is simply not the case.
>>True, if you run an IC engine under optimal condititions
you will
>>get more power out of it per unit supplied than for an
electric.
>>driving vary enormously so you need to provide a
sufficiently
>>large engine to accelerate the vehicle even though only a
>>fraction of the power is used when cruising, thus for most
>>of the time the engine is running at only a fraction
efficient.
>
>To state this obvious fact is not to counter the argument
made. it is
>*still* possible that the overall IC engine. Numbers are
needed.
>
>>becomes even worse in typical urban stop start driving
>>conditions where an IC engine consumes energy while you
>>are waiting for the lights to change demanding no power at
all.
>
airconditioner. Does
>the EV have an airconditioner? Can you keep it running while
you're
>stuck for fifteen minutes in a traffic jam on a hot summer
day? Or how
>about keeping the EVs heater (it does have a heater, doesn't
it)
>running while you're stuck in a traffic jam for a half-hour
during a
>snow storm?
>
>[...]
>
>>Even if ICs were as efficient as electrics it would still
be better
>>to remove the pollution from the streets where folk are
breathing it.
>
>And spread it out among people who don't count, like the
Navajo and
>Ute. Perhaps it would be better to spread it out, but acting
like it's
>"out of sight, out of mind" is not such a great approach.
>
>
You'll never agree with my statement, but to a large extent,
the solution to pollution is dilution!
DaveHatunen
In article <4uqt8d$6sc...@pm3-144.hal-pc.org>,
charliew <char...@hal-pc.org> wrote:
[...]
>You'll never agree with my statement, but to a large extent,
>the solution to pollution is dilution!
Uh, make more people less sick?
Ultimately, even dilute the pollutants have to end up somewhere. I'm
having a difficult time understanding how you think you can dilute the
flyash from a coal-fired power plant, or the acid, and come out better.
Oddly, nuclear waste fits the bill, since eventually - a very long
eventually for some isotopes - the radiation goes away. But flyash and
acids are quite a long term question.
David Lloyd-Jones
hat...@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) wrote:
>The pollution you wish to transfer from your local street will result
>in pollution at some distance site. But now not only will there be some
>air pollution, there will also be a lot of other types of pollution, if
>- especially - coal is used. There is ground and stream pollution at
>the minesite, not to mention the devestation of the land. And all that
>air pollution that the power plant is controlling becomes ground
>pollution in the form of fly ash slurry and acids stored in settling
>ponds.
Everything you say here is quite right. As you may have gathered from
my posts by now, I think we should be using nuclear of geothermal
energy rather than fossil -- in part because the radioactive pollution
from nuclear power is so much less than that from coal or oil.
Getting rid of the fly ash is just gravy.
On the other hand I think it's a little bit of an obsession to go
moping around about the damage the human race has done to the face of
the Earth all the time. I see what tree roots and frost do to our
best laid roads in a very few years, and I don't have any worries
about Earth's ability to look after itself, with or without the human
race.
All the works of mankind to date, roads, cities, dams, bombs, and
garbage put together, wouldn't fill a good sized lake like Lake
Nassser or the Sea of Azov.
A great deal of this concern about what humanity is doing is the ant
worrying about whether it is hurting the elephant.
-dlj.
Richard Foy
In article <4uqt8d$6sc...@pm3-144.hal-pc.org>,
charliew <char...@hal-pc.org> wrote:
>>
>
>You'll never agree with my statement, but to a large extent,
>the solution to pollution is dilution!
That is Ok until all of the area available for dilution is so
contaminated that there is a problem thruoughout that area. Taht is
the current situation now for some pollutants, though it is not
necessarily the pollutants this thread was about.
--
Western Kundali; Chakra 3 awakening,
"Winning is not the most important thing. It is the only thing."
URL http://www.he.tdl.com/~hfanoe/udc.html
charliew
>
>>You'll never agree with my statement, but to a large
extent,
>>the solution to pollution is dilution!
>
>
>Ultimately, even dilute the pollutants have to end up
somewhere. I'm
>having a difficult time understanding how you think you can
dilute the
>flyash from a coal-fired power plant, or the acid, and come
out better.
>
>Oddly, nuclear waste fits the bill, since eventually - a
very long
>eventually for some isotopes - the radiation goes away. But
flyash and
>acids are quite a long term question.
>
>
I said that you would never agree. I'll take a brief trip
down memory lane.
A former boss told me some years ago that there are traces of
arsenic in sea water. I don't know this as a fact, but it is
likely true (it may be in the ppb level or ppm level). Thus,
it should be obvious that any addition of arsenic laden water
to the oceans will do no harm if it is approximately of the
same dilution as sea water. Nevertheless, existing
environmental laws prohibit such a "dumping", even when
common sense dictates that no harm will be done.
This type of regulation is also seen regarding cooling tower
blowdown in refineries. Water circulates many times through
a cooling tower, and a fraction evaporates each time it makes
its "trip". Dissolved materials are thus concentrated in
this process. Current regulations often prevent industry
from discharging this concentrated blowdown water into the
environment, even though the "contaminants" came into the
plant in the make-up water stream. Thus, "dirty" water can
come into the plant, but it can't leave the plant.
Admittedly, there is a concentration of contaminants that may
be too concentrated to discharge without dilution, but these
types of regulations occasionally defy common sense.
Scott Nudds
HOME-MADE ELECTRIC CAR ON THE ROAD FOR THE PAST 3 YEARS
-------------------------------------------------------
- SWS -
Victoria - A Vancouver Island man has good reason to scoff at a recent
announcement of an electric car on the US market -- he's been commuting
for 3 1/2 years in a truck he converted to run on electricity.
"I did it just as an experiment but it turned out to be economically
viable," says Peter Jacob of Metchosin, who's put more than 45,000
kilometers on the converted engine.
He spent a total of $15,000 to fix up -- including the purchase price of
the second-hand 1988 S-10 Chevy pick up. The virtually silent truck,
powered by 20 six volt batteries, has a top speed of 120 kph (75 mph)
and a maximum range of 135 kilometers (84 miles).
GM unveiled it's electric sports car at this year's Detroit Auto Show.
But it's listed price of more than $40,000 and limited availability.
But Mr. Jacob figures a manufacturer with an assembly line could produce
a viable electric car for $10,000 to $12,000.
Mike Jamison
[followup list pruned]
In article <4urvbs$2...@main.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>,
af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca says...
How much time did Mr. Jacob invest in his electric vehicle, on top of the
$15K in materials?
Perhaps his truck *did* cost him $30K - or more.
Mike Jamison
DaveHatunen
In article <4ur7hd$7js...@pm6-71.hal-pc.org>,
charliew <char...@hal-pc.org> wrote:
>In article <hatunenD...@netcom.com>,
> hat...@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) wrote:
[...]
>I said that you would never agree. I'll take a brief trip
>down memory lane.
>
>A former boss told me some years ago that there are traces of
>arsenic in sea water. I don't know this as a fact, but it is
>likely true (it may be in the ppb level or ppm level). Thus,
>it should be obvious that any addition of arsenic laden water
>to the oceans will do no harm if it is approximately of the
>same dilution as sea water. Nevertheless, existing
>environmental laws prohibit such a "dumping", even when
>common sense dictates that no harm will be done.
I guess as soon as coal-fired plants in Kansas start piping their
flyash to the ocean, this will have a greatly appreciated relevance.
>This type of regulation is also seen regarding cooling tower
>blowdown in refineries. Water circulates many times through
>a cooling tower, and a fraction evaporates each time it makes
>its "trip". Dissolved materials are thus concentrated in
>this process. Current regulations often prevent industry
>from discharging this concentrated blowdown water into the
>environment, even though the "contaminants" came into the
>plant in the make-up water stream. Thus, "dirty" water can
>come into the plant, but it can't leave the plant.
We're not talking about cooling towers. We're talking about very real
flyash and acids that are scrubbed from power plant emissions, thereby
deluding people like you, who no longer see so much smoke, into
thinking that the pollution problem has been solved.
>Admittedly, there is a concentration of contaminants that may
>be too concentrated to discharge without dilution, but these
>types of regulations occasionally defy common sense.
Discharge to where? Diluted with what? You are engaging in handwaving.
When I was young, most small towns in the Midwest dumped essentially
raw sewage into the local river on the "dilution" principle. But the
towns got bigger and there were quite a few towns on a given river.
Watching turds float by from your local Main street bridge was a
possible pastime.
The prime example may be Lake Erie, where every factory and community
on the lake dumped their wastes directly into the lake. Lotsa dilution,
eh?
DaveHatunen
In article <4ur8qc$6...@news.inforamp.net>,
David Lloyd-Jones <d...@inforamp.net> wrote:
[...]
>Everything you say here is quite right. As you may have gathered from
>my posts by now, I think we should be using nuclear of geothermal
>energy rather than fossil -- in part because the radioactive pollution
>from nuclear power is so much less than that from coal or oil.
>Getting rid of the fly ash is just gravy.
I agree. Except I don't think geothermal can ever be a big player in
the power field. Too many inherent problems.
>On the other hand I think it's a little bit of an obsession to go
>moping around about the damage the human race has done to the face of
>the Earth all the time. I see what tree roots and frost do to our
>best laid roads in a very few years, and I don't have any worries
>about Earth's ability to look after itself, with or without the human
>race.
You won't see me moping about the damage the human race is doing to the
earth. The earth doesn't need to be saved; it is - more or less -
eternal. And there will always be an environment.
>All the works of mankind to date, roads, cities, dams, bombs, and
>garbage put together, wouldn't fill a good sized lake like Lake
>Nassser or the Sea of Azov.
>
>A great deal of this concern about what humanity is doing is the ant
>worrying about whether it is hurting the elephant.
Yep. That's why I disdaim polemic about saving the earth. The goal is
to save ourselves, and the lifestyle we have, if one is brutally honest
about it.
charliew
I admit that if concentrated waste is dumped into the
environment, it is a problem. However, there is a level of
dilution for many wastes that should be acceptable.
By the way, in case you are wondering if I am still in touch
with reality, I realize that the most effective way to deal
with most pollution is when it is most concentrated.
However, there are wastes, such as the arsenic example
(arsenic is an element, so it cannot be "treated" to make it
less poisonous) in which dilution should be a reasonable way
to dispose of this stuff.
DaveHatunen
In article <4utkv1$6sc...@pm3-146.hal-pc.org>,
charliew <char...@hal-pc.org> wrote:
>I admit that if concentrated waste is dumped into the
>environment, it is a problem. However, there is a level of
>dilution for many wastes that should be acceptable.
Hm. "Should"?
>By the way, in case you are wondering if I am still in touch
>with reality, I realize that the most effective way to deal
>with most pollution is when it is most concentrated.
>However, there are wastes, such as the arsenic example
>(arsenic is an element, so it cannot be "treated" to make it
>less poisonous) in which dilution should be a reasonable way
>to dispose of this stuff.
I find that a curious statement. There are many elements that are
poisonous in the elemental state, but harmless when chemically
combined. Chlorine springs immediately to mind. But perhaps there are
no such "safe" chemicals with arsenic in them.
But again, the question is: dilute where and with what?