Re: Sci-fi on the decline

[Murdoc]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 21:17:25 GMT, Wayne Throop wrote:

>::: You are assuming that electric rates are independent of fuel costs.
>
>:: In the long run, they are. When fuel-based electricity production
>:: prices itself out of the market, as nonrenewables eventually *must*
>:: as an ironclad law of nature,
>
> When fuel prices go up, more and more expensive "renewables" become
> viable. They come on-line. The price of electricity goes up.

And then becomes completely independent of fuel costs, from that time
onward.

Thanks for conceding my point.

[Wayne Throop]

: Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid>
: Since it is the logical negation of proposition A, and you all
: rejected proposition A vehemently,

Both vehemence and rejection is something you made up yourself.

Message-ID: <13670...@sheol.org>
: The battery technology they use is about to be rendered obsolete.

By what?

Message-ID: <13670...@sheol.org>
: Better battery technology. Obviously.

So... you have no specifics at this time. [...]
I don't see any leading early indications. [...]
what are the leading early indications that lead you to think
current tech will become obsolete soon?

So. Not a rejection. Certainly not vehement.

The bits I snipped *were* sarcastic. Onaccounta you being so coy about it.
But sarcasm isn't rejection, nor vehemence. Here:

How about, just in general, how will this "better battery
technology" resolve the problems current battery technology has?
Limited energy density, limited full discharge/charge cycles, costly
imaterials, those sorts of things? Anything that'll make an
"obsolete everything current" improvement? That'd be facinating to
learn about. Really.

But again, no rejection. No vehemence. A simple straightforward
request to back up your claim that "batter tech is about to be
rendered obsolete". It's an interesting topic, but for some reason
you decided not to discuss it. And then you made up both sides of
an imaginary discussion.

[Rod Speed]

"Murdoc" <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote in message
news:d08h2858box6.18ubxx09y4fi8$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 15:57:05 -0400, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) handed me
> victory on a silver platter:
>
>> On 4/27/13 9:29 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> In article <1oezssd9fqhi9$.fe136t3tucjb$.d...@40tude.net>, murdoc11
>>
>>>> And you've pulled that figure completely out of your ass. Given that a
>>>> normal sedan driving over a road has no discernible-to-the-eye effect
>>>> on it
>>>> *at all* I wouldn't be surprised in the least to find out that 10k
>>>> miles of
>>>> sedan driving put less than a penny's worth of wear on the roads.
>>>
>>> Proof?
>>
>> He has no proof or even any sensible argument here.

> Ad hominem "argument" noted.

That's not ad hominem either, it's an accurate statement of fact.

>> You cannot see the wear from a single pass of a railroad car over a
>> rail -- either on the wheel or the rail -- but both DO wear, and
>> wear noticeably.
>>
>> I'm not speaking from ignorance on this topic. The company I work for
>> manufactures and sells (and researches the development of new) systems
>> for tracking and measuring wear and damage on components in both the
>> rail and commercial vehicle (trucking) industry, as well as stuff for
>> military vehicles.
>>
>> You can't SEE the damage a car does going over a road, but it does
>> indeed do damage; if you were to actually go over the surface with a
>> microscope before-and-after, you'd be able to see it.
>>
>> Let's examine the numbers.
>>
>> My claim is that a car does at least $1.00 of damage to the roads it
>> goes over, in total, in one year. In that year it covers on average
>> 10,000 miles or so. This is in a single lane (yes, it may shift lanes
>> but at any given time the car is only in one lane save for brief moments
>> when it straddles the line, so let's say just one lane. Current
>> construction costs for high-quality highways are pretty close to a
>> million dollars per mile per lane.
>>
>> Since I'm contending $1.00 over 10k miles, that means I'm contending
>> $1.00/10,000, or one-hundredth of a cent, per mile of travel per year.
>>
>> As it costs a million dollars to make that mile of road, this implies
>> that ten BILLION cars must pass over that mile of road to ruin it beyond
>> repair (ie., require complete reconstruction rather than maintenance),
>> if my estimate is anywhere near correct. To really ruin a good
>> interstate without any maintenance might take, say, 20 years (bridges
>> last for 50-100 years, but NOT without maintenance, and roads
>> considerably less); I think 10 years is more likely with constant
>> traffic, but I'll assume 20; I'm also assuming it's in some location
>> where the impact of weather is minimal -- up here in the Northeast, if
>> you left a road untouched for a few years with NO traffic it'd self
>> destruct pretty quick.
>>
>> That means that each year, 500 million cars pass over that mile of
>> road. That's almost a thousand cars PER MINUTE (951, to be closer to
>> exact), or 15 per second in ONE LANE.
>>
>> That's way more than you'll ever see on any road. About a TENTH that
>> would be a very busy highway, and note that this assumes the road has
>> that volume 24/7/365, as opposed to most roads which have times they're
>> very busy and times they're empty.
>>
>> Even if you assume that even in really really nice places, weather
>> damage exceeds vehicle damage by a factor of 10, it's clear that my
>> estimate of $1.00 per vehicle per year is quite a reasonable one.
>>
>> Note that in various sources I find several CENTS PER VEHICLE MILE
>> quoted as road-damage costs (see:
>> http://www.spur.org/publications/library/article/estimatingtheexternalcostsofdrivinginsf09012005),
>> which is two orders of magnitude, at least, higher than my estimate.
>> That probably includes trucks, of course, but overall I find nothing to
>> argue against my BOTE calculations being reasonably close.

> Thanks for handing me my victory.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed troll fantasys.

> Since that does include trucks, and since trucks do at *least* 99% of the
> total damage
> according to your *own* math, that makes it only a hundredth of a cent or
> so for cars.

[Rod Speed]

"Murdoc" <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote in message

news:1qk5y3sfz7pwb$.as66xy3xrjbp$.dlg@40tude.net...

> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 05:14:30 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> "Murdoc" <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote in message

>> news:qqnhv4rxt7g5.1f...@40tude.net...
>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 08:10:34 GMT, Wayne Throop wrote:
>>>
>>>>: Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid>
>>>>: There are some large battery improvements on the horizon, and nothing
>>>>: comparable for synfuels, let alone *hydrogen*, for fuck's sake.
>>>>
>>>> And we're not out of fracking oil yet, for fuck's sake.
>>>
>>> "Peak oil" is not the same as "out of oil". Besides, have you *ever*
>>> known
>>> fuel prices to trend in any direction other than upwards, short-term
>>> fluctuations aside?
>>
>> Yep, happened in the 70s.
>
> What part of "short-term fluctuations aside" did not penetrate?

That was nothing like short term.

[Wayne Throop]

: Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid>
: The X/air type batteries don't either.

The X/air batteries, especially those with large energy density,
are actually fuel cells.

:: If you can't tell the difference, then... well, that's typical of
:: you, now isn't it.
: Ad hominem noted and rejected.

Do you know what an ad-homenim is? (Hint: it's not a synonym for "insult".)

[Rod Speed]

"Murdoc" <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote in message

news:113xejhgd6lss$.1gega58wbxia6.dlg@40tude.net...

> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 05:10:01 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> "Murdoc" <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote in message

>> news:14cxfkj7orwsz$.b0oai3iilkdj$.dlg@40tude.net...

>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 07:30:56 GMT, Wayne Throop wrote:
>>>
>>>>: Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid>

>>>>: It's a direct logical consequence of what he said. For electric
>>>>: vehicles *not* to take off
>>>>
>>>> Something which, of course, I never said.
>>>
>>> Deny, deny, deny...
>>>
>>>>: short of some civilization-ending disaster, we'd have to somehow not
>>>>: run up against peak oil *and* never get much better batteries than we
>>>>: have today.
>>>>
>>>> Also wrong. The obvious possibility is that something other than
>>>> batteries would come along. That some other method would improve
>>>> faster
>>>> than batteries. For example, synfuels and fuel cells, just for
>>>> one possibility. It is entirely plausible that energy density of a
>>>> synthetic fuel could be better than anything that would be in the class
>>>> of
>>>> "battery".

>>>
>>> There are some large battery improvements on the horizon, and nothing

>>> comparable for synfuels, let alone *hydrogen*, for fuck's sake. The buzz
>>> around hydrogen faded ages ago. That *did* hit energy density problems,
>>> mainly stemming from hydrogen with the energy of a gallon of gasoline
>>> preferring to take the form of a volume of gas bigger than a
>>> tractor-trailer and *way* bigger than one gallon.
>>>
>>>> And further, even if EVs do take off, they can take off without
>>>> radical, quick change to battery tech, if all the alternatives become
>>>> worse.
>>>
>>> That's why I said that they'll also take off if fuel prices keep going
>>> up
>>> as they historically have.
>>
>> They wont
>
> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Nothing extra ordinary about the fact that when an
immense new source of fossil fuel showed up, we saw
the fuel prices stop going up as they historically did.

>> because of coal seam gas.

> And chanting a mantra, such as "coal seam gas",
> over and over again does not constitute evidence.

Denying that that's a massive new source of fossil
fuel that isnt even in the hands of foreigners out
to milk the west for whatever they can get for it
changes nothing.

>>>> So. Really, you are having severe problems both tracking who said what
>>
>>> *If* I am,
>>
>> No *if* about it, you are.

<your juvenile shit and lies flushed where they belong>

[Murdoc]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 07:50:57 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

> "Murdoc" <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote in message
> news:d08h2858box6.18ubxx09y4fi8$.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 15:57:05 -0400, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) handed me
>> victory on a silver platter:
>>
>>> On 4/27/13 9:29 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> In article <1oezssd9fqhi9$.fe136t3tucjb$.d...@40tude.net>, murdoc11
>>>
>>>>> And you've pulled that figure completely out of your ass. Given that a
>>>>> normal sedan driving over a road has no discernible-to-the-eye effect
>>>>> on it
>>>>> *at all* I wouldn't be surprised in the least to find out that 10k
>>>>> miles of
>>>>> sedan driving put less than a penny's worth of wear on the roads.
>>>>
>>>> Proof?
>>>
>>> He has no proof or even any sensible argument here.
>
>> Ad hominem "argument" noted.
>

> That's not ad hominem either, it's an accurat[NUKE]

It's poor sportsmanship to flame, and poorer still to keep shooting after
your side has run up the white flag:

>>> Note that in various sources I find several CENTS PER VEHICLE MILE
>>> quoted as road-damage costs (see:
>>> http://www.spur.org/publications/library/article/estimatingtheexternalcostsofdrivinginsf09012005),
>>> which is two orders of magnitude, at least, higher than my estimate.
>>> That probably includes trucks, of course, but overall I find nothing to
>>> argue against my BOTE calculations being reasonably close.
>
>> Thanks for handing me my victory.
>>

>> Since that does include trucks, and since trucks do at *least* 99% of the
>> total damage according to your *own* math, that makes it only a hundredth
>> of a cent or so for cars.

Game over. You lose.

Play again sometime?

[Wayne Throop]

: Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid>
: What I championed: Pluggable electricity-storing thingys that are
: charged from mains electricity and discharge to power the vehicle. If
: the thing breathes air, fine.
: What I sneered at: Electricity-producing thingys that need a fuel,
: such as hydrogen, put into them for which there is lacking
: infrastructure to supply to ordinary car-owners, unlike the case with
: gasoline, diesel, and electricity.

So, electricity-producing thingies that need a fuel, such as hydrocarbons
or alcohols, for which existing infrastructure either exists or is
easily adaptable for ordinary car owners, is OK? And would be a
satisfactory solution to the energy density problem?

How about an advanced bidirectionally operated direct methane fuel cell?
Would that work for you?

: Clear enough now?

Certainly an improvement over your usual muddy style.

[Murdoc]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 21:46:51 GMT, Wayne Throop wrote:

>: Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid>
>: Since it is the logical negation of proposition A, and you all
>: rejected proposition A vehemently,
>
> Both vehemence and rejection is something you made up yourself.

[rest of post calling me a liar deleted unread]

Long story short:

1. I said proposition A: essentially, "battery tech will improve
significantly in the fairly near term."

2. Several people, whom I shall collectively refer to as the "rasw troll
brigade" or RTB, began vehemently arguing with me, thus implying that
they all believed proposition B: "battery tech would remain more or less
stagnant for at least ten years". Proposition B being the negation of
proposition A, it is necessarily the case that if you argue against A,
you're arguing for B, so, since they were arguing against A, the RTB
were arguing for B.

3. I proved that B is almost certainly incorrect.

4. Members of the RTB, more or less in unison, changed tactic from arguing
against A to denying ever having held position B.

5. I pointed out that position B is automatically and implicitly argued for
by anyone arguing against position A, and that they'd been arguing
against position A.

6. Members of the RTB then began accusing me of dishonesty.

Obviously, the actual dishonesty is on the parts of those who MUST,
necessarily, have either:

a) Held position B, thus argued vociferously against its negation, position
A, when confronted with it, but then *denied having held position B*, or

b) Not actually held position B, so held position A, but argued
vociferously against position A anyway, thus implying that they held
position B *even though they did not*.

If you held position B, you were dishonest when you subsequently denied
holding position B. If you did not hold position B, you were dishonest when
you attacked me for posting position A despite privately agreeing with me.
In either case, you were dishonest. And when you subsequently accused *me*
of being dishonest, you further revealed yourselves to be a bunch of
hypocrites.

Confirmed members of the RTB, as ascertained by their having displayed the
above behaviors: Sea Wasp, Rod Speed, Wayne Throop, David DeLaney, *and* J.
Clarke.

Didn't the five of you trolls have anything better to do on a Friday night?

[Murdoc]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 07:25:28 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

> "Murdoc" <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote in message

> news:1guft9wmqtluj.cgrmgpq67t8x$.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:06:28 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> In article <1x4dyrqyvt62k$.xiew1jao9213$.d...@40tude.net>, murdoc11
>>> @tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid says...
>>>> Absent hard numbers *proving* how big you can make a brick factory
>>>> before economies of scale are subject to diminishing returns, and
>>>> *proving*
>>>> demand, I maintain my position.
>>>
>>> In other words you have no evidence but you know that you are right.
>>
>> Amazing. My asking *you* for hard numbers supporting your position equates
>> to *my* having no evidence? And, adding a hefty dose of irony, you
>> simultaneously accuse me of lacking hard evidence, while failing to
>> respond
>> with the requested numbers?
>>
>> Your being a troll has just been confirmed.
>>
>>>> Especially since bricks are nonperishable, so they can be made
>>>> infrequently
>>>> in giant batches if that gives the best economy of scale, and
>>>> stockpiled,
>>>> even if the demand is intermittent. Said stockpiles would have little
>>>> overhead; it's essentially a pile of rocks. Fence off some low-value
>>>> land
>>>> on the outskirts of town, pile them up, and cover with a tarp.
>>>
>>> I see. So you consider it to be an efficient use of resources to make a
>>> huge batch of bricks then shut the factory down for the next six months
>>> until it's time for another huge batch of bricks to be made?
>
>> No, I consider it to be an option.
>
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you don't have
> any more of a clue[NUKE]

Ad hominem noted and rejected.

Try again?

>> Choose your poison. You *must* concede either to the
>> stockpile, or to the smaller factories option, or to the
>> the-trucking-industry-isn't-really-*that*-heavily-subsidized position that
>> I actually originally proposed.
>>
>> You cannot reject all three without abandoning all logic in the process.

Now, choose. I know you don't want to, because you know it's checkmate in
one move, but you either choose, or you tip your king, or you're cited
again for poor sportsmanship.

[Murdoc]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 07:27:29 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

> "Murdoc" <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote in message

> news:ko027edvmr1q$.g0hsk2drc7py.dlg@40tude.net...

>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 05:02:09 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>>> "Murdoc" <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote in message

>>> news:1fo2hs8c4e4i5.6m3lqrkba4xs$.dlg@40tude.net...

>>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 16:39:55 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Murdoc" <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote in message

>>>>> news:1lu7wfk3gs99f$.19naafecvj4u2.dlg@40tude.net...

>>>>>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 22:44:11 -0600, Dragon Lady wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Murdoc" <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote in message

>>>>>>> news:1k5soi94rei5h.1wffdhbuvokhw$.dlg@40tude.net...

>>>>>>>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 21:36:03 -0600, Dragon Lady wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Murdoc" <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote in message

>>>>>>>>> news:fktdc8hffgsq.am4rlg86d5zn$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 18:42:04 -0400, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/26/13 2:14 PM, Murdoc wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 13:25:51 -0400, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/26/13 12:46 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No; if they wanted to make sense they would tax neither
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gasoline
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electricity to pay for roads. Nor would they insist on GPS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tracking.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead, they'd simply read your odometer whenever you had
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vehicle's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plates and registration renewed, and calculate a tax from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >from the last reading. Maybe then billing you in installments
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >rather
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all at once.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tampering with the odometer is already illegal, since it can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scam someone when selling a vehicle used. Now it would be tax
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evasion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dude, that's not a user fee, for all the same reasons that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> motor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fuel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> excise taxes are not user fees. Some vehicles create far
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> greater
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> burden
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then other vehicles.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most specifically, heavier vehicles; road damage goes up as the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *FOURTH
>>>>>>>>>>>>> POWER* of weight, in general, so that a heavy truck ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The tax can easily depend on the vehicle class and weight, and
>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>> the odometer reading.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So if you charge the average person a buck, you'll be charging
>>>>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>>>>> trucker $78,000? Excellent. Put all the truckers out of business.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nobody said the tax had to exactly follow that scaling rule. And
>>>>>>>>>> maybe
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> average person gets charged a penny and truckers $780 -- if
>>>>>>>>>> $78,000
>>>>>>>>>> per
>>>>>>>>>> trucker per annum (or whatever) is far more than truckers can
>>>>>>>>>> bear,
>>>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>>> likely far more than the repair fund needs, as well.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Well, it's either that, or trucking, with its costs fully
>>>>>>>>>> internalized,
>>>>>>>>>> actually costs much more than it's worth, and in that case maybe
>>>>>>>>>> truckers
>>>>>>>>>> *should* be put out of business. But it's probably not.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In fact, however, if you charge the average person a penny, and the
>>>>>>>>> truckers
>>>>>>>>> $780, the average people are going to wind up paying that $780 in
>>>>>>>>> addition
>>>>>>>>> to the pennies they've already paid. Who do you think pays for
>>>>>>>>> transportation costs in the long run? Clue for you: it isn't the
>>>>>>>>> truckers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Did I claim otherwise?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And once you've priced the product out of the market, put all the
>>>>>>>>> truckers
>>>>>>>>> out of business because they have no cargo, and brought the economy
>>>>>>>>> crashing
>>>>>>>>> down, what do you think is going to happen?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Once again, if the trucking industry would collapse if made to pay
>>>>>>>> almost
>>>>>>>> completely for the marginal road maintenance costs induced by their
>>>>>>>> heavy
>>>>>>>> vehicles, it would mean that the trucking industry was actually a
>>>>>>>> net
>>>>>>>> negative producer -- that it had *always* cost more than it was
>>>>>>>> worth
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> truck things, with the benefit to any city of having cargo shipped
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> outweighed by its increased need to pay for road repairs, in town
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>> along the highways halfway to its neighbors. But that strikes me as
>>>>>>>> *extremely* unlikely.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As for the cost that would be passed on to consumers, typical
>>>>>>>> consumers
>>>>>>>> would see lower gas prices at the pump and higher price tags in the
>>>>>>>> stores,
>>>>>>>> with their budget coming out about the same in many cases. Those
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>> see net decreases in costs would be those that traveled a lot or
>>>>>>>> bought
>>>>>>>> little that wasn't produced locally. Those that would see net
>>>>>>>> increases
>>>>>>>> would be those that traveled little but bought large amounts of
>>>>>>>> non-locally-sourced items.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, yes, the drop in gas prices would be offset by the increase in
>>>>>>> whatever other tax you propose be charged to the truckers (sorry, I
>>>>>>> came
>>>>>>> into this late, didn't get all the details). In point of fact,
>>>>>>> though,
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> most efficient and fair method of paying for the roads would be to
>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> current tax on gasoline for road repair and building, which is what
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>> originally supposed to be used for (the jokes on us, as usual).
>>>>>
>>>>>> First of all, as Kerman pointed out that makes car-drivers
>>>>>> cross-subsidize
>>>>>> trucking
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>
>>>>>> for no apparent good reason.
>>>>>
>>>>> The very good reason is that the roads have to be paid for
>>>>> somehow and it makes no sense to be charging just trucking
>>>>> for the roads,
>>>
>>>> If it's just trucking that's responsible for nearly all road damage, it
>>>> certainly
>>>> can make sense to charge just trucking for the road maintenance.
>>>
>>> No it does not when even if trucking does all the damage,
>>> and it doesn't,
>
>> Then victory is mine, since it was your contention that it does that I was
>> originally opposing.
>>
>> Play again some time?
>
> Just another of your silly[NUKE]

Ad hominem noted and rejected. Sore loser behavior noted.

Try again?

[sdrat]

"J. Clarke" <jclark...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.2be6019cf...@news.newsguy.com...
> In article <au2q71...@mid.individual.net>, sd...@gfr.com says...
>>
>> "J. Clarke" <jclark...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.2be599ac4...@news.newsguy.com...
>> > In article <14cxfkj7orwsz$.b0oai3iilkdj$.d...@40tude.net>, murdoc11
>> > @tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid says...

>> >>
>> >> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 07:30:56 GMT, Wayne Throop wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >: Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid>

>> >> >: It's a direct logical consequence of what he said. For electric
>> >> >: vehicles *not* to take off
>> >> >
>> >> > Something which, of course, I never said.
>> >>
>> >> Deny, deny, deny...
>> >>
>> >> >: short of some civilization-ending disaster, we'd have to somehow
>> >> >not
>> >> >: run up against peak oil *and* never get much better batteries than
>> >> >we
>> >> >: have today.
>> >> >
>> >> > Also wrong. The obvious possibility is that something other than
>> >> > batteries would come along. That some other method would improve
>> >> > faster
>> >> > than batteries. For example, synfuels and fuel cells, just for
>> >> > one possibility. It is entirely plausible that energy density of a
>> >> > synthetic fuel could be better than anything that would be in the
>> >> > class
>> >> > of
>> >> > "battery".
>> >>
>> >> There are some large battery improvements on the horizon,
>> >

>> > Where. Show us. Not some university laboratory pie in the sky but
>> > something that has been demonstrated.

>> >
>> >> and nothing
>> >> comparable for synfuels, let alone *hydrogen*, for fuck's sake.
>> >

>> > Hydrogen works fine you know. There is a hydrogen powered bus running
>> > in the closest city to me.

>> >
>> >> The buzz
>> >> around hydrogen faded ages ago.
>> >

>> > That would be news to Honda.

>> >
>> >> That *did* hit energy density problems,
>> >> mainly stemming from hydrogen with the energy of a gallon of gasoline
>> >> preferring to take the form of a volume of gas bigger than a
>> >> tractor-trailer and *way* bigger than one gallon.
>> >

>> > That would be news to Honda.

>> >
>> >> > And further, even if EVs do take off, they can take off without
>> >> > radical, quick change to battery tech, if all the alternatives
>> >> > become
>> >> > worse.
>> >>
>> >> That's why I said that they'll also take off if fuel prices keep going
>> >> up
>> >> as they historically have.
>>

>> > Only if electricity prices don't track fuel prices. People like you
>> > have the notion that electricity is "free" based on the low amounts
>> > that you have historically paid for your home electric service, which
>> > does not generally have any large continous loads.
>>
>> That's not true with air conditioning particularly.

> Compared to charging an electric car it is.

No, the charging current is quite a bit lower than with air conditioning.

>> > Add an electric car into the mix that has to be charged every night
>> > and you aren't going to like what happens to your electric bills.
>>
>> Dunno, in areas which do have off peak overnight rates to
>> try to even out the load on the power stations, it might
>> well not be too bad compared with the cost of gasoline.

> Might not be too bad compared with gasoline,

In fact Wayne's figures show its about half the cost currently.

> but it's going to quickly disabuse them of the notion that it's "free".

Sure, but no one said it was free. Not even Murdoc did.

> This is also the problem with the notion of charging up at work.
> The boss isn't going to be pleased with what happens to _his_
> electric bill when there are a couple of hundred electric cars
> plugged in in his parking lot.

Plenty of places pay for the fuel that ends up in the company
supplied car, so they would also pay half as much as they do now.

>> The real problem is the capital cost of the EV
>> which has anything like the range of a normal car.

> That's another real problem.

It is in fact the main problem with EVs, not the
running cost.

>> > And that is _before_ the government gets
>> > around to adding a transportation tax to them.
>>
>> If they bother. I doubt they will myself, essentially
>> because I can't see any evidence of them getting
>> to anything like the price of conventional cars any
>> time soon, so they will be just like bicycles, no one
>> much bothers to tax them.

> The thing is, the price doesn't matter.

It does actually. EVs won't take off while ever the capital
cost is much higher than with conventional cars.

> California has mandated the electric car, whether it makes sense or not.

And I don't believe that anyone else much that matters will be that stupid.

> In order to be allowed to do business in California,
> a major market, auto manufacturers are required by
> law to sell a certain quantity of electric cars in that state.

And it remains to be seen how long that lasts when they
find that hardly anyone is silly enough to buy one.

> They will do this even if they have to pay people to take the
> worthless contraptions because otherwise they can't sell any
> of the rest of their cars there. So the number of electric cars
> in California has a lower bound that is set by law.

Only for as long as that stupid law lasts.

> Eventually the California legislature will see an
> opportunity to tax something that isn't already taxed . . .

They haven't done that with bicycles.

[Murdoc]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 07:45:43 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

> "Murdoc" <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote in message

> news:1uidrrdhn10mk$.1b16fgrisu0dj.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:09:08 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> In article <9glg11alo6z4$.dq08cl37...@40tude.net>, murdoc11
>>> @tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid says...
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 08:51:26 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So you _do_ want rail spurs going to every construction lot.
>>>>
>>>> Is strawman-burning the *official pastime* in rec.arts.sf.written or
>>>> something?
>>>>
>>>> Distribution from local warehouses by smaller trucks would still occur.
>>>> Trains would just replace giant inter-city haulers, perhaps, as a means
>>>> of
>>>> delivering *to* those warehouses from the point of manufacture.
>>>
>>> Ever see a house being built? It's not "smaller trucks". Several 18
>>> wheelers pull up, drop off a stack of construction materials, and leave.
>
>> Actually, I have, on several occasions, and I don't recall 18 wheelers.
>
> Then you have never had much to do with house construction.

I didn't claim otherwise. Only to have observed it.

> There isnt any other way to deliver bricks, concrete
> blocks, roof trusses, metal decking for roofs etc.

I've seen smaller trucks deliver these, in smaller loads at a time.

> And while concrete is not delivered in 18 wheelers
> the AXEL LOAD of what it is delivered in is actually
> HIGHER than you get with an 18 wheeler.

I didn't claim otherwise.

>> What I saw that *would* contribute a lot
>> of wear to roads was a cement mixer.
>
> So it makes absolutely no sense to be slugging trucking
> based on axel loads because that would discourage the
> use of that very long lived construction material.

That depends on how far the cement mixer has to travel. You certainly don't
see them trundling down the interstate from one city to the next -- well,
not *full* ones anyway.

>> Of course, 18 wheelers are verboten by law on many residential roads,
>
> Like hell they are

Er, there's a sign prohibiting them *at the end of the street on which I
live*, kook.

> You are massively confusing[NUKE]

Ad hominem noted and rejected.

Try again?

[Murdoc]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 21:56:08 GMT, Wayne Throop wrote:

>: Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid>
>: The X/air type batteries don't either.
>
> The X/air batteries, especially those with large energy density,
> are actually fuel cells.

Fascinating and entirely irrelevant. They're charge'n'go electricity
storage devices, rather than things that need refueling like a gas tank.
That's what matters for the purposes of this discussion.

>:: If you can't tell the difference, then... well, that's typical of
>:: you, now isn't it.
>: Ad hominem noted and rejected.
>

> Do you know what[NUKE]

Ad hominem "argument" form detected and rejected.

[Murdoc]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 07:54:01 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

> "Murdoc" <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote in message
> news:1qk5y3sfz7pwb$.as66xy3xrjbp$.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 05:14:30 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>>> "Murdoc" <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:qqnhv4rxt7g5.1f...@40tude.net...
>>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 08:10:34 GMT, Wayne Throop wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>: Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid>
>>>>>: There are some large battery improvements on the horizon, and nothing
>>>>>: comparable for synfuels, let alone *hydrogen*, for fuck's sake.
>>>>>
>>>>> And we're not out of fracking oil yet, for fuck's sake.
>>>>
>>>> "Peak oil" is not the same as "out of oil". Besides, have you *ever*
>>>> known
>>>> fuel prices to trend in any direction other than upwards, short-term
>>>> fluctuations aside?
>>>
>>> Yep, happened in the 70s.
>>
>> What part of "short-term fluctuations aside" did not penetrate?
>
> That was nothing like short term.

The decade-by-decade trend of fuel prices is upwards.

How the *hell* can you possibly continue arguing with something that
*everyone knows*? You really are like a religious zealot. Next you'll be
spouting stuff about 4004 BC.

[Murdoc]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 07:28:21 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

> "Murdoc" <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote in message

> news:btinfqk8akww$.2v4gxtx8z8jh$.dlg@40tude.net...
>> Ad hominem "argument" rejected.
>
> That isnt[NUKE]

News post calling me a liar noted and rejected.

[Rod Speed]

"Murdoc" <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote in message

news:fc2jt3uhb87x.1sazibs4rsivp$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 08:43:15 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> In article <169wnp9muar2i$.xldqq2s94kv1$.d...@40tude.net>, murdoc11
>> @tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid says...

>>>
>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 15:30:12 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Murdoc" <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote in message

>>>> news:rajilhafjah1$.1h7nmxd3at2ok.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>>> Proof?
>>>>
>>>> YOU made the claim that they would.
>>>>
>>>> YOU get to do the proving.
>>>>
>>>> THAT'S how it works.
>>>
>>> No. YOUR claim is the extraordinary one. To wit, YOUR claim is "electric
>>> vehicles will never take off".

>> How is that an "extraordinary claim"?

> It boils down to a claim that fossil fuels will never run out, or else the
> mythical "hydrogen infrastructure" will magically appear before they do,
> or
> else it will somehow be more efficient to burn biofuels in an engine than
> in a power plant, when economies of scale strongly argue otherwise.

That last is just plain wrong with biodiesel alone.

> That makes it an extraordinary claim.

No.

>>> That claim can only be false if peak oil
>>> miraculously never comes

>> Which it hasn't yet, despite many dire predictions.

> So it is your contention that the Earth, with its total volume of
> 1,083,206,916,846 km^3, contains an *infinite* amount of fossil fuel?

No, just that there is enough of it to last for hundreds of years more yet.

> Or ... I know! You expect us to strike oil on Mars Real Soon Now.

Nope, just keep using what we have.

> But wait, that only pushes back the inevitable.

Inevitably the sun will go out and even EVs will be completely useless.

> Unless, of course, you're contending that the 10^80 or so atoms that are
> within eventual reach, given only that we don't invent faster than light
> or
> interdimensional travel, somehow includes infinitely many carbon atoms
> in fossil fuel molecules?

> *Please* tell me you were joking.

Just rubbing your nose in the basics, just like everyone else does.

>>> *and* battery tech for cars is pretty much as good as it will ever get,

>> Which it may well be.

> Nope. A suitably constructed arrangement of mitochondria and
> chloroplasts, the latter with the chlorophyll replaced by a direct
> electrical energy input to the sugar synthesizing machinery, would be
> able to store and release electric energy with a higher efficiency and
> energy density than present day batteries -- comparable to a fuel cell.

Then get off your lard arse and do it commercially.

> And the whatever/air family of batteries are comparable as well.
> Without needing outside fuel added, just electricity. It's clearly
> feasible.
> It's just a matter of getting it exactly right and scaling up production.

How odd that no one has done that.

>>> *or* by the time peak oil comes around we've invented
>>> non-electrical pixie dust to power vehicles with instead of
>>> gas, *or* the doomsday meteor gets us all before peak oil.

>> Or someone comes up with an economical way
>> to produce hydrocarbon fuels from CO2 and H2O.

> Biofuel? It will still be more efficient, in the long run, to burn
> that at a power plant than in an internal combustion engine.

Wrong with biodiesel alone.

>>> Now do set to proving your claim. I suggest you start by deciding which
>>> of
>>> those three it is. (The likeliest one, if I'm any judge, is the doomsday
>>> meteor.)

>> No,

> Yes. Do it, or concede the argument.

Or tell you to get fucked, again.

>>>>>>>>> A "country that matters" was stupid enough to embroil itself in a
>>>>>>>>> $3
>>>>>>>>> trillion land war in Asia recently, during which it lost a
>>>>>>>>> briefcast
>>>>>>>>> containing billions along the side of some dusty frigging road.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Different issues so just because they were that stupid on those
>>>>>>>> things doesn't say a damned thing about how likely they actually
>>>>>>>> are to be stupid enough to go for a carbon tax any time soon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It means that all bets are off.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, because a carbon tax has to happen by entirely different
>>>>>> processes than those two stupiditys you mentioned.
>>>>
>>>>> Proof?
>>>>
>>>> Have a look at the processes that were involved with all 3.
>>>
>>> Vague assertions and suggestions without specific citations do not
>>> constitute proof.
>>
>> Comments about vague assertions do not constitute proof.
>
> Tell that to Rod Speed. And yourself and the rest of the RTB.
>
>> You claim a carbon tax is imminent, you prove it.
>
> I didn't claim one was imminent. I claimed one was possible.

It isnt in the US, you watch.

>>>>> Lobbyists pay government to not look too closely
>>>>> at whether program X will really be cost effective.
>>>>
>>>> That's not what drove either those wars you don't
>>>> agree with
>>>
>>> Oh, you poor, naive fool.
>>
>> Oh, you poor knee-jerking conspiracy nut.

> What conspiracy are you alleging I have alleged?
> MID and exact citation, please.

We all swooned at all those examples you provided yourself.

>>>>> Government implements program X. Lobbyists'
>>>>> clients get richer. Taxpayers get poorer.
>>>>
>>>> That's not what drove either those wars you don't
>>>> agree with
>>>
>>> Oh, you poor, naive fool.
>>
>> Repeat yourself much?
>
> Ohhhh, the irony.
>
>>>>> Seems to me like the same process applies more or less across the
>>>>> board.
>>>>
>>>> More fool you.
>>>
>>> Liar.
>>
>> Prove you're not a fool.
>
> Already done.
>
>>>> That's not what drove either those wars you don't
>>>> agree with
>>>
>>> Oh, you poor, naive fool.
>>
>> Prove he's a fool.
>
> Already done.
>
>>>>>>>>> you underestimate just *how* stupid something would have
>>>>>>>>> to be before "no country that matters will be that stupid".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope, the US won't be having a carbon tax, you watch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again, all bets are off when you're dealing with something
>>>>>>> as unpredictable as Congress and the federal government.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No. There was nothing at all unpredictable about the reaction
>>>>>> of Congress and the federal government to something like 9/11.
>>>>
>>>>> No.
>>>>
>>>>> A limited engagement in Afghanistan to depose
>>>>> the Taliban government was a predictable response.
>>>>
>>>>> The invasion of Iraq, which had had nothing whatsoever
>>>>> to do with 9/11, and the sheer amount of money poured
>>>>> into that war, is a whole 'nother kettle of fish altogether.
>>>>
>>>> Still nothing to do with lobbyists pay government to not
>>>> look too closely at whether program X will really be cost
>>>> effective. Government implements program X. Lobbyists'
>>>> clients get richer. Taxpayers get poorer.
>>>
>>> Proof?
>>>
>>> Seems to be everything to do with that, with "lobbyists" in this case
>>> being
>>> for Blackwater and other big defense companies, "program X" being the
>>> war,
>>> Blackwater getting richer, and everyone else getting poorer. Or dead.
>>
>> You mean you're not going to blame it all on Halliburton?
>
> Them too. Really, the whole military-industrial complex. Which we were
> warned about half a century ago.
>
>>>>>>> If a few fat defense contractors can convince them to spend
>>>>>>> trillions trying to pacify the un-pacifiable Middle East,
>>>>
>>>>>> A carbon tax can't do anything of the sort.
>>>>
>>>>> It wouldn't be defense contractors in that case; no.
>>>>
>>>> It wouldn't be anyone else either.
>>>
>>> Proof?
>>
>> Prove that someone else would be bribing the Congress to pass this law.
>> Give us names.
>
> No, *your* contention requires *you* to prove that *nobody else ever
> will*.
> All *I* have to do is prove that someone *might*.
>
>>>>>> And the Middle East is now irrelevant with coal seam gas.
>>>>
>>>>> The relevance of the Middle East is irrelevant to carbon taxes.
>>>>
>>>>>>> a few big carbon-sequestration companies could probably swing a
>>>>>>> carbon
>>>>>>> tax.
>>>>
>>>>>> Not a chance.
>>>>
>>>>> Proof?
>>>>
>>>> YOU made the claim that.
>>>>
>>>> YOU get to do the proving.
>>>>
>>>> THAT'S how it works.
>>>
>>> I said something was possible. You said it was impossible. Yours is the
>>> extraordinary claim. Yours is the burden of proof.
>>
>> You are claiming that a new law is inevitable. Prove it.
>
> Where did I claim it was "inevitable", as opposed to "not impossible"?
>
>>>>>>> Not saying it'll happen, just saying you can't rule it out.
>>>>
>>>>>> You can actually, you watch.
>>>>
>>>>> Proof?
>>>>
>>>> YOU made the claim that.
>>>>
>>>> YOU get to do the proving.
>>>>
>>>> THAT'S how it works.
>>>
>>> I said something was possible. You said it was impossible. Yours is the
>>> extraordinary claim. Yours is the burden of proof.
>>
>> Prove you law will happen.
>
> Where did I claim it was "inevitable", as opposed to "not impossible"?

[Murdoc]

If someone built it, and it was much more efficient than either burning the
fuel in a combustion engine or using it at some type of larger power plant.

It's still an electric vehicle in terms of the drive system, of course.

>: Clear enough now?
>
> Certainly an improvement over your usual mud[NUKE]

[Murdoc]

That must have been *some* batch of weed!

>>> because of coal seam gas.
>
>> And chanting a mantra, such as "coal seam gas",
>> over and over again does not constitute evidence.
>
> Denying that that's a massive new source of fossil
> fuel that isnt even in the hands of foreigners out
> to milk the west for whatever they can get for it
> changes nothing.

What source would that be, and why hasn't it been in the news? What's been
in the news is tar sands -- pretty much literally scraping the bottom of
the barrel in terms of economic-to-recover fossil fuel. And, once in a
while, fracking. Both because of the horrible eco-messes they create.

>>>>> So. Really, you are having severe problems both tracking who said what
>>>
>>>> *If* I am,
>>>
>>> No *if* about it, you are.
>

> <your juvenile sh[NUKE]

Ad hominem detected and rejected.

Try again?

[Rod Speed]

"Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote in message
news:13670...@sheol.org...
> :::: there is *some* crossover point with lowering battery costs and
> :::: rising capacities and charge rates, on the one hand, and rising
> :::: fuel prices on the other, where electric vehicles switch from being
> :::: slightly less attractive than gasoline ones to slightly more
> :::: attractive.

>
> ::: You are assuming that electric rates are independent of fuel costs.
>

> :: And that tax structures will never change [...]
> :: There are many things that could negate that advantage. And it does
> :: seem unlikely that only two variables (battery capabilities and
> :: transport fuel prices) will change, and nothing else will.
>
> : "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
> : But there is no reason to believe that the other changes are likely to
> : be anything like as important to the prospect of EVs taking over from
> : IC engined vehicles any time soon, if ever.
>
> The two variables above were battery costs
> (into which capability can be folded), and fuel costs.

> It seems like increasing electricity costs due to taxes, fuel, and
> capitalization costs of new plant construction, etc, would be important
> to the prospect of viability of EVs.

I doubt it, because as you pointed out, the 'fuel' cost is halved.

> Taxes especially, if they are enacted, as seems likely.

I doubt that there will ever be enough EVs in use to make them worth taxing.

Just like we don�t bother with bicycles either.

> Of course, they tend to make EVs *less* viable,
> but it still seems important to their prospects.

I doubt it myself, essentially because I can't see them ever taking off.

We've been doing batterys for something like
200 years now and they STILL arent viable for EVs.

> Increased mpg due (among other factors) to
> hybrids, is another sticking point for EV adoption.

But nothing like as important as their stupid capital cost.

> Improved battery tech, and improved energy management,
> means the full EV crossover point mentioned above turns
> into a red queen's race.

I don�t see that there is any race at all. EVs won't take off.

> And so on and so on.

[Rod Speed]

"Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote in message
news:13670...@sheol.org...

> ::: You are assuming that electric rates are independent of fuel costs.
>

> :: In the long run, they are. When fuel-based electricity production
> :: prices itself out of the market, as nonrenewables eventually *must*
> :: as an ironclad law of nature,

> When fuel prices go up,

The price of coal doesn�t when the price of the fuel that
can be used in internal combustion engines goes up.

> more and more expensive "renewables" become viable.

Not when the price of coal doesn�t go up.

> They come on-line.

Only when they are mandated by stupid politicians.

> The price of electricity goes up.

But not because of fuel prices going up.

[Murdoc]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 08:19:30 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

> "Murdoc" <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote in message
> news:fc2jt3uhb87x.1sazibs4rsivp$.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 08:43:15 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> In article <169wnp9muar2i$.xldqq2s94kv1$.d...@40tude.net>, murdoc11
>>> @tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid says...
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 15:30:12 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Murdoc" <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>> news:rajilhafjah1$.1h7nmxd3at2ok.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>>>> Proof?
>>>>>
>>>>> YOU made the claim that they would.
>>>>>
>>>>> YOU get to do the proving.
>>>>>
>>>>> THAT'S how it works.
>>>>
>>>> No. YOUR claim is the extraordinary one. To wit, YOUR claim is "electric
>>>> vehicles will never take off".
>
>>> How is that an "extraordinary claim"?
>
>> It boils down to a claim that fossil fuels will never run out, or else the
>> mythical "hydrogen infrastructure" will magically appear before they do,
>> or
>> else it will somehow be more efficient to burn biofuels in an engine than
>> in a power plant, when economies of scale strongly argue otherwise.
>
> That last is just plain wrong with biodiesel alone.

Proof?

>> That makes it an extraordinary claim.
>
> No.

Yes.

>>>> That claim can only be false if peak oil
>>>> miraculously never comes
>
>>> Which it hasn't yet, despite many dire predictions.
>
>> So it is your contention that the Earth, with its total volume of
>> 1,083,206,916,846 km^3, contains an *infinite* amount of fossil fuel?
>
> No, just that there is enough of it to last for hundreds of years more yet.

That still means that "peak oil miraculously never comes" is wrong, kook.

>> Or ... I know! You expect us to strike oil on Mars Real Soon Now.
>
> Nope, just keep using what we have.

Fossil fuel is *non-renewable*. Do you understand what "non-renewable"
means?

>> But wait, that only pushes back the inevitable.
>
> Inevitably the sun will go out and even EVs will be completely useless.

But not before they've taken off.

>> Unless, of course, you're contending that the 10^80 or so atoms that are
>> within eventual reach, given only that we don't invent faster than light
>> or
>> interdimensional travel, somehow includes infinitely many carbon atoms
>> in fossil fuel molecules?
>
>> *Please* tell me you were joking.
>

> Just rubbing your nose in the b[NUKE]

Ad hominem noted and rejected.

Try again?

[Wayne Throop]

: Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid>
: A race that, in the long run, anything reliant upon fossil fuels
: *must* lose.

No. Because hydrocarbon fuels can be synthesized.
It's expensive right now. But it isn't inevitable that it always will be.
For one example, let's say that using the 2/3 of thermal energy that grid
power plants currently throw away can be used in the synthesis. Then
there'd be a reason to synthesize centrally, and use the existing
distribution channels.

Note: IMO, it seems likely that pluggable cars *are* going to be more
and more at an advantage over time. However, you claim it *must*
lose; but it's not necessarily so. Further, in the intermediate term,
the chances of a direct, abrupt, transition to EVs by a significant
fraction of the population seems unlikely, given issues of grid expansion.
In the meanwhile, various hybrid schemes (including non-electric hybrids)
will almost certainly be messed around with.

If "long term" implies that by 2300 CE, nearly all cars will be plugable,
I wouldn't object much, except that your extrapolation over that time
span is pretty ill-founded. If you mean that the majority of cars will
be EVs by 2030, I doubt it.

[Rod Speed]

"Murdoc" <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote in message

news:ie9ks6hsuemu.18xltvaqgc0fv$.dlg@40tude.net...

> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 06:48:17 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> "Murdoc" <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote in message

>> news:1x4dyrqyvt62k$.xiew1jao9213$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 08:08:32 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <12b7c1yzzfz1x.1...@40tude.net>, murdoc11
>>>> @tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid says...
>>>>> What about encouraging the clay to fire into bricks to be sourced more
>>>>> locally? Trucking clay cross-country when there's lots of it right
>>>>> near
>>>>> the
>>>>> construction site isn't exactly an exemplar of efficiency. :)
>>>>
>>>> What if there is no local source of clay, or if the local clay, while
>>>> it
>>>> can be used to make bricks, is of a type that can be more profitably
>>>> made into porcelain? And this doesn't even start to address economies
>>>> of scale.
>>>
>>> We'd be talking about a major metro area and a large surrounding chunk
>>> of
>>> the countryside here, not a few square km and a small town. There'll be
>>> lots of clay, anywhere but the middle of the desert, and a fair bit of
>>> demand. Absent hard numbers *proving* how big you can make a brick

>>> factory
>>> before economies of scale are subject to diminishing returns, and
>>> *proving*
>>> demand, I maintain my position.
>>>

>>> Especially since bricks are nonperishable, so they can be made
>>> infrequently
>>> in giant batches if that gives the best economy of scale, and
>>> stockpiled,
>>> even if the demand is intermittent. Said stockpiles would have little
>>> overhead; it's essentially a pile of rocks. Fence off some low-value
>>> land
>>> on the outskirts of town, pile them up, and cover with a tarp.
>>

>> No one bothers to cover bricks with a tarp.

> I've *seen* a pallet of bricks covered by a tarp at a construction site.

There are some pig ignorant fools everywhere.

You won't see that happen in any brick factory.

>> They might just be designed to work fine when not covered by a tarp,

> In their final emplacement, they're typically covered by a roof

Like hell the walls are.

>> stupid.

> Ad hominem noted

That's actually an accurate statement of fact.

[Murdoc]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 22:05:22 GMT, Wayne Throop wrote:

>: Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid>
>: A race that, in the long run, anything reliant upon fossil fuels
>: *must* lose.
>
> No. Because hydrocarbon fuels can be synthesized.

Do you understand the definition of "fossil fuels"?

> Note: IMO, it seems likely that pluggable cars *are* going to be more
> and more at an advantage over time.

In other words, I win.

Play again sometime?

[Murdoc]

> There are some pig ignorant fool[NUKE]

[Rod Speed]

"Murdoc" <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote in message

news:1bx5whb296751.stfa83ylrdgl$.dlg@40tude.net...

> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 06:55:58 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> "Murdoc" <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote in message

>> news:9glg11alo6z4$.dq08cl37x5ok.dlg@40tude.net...
>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 08:51:26 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <1lu7wfk3gs99f$.19naafec...@40tude.net>, murdoc11
>>>> @tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid says...

>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 22:44:11 -0600, Dragon Lady wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Murdoc" <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote in message

>>>>>> news:1k5soi94rei5h.1wffdhbuvokhw$.dlg@40tude.net...

>>>>>>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 21:36:03 -0600, Dragon Lady wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Murdoc" <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote in message

>>>>>>>> news:fktdc8hffgsq.am4rlg86d5zn$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 18:42:04 -0400, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/26/13 2:14 PM, Murdoc wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 13:25:51 -0400, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/26/13 12:46 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No; if they wanted to make sense they would tax neither
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gasoline
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electricity to pay for roads. Nor would they insist on GPS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tracking.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead, they'd simply read your odometer whenever you had
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vehicle's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plates and registration renewed, and calculate a tax from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >from the last reading. Maybe then billing you in installments
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >rather
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all at once.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tampering with the odometer is already illegal, since it can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to

>>>>> trucking for no apparent good reason.
>>>>>
>>>>> Secondly, the context in which this whole discussion arose was one
>>>>> where
>>>>> the gasoline tax could be causing a rapidly growing cross-subsidy from
>>>>> gas-powered vehicle users to users of electric vehicles, who benefit
>>>>> from
>>>>> road maintenance and improvements without paying a gasoline tax.
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you did a little research before deciding you're right,
>>>>>
>>>>> !!!
>>>>>
>>>>> This *right* after admitting that you "came into this late" and
>>>>> "didn't
>>>>> get
>>>>> all the details"???
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> What it amounts to, is the current system is actually an efficient
>>>>>> system
>>>>>> for paying for road maintenance, as the people who use the roads the
>>>>>> most
>>>>>> are also the ones who are paying the most for them. Under your
>>>>>> system,
>>>>>> the exact opposite would be true, as the cost of maintaining the
>>>>>> roads
>>>>>> would be transferred to *all* consumers instead of to those who
>>>>>> actually
>>>>>> benefit from the roads the most.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the short view, you're wrong, as users of vehicles that cause
>>>>> 99.99%
>>>>> of
>>>>> the road damage pay a lot less than 99.99% of the total amount of
>>>>> gasoline
>>>>> taxes paid.
>>>>>
>>>>> And in the long view, you're wrong, as no matter *how* that tax is
>>>>> levied,
>>>>> it's eventually transferred to "*all* consumers" by the truckers
>>>>> passing
>>>>> however much they eat on to their clients, who pass on their increased
>>>>> trucking costs to their customers, who are, ultimately, consumers.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> And in the unlikely event that yours and Rod's contentions are true
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> trucking really *is* inefficient, but heavily subsidized by
>>>>>>> commuters
>>>>>>> paying for one of its biggest negative externalities (road damage),
>>>>>>> we'd
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>> better off in the long run to get rid of most of it and see a return
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> freight trains doing much of the cross-country shipping.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not actually proposing that the trucking industry is the problem.
>>>>>> I'm
>>>>>> proposing that your proposal would send costs spiraling out of
>>>>>> control,
>>>>>
>>>>> How so? That only makes sense if trucking is in fact currently only
>>>>> viable
>>>>> because it is, in one manner or another, massively subsidized, and in
>>>>> that
>>>>> case we're probably better off with freight trains or something
>>>>> anyway.

>>>>
>>>> So you _do_ want rail spurs going to every construction lot.
>>

>>> Distribution from local warehouses by smaller trucks would still occur.
>>

>> In fact EXACTLY the same semis are used to move the heavier stuff
>> around the city as are used for moving them between citys currently.

> And you maintain that even if semis were taxed much more
> heavily, enough that they stopped being the major intercity
> way of moving the heavier stuff,

That just isnt possible.

> that would not change?

Yep, they would STILL use semis to move them around the source
and destination citys. It isnt feasible to move bricks, concrete, steel
etc any other way.

<all your juvenile shit flushed where it belongs>

[Wayne Throop]

:::: In the long run, they are. When fuel-based electricity production

:::: prices itself out of the market, as nonrenewables eventually *must*
:::: as an ironclad law of nature,

:: When fuel prices go up, more and more expensive "renewables" become
:: viable. They come on-line. The price of electricity goes up.

: Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid>
: And then becomes completely independent of fuel costs, from that time
: onward.

Ah, I see. "In the long run" is your code for "no prediction
of any practical consequence".

Deuterium is a non-renewable resource. It'll eventually price itself
out of the market as it becomes rare. In about 60 million years,
more or less.

Fissionables are non-renewable also. They'll price themselves out of
the market. In several thousand years.

By then, what are the chances people will plug their cars in?
I dunno. And neither do you. Hence: code for "no prediction of
any practical consequence".

[Murdoc]

> That just isnt poss[NUKE]

You've conceded the main point, which was your claim that moving the costs
of road repairs entirely onto those that cause them would kill the trucking
industry.

I therefore win.

Play again sometime?

[Wayne Throop]

: Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid>
: Long story short:

Your cut and paste is actually long story highly distorted.
And you keep snipping the quotes from articles that demonstrate
the distortion.

Good for you. If that's the only way you know to "discuss",
where you make up both halves of a discussion, have at it.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 4/27/13 4:10 PM, Murdoc wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 15:57:05 -0400, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) handed me
> victory on a silver platter:
>
>> On 4/27/13 9:29 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> In article <1oezssd9fqhi9$.fe136t3tucjb$.d...@40tude.net>, murdoc11
>>
>>>> And you've pulled that figure completely out of your ass. Given that a
>>>> normal sedan driving over a road has no discernible-to-the-eye effect on it
>>>> *at all* I wouldn't be surprised in the least to find out that 10k miles of
>>>> sedan driving put less than a penny's worth of wear on the roads.
>>>
>>> Proof?
>>
>> He has no proof or even any sensible argument here.
>
> Ad hominem "argument" noted.
>

> Try again?
>
>> You cannot see the wear from a single pass of a railroad car over a
>> rail -- either on the wheel or the rail -- but both DO wear, and
>> wear noticeably.
>>
>> I'm not speaking from ignorance on this topic. The company I work for
>> manufactures and sells (and researches the development of new) systems
>> for tracking and measuring wear and damage on components in both the
>> rail and commercial vehicle (trucking) industry, as well as stuff for
>> military vehicles.
>>
>> You can't SEE the damage a car does going over a road, but it does
>> indeed do damage; if you were to actually go over the surface with a
>> microscope before-and-after, you'd be able to see it.
>>
>> Let's examine the numbers.
>>
>> My claim is that a car does at least $1.00 of damage to the roads it
>> goes over, in total, in one year. In that year it covers on average
>> 10,000 miles or so. This is in a single lane (yes, it may shift lanes
>> but at any given time the car is only in one lane save for brief moments
>> when it straddles the line, so let's say just one lane. Current
>> construction costs for high-quality highways are pretty close to a
>> million dollars per mile per lane.
>>
>> Since I'm contending $1.00 over 10k miles, that means I'm contending
>> $1.00/10,000, or one-hundredth of a cent, per mile of travel per year.
>>
>> As it costs a million dollars to make that mile of road, this implies
>> that ten BILLION cars must pass over that mile of road to ruin it beyond
>> repair (ie., require complete reconstruction rather than maintenance),
>> if my estimate is anywhere near correct. To really ruin a good
>> interstate without any maintenance might take, say, 20 years (bridges
>> last for 50-100 years, but NOT without maintenance, and roads
>> considerably less); I think 10 years is more likely with constant
>> traffic, but I'll assume 20; I'm also assuming it's in some location
>> where the impact of weather is minimal -- up here in the Northeast, if
>> you left a road untouched for a few years with NO traffic it'd self
>> destruct pretty quick.
>>
>> That means that each year, 500 million cars pass over that mile of
>> road. That's almost a thousand cars PER MINUTE (951, to be closer to
>> exact), or 15 per second in ONE LANE.
>>
>> That's way more than you'll ever see on any road. About a TENTH that
>> would be a very busy highway, and note that this assumes the road has
>> that volume 24/7/365, as opposed to most roads which have times they're
>> very busy and times they're empty.
>>
>> Even if you assume that even in really really nice places, weather
>> damage exceeds vehicle damage by a factor of 10, it's clear that my
>> estimate of $1.00 per vehicle per year is quite a reasonable one.

>>
>> Note that in various sources I find several CENTS PER VEHICLE MILE
>> quoted as road-damage costs (see:
>> http://www.spur.org/publications/library/article/estimatingtheexternalcostsofdrivinginsf09012005),
>> which is two orders of magnitude, at least, higher than my estimate.
>> That probably includes trucks, of course, but overall I find nothing to
>> argue against my BOTE calculations being reasonably close.
>
> Thanks for handing me my victory. Since that does include trucks, and since
> trucks do at *least* 99% of the total damage according to your *own* math,
> that makes it only a hundredth of a cent or so for cars.
>

Er, you can't even keep track of the argument within ONE post? A
hundredth of a cent, per mile, *IS* one dollar per year per car, which
was *MY* contention, and what I used, throughout, for my calculations --
and you have just agreed with it. Thus, $1 for a car, $78,000 for a
truck. Suck it.

--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com

[Murdoc]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 22:36:17 GMT, Wayne Throop wrote:

>:::: In the long run, they are. When fuel-based electricity production
>:::: prices itself out of the market, as nonrenewables eventually *must*
>:::: as an ironclad law of nature,
>
>:: When fuel prices go up, more and more expensive "renewables" become
>:: viable. They come on-line. The price of electricity goes up.
>
>: Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid>
>: And then becomes completely independent of fuel costs, from that time
>: onward.
>

> Ah, I see. "In the long run" is your code for[NUKE]

Attempt to put words in my mouth rejected.

[Murdoc]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 22:41:00 GMT, Wayne Throop wrote:

>: Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid>
>: Long story short:
>

> Your cut and paste is actually long story highly distort[NUKE]

News post calling me a liar noted and rejected.

[Rod Speed]

"Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote in message
news:13670...@sheol.org...

> : "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
> : That hasn't stopped LPG being used in ALL
> : of our taxis and quite a few of our cars too.

> Do you mean LNG?

Nope, LPG.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquefied_petroleum_gas

> Natural gas abundance was what you were discussing just above this point.

Nope.

> If not LNG, where does the butane/propane come from?

> : That hasn't stopped LPG being used in ALL
> : of our taxis and quite a few of our cars too.

> The distribution system for LPG isn't nearly as
> robust as that for either electricity or gasoline/diesel.

Just because it doesn�t need to be.

> That's why it ends up being viable for fleet vehicles,
> but J.Random Citizen won't find it nearly as
> competitive with gasoline/diesel as a fleet will.

Horde use it here fine.

> Do the non-fleet cars it's used in tend to be approximately
> colocated with specific pre-existing distribution infrastructure?

That last is almost everywhere here.

[Murdoc]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 18:40:36 -0400, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:

> On 4/27/13 4:10 PM, Murdoc wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 15:57:05 -0400, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) handed me
>> victory on a silver platter:
>>

>>> Note that in various sources I find several CENTS PER VEHICLE MILE
>>> quoted as road-damage costs (see:
>>> http://www.spur.org/publications/library/article/estimatingtheexternalcostsofdrivinginsf09012005),
>>> which is two orders of magnitude, at least, higher than my estimate.
>>> That probably includes trucks, of course, but overall I find nothing to
>>> argue against my BOTE calculations being reasonably close.
>>
>> Thanks for handing me my victory. Since that does include trucks, and since
>> trucks do at *least* 99% of the total damage according to your *own* math,
>> that makes it only a hundredth of a cent or so for cars.
>

> Er, you can't even k[NUKE]

Ad hominem noted and rejected.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 4/27/13 4:23 PM, Murdoc wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 15:35:28 -0400, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>
>> On 4/27/13 1:57 PM, Murdoc wrote:
>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 08:12:41 -0400, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/27/13 5:47 AM, Murdoc wrote:

>>>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 09:06:08 GMT, Wayne Throop wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> : Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid>

>>>>>> : Well, how about this?
>>>>>> : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery
>>>>>> : Washington State University researchers expect to bring to market
>>>>>> : before June 2013
>>>>>> : http://news.wsu.edu/pages/publications.asp?Action=Detail&PublicationID=31776
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Excellent! So why didn't you just say that when I asked what indications
>>>>>> you had for an imanent, radical improvement,
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought it would be more fun
>>>>
>>>> Translation:
>>>
>>> I say what I mean
>>
>> And what you mean when "I argued this way and drew it out for fun" is,
> [attempt to put words in my mouth is denied]

>
> Long story short:
>
> 1. I said proposition A: essentially, "battery tech will improve
> significantly in the fairly near term."

Changing the precise wording changes the way people interpret it. Your
paraphrase shows that you are insensitive, at best, to the way people
read your words, and at worst you are completely aware that your
phrasing sucked -- your phrasing being "about to become obsolete". While
I have at least some willingness to believe that you think the two
phrasings are the same, you seem unwilling to realize that to many other
people they are *NOT* the same; "about to become obsolete" has an
immediacy, and an extremity, associated with it that "improve
significantly in the fairly near term" does not, at all.

Words -- precise and exact use of words -- makes a difference.

>
> 2. Several people, whom I shall collectively refer to as the "rasw troll
> brigade" or RTB, began vehemently arguing with me, thus implying that
> they all believed proposition B: "battery tech would remain more or less
> stagnant for at least ten years".

And no one actually said that, yet you insist on saying that people did.

This is, at least, some indication that your inability to understand
what people ACTUALLY wrote -- and what your phrasing implied to
virtually everyone reading it -- is honestly your own problem, and not a
deliberate act.

> 3. I proved that B is almost certainly incorrect.
>

As you were "proving" a strawman, that isn't much of a victory for you,
except in your mind.

[Murdoc]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 18:45:12 -0400, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:

> On 4/27/13 4:23 PM, Murdoc wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 15:35:28 -0400, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/27/13 1:57 PM, Murdoc wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 08:12:41 -0400, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/27/13 5:47 AM, Murdoc wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 09:06:08 GMT, Wayne Throop wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> : Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid>
>>>>>>> : Well, how about this?
>>>>>>> : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery
>>>>>>> : Washington State University researchers expect to bring to market
>>>>>>> : before June 2013
>>>>>>> : http://news.wsu.edu/pages/publications.asp?Action=Detail&PublicationID=31776
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Excellent! So why didn't you just say that when I asked what indications
>>>>>>> you had for an imanent, radical improvement,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I thought it would be more fun
>>>>>
>>>>> Translation:
>>>>
>>>> I say what I mean
>>>
>>> And what you mean when "I argued this way and drew it out for fun" is,
>> [attempt to put words in my mouth is denied]
>>
>> Long story short:
>>
>> 1. I said proposition A: essentially, "battery tech will improve
>> significantly in the fairly near term."
>

> [NUKE]you are insensitive[NUKE]

Ad hominem noted and rejected.

Long story short:

1. I said proposition A: essentially, "battery tech will improve
significantly in the fairly near term."

2. Several people, whom I shall collectively refer to as the "rasw troll
brigade" or RTB, began vehemently arguing with me, thus implying that
they all believed proposition B: "battery tech would remain more or less

stagnant for at least ten years". Proposition B being the negation of
proposition A, it is necessarily the case that if you argue against A,
you're arguing for B, so, since they were arguing against A, the RTB
were arguing for B.

3. I proved that B is almost certainly incorrect.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 4/27/13 4:27 PM, Murdoc wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 15:30:34 -0400, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>
>> On 4/27/13 2:12 PM, Murdoc wrote:
>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 08:04:46 -0400, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/27/13 3:56 AM, Murdoc wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 03:19:53 EDT, Wayne Throop wrote:
>>>>> ^^^^^^^^
>>>>> Don't any of you trolls ever sleep for Christ's sake??
>>>>>
>>>>>> : Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid>
>>>>>> : So you're taking a page from "Rod Speed"'s troll playbook and
>>>>>> : completely repudiating ever having held your former position?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That I ever held that position is in your fevered imagination only.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am quite certain that I did *not* imagine it.
>>>>
>>>> "Imagine" may be inaccurate. "Misread and misinterpret", deliberately
>>> [rest deleted unread]
>>>
>>> You know what? If you're going to accuse me of lying, then *fuck you*,
>>> troll.
>>
>> To use an ancient phrase, "I know you are, but what am I?"[NUKE]

>
> Long story short:
>
> 1. I said proposition A: essentially, "battery tech will improve
> significantly in the fairly near term."

No, you made a statement whose phrasing was considerably different.
Words have meaning. Words in context have implied meaning and
connotations. The implied meaning and connotations of "about to become
obsolete" are significantly different for many people than "will improve
significantly in the fairly near term". The first phrasing carries a
MUCH stronger implication of the degree of improvement (obsoleting other
tech) and a significantly stronger impression of shorter timespan.

Far fewer, if not no, people would have argued with you if you had used
the second phrasing initially.

>
> 2. Several people, whom I shall collectively refer to as the "rasw troll
> brigade" or RTB, began vehemently arguing with me, thus implying that
> they all believed proposition B: "battery tech would remain more or less
> stagnant for at least ten years".

Again, they did not. I didn't, Wayne didn't. However, your
INTERPRETATION of this is, at least, consistent with your belief that
the two phrasings above are functionally equivalent; if you do believe
they are equivalent, then it does make sense you would interpret any
argument as, of necessity, having to imply that position.

However, no one here actually meant that position, and your
interpretation of that position comes from your particular inability to
note the difference in meaning and implication in specific phrasing.

>
> 3. I proved that B is almost certainly incorrect.

Which, while apparently relevant to you, appeared to everyone else as
you taking out a strawman and beating it violently, since none of them
had any intention of stating B, and none believed they had so stated it
-- and you were, apparently, the only one unable to see that your own
phrasing was not giving to other people the impression it apparently had
in your own mind.

[Wayne Throop]

:: But wait, that only pushes back the inevitable.

: "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
: Inevitably the sun will go out and even EVs will be completely useless.

The notion that "in the long term, renewables will make the price
of electricity independent of fuel" is silly. Because in the LONG
term, there's no such thing as renewables. What, you thought the
wind would blow, the water run, the mantle convect, and the sun shine
over the LONG term? How naive.


"We thought about it a long time. "Endeavor to persevere."
And when we had thought about it enough,
we declared war on the Union."
--- Lone Watie (Chief Dan George)

The new recruit is silly
'E thinks 'o suicide
'E's lost 'is gutter-devil
'E 'asn't got 'is pride
--- Kippling

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 4/27/13 5:25 PM, Murdoc wrote:

> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 20:25:55 GMT, Wayne Throop wrote:
>
>> : Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid>

>> : Several people, whom I shall collectively refer to as the "rasw troll

>> : brigade" or RTB, began vehemently arguing with me, thus implying that
>> : they all believed proposition B: "battery tech would remain more or
>> : less stagnant for at least ten years".
>>

>> A position you made up all by yourself, with no input from anybody else.
>
> Incorrect. Since it is the logical negation of proposition A, and you all
> rejected proposition A vehemently, said rejection constituted you all
> arguing for proposition B.
>

Except that your restatement of proposition A is very different from
what most people -- including the group you're calling the RTB --
interpreted your ORIGINAL statement. Phrasing *MATTERS*. It's the
difference between saying "The restaurant's just ahead" and "we'll get
something to eat in a little while". In one sense, the two statements
can be interpreted the same way, but most people would not, in fact, map
the second one to mean exactly the same as the first. You apparently do,
in fact, map such statements as equivalent.

[Rod Speed]

"Murdoc" <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote in message

news:198eovqs4gg7w$.1ty2sqb0xzrts.dlg@40tude.net...

> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 07:20:57 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> "Murdoc" <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote in message

>> news:1slx4xexv4llm.1pks367e9ddr8$.dlg@40tude.net...

>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:46:05 GMT, Wayne Throop wrote:
>>>
>>>>:: there is *some* crossover point with lowering battery costs and
>>>>:: rising capacities and charge rates, on the one hand, and rising fuel
>>>>:: prices on the other, where electric vehicles switch from being
>>>>:: slightly less attractive than gasoline ones to slightly more
>>>>:: attractive.
>>>>

>>>>: You are assuming that electric rates are independent of fuel costs.
>>>>

>>>> And that tax structures will never change. One of the things that
>>>> makes
>>>> electric vehicles attractive right now is that they have better miles
>>>> per dollar than gasoline fueled vehicles. There are many things that

>>>> could negate that advantage. And it does seem unlikely that only two
>>>> variables (battery capabilities and transport fuel prices) will change,
>>>> and nothing else will.
>>

>>> The problem is that for electric vehicles never to take off *requires*
>>> that they be overtaken by another non-oil-dependent vehicle type.
>>
>> Nope, just that we for example find a way to make hydrogen
>> viable with internal combustion engines with say hydrides.
>
> That *is* a "overtaken by another non-oil-dependent vehicle type",

Nope, its used in the same vehicle type.

>> Or work out how to produce non oil dependant fuel
>> using nukes to provide the energy needed to do that.
>>
>>> Fossil fuel vehicles *lose* in any long run, no matter
>>> what, because the oil must eventually run out.
>>
>> But there is no reason why we can't make more
>> using the energy from nukes for example.

> That's not fossil fuel then, that's biofuel,

Nope, nothing bio about it if we use nukes to make it.

> or hydrogen, or some similar such fuel.

Its just a hydrocarbon fuel we use the energy from nukes to make.

And we do that because of the advantages of hydrocarbon fuels.

> And I already dealt with both subcases of "it can be
> distributed by existing infrastructure" and "it can't", below.

No you did not with hydrocarbons made using the energy from nukes.

>>> That includes natural gas.

>> But we have enough coal to last for hundreds of years,

> if you don't mind losing San Francisco, LA, New York,
> New Orleans (again!), Miami, half of the rest of Florida,
> Seattle, San Diego, and Washington, D.C. to the sea.

Taint gunna happen, you watch.

> Personally, I think Washington, D.C.
> can go, but I'd rather keep the rest. :)

They'll be fine.

>> by which time there are a variety of possibilitys for
>> what can do better than EVs economically.

> So, now your contention is that EVs won't take off when oil gets too
> pricey
> because we'll use *coal-burning engine cars
> first*?????????????????????????

Nope, we will use the coal to produce liquid fuels
that even you should have noticed works fine in cars.

That technology has been around for more than a hundred years now.

Its just not economically viable at the current price of oil.

>>> And besides electrics, their alternatives all also look to be losing:

>>> 1. Anything requiring fuel that can't be handled similarly
>>> to gasoline, diesel, and ethanol has a giant infrastructure
>>> hurdle to overcome before it can take off.

>> That hasn't stopped LPG being used in ALL
>> of our taxis and quite a few of our cars too.

> Funny fuels can often get a niche foothold in specialized vehicle fleets.

Those arent specialised vehicle fleets.

> Someone else mentioned hydrogen buses in their city. Of course,
> it's a lot simpler to have one single lousy hydrogen refueling station
> at the bus depot than to wave a wand and instantly make them as
> ubiquitous as gasoline pumps are now.

Don't need to do anything like that with LPG.

>>> Electric looks like it's very likely to be superior to fossil fuel
>>> vehicles
>>> sooner than the mythical hydrogen infrastructure materializes,

>> Nothing mythical about it, its used in buses already.

> See above.

Useless, as always with your shit.

>> And its MUCH more likely that LPG will be used in internal
>> combustion engines LONG before EVs ever take off.

> Proof?

LPG is used in ALL of our taxis and quite a few of our cars too.

>>> and any other non-fossil fuel-delivery infrastructure
>>> is even less well developed than that one is.

>> But we already have a perfectly adequate natural gas distribution
>> system and that will be fine for the coal seam gas.

> There are binding energy vs. storage density problems
> with methane that are almost as bad as with hydrogen.

It gets distributed fine anyway.

> Unless you're willing to add very bulky and heavy
> cryogenic systems to every car to keep the fuel very cold.

For some odd reason we don't actually bother when its used for heating.

>>> 2. That pretty much leaves biofuel.

>> Wrong.

>>> And with some battery improvements it will become
>>> always-more-efficient to burn the biofuel at a generating
>>> station and charge an electric vehicle than to burn the
>>> biofuel in an internal combustion engine.

>> That's just plain wrong with biodiesel alone.

> Proof?

Even you should be able to work out the relative efficiency
of using biodiesel in a truck compared with pissing it against
the wall in a power station and trying to get that electricity
into the truck.

>>> So, once again, unless those battery improvements
>>> never happen, electrics are poised to win.

>> Fantasy.

> Wrong. See above.

Completely useless as always with your shit.

>>> Barring the miraculous spontaneous creation of a fully working
>>> hydrogen infrastructure out of nowhere in less than ten or so years.

>> It will actually be coal seam gas that leaves EVs for dead.

> Proof?

The only possible proof that is to wait and see.

>> Yes, that will run out eventually, but eventually is a hell of a long
>> time.

> And then EVs take off,

Nope, we just use nukes to make more hydrocarbons
because they are so much easier to use in cars.

> and then you get proved wrong anyway, and me right.

Just another of your silly little drug crazed troll fantasys.

[Rod Speed]

"Murdoc" <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote in message

news:l7w7j78xqjxx.12...@40tude.net...

> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 21:02:42 GMT, Wayne Throop wrote:
>
>>:::: there is *some* crossover point with lowering battery costs and
>>:::: rising capacities and charge rates, on the one hand, and rising
>>:::: fuel prices on the other, where electric vehicles switch from being
>>:::: slightly less attractive than gasoline ones to slightly more
>>:::: attractive.
>>
>>::: You are assuming that electric rates are independent of fuel costs.
>>

>>:: And that tax structures will never change [...]
>>:: There are many things that could negate that advantage. And it does

>>:: seem unlikely that only two variables (battery capabilities and
>>:: transport fuel prices) will change, and nothing else will.
>>

>>: "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
>>: But there is no reason to believe that the other changes are likely to
>>: be anything like as important to the prospect of EVs taking over from
>>: IC engined vehicles any time soon, if ever.
>>
>> The two variables above were battery costs
>> (into which capability can be folded), and fuel costs.
>>
>> It seems like increasing electricity costs due to taxes, fuel, and
>> capitalization costs of new plant construction, etc, would be important

>> to the prospect of viability of EVs. Taxes especially, if they are
>> enacted, as seems likely. Of course, they tend to make EVs *less*

>> viable, but it still seems important to their prospects.
>>

>> Increased mpg due (among other factors) to hybrids, is another sticking

>> point for EV adoption. Improved battery tech, and improved energy

>> management, means the full EV crossover point mentioned above turns into
>> a red queen's race.
>

> A race that, in the long run, anything reliant upon fossil fuels *must*
> lose.

Wrong when we can make more any time that makes sense using the energy from
nukes.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 4/27/13 6:01 PM, Murdoc wrote:

> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 21:46:51 GMT, Wayne Throop wrote:
>
>> : Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid>

>> : Since it is the logical negation of proposition A, and you all
>> : rejected proposition A vehemently,
>>
>> Both vehemence and rejection is something you made up yourself.
> [rest of post calling me a liar deleted unread]

>
> Long story short:
>
> 1. I said proposition A: essentially, "battery tech will improve
> significantly in the fairly near term."

And as I have pointed out before, specific phrasing MATTERS.

Your persistence in ignoring that indicates that either you truly
cannot see the difference -- which is an interesting characteristic
probably indicative of something on the autism or Asperger's spectrum
(I'm not sure which, been a while since I looked) -- or that you are
indeed aware of it and are yanking chains. I can't tell which at this
point, although this one line...

> Didn't the five of you trolls have anything better to do on a Friday night?
>

... is somewhat suggestive, since you, yourself, were spending equal
amounts of time on your Friday night doing your pointless arguing.
Indicating you, also, have nothing better to do.

[Wayne Throop]

: "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
: We've been doing batterys for something like

: 200 years now and they STILL arent viable for EVs.

Eh. We'd been doing armor for thousands of years,
and then we came up with Kevlar, and started engineering
ceramic plates to improve multi-hit capacity.

The cost of the batteries is prohibitive, and will be even if
we get a 3x current Li-ion energy density. However, if somebody
gets clever with a reversable fuel cell with a cheap fuel (like zinc)...
eh, the capital cost might take a nose dive. Eventually.
Which is not to say "in the Long Term".

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 4/27/13 6:44 PM, Murdoc wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 18:40:36 -0400, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>
>> On 4/27/13 4:10 PM, Murdoc wrote:
>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 15:57:05 -0400, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) handed me
>>> victory on a silver platter:
>>>
>>>> Note that in various sources I find several CENTS PER VEHICLE MILE
>>>> quoted as road-damage costs (see:
>>>> http://www.spur.org/publications/library/article/estimatingtheexternalcostsofdrivinginsf09012005),
>>>> which is two orders of magnitude, at least, higher than my estimate.
>>>> That probably includes trucks, of course, but overall I find nothing to
>>>> argue against my BOTE calculations being reasonably close.
>>>
>>> Thanks for handing me my victory. Since that does include trucks, and since
>>> trucks do at *least* 99% of the total damage according to your *own* math,
>>> that makes it only a hundredth of a cent or so for cars.
>>
>> Er, you can't even k[NUKE]
>
> Ad hominem noted and rejected.

Deliberate ignoring of the fact you'd misread the entire post and
declared victory when you'd agreed with my own math noted.

You ARE a troll. Good day.

[Wayne Throop]

:: When fuel prices go up,

: "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
: The price of coal doesn t when the price of the fuel that can be used

: in internal combustion engines goes up.

Yes, yes, but this is in the context of being coal-phobic, so it's
mostly priced out of the market by political machinations.

[Murdoc]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 18:51:45 -0400, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:

> On 4/27/13 4:27 PM, Murdoc wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 15:30:34 -0400, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/27/13 2:12 PM, Murdoc wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 08:04:46 -0400, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/27/13 3:56 AM, Murdoc wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 03:19:53 EDT, Wayne Throop wrote:
>>>>>> ^^^^^^^^
>>>>>> Don't any of you trolls ever sleep for Christ's sake??
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> : Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid>
>>>>>>> : So you're taking a page from "Rod Speed"'s troll playbook and
>>>>>>> : completely repudiating ever having held your former position?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That I ever held that position is in your fevered imagination only.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am quite certain that I did *not* imagine it.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Imagine" may be inaccurate. "Misread and misinterpret", deliberately
>>>> [rest deleted unread]
>>>>
>>>> You know what? If you're going to accuse me of lying, then *fuck you*,
>>>> troll.
>>>
>>> To use an ancient phrase, "I know you are, but what am I?"[NUKE]
>>
>> Long story short:
>>
>> 1. I said proposition A: essentially, "battery tech will improve
>> significantly in the fairly near term."
>

> No, you m[NUKE]

Attempt to put words in my mouth noted and rejected.

Long story short:

1. I said proposition A: essentially, "battery tech will improve
significantly in the fairly near term."

2. Several people, whom I shall collectively refer to as the "rasw troll
brigade" or RTB, began vehemently arguing with me, thus implying that
they all believed proposition B: "battery tech would remain more or less

stagnant for at least ten years". Proposition B being the negation of
proposition A, it is necessarily the case that if you argue against A,
you're arguing for B, so, since they were arguing against A, the RTB
were arguing for B.

3. I proved that B is almost certainly incorrect.

4. Members of the RTB, more or less in unison, changed tactic from arguing
against A to denying ever having held position B.

5. I pointed out that position B is automatically and implicitly argued for
by anyone arguing against position A, and that they'd been arguing
against position A.

6. Members of the RTB then began accusing me of dishonesty.

Obviously, the actual dishonesty is on the parts of those who MUST,
necessarily, have either:

a) Held position B, thus argued vociferously against its negation, position
A, when confronted with it, but then *denied having held position B*, or

b) Not actually held position B, so held position A, but argued
vociferously against position A anyway, thus implying that they held
position B *even though they did not*.

If you held position B, you were dishonest when you subsequently denied
holding position B. If you did not hold position B, you were dishonest when
you attacked me for posting position A despite privately agreeing with me.
In either case, you were dishonest. And when you subsequently accused *me*
of being dishonest, you further revealed yourselves to be a bunch of
hypocrites.

Confirmed members of the RTB, as ascertained by their having displayed the
above behaviors: Sea Wasp, Rod Speed, Wayne Throop, David DeLaney, *and* J.
Clarke.

[Murdoc]

> Nope, i[NUKE]

News post calling me a liar noted and rejected.

Try again?

[Murdoc]

Do you understand the meaning of the term, "fossil fuel"?

Kook.

[Murdoc]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 22:46:21 GMT, Wayne Throop wrote:

>:: But wait, that only pushes back the inevitable.
>
>: "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
>: Inevitably the sun will go out and even EVs will be completely useless.
>
> The notion that "in the long term, renewables will make the price
> of electricity independent of fuel" is silly. Because in the LONG
> term, there's no such thing as renewables.

In this context, "in the long term" means "after the fossil fuels run out"
and renewables means "non-nuclear, non-fossil-fuel stuff".

[Wayne Throop]

:: Natural gas abundance was what you were discussing just above this point.

: "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
: Nope.

Ah. So when you said

Message-ID: <au2trc...@mid.individual.net>

But we already have a perfectly adequate natural gas distribution
system and that will be fine for the coal seam gas.

you meant petrolium gases. You could have been a bit clearer on that point,
since I was *sure* "natural gas" and "goal seam gas" were primarily methane.

:: If not LNG, where does the butane/propane come from?

Aw shucks. You decided not to answer the main question. And you know,
from the name "petroleum gas", I was under the impression that they
came from, you know, petroleum, mostly. And since the issue at hand was
"non-oil dependent fuel", it seems pretty strange to be depending on LPG
as petroleum runs out, in view of the issue of expanding nuke capacity
fast enough to support fuel synthesis.

Indeed... elsewhere, seems to me there was *some*body around who was
sure that synthesizing methanol industrially (and not agriculturally)
using nukes was Right Out. But Butane and propane is easy peasy?

Pretty strange.

[Murdoc]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 19:03:50 -0400, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:

> On 4/27/13 6:44 PM, Murdoc wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 18:40:36 -0400, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/27/13 4:10 PM, Murdoc wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 15:57:05 -0400, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) handed me
>>>> victory on a silver platter:
>>>>
>>>>> Note that in various sources I find several CENTS PER VEHICLE MILE
>>>>> quoted as road-damage costs (see:
>>>>> http://www.spur.org/publications/library/article/estimatingtheexternalcostsofdrivinginsf09012005),
>>>>> which is two orders of magnitude, at least, higher than my estimate.
>>>>> That probably includes trucks, of course, but overall I find nothing to
>>>>> argue against my BOTE calculations being reasonably close.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for handing me my victory. Since that does include trucks, and since
>>>> trucks do at *least* 99% of the total damage according to your *own* math,
>>>> that makes it only a hundredth of a cent or so for cars.
>>>
>>> Er, you can't even k[NUKE]
>>
>> Ad hominem noted and rejected.
>

> Deliberate ignoring of the fact you'd misread[NUKE]

Ad hominem noted and rejected.

[Murdoc]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 19:00:15 -0400, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:

> On 4/27/13 6:01 PM, Murdoc wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 21:46:51 GMT, Wayne Throop wrote:
>>
>>> : Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid>
>>> : Since it is the logical negation of proposition A, and you all
>>> : rejected proposition A vehemently,
>>>
>>> Both vehemence and rejection is something you made up yourself.
>> [rest of post calling me a liar deleted unread]
>>
>> Long story short:
>>
>> 1. I said proposition A: essentially, "battery tech will improve
>> significantly in the fairly near term."
>

> [NUKE]autism or Asperger's spectrum[NUKE]

Ad hominem noted and rejected.

Try again?

>> Didn't the five of you trolls have anything better to do on a Friday night?
>
> ... is somewhat suggestive, since you, yourself, were spending equal
> amounts of time on your Friday night

http://xkcd.com/386/

> doing your pointless arguing.

No, *your* pointless arguing. *My* arguing had a point: to correct public
misinformation the RTB were posting. The RTB's counter-arguing had no such
noble purpose, since they were promulgating, rather than correcting,
misinformation. Most likely that purpose was either trolling or trying to
squirm and wriggle out of being publicly proved wrong.

> Indicating you, also, have nothing better to do.

Actually, I'd have preferred to get some sleep, but the process of getting
caught up on usenet ended up taking hours longer than normal, a fact that
is mainly Rod Speed's fault as he wouldn't! Shut! Up! All night!

[Murdoc]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 18:56:13 -0400, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:

> On 4/27/13 5:25 PM, Murdoc wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 20:25:55 GMT, Wayne Throop wrote:
>>
>>> : Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid>
>>> : Several people, whom I shall collectively refer to as the "rasw troll
>>> : brigade" or RTB, began vehemently arguing with me, thus implying that
>>> : they all believed proposition B: "battery tech would remain more or
>>> : less stagnant for at least ten years".
>>>
>>> A position you made up all by yourself, with no input from anybody else.
>>
>> Incorrect. Since it is the logical negation of proposition A, and you all
>> rejected proposition A vehemently, said rejection constituted you all
>> arguing for proposition B.
>

> Except that your[NUKE]

Ad hominem "argument" detected and rejected.

Long story short:

1. I said proposition A: essentially, "battery tech will improve
significantly in the fairly near term."

2. Several people, whom I shall collectively refer to as the "rasw troll

brigade" or RTB, began vehemently arguing with me, thus implying that
they all believed proposition B: "battery tech would remain more or less

[Wayne Throop]

: Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid>
: In this context, "in the long term" means "after the fossil fuels run

: out" and renewables means "non-nuclear, non-fossil-fuel stuff".

And you believe there are no non-fossil fuels?
Also, in what time frame are you expecting fossil fuels to "run out"?
Why wouldn't they leave some decades of increasing energy prices in
their wake as the process of "running out" goes on?

How soon, to the nearest decade, do you expect most grid power
to be supplied by "renewables"?

[Murdoc]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 23:25:17 GMT, Wayne Throop wrote:

>: Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid>
>: In this context, "in the long term" means "after the fossil fuels run
>: out" and renewables means "non-nuclear, non-fossil-fuel stuff".
>

> And you bel[NUKE]

Ad hominem "argument" form detected and rejected.

[Rod Speed]

"Murdoc" <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote in message

news:1wz716vc480go.4...@40tude.net...

> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 07:09:54 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> "Murdoc" <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote in message

>> news:gx8s27kt5rt9$.1wkzv6uwynvrs.dlg@40tude.net...
>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 08:55:36 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <i6rvni9d3wj9$.taefnf1b...@40tude.net>, murdoc11
>>>> @tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid says...

>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:15:26 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Murdoc" <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote in message

>>>>>> news:xlrztctwdbe3$.vf5q4d114we9$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>>>>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 23:30:41 -0400, David DeLaney wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 00:01:07 GMT, Wayne Throop wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> So... you have no specifics at this time.
>>>>>>>>>> How about, just in general, how will this "better battery
>>>>>>>>>> technology"
>>>>>>>>>> resolve the problems current battery technology has? Limited
>>>>>>>>>> energy
>>>>>>>>>> density, limited full discharge/charge cycles, costly imaterials,
>>>>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>>>> sorts of things? Anything that'll make an "obsolete everything
>>>>>>>>>> current"
>>>>>>>>>> improvement? That'd be facinating to learn about. Really. But
>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>> see any leading early indications. Nothing that hasn't been
>>>>>>>>>> around
>>>>>>>>>> for quite some time.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ah... there you go! How about just what are the leading early
>>>>>>>>>> indications
>>>>>>>>>> that lead you to think current tech will become obsolete soon?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Googlable soundbites on MIT Technology review don't lead me to
>>>>>>>>>> be excessively optimistic. Sure sure, carbon nanotubes address
>>>>>>>>>> discarge/charge cycles, and lithium/air tech addresses total
>>>>>>>>>> energy
>>>>>>>>>> storage. But those aren't cases of "about to", those are cases
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> "optimistic speculation".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Proof?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...proof of WHAT, dear?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mainly, the very last sentence before I asked "Proof?"; the one that
>>>>>>> summarizes Throop's silly, "after centuries of progress in energy
>>>>>>> storage
>>>>>>> we reached the final plateau exactly five minutes ago and that's it
>>>>>>> now,
>>>>>>> batteries are probably as good as they'll ever get" position.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wayne never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like
>>>>>> that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Straw man alert. That he didn't quite *say* that, in as many words,
>>>>> doesn't
>>>>> change the fact that it's a fair summary of his position. And yours,
>>>>> and
>>>>> Sea Wasp's, it seems.
>>>>>
>>>>> In particular, it follows directly from any claim similar to "electric
>>>>> vehicles will never take off". Short of someone powering vehicles
>>>>> successfully with pixie dust, there is *some* crossover point with

>>>>> lowering
>>>>> battery costs and rising capacities and charge rates, on the one hand,
>>>>> and
>>>>> rising fuel prices on the other, where electric vehicles switch from
>>>>> being
>>>>> slightly less attractive than gasoline ones to slightly more
>>>>> attractive.

>>>>> And when that point is reached, FOOM! Electric vehicles will "take
>>>>> off"
>>>>> fairly soon afterward.

>>
>>>> You are assuming that electric rates are independent of fuel costs.
>>

>>> In the long run, they are. When fuel-based electricity production
>>> prices itself out of the market, as nonrenewables eventually *must*
>>> as an ironclad law of nature,

>> Mindlessly silly with nukes alone.

> So, now Rod Speed thinks there's infinite uranium in our rather
> finite-looking planet.

Nope, just noticed that we managed to invent breeders quite some
time ago now and that there is a lot more thorium that uranium too.

> Interesting.

Your shit is just pathetic.

[Wayne Throop]

:: And you bel[NUKE]

Here, I'll repair your damage.

And you believe there are no non-fossil fuels?

So. Do you? (Hint: that's a question, non an ad-hominem.)

: Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid>
: Ad hominem "argument" form detected and rejected.
: [.. paste same old distortions ..]

Ah yes. Argumentum ad "LA LA LA LA LA LA I can't HEEEEEEEEEEAR you!".
A good strategy for you, it would seem.

[Rod Speed]

"Murdoc" <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote in message

news:1ellmrrkt258x$.a2oezagjhrmr.dlg@40tude.net...

> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 07:45:43 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> "Murdoc" <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote in message

>> news:1uidrrdhn10mk$.1b16fgrisu0dj.dlg@40tude.net...
>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:09:08 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <9glg11alo6z4$.dq08cl37...@40tude.net>, murdoc11
>>>> @tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid says...
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 08:51:26 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> So you _do_ want rail spurs going to every construction lot.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is strawman-burning the *official pastime* in rec.arts.sf.written or
>>>>> something?
>>>>>
>>>>> Distribution from local warehouses by smaller trucks would still
>>>>> occur.
>>>>> Trains would just replace giant inter-city haulers, perhaps, as a
>>>>> means
>>>>> of
>>>>> delivering *to* those warehouses from the point of manufacture.
>>>>
>>>> Ever see a house being built? It's not "smaller trucks". Several 18
>>>> wheelers pull up, drop off a stack of construction materials, and
>>>> leave.
>>
>>> Actually, I have, on several occasions, and I don't recall 18 wheelers.
>>
>> Then you have never had much to do with house construction.
>
> I didn't claim otherwise. Only to have observed it.
>
>> There isnt any other way to deliver bricks, concrete
>> blocks, roof trusses, metal decking for roofs etc.

> I've seen smaller trucks deliver these, in smaller loads at a time.

Yes, some do just have a shed or garage built.

But you do see full 18 wheelers used with new houses.

>> And while concrete is not delivered in 18 wheelers
>> the AXEL LOAD of what it is delivered in is actually
>> HIGHER than you get with an 18 wheeler.

> I didn't claim otherwise.

No one ever said you did.

>>> What I saw that *would* contribute a lot
>>> of wear to roads was a cement mixer.

>> So it makes absolutely no sense to be slugging trucking
>> based on axel loads because that would discourage the
>> use of that very long lived construction material.

> That depends on how far the cement mixer has to travel.

No, not when they mostly travel on other than full interstate
highways where they do a lot more damage than they do on
full interstate highways, because the roads they do travel on
are of a MUCH lower standard than full interstate highways.

> You certainly don't see them trundling down the interstate
> from one city to the next -- well, not *full* ones anyway.

Irrelevant to what is being discussed, how we pay for roads.

>>> Of course, 18 wheelers are verboten by law on many residential roads,

>> Like hell they are

> Er, there's a sign prohibiting them *at the end of the street on which I
> live*,

Just because it's a street they don't work on, fool.

[Rod Speed]

"Murdoc" <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote in message

news:1vcgtap7gw6as$.1m9pil3eovhrt.dlg@40tude.net...

> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 07:54:01 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> "Murdoc" <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote in message

>> news:1qk5y3sfz7pwb$.as66xy3xrjbp$.dlg@40tude.net...

>>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 05:14:30 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Murdoc" <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote in message

>>>> news:qqnhv4rxt7g5.1f...@40tude.net...

>>>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 08:10:34 GMT, Wayne Throop wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>: Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid>

>>>>>>: There are some large battery improvements on the horizon, and
>>>>>>nothing
>>>>>>: comparable for synfuels, let alone *hydrogen*, for fuck's sake.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And we're not out of fracking oil yet, for fuck's sake.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Peak oil" is not the same as "out of oil". Besides, have you *ever*
>>>>> known
>>>>> fuel prices to trend in any direction other than upwards, short-term
>>>>> fluctuations aside?
>>>>
>>>> Yep, happened in the 70s.
>>>
>>> What part of "short-term fluctuations aside" did not penetrate?
>>
>> That was nothing like short term.
>
> The decade-by-decade trend of fuel prices is upwards.

It wasn't at that time.

> How the *hell* can you possibly continue arguing
> with something that *everyone knows*?

Because, as always with your pig ignorant shit, what
you claim everyone knows is just plain wrong.

[Rod Speed]

"Murdoc" <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote in message

news:8p7gaw3ix3lb$.ydm8z8ry3kg2$.dlg@40tude.net...

> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 07:58:23 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> "Murdoc" <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote in message

>> news:113xejhgd6lss$.1gega58wbxia6.dlg@40tude.net...

>>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 05:10:01 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Murdoc" <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote in message

>>>> news:14cxfkj7orwsz$.b0oai3iilkdj$.dlg@40tude.net...

>>>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 07:30:56 GMT, Wayne Throop wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>: Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid>

>>>>>>: It's a direct logical consequence of what he said. For electric
>>>>>>: vehicles *not* to take off
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Something which, of course, I never said.
>>>>>
>>>>> Deny, deny, deny...
>>>>>
>>>>>>: short of some civilization-ending disaster, we'd have to somehow not
>>>>>>: run up against peak oil *and* never get much better batteries than
>>>>>>we
>>>>>>: have today.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also wrong. The obvious possibility is that something other than
>>>>>> batteries would come along. That some other method would improve
>>>>>> faster
>>>>>> than batteries. For example, synfuels and fuel cells, just for
>>>>>> one possibility. It is entirely plausible that energy density of a
>>>>>> synthetic fuel could be better than anything that would be in the
>>>>>> class
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> "battery".

>>>>>
>>>>> There are some large battery improvements on the horizon, and nothing

>>>>> comparable for synfuels, let alone *hydrogen*, for fuck's sake. The
>>>>> buzz
>>>>> around hydrogen faded ages ago. That *did* hit energy density
>>>>> problems,
>>>>> mainly stemming from hydrogen with the energy of a gallon of gasoline
>>>>> preferring to take the form of a volume of gas bigger than a
>>>>> tractor-trailer and *way* bigger than one gallon.
>>>>>
>>>>>> And further, even if EVs do take off, they can take off without
>>>>>> radical, quick change to battery tech, if all the alternatives become
>>>>>> worse.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's why I said that they'll also take off if fuel prices keep going
>>>>> up
>>>>> as they historically have.
>>>>
>>>> They wont
>>>
>>> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
>>
>> Nothing extra ordinary about the fact that when an
>> immense new source of fossil fuel showed up, we saw
>> the fuel prices stop going up as they historically did.
>
> That must have been *some* batch of weed!
>
>>>> because of coal seam gas.
>>
>>> And chanting a mantra, such as "coal seam gas",
>>> over and over again does not constitute evidence.
>>
>> Denying that that's a massive new source of fossil
>> fuel that isnt even in the hands of foreigners out
>> to milk the west for whatever they can get for it
>> changes nothing.

> What source would that be,

Coal seam gas.

> and why hasn't it been in the news?

It has.

> What's been in the news is tar sands

That's very old news now.

> -- pretty much literally scraping the bottom of the
> barrel in terms of economic-to-recover fossil fuel.

And coal seam gas isn't.

> And, once in a while, fracking.

Nothing like once in a while in fact.

> Both because of the horrible eco-messes they create.

You can run the same utterly silly line with oil.

<reams of your juvenile shit and lies flushed where they belong>

[Murdoc]

That still doesn't get you the infinity you'll need in order to not have
been wrong.

>> Interesting.
>
> Your shit i[NUKE]

[Rod Speed]

"Murdoc" <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote in message

news:1ee4r8stl7s27.v...@40tude.net...

> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 08:19:30 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> "Murdoc" <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote in message

>> news:fc2jt3uhb87x.1sazibs4rsivp$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 08:43:15 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <169wnp9muar2i$.xldqq2s94kv1$.d...@40tude.net>, murdoc11

>>>> @tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid says...
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 15:30:12 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Murdoc" <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote in message

>>>>>> news:rajilhafjah1$.1h7nmxd3at2ok.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>>>>> Proof?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> YOU made the claim that they would.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> YOU get to do the proving.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> THAT'S how it works.
>>>>>
>>>>> No. YOUR claim is the extraordinary one. To wit, YOUR claim is

>>>>> "electric
>>>>> vehicles will never take off".
>>

>>>> How is that an "extraordinary claim"?
>>
>>> It boils down to a claim that fossil fuels will never run out, or else
>>> the
>>> mythical "hydrogen infrastructure" will magically appear before they do,
>>> or
>>> else it will somehow be more efficient to burn biofuels in an engine
>>> than
>>> in a power plant, when economies of scale strongly argue otherwise.
>>
>> That last is just plain wrong with biodiesel alone.

> Proof?

Already provided that.

>>> That makes it an extraordinary claim.
>>
>> No.
>
> Yes.
>
>>>>> That claim can only be false if peak oil
>>>>> miraculously never comes
>>
>>>> Which it hasn't yet, despite many dire predictions.
>>
>>> So it is your contention that the Earth, with its total volume of
>>> 1,083,206,916,846 km^3, contains an *infinite* amount of fossil fuel?
>>
>> No, just that there is enough of it to last for hundreds of years more
>> yet.

> That still means that "peak oil miraculously never comes" is wrong,

Pity I never ever said that, fool.

>>> Or ... I know! You expect us to strike oil on Mars Real Soon Now.

>> Nope, just keep using what we have.

> Fossil fuel is *non-renewable*.

Wrong when you make more hydrocarbons using the energy from nukes.

> Do you understand what "non-renewable" means?

Knew that before you were even born thanks child.

>>> But wait, that only pushes back the inevitable.

>> Inevitably the sun will go out and even EVs will be completely useless.

> But not before they've taken off.

They won't, you watch. We'll make hydrocarbons using
the energy from nukes instead, essentially because the
combination of hydrocarbons and internal combustion
engines works a hell of a lot better in cars than EVs do.

[Murdoc]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 23:38:55 +0000 (UTC), Wayne Throop wrote:

>:: And you bel[NUKE]
>

> Here, I'll repair your damage[NUKE]

News post calling me a liar noted and rejected.

[Murdoc]

Your concession of defeat is accepted. As the rest of your post is thus
superfluous, it has been deleted unread. Have a nice day.

[Murdoc]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 09:43:29 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

> "Murdoc" <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote in message
> news:1vcgtap7gw6as$.1m9pil3eovhrt.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 07:54:01 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>>> "Murdoc" <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:1qk5y3sfz7pwb$.as66xy3xrjbp$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 05:14:30 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Murdoc" <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>> news:qqnhv4rxt7g5.1f...@40tude.net...
>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 08:10:34 GMT, Wayne Throop wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>: Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid>
>>>>>>>: There are some large battery improvements on the horizon, and
>>>>>>>nothing
>>>>>>>: comparable for synfuels, let alone *hydrogen*, for fuck's sake.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And we're not out of fracking oil yet, for fuck's sake.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Peak oil" is not the same as "out of oil". Besides, have you *ever*
>>>>>> known
>>>>>> fuel prices to trend in any direction other than upwards, short-term
>>>>>> fluctuations aside?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep, happened in the 70s.
>>>>
>>>> What part of "short-term fluctuations aside" did not penetrate?
>>>
>>> That was nothing like short term.
>>
>> The decade-by-decade trend of fuel prices is upwards.
>
> It wasn't at that time.

Do you understand what is meant by "decade-by-decade"?

>> How the *hell* can you possibly continue arguing
>> with something that *everyone knows*?
>

> Because, as always with your pig ignorant s[NUKE]

Ad hominem detected and rejected.

Try again?

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 4/27/13 7:25 PM, Wayne Throop wrote:
> : Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid>
> : In this context, "in the long term" means "after the fossil fuels run
> : out" and renewables means "non-nuclear, non-fossil-fuel stuff".
>
> And you believe there are no non-fossil fuels?

Don't bother, Wayne. He's shown that he's a true troll; won't
acknowledge mistakes, won't address points, and has been reduced to
cutting-and-pasting the same response over and over, while showing no
inclination to actually read any response. Doesn't even know what "ad
hominem means, as he seems to interpret it as "any argument that says I
actually did something wrong".

[Murdoc]

[citation needed]

>> and why hasn't it been in the news?
>
> It has.

It has not, or I'd have seen it.

>> What's been in the news is tar sands
>
> That's very old news now.

Protests about some big pipeline with one end sucking from the tar sands
like a soda straw and the other down in Texas or someplace like that got
coverage just last week, which means that you are a liar.

>> -- pretty much literally scraping the bottom of the
>> barrel in terms of economic-to-recover fossil fuel.
>
> And coal seam gas isn't.

[citation needed]

>> And, once in a while, fracking.
>
> Nothing like once in a while in fact.

Fracking controversy is bubbling just beneath the surface whenever it's not
erupting into visible plumes of fearmongering on the evening news, or
haven't you been paying attention?

>> Both because of the horrible eco-messes they create.
>
> You can run the same utterly silly line with oil.

Tar sands extraction is just as bad with the tankers and pipelines and
worse at the extraction site, which is more of a strip-mine than a well.

> <reams of your juvenile shi[NUKE]

[Rod Speed]

Wayne Throop <thr...@sheol.org> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote

>> We've been doing batterys for something like
>> 200 years now and they STILL arent viable for EVs.

> Eh. We'd been doing armor for thousands
> of years, and then we came up with Kevlar,

Fat lot of good that will do you when I fire
a shell from the L44 on my Abrams right
thru your obscenely obese kevlar clad hunk.

> and started engineering ceramic
> plates to improve multi-hit capacity.

Ditto.

> The cost of the batteries is prohibitive, and will be
> even if we get a 3x current Li-ion energy density.
> However, if somebody gets clever with a reversable
> fuel cell with a cheap fuel (like zinc)...

That�s not a battery, it�s a fuel cell. We have different words for a
reason.

> eh, the capital cost might take a nose dive.

And it might not too.

[Rod Speed]

Wayne Throop <thr...@sheol.org> wrote in message
news:13671...@sheol.org...

> :: When fuel prices go up,
>
> : "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
> : The price of coal doesn't when the price of the fuel that
> : can be used in internal combustion engines goes up.

> Yes, yes, but this is in the context of being coal-phobic,

No its not.

> so it's mostly priced out of the market by political machinations.

That isnt going to happen with electricity.

[Rod Speed]

"Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote in message
news:13671...@sheol.org...

> :: Natural gas abundance was what you were discussing just above this
> point.
>
> : "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
> : Nope.
>
> Ah. So when you said
>
> Message-ID: <au2trc...@mid.individual.net>
> But we already have a perfectly adequate natural gas distribution
> system and that will be fine for the coal seam gas.

> you meant petrolium gases.

Nope.

> You could have been a bit clearer on that point,

Nope.

> since I was *sure* "natural gas" and
> "goal seam gas" were primarily methane.

> :: If not LNG, where does the butane/propane come from?

> Aw shucks. You decided not to answer the main question.

That wasn�t anything like the main question.

> And you know, from the name "petroleum gas", I was under the
> impression that they came from, you know, petroleum, mostly.

But they don�t have to be if we are running
out of gasoline that�s economic for use in cars.

> And since the issue at hand was "non-oil dependent fuel",

It wasn�t. That was just ONE of the things being discussed
in the post you utterly fucked over when you quoted such
a microscopic part of what was actually being discussed.

> it seems pretty strange to be depending
> on LPG as petroleum runs out,

Not when you realise that its perfectly possible
to produce propane from methane if you need to.

> in view of the issue of expanding nuke
> capacity fast enough to support fuel synthesis.

Doesn�t have to be done with nukes.

> Indeed... elsewhere, seems to me there was *some*body
> around who was sure that synthesizing methanol industrially
> (and not agriculturally) using nukes was Right Out.

Yes, there was someone running that pig ignorant line.

> But Butane and propane is easy peasy?

No one said anything about easy peasy cept you.

> Pretty strange.

Nope.

[J. Clarke]

In article <13670...@sheol.org>, thr...@sheol.org says...
>
> :: Add an electric car into the mix that has to be charged every night
> :: and you aren't going to like what happens to your electric bills.
>
> Say electricity costs 12 cents/kw-h. Fifty miles daily driving is about
> 18 kw-h. So, under $2.50 electricity costs/day. Hence, something like
> $100.00 a month.
>
> Compare to gasoline. $4.00 a gallon. 40mpg. So $5.00 a day for 50
> miles, or $200.00 a month in gasoline.
>
> To have my electric bills go up only half as much as my
> gasoline bills went down? Honestly, doesn't seem so tragic.

It's a long way from the "free" that many people believe to be the case
though.

> Now the price of the car. Just for eg, $36,000 and up for a Honda Fit EV?
> That's at least a bit tragic. But hey, I save a whopping 1200 bucks a
> year, so if I keep it something like sixteen years, I'll come out ahead...
> Assuming the batteries haven't worn out. Well, there's also tax
> credits and government hooh-hah, but that's so sordid.

[Wayne Throop]

::: We've been doing batterys for something like 200 years now and they

::: STILL arent viable for EVs.

:: Eh. We'd been doing armor for thousands of years, and then we came
:: up with Kevlar,

: "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
: Fat lot of good that will do you when I fire a shell from the L44 on

: my Abrams right thru your obscenely obese kevlar clad hunk.

The comparison is "viable for...". Armor didn't used to be viable for
handguns, rifles, and shrapnel. Now it is.

[Murdoc]

> Already provided that.[NUKE]

Lie detected.

Try again?

[Rod Speed]

"Murdoc" <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote in message

news:1qrns2mlu5y7i$.uqi5od28fkfb$.dlg@40tude.net...

Neither does your EVs.

[Murdoc]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 19:57:38 -0400, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:

> On 4/27/13 7:25 PM, Wayne Throop wrote:
>>: Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid>
>>: In this context, "in the long term" means "after the fossil fuels run
>>: out" and renewables means "non-nuclear, non-fossil-fuel stuff".
>>
>> And you believe there are no non-fossil fuels?
>

> Don't bother, Wayne. He's shown that he's a true troll[NUKE]

[Rod Speed]

"Murdoc" <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote in message

news:1wu6v1qjbtuog$.1m031v9sjb4bs.dlg@40tude.net...

Nope, even you can use google on that.

>>> and why hasn't it been in the news?

>> It has.

> It has not, or I'd have seen it.

Because you have jerked off so much that you are
now completely blind. You were warned, boy...

>>> What's been in the news is tar sands

>> That's very old news now.

> Protests about some big pipeline with one end sucking
> from the tar sands like a soda straw and the other down
> in Texas or someplace like that got coverage just last week

Irrelevant to how long tar sands have been in the news for.

>>> -- pretty much literally scraping the bottom of the
>>> barrel in terms of economic-to-recover fossil fuel.

>> And coal seam gas isn't.

> [citation needed]

Nope, even you can use google on that.

>>> And, once in a while, fracking.

>> Nothing like once in a while in fact.

> Fracking controversy is bubbling just beneath the surface whenever it's
> not erupting into visible plumes of fearmongering on the evening news,

That happens with everything, stupid.

>>> Both because of the horrible eco-messes they create.

>> You can run the same utterly silly line with oil.

> Tar sands extraction is just as bad with the tankers and pipelines and
> worse at the extraction site, which is more of a strip-mine than a well.

And you get to like that or lump it.

<reams of your juvenile shit flushed where it belongs>

[Rod Speed]

"Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote in message
news:13671...@sheol.org...

No it isnt, I can still shoot you in that 10lbs of lard on your shoulders.

[Murdoc]

> Nope[NUKE]

Lie detected. Rest of post deleted unread.

Try again?

[Murdoc]

They don't have to. They just have to take off, at *any* point in the
future, and you'll have been wrong.

Play again sometime?

[J. Clarke]

In article <au30gp...@mid.individual.net>, sd...@gfr.com says...
>
> "J. Clarke" <jclark...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.2be6019cf...@news.newsguy.com...
> > In article <au2q71...@mid.individual.net>, sd...@gfr.com says...
> >>
> >> "J. Clarke" <jclark...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >> news:MPG.2be599ac4...@news.newsguy.com...
> >> > In article <14cxfkj7orwsz$.b0oai3iilkdj$.d...@40tude.net>, murdoc11
> >> > @tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid says...
> >> >>

> >> >> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 07:30:56 GMT, Wayne Throop wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >: Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid>
> >> >> >: It's a direct logical consequence of what he said. For electric
> >> >> >: vehicles *not* to take off
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Something which, of course, I never said.
> >> >>
> >> >> Deny, deny, deny...
> >> >>
> >> >> >: short of some civilization-ending disaster, we'd have to somehow
> >> >> >not
> >> >> >: run up against peak oil *and* never get much better batteries than
> >> >> >we
> >> >> >: have today.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Also wrong. The obvious possibility is that something other than
> >> >> > batteries would come along. That some other method would improve
> >> >> > faster
> >> >> > than batteries. For example, synfuels and fuel cells, just for
> >> >> > one possibility. It is entirely plausible that energy density of a
> >> >> > synthetic fuel could be better than anything that would be in the
> >> >> > class
> >> >> > of
> >> >> > "battery".
> >> >>
> >> >> There are some large battery improvements on the horizon,
> >> >

> >> > Where. Show us. Not some university laboratory pie in the sky but
> >> > something that has been demonstrated.

> >> >
> >> >> and nothing
> >> >> comparable for synfuels, let alone *hydrogen*, for fuck's sake.
> >> >

> >> > Hydrogen works fine you know. There is a hydrogen powered bus running
> >> > in the closest city to me.

> >> >
> >> >> The buzz
> >> >> around hydrogen faded ages ago.
> >> >

> >> > That would be news to Honda.

> >> >
> >> >> That *did* hit energy density problems,
> >> >> mainly stemming from hydrogen with the energy of a gallon of gasoline
> >> >> preferring to take the form of a volume of gas bigger than a
> >> >> tractor-trailer and *way* bigger than one gallon.
> >> >

> >> > That would be news to Honda.

> >> >
> >> >> > And further, even if EVs do take off, they can take off without
> >> >> > radical, quick change to battery tech, if all the alternatives
> >> >> > become
> >> >> > worse.
> >> >>
> >> >> That's why I said that they'll also take off if fuel prices keep going
> >> >> up
> >> >> as they historically have.
> >>

> >> > Only if electricity prices don't track fuel prices. People like you
> >> > have the notion that electricity is "free" based on the low amounts
> >> > that you have historically paid for your home electric service, which
> >> > does not generally have any large continous loads.
> >>
> >> That's not true with air conditioning particularly.
>
> > Compared to charging an electric car it is.
>
> No, the charging current is quite a bit lower than with air conditioning.

Air conditioning of _what_, the Vertical Assembly Building? If you're
talking a 30 mile range car perhaps. If you're talking about putting a
full charge on a car with usable range then you're talking better than
100 amps.

> >> > Add an electric car into the mix that has to be charged every night
> >> > and you aren't going to like what happens to your electric bills.
> >>

> >> Dunno, in areas which do have off peak overnight rates to
> >> try to even out the load on the power stations, it might
> >> well not be too bad compared with the cost of gasoline.
>
> > Might not be too bad compared with gasoline,
>
> In fact Wayne's figures show its about half the cost currently.
>
> > but it's going to quickly disabuse them of the notion that it's "free".
>
> Sure, but no one said it was free. Not even Murdoc did.

He didn't say that, but most people who favor electric cars behave as if
the power cost is negligible.

> > This is also the problem with the notion of charging up at work.
> > The boss isn't going to be pleased with what happens to _his_
> > electric bill when there are a couple of hundred electric cars
> > plugged in in his parking lot.
>
> Plenty of places pay for the fuel that ends up in the company
> supplied car, so they would also pay half as much as they do now.

Who said anything about a company-supplied car? If you are running,
say, Hamilton-Sundstrand, with several thousand employees parked in the
parking lot, all with their personal, not company-supplied cars charging
off of your power, how much do you think the daily bill will be?

> >> The real problem is the capital cost of the EV
> >> which has anything like the range of a normal car.
>
> > That's another real problem.
>
> It is in fact the main problem with EVs, not the
> running cost.

Nobody said that the running cost was a "problem", only that it's not
"free".

> >> > And that is _before_ the government gets
> >> > around to adding a transportation tax to them.
> >>
> >> If they bother. I doubt they will myself, essentially
> >> because I can't see any evidence of them getting
> >> to anything like the price of conventional cars any
> >> time soon, so they will be just like bicycles, no one
> >> much bothers to tax them.
>
> > The thing is, the price doesn't matter.
>
> It does actually. EVs won't take off while ever the capital
> cost is much higher than with conventional cars.

You did not read the rest of my post before you made that statement.

> > California has mandated the electric car, whether it makes sense or not.
>
> And I don't believe that anyone else much that matters will be that stupid.

The GDP and population of California are both greater than for your
whole country you know. So California alone is "much that matters".
Several other states have been tracking California's vehicle laws a few
years delayed.

> > In order to be allowed to do business in California,
> > a major market, auto manufacturers are required by
> > law to sell a certain quantity of electric cars in that state.
>
> And it remains to be seen how long that lasts when they
> find that hardly anyone is silly enough to buy one.

The automakers don't have a choice. They _have_ to sell them.
>
> > They will do this even if they have to pay people to take the
> > worthless contraptions because otherwise they can't sell any
> > of the rest of their cars there. So the number of electric cars
> > in California has a lower bound that is set by law.
>
> Only for as long as that stupid law lasts.

So far it has been on the books for more than 20 years and shows no sign
of being repealed.

> > Eventually the California legislature will see an
> > opportunity to tax something that isn't already taxed . . .
>
> They haven't done that with bicycles.

They haven't figured out a way to do it yet.

[J. Clarke]

In article <13670...@sheol.org>, thr...@sheol.org says...
>

> :::: there is *some* crossover point with lowering battery costs and

> :::: rising capacities and charge rates, on the one hand, and rising
> :::: fuel prices on the other, where electric vehicles switch from being
> :::: slightly less attractive than gasoline ones to slightly more
> :::: attractive.
>

> ::: You are assuming that electric rates are independent of fuel costs.
>
> :: And that tax structures will never change [...]
> :: There are many things that could negate that advantage. And it does
> :: seem unlikely that only two variables (battery capabilities and
> :: transport fuel prices) will change, and nothing else will.
>
> : "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
> : But there is no reason to believe that the other changes are likely to
> : be anything like as important to the prospect of EVs taking over from
> : IC engined vehicles any time soon, if ever.
>
> The two variables above were battery costs
> (into which capability can be folded), and fuel costs.
>
> It seems like increasing electricity costs due to taxes, fuel, and
> capitalization costs of new plant construction, etc, would be important
> to the prospect of viability of EVs. Taxes especially, if they are
> enacted, as seems likely. Of course, they tend to make EVs *less*
> viable, but it still seems important to their prospects.
>
> Increased mpg due (among other factors) to hybrids, is another sticking
> point for EV adoption. Improved battery tech, and improved energy
> management, means the full EV crossover point mentioned above turns into
> a red queen's race.
>
> And so on and so on.

And so far hybrid technology is in its infancy. Gas turbines don't do
too well in conventional cars, but a small turbine could be dandy in a
hybrid, both reducing the weight and providing multifuel capability.

[Wayne Throop]

:: The comparison is "viable for...". Armor didn't used to be viable

:: for handguns, rifles, and shrapnel. Now it is.

: "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
: No it isnt, I can still shoot you in that 10lbs of lard on your
: shoulders.

Ah. You think "viable" means "perfect". That's so cute.

[J. Clarke]

In article <13671...@sheol.org>, thr...@sheol.org says...
>
> : "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com>

> : We've been doing batterys for something like
> : 200 years now and they STILL arent viable for EVs.
>
> Eh. We'd been doing armor for thousands of years,

> and then we came up with Kevlar, and started engineering

> ceramic plates to improve multi-hit capacity.

This is just the race between weapons and armor. Kevlar is an
incremental improvement--the current military vest weighs 30 pounds and
will stop a rifle bullet only in certain locations.

> The cost of the batteries is prohibitive, and will be even if
> we get a 3x current Li-ion energy density. However, if somebody
> gets clever with a reversable fuel cell with a cheap fuel (like zinc)...

> eh, the capital cost might take a nose dive. Eventually.

[Howard Brazee]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 19:16:02 -0400, Murdoc
<murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:

>In this context, "in the long term" means "after the fossil fuels run out"
>and renewables means "non-nuclear, non-fossil-fuel stuff".

That's a convenient definition, at least for one side of the
discussion.

--
Anybody who agrees with one side all of the time or disagrees with the
other side all of the time is equally guilty of letting others do
their thinking for them.

[J. Clarke]

In article <au2uko...@mid.individual.net>, sd...@gfr.com says...

>
> "J. Clarke" <jclark...@cox.net> wrote in message

> news:MPG.2be5f2f05...@news.newsguy.com...
> > In article <au2mjo...@mid.individual.net>, sd...@gfr.com says...

> >>
> >> "J. Clarke" <jclark...@cox.net> wrote in message

> >> news:MPG.2be58295...@news.newsguy.com...
> >> > In article <au0r9b...@mid.individual.net>, sd...@gfr.com says...

> >> >>
> >> >> "J. Clarke" <jclark...@cox.net> wrote in message

> >> >> news:MPG.2be4de8a8...@news.newsguy.com...
> >> >> > In article <atvtol...@mid.individual.net>, sd...@gfr.com says...

> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "J. Clarke" <jclark...@cox.net> wrote in message

> >> >> >> news:MPG.2be455d38...@news.newsguy.com...
> >> >> >> > In article <kldvbm$9sh$1...@news.albasani.net>, a...@chinet.com
> >> >> >> > says...
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>>>J. Clarke <jclark...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>a...@chinet.com says...
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>J. Clarke <jclark...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>a...@chinet.com says...
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>J. Clarke <jclark...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>how...@brazee.net says...
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>"J. Clarke" <jclark...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>But it goes into general revenue streams, where
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>politicians
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>spend it as they will. Gasoline taxes are
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>supposed
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>to
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>go
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>into roads and such, where those who spend them
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>benefit
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>from
> >> >> >> >> t>>>>>>>>>>>>he money.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>Since you can't figure it out on your own, they will
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>put
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>a
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>new
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>tax on electricity that goes into the highway trust
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>fund,
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>just
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>like the current gas tax does.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>Which would mean that everybody who uses electricity
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>would
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>pay
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>for
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>roads.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>Yep. Everybody benefits from roads so why not?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>Because electricity consumed isn't in proportion to
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>benefit
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>derived.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>You have a naive assumption of "benefit".
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>No, I think I'm pretty clear headed on the subject.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>If someone who has never owned or driven a motor vehicle
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>is
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>injured
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>and an ambulance comes and takes him to the hospital and
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>saves
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>his
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>life, he has benefitted. Millions of New Yorkers who do
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>not
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>even
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>have drivers' licenses benefit from roads as well.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>Why don't we put a tax on consumption of sliced cheese, or
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>overpriced
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>coffee drinks, or purchase of men's underwear, or printing
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>presses?
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>You're making a random argument that someone who pays an
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>excise
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>tax might receive a benefit, ignoring the basic point that
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>excise
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>taxes are never paid in proportion to benefits received.
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>Excise
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>taxes suck unilaterally.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>Oh, they're great at one thing: Being a highly regressive
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>tax
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>on
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>the
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>poor.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>There is exactly one tax that's paid in proportion to
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>benefits
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>received, especially from transportation improvements: Tax
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>on
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>land values.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>So how does tax on land values relate to "benefits
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>recieved"?
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>Are
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>you
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>saying that the guy next door to me gets more "benefits"
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>than
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>I
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>do
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>because his land has a higher value?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>>>Better-located land is worth more, and that's mainly due to
> >> >> >> >> >>>>transportation.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>>No, its much more often just fashion/the standard of housing
> >> >> >> >> >>>in
> >> >> >> >> >>>that
> >> >> >> >> >>>area
> >> >> >> >> >>>etc.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>I don't think the upper middle class and wealthy would live
> >> >> >> >> >>somewhere
> >> >> >> >> >>with poor transportation options, unless they wanted a country
> >> >> >> >> >>estate.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >Plenty do and choose to drive from it.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Fair enough. People choose to live in ways that suit their wants
> >> >> >> >> and
> >> >> >> >> desires as they can afford to, but I still think country estate
> >> >> >> >> land
> >> >> >> >> holdings
> >> >> >> >> will sell for less per square foot than mid-town Manhattan.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> In any event, I certainly agree that land value in an area
> >> >> >> >> reflects
> >> >> >> >> what
> >> >> >> >> other people have built on their land and how they maintain it.
> >> >> >> >> But
> >> >> >> >> transportation quality (location location location) is
> >> >> >> >> fundamental
> >> >> >> >> to
> >> >> >> >> land value.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>>>Land in the same area should be worth about the same per
> >> >> >> >> >>>>square
> >> >> >> >> >>>>foot, with differences for being next door to nuisances or
> >> >> >> >> >>>>if
> >> >> >> >> >>>>the
> >> >> >> >> >>>>land is better suited for commercial purposes (on a highway)
> >> >> >> >> >>>>or
> >> >> >> >> >>>>on
> >> >> >> >> >>>>a local street.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>>But property tax isnt just paid on the land value.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>Yes. I'm not in favor of taxing buildings and other
> >> >> >> >> >>improvements
> >> >> >> >> >>to
> >> >> >> >> >>land.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >That is how the US system works tho.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> This is a hypothetical replacement for motor fuel excise taxes.
> >> >> >> >> (I
> >> >> >> >> assume you don't favor a tax on electricity as the O.P.
> >> >> >> >> suggested.)
> >> >> >> >> In
> >> >> >> >> any event, assessors SHOULD be correctly assessing land and
> >> >> >> >> buildings
> >> >> >> >> and other improvements to land accurately. When the assessment
> >> >> >> >> gets
> >> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> >> wrong split in the real estate assessment between land and
> >> >> >> >> buildings,
> >> >> >> >> it screws up the automatic inflation factors used. It's truly
> >> >> >> >> easier
> >> >> >> >> to
> >> >> >> >> assess land than buildings as there are many fewer variables to
> >> >> >> >> keep
> >> >> >> >> track
> >> >> >> >> of, and the assessor hasn't always seen all of the building
> >> >> >> >> permits
> >> >> >> >> over
> >> >> >> >> the years resulting in changes to the building.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> In the economic downturn, buildings didn't lose value because
> >> >> >> >> buildings
> >> >> >> >> are supposed to be assessed on general factors of replacing the
> >> >> >> >> building
> >> >> >> >> (less the cost of replacing the foundation) with a new building
> >> >> >> >> with
> >> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> >> same features. Assessment on buildings doesn't get lowered based
> >> >> >> >> on
> >> >> >> >> the condition of how it's maintained, unless it becomes
> >> >> >> >> uninhabitable.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> When property values fell, that went to land, not the buildings.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> There shouldn't be a problem collecting a tax on land value
> >> >> >> >> through
> >> >> >> >> the same method of assessment (with an improved assessment
> >> >> >> >> process
> >> >> >> >> that
> >> >> >> >> should be getting it right anyway), extension, billing,
> >> >> >> >> collection,
> >> >> >> >> and
> >> >> >> >> distribution that we have today.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Perhaps an ideal mix would be a combination of user fees and
> >> >> >> >> land
> >> >> >> >> taxes.
> >> >> >> >> There's still some direct benefit to the traveller. It would be
> >> >> >> >> nice
> >> >> >> >> to
> >> >> >> >> reduce cross subsidy to new and expanded facilities, in favor of
> >> >> >> >> maintaining
> >> >> >> >> and replacing facilities in kind.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > How about instead of taxing properties on the value,
> >> >> >> > we tax on the income derived from it instead?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The trouble with that approach is that the absolute vast bulk
> >> >> >> of property tax comes from residential property that has no
> >> >> >> income derived from it, so that would see much less property
> >> >> >> tax raised.
> >> >>
> >> >> > That does not necessarily follow.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's a fact that the bulk of property tax raised comes from
> >> >> residential
> >> >> property.
> >>
> >> > It does not follow that a tax based on income from that property will
> >> > reult in less revenue than a tax based on the price of that property.
> >>
> >> Yes it does when much of the residential property produces no income.
>
> > You are assuming that the income-producing properties will pay the same
> > tax, based on income, that they do now based on the price of the property.
>
> No. I'm just pointing out that while most of the residential property
> produces no income, it's just not politically feasible to recover the
> same amount of money from that income producing residential
> property as is currently recovered from all residential property,
> income producing or not.

Why should residential properties be the only ones taxed?

> > What leads you to believe that that that is the case?
>
> > What income does the Ford plant produce?
> > What is the value of the land that it occupies?
>
> The total revenue from that sort of property is a quite small
> percentage of the total property tax revenue, particularly
> when you consider the tax breaks on stuff like that to get
> industry to base itself in your area etc.

You are arguing that the current tax system works a certain way so a
different tax system _must_ work the same way.

> >>> Some states manage fine without a tax on principal residences.
>
> >> Sure, there are always other alternatives like income tax and sales
> >> taxes.
>
> > And some states manage without an income tax and with a very low sales tax
> > as well.
>
> But none that have much in the way of govt services
> have no property tax on principal residences, no
> income tax and very low sales tax as well.

In what way is Florida lacking in goverment services?

[Wayne Throop]

::::: electricity is "free" based on the low amounts that you have

::::: historically paid for your home electric service, which does not
::::: generally have any large continous loads.

:::: That's not true with air conditioning particularly.

::: Compared to charging an electric car it is.

:: No, the charging current is quite a bit lower than with air
:: conditioning.

: "J. Clarke" <jclark...@cox.net>
: Air conditioning of _what_, the Vertical Assembly Building?

A 1500 sq ft home for a hypothetical example.

Stoves, whole-house air conditioning, clothes dryer...
all have a load on the order of 4kw, and most often at 220 volts.
So, on the order of 20 amps.

Oddly enough, home charging stations aldo draw on the order of
4kw at 220v, and can charge a 20kwh battery overnight.
Though many home chargers draw less current, and take longer
than 5-ish hours to recharge a car.

If you use lots of AC, you can end up with >$100 power bills
without any car charger involved. That is, >$100 extra
during AC season.

I conclude this set of folks who expect EV recharging to be free
exists primarily in your imagination.

[Howard Brazee]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:32:37 GMT, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
wrote:

>: So who should be paying these costs?
>
>My point wasn't who should pay. My point was to note that the scheme
>of having the producer pay is equivalent to giving the producer a
>loan of money for the time between purchase and disposal, and that
>having money for disposal change hands at the same time the disposal
>gets done might be superior.

My point is that the costs will be paid. And my choice is to
attempt, when possible, to have those who benefit from the product to
do the paying.

One proposal to do this is the one you object to. If you have a
better proposal, please share it.

I don't believe that having the general population (via taxation) pay
is a better solution.

[Howard Brazee]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 11:59:08 -0500, Doc O'Leary
<drolear...@2q2013.subsume.com> wrote:

>You're supporting my point. To them the materials are *resources*
>whereas to you the materials are *garbage*. The sensible person would
>look at that put 2 and 2 together. Why are you fighting what would be
>best for everyone involved?

Eventually, everything is garbage.

[J. Clarke]

In article <13671...@sheol.org>, thr...@sheol.org says...
>

> : Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid>

> : In this context, "in the long term" means "after the fossil fuels run
> : out" and renewables means "non-nuclear, non-fossil-fuel stuff".
>

> And you believe there are no non-fossil fuels?

Well, when you get right down to it there aren't, for certain values of
"fossil". Remember in "Anvil of Stars" the civilization that had made
mejor inroads into two gas giants? Jupiter could be classified as
"fossil fuel". So can the Sun. They're just fossils that are so huge
and impressive that we haven't figured out a way to do anything to them
yet.

[J. Clarke]

In article <13671...@sheol.org>, thr...@sheol.org says...
>

Actually it was viable for handguns and shrapnel in Vietnam, but the
armor was so effing heavy that only people with sit-down jobs wore it,
mostly helicopter crew.

[Howard Brazee]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 20:27:19 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<jclark...@cox.net> wrote:

>And so far hybrid technology is in its infancy. Gas turbines don't do
>too well in conventional cars, but a small turbine could be dandy in a
>hybrid, both reducing the weight and providing multifuel capability.

Hybrid trains have been around for some time. Of course diesel
electric locomotives are pretty large.

[J. Clarke]

In article <13671...@sheol.org>, thr...@sheol.org says...
>

Then you have not had the conversations that I have with mindless
advocates of the electric car.

[Howard Brazee]

What definition of "fossil" are you using here?

[J. Clarke]

In article <vason89lnqotl10v7...@4ax.com>,
how...@brazee.net says...

>
> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:32:37 GMT, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
> wrote:
>
> >: So who should be paying these costs?
> >
> >My point wasn't who should pay. My point was to note that the scheme
> >of having the producer pay is equivalent to giving the producer a
> >loan of money for the time between purchase and disposal, and that
> >having money for disposal change hands at the same time the disposal
> >gets done might be superior.
>
> My point is that the costs will be paid. And my choice is to
> attempt, when possible, to have those who benefit from the product to
> do the paying.
>
> One proposal to do this is the one you object to. If you have a
> better proposal, please share it.
>
> I don't believe that having the general population (via taxation) pay
> is a better solution.

The general population seems to disagree with you on this point.
Perhaps you can get the general population to elect you King so that
your opinion outweighs theirs?

[J. Clarke]

In article <cjson8tf9658q7ocu...@4ax.com>,
how...@brazee.net says...

>
> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 11:59:08 -0500, Doc O'Leary
> <drolear...@2q2013.subsume.com> wrote:
>
> >You're supporting my point. To them the materials are *resources*
> >whereas to you the materials are *garbage*. The sensible person would
> >look at that put 2 and 2 together. Why are you fighting what would be
> >best for everyone involved?
>
> Eventually, everything is garbage.

This is true. Should your parents have to pay for your burial before
having sex?

[Robert Bannister]

On 27/04/13 12:44 PM, Dragon Lady wrote:

> I'm not actually proposing that the trucking industry is the problem.
> I'm proposing that your proposal would send costs spiraling out of
> control, causing a viable industry under the current system to become
> unviable under your system.

But as has already been pointed out, it is only viable now because
taxpayers are bearing the brunt of the cost of road maintenance.

--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

On 27/04/13 10:53 AM, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>
> "Robert Bannister" <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote in message
> news:au0nmq...@mid.individual.net...
>> On 27/04/13 2:41 AM, Wayne Throop wrote:
>>> ::: Tampering with the odometer is already illegal, since it can be used
>>> ::: to scam someone when selling a vehicle used. Now it would be tax
>>> ::: evasion as well.
>>> :: Dude, that's not a user fee, for all the same reasons that motor fuel
>>> :: excise taxes are not user fees. Some vehicles create far greater
>>> :: burden then other vehicles.
>>> : Most specifically, heavier vehicles; road damage goes up as the
>>> : *FOURTH POWER* of weight, in general, so that a heavy truck is doing
>>> : VASTLY more damage to the road than a huge number of smaller vehicles.
>>> : [...]
>>> : will be doing the same damage as OVER SEVENTY-EIGHT THOUSAND cars of
>>> : an Accord's weight.
>>>
>>> Seems a much more complicated problem than that.
>>> The odometer and which vehicle it came from isn't really a good
>>> surrogate for road repair costs. The problem is, you'd need to know
>>> where you were driving also.
>>>
>>> Tractor-trailer rigs essentially never go on the roads where I drive my
>>> car. So they don't damage them at all. So if you just went by odometer
>>> readings and vehicle classes, suburban and rural roads would be getting
>>> a free ride, with no revenue stream that's proportial to their use.
>>>
>>> Wait... why was I thinking this would be a bad thing?
>>> *I* don't drive a tractor trailer. Oh, yeah. Right. Amazon
>>> deliveries,
>>> and myriads of other things grind to a halt if tractor trailers are
>>> taxed out of existance.
>>>
>>
>> Amazon doesn't use great big rigs like that to deliver to my house.
>> It's usually a small panel van.
>
> But the stuff gets to your local distribution center in a semi.

I suspect the local distribution centre is the airport or at least at
the airport. As far as I can make out, almost all the stuff I get from
Amazon comes from New Zealand, so I suppose they have a massive depot there.

--
Robert Bannister

[David DeLaney]

Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:
>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 21:56:08 GMT, Wayne Throop wrote:
>>:: If you can't tell the difference, then... well, that's typical of
>>:: you, now isn't it.
>>: Ad hominem noted and rejected.
>>
>> Do you know what[NUKE]
>
>Ad hominem "argument" form detected and rejected.
>
>Long story short:
>
>1. I said proposition A: essentially, "battery tech will improve
> significantly in the fairly near term."
>
>2. Several people, whom I shall collectively refer to as the "rasw troll
> brigade" or RTB, began vehemently arguing with me,

Yep.

> thus implying that
> they all believed proposition B: "battery tech would remain more or less
> stagnant for at least ten years".

Nope. Not (A and B) == (Not A) or (Not B). Inverting a conjunction gets you
a disjunction. So all it can imply is "Battery tech will not improve
significantly in the fairly near term, or will improve significantly but
not in the fairly near term". Not "Battery tech will not improve
significantly AND this will last beyond the fairly near term". Your logic's
not good enough to pass an introductory college course.

> Proposition B being the negation of proposition A,

Except it isn't. You're asserting that it is, but it's not, and that it's
not is obvious to nearly anyone with even a little training in any of
rhetoric, logic, or argument. Your leap to assuming it is is what got
people replying to you telling you "No no, not like that", at which your
hackles raised and you dug in deeper instead of reading what they were saying
and thinking "wait, did I do that negation right?".

>3. I proved that B is almost certainly incorrect.

Which has nothing to do with A, really. Fail follows.

>4. Members of the RTB, more or less in unison, changed tactic from arguing
> against A to denying ever having held position B.

Because B is not the negation of A.

>5. I pointed out that position B is automatically and implicitly argued for
> by anyone arguing against position A, and that they'd been arguing
> against position A.

And you got jumped on again en masse, as in this post, by people pointing out
that B is NOT a.a.i.a.f by arguing against A, since it's not the negation of
A, so that in fact the people you said held position B, and you said had SAID
they held position B, had never actually done either of those, and were mad
at you for stating they did and had.

Is any of this starting to sink in yet?

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[David DeLaney]

Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:

>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 20:27:42 GMT, Wayne Throop wrote:
>>: Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid>

>>: The problem is that for electric vehicles never to take off
>>
>> A convenient straw effigy. I never said or implied it.
>> An you know I never said or implied it. But keep pretending I did.
>
>Calling me a liar noted and rejected.

You can reject it all you want, but you're still exhibiting the behavior
that's leading people to label you as such. (Note: I am NOT calling you a
liar here. I +AM+ noting that you're consistently refusing to actually read
for content on what people are telling you, and that you're consistently
holding on to "I said it, so I must have been right" for a set of statements
where you were not, in fact, right. This may be better or worse in your
particular world view.)

Dave, cut and paste snipped