As more homes generate their own power, typically with the help of state
or federal subsidies, they're buying less electricity from traditional
utilities.
Jeopardizing Grid
PG&E Corp., California's biggest, has said this jeopardizes the power
grid because there's less revenue to maintain the infrastructure. In
response, utilities are raising rates, a burden that's a slightly
heavier burden for people without solar power. In California they may
eventually pass on as much as $1.3billion in annual costs to customers
who don't have panels.
As I have said time and again in the past, Changing your source of power
only does that, you are going to pay one way or another for what you use.
On 9/16/2013 10:12 AM, JoeTaxpayer wrote:
> On 9/16/13 9:12 AM, Leon wrote:
>> As more homes generate their own power, typically with the help of state
>> or federal subsidies, they're buying less electricity from traditional
>> utilities.
>>
>> Jeopardizing Grid
>> PG&E Corp., California's biggest, has said this jeopardizes the power
>> grid because there's less revenue to maintain the infrastructure. In
>> response, utilities are raising rates, a burden that's a slightly
>> heavier burden for people without solar power. In California they may
>> eventually pass on as much as $1.3billion in annual costs to customers
>> who don't have panels.
>
> I've been following Solar Power progress for some time now. The weak
> link is still storage. My cost can be zero from sun-up to sun-down, but
> we'll need power the rest of the day for years to come. That guaranteed
> power will come at a cost.
The problem with a back up generator is that even with natural gas the
cost of running it will pretty much offset the savings. My sister and a
neighbor have whole house back up generators and the expense to generate
electricity with the generator is around 25~30 cents per kWh. We pay
about 9 cents per kWh from the utility.
>
> When storage is so cheap the overnight backup isn't needed, and a
> generator (I'm thinking natural gas, not gasoline) can kick in after the
> 5th cloudy day, the grid might no longer be needed. That point is still
> decades away and yes, there's a struggle with taxes trying balance
> things out. But, tax the non-solar home and drive up their cost, and
> you'll push them to solar even faster.
>
You also have to keep in mind that the government is heavily reliant on
energy tax dollars. While taxing the non solar home to persuade them to
go solar or what ever, when that is accomplished every one will
eventually will be taxed for their own generation of energy.
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 21:16:54 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
>> My guess is that in 10 years or less, the majority of vehicles
>> manufactured will be electric.
>
> I'm not quite that optimistic, but I can envision it happening within
> the next quarter century. With entrepreneurs like Tesla fully
> committed to electric vehicle promotion, it will happen sooner than
> later. Add onto that the fact that the Tesla *looks damned good* IMHO,
> the electric car field has nowhere to go except up.
Tesla is going to have to cut pricing by 2/3 to have a serious alternative
to gasoline vehicles. The bigger less expensive vehicle that will go long
distances will drive the market.
That said Tesla is toying with a prototype battery exchange station to give
the vehicle the ability to leave one city to go to another. Unfortunately
those stations will have to be 3 times closer than gas stations and I
suspect that a charged exchange battery will be pretty pricey.
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Leon" wrote:
>
>> A new dealer accepting a load of unique vehicles is not as good as
>> it
>> sounds.
> -------------------------------------------------
> Trust me as a salesman that if I get a chance to place an order for 28
> widgets that
> cost in excess of $20K each and resell 24 of them at a profit in 20
> days, you can
> bet your sweet rear end I'm a happy salesman.
>
> Lew
Of course, the salesman always get paid, profit or no profit. And yes it
is not a stretch to loose money on the sale of a traded vehicle. Hopefully
the loss is made up when the trade-in is finally sold.
"Leon" wrote:
> Tesla is going to have to cut pricing by 2/3 to have a serious
> alternative
> to gasoline vehicles. The bigger less expensive vehicle that will
> go long
> distances will drive the market.
---------------------------------------------------------
Tesla is already committed to producing a vehicle that will sell
for about $30K within 3-5 years.
Since the average daily auto trip is about 29 miles, per Nissan,
long distances are the exception, not the rule.
200 miles between recharge is already here.
Economy has not been addressed in this thread.
A KWH of power generated by an internal combustion engine is
considerably more expensive than a KWH produced by a fixed utility.
Reduced operating costs help to offset initial costs.
Lew
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 00:46:08 -0500, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>> As opposed to dealing with nuclear waste? Do you think Russia or Japan
>> would agree?
>
> Who mentioned nuclear waste? Certainly not me. Yes, I know, the vast
> bulk of the world runs on oil and nuclear generated electricity.
I did not mean to indicate that oil spills are not a disaster of a
particular size, only to point out that disasters of nuclear flavor are a
problem that never goes away. Nuclear is sold as clean and friendly.
Basically all forms of friendly energy comes with its own baggage when
something does not go as planned. But put into perspective how much each
actually is used and how much energy it actually generates and oil looks
better when the problems surface for each type of disaster.
>
> And, just because the US hasn't experience any all encompassing
> nuclear accidents lately, it's sheer arrogance to even think that it
> couldn't happen.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor_accidents_in_the_United_States#List_of_accidents_and_incidents
>
Three Mile Island. And nuclear disasters relatively last for ever.
>>> Running oil rigs in our oceans is a more screwed up act than I could
>>> ever imagine.
>
>> It sounds screwed up until you realize that the ocean oozes more oil
>> naturally than any oil spill on any given day.
>
> So, that means we should just go blithely ahead without any concern as
> to how we might be adding to the pollution quotient?
No, we should look for alternatives but so far none are better than oil.
In addition,
> those natural oozes are not man made either.
Precisely! Our man made ocean disasters don't compare to what nature
produces, and nature takes care of those on its own.
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 17:33:17 -0500, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>> however oil is considerably more environmentally friendly than it has been
>> in the past and compared to batteries.
>
> I'd argue the ethics of that comment. There maybe more stringent
> controls on oil harvesting, but when you get disasters on the scale of
> the gulf coast oil spill, the description of "environmentally
> friendly" is completely out there.
As opposed to dealing with nuclear waste? Do you think Russia or Japan
would agree?
>
> Running oil rigs in our oceans is a more screwed up act than I could
> ever imagine.
It sounds screwed up until you realize that the ocean oozes more oil
naturally than any oil spill on any given day.
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> An Update:
>
> Seems a new Nissan dealer in the SF Bay area accepted
> delivery of about 28 Nissan Leaf (Plug-in-electric) cars the
> first of the month (09/01/13) and have sold 24 units thru
> Friday (09/20/13).
>
> They have more on order.
>
> Guess there is a demand after all.
>
> Lew
There is always going to be the odd entries that lure those looking for
something different. Remember the Edsel?
And FWIW dealers normally "take" delivery of new vehicles that they
ordered. Dealers that accept delivery typically are accepting those units
which they did not order. Read that as they accepted vehicles as a favor
or trade. They accept just about any kind of vehicle that they can get
their hands until they can start building a supply of vehicles that they
have actually ordered. New dealers typically jump through hoops with the
factory until they get their feet on the ground.
A new dealer accepting a load of unique vehicles is not as good as it
sounds.
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Leon" wrote:
>
>
>> Never said that oil was cheap, I mentioned that it is cheaper than
>> the
>> so called environmentally friendly energy sources.
> <snip>
>> Agree that we should continue too look, there might be a better
>> solution in
>> the future. But now oil is king and will be for decades to come.
>> Right now
>> however oil is considerably more environmentally friendly than it
>> has been
>> in the past and compared to batteries.
> -------------------------------------------------------
> The Koch brothers have got to love you.
>
> They have at least one person who buys the crap they try to
> spread around.
Pot, Kettle
>
> Wonder how many so called "dirty" batteries are required to equal
> the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico?
That oil spill is all but forgotten.
>
> Oil has been "cheap" because it is heavily subsidized, easy to
> get and has not been required to clean up the pollution
> it creates.
Please! Not required to clean up pollution??????? Did CA ax the
automobile emissions laws?
>
> There is no question that electric vehicles are the future; however,
> in the near turn, natural gas will be the fuel that transitions from
> oil
> powered to electric powered vehicles.
No question it the greenies have their way.
>
> Oil and coal are both on stage for their final performances.
>
LOL
> The king is dead, long live the king.
>
> Here in SoCal, Nissan has introduced an electric vehicle and seems
> to be enjoying some success.
Electric vehicles are all over the place and enjoying the success of
selling to the .05% of buyers that think they are making a difference.
>
> 50 years ago, the Japanese invaded the SoCal auto market and had
> more than modest success.
>
> Are we poised for a repeat performance?
>
> Time will tell.
>
> Lew
On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 20:50:14 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 9/24/2013 7:21 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>
>>> Already a system is currently going up in Indianapolis, where you can
>>> "share" an electric car--dropping it off at one of numerous designated
>>> recharge stations.
>>
>> Oh, good grief, that's dumb! What's the cost of that?
>>
>
>Two possibilities
>1. http://www.zipcar.com/
>2. Buy shares, just as aircraft owners often do.
If you're an OCCAISIONAL user of the appliance, it sometimes makes
sense to lease it. If the taxpayer gets involved, it makes sense more
often.
>Works for the occasional user, not the daily commuter.
That's what it's being sold as here. ...just grab one from the pool
and drive off - not going to work.
On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 19:11:31 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 9/24/2013 6:21 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 14:05:10 -0400, Bill <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 11:12:42 -0500, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My guess is that in 10 years or less, the majority of vehicles
>>>>>>>> manufactured will be electric.
>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not quite that optimistic, but I can envision it happening
>>>>>>> within
>>>>>>> the next quarter century. With entrepreneurs like Tesla fully
>>>>>>> committed to electric vehicle promotion, it will happen sooner than
>>>>>>> later. Add onto that the fact that the Tesla *looks damned good*
>>>>>>> IMHO,
>>>>>>> the electric car field has nowhere to go except up.
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> That 10 year number comes from the industry itself, not me,
>>>>>> I'm just the messenger.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lew
>>>>> Well first Lew, you say "your guess" is that in 10 years or less the
>>>>> "majority" of vehicles will be electric. Now you say this number comes
>>>> >from the industry.
>>>>> That industry naturally will make that claim, it's make it or break it
>>>>> time. That industry needs an enormous infusion of cash from investors to
>>>>> be able to mass produce a vehicle that will actually perform and go the
>>>>> distance and be at least equal in amenities as the much much lower price
>>>>> vehicles available right now with gasoline/diesel engines.
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope that 10 years is a realistic and achievable time frame but I don't
>>>>> see the trend growing that fast. It seems to be growing fast because of
>>>>> all of the attention it is getting but I am still seeing, in Houston, the
>>>>> vast majority of new vehicles being equipped with the traditional internal
>>>>> combustion engine. Many more hurdles will have to be over come before the
>>>>> "majority of new vehicle buyers make the switch.
>>>> My bet is that in ten years there will be FEWER electric and hybrid
>>>> cars on the market than there are now. Cars won't be smaller or get
>>>> much better mileage and barring (even more) government meddling, gas
>>>> won't be much more expensive in a decade, either. Two decades, even.
>>>
>>> Mercedes, IIRC, suggests they will have a "self-driving car" by the end
>>> of the decade. I expect an increase in mass transit, and fewer cars. A
>>> self-driving car would seem to support various forms of "sharing".
>>
>> Self-driving cars, or some subset of such, is a definite possibility.
>> Mass transit, not a chance. No one wants it and there is no money to
>> pay for it if they did.
>>
>>> Already a system is currently going up in Indianapolis, where you can
>>> "share" an electric car--dropping it off at one of numerous designated
>>> recharge stations.
>>
>> Oh, good grief, that's dumb! What's the cost of that?
>>
>
>
>I'm sure that it was sold with the understanding that the users will pay
>very little. The government will be paying the lions share of the
>expense. LOL
Which is why I used the word "cost". ;-)
On 9/25/2013 12:32 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 20:50:14 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 9/24/2013 7:21 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> Already a system is currently going up in Indianapolis, where you can
>>>> "share" an electric car--dropping it off at one of numerous designated
>>>> recharge stations.
>>>
>>> Oh, good grief, that's dumb! What's the cost of that?
>>>
>>
>> Two possibilities
>> 1. http://www.zipcar.com/
>> 2. Buy shares, just as aircraft owners often do.
>
> If you're an OCCAISIONAL user of the appliance, it sometimes makes
> sense to lease it. If the taxpayer gets involved, it makes sense more
> often.
>
>> Works for the occasional user, not the daily commuter.
>
> That's what it's being sold as here. ...just grab one from the pool
> and drive off - not going to work.
>
And apparently you still have to reserve the zipcar.
On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 22:08:13 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Somebody wrote:
>
>
>> Ah, I missed that. I thought it was a standard rental. I rented
>> a
>> car a couple of weeks ago (will do it again next week). I had to
>> put[*] 2-1/2 gallons of gas in it, at $4.09/gallon (Lew should
>> love
>> that data point ;).
>>
>> [*] Boss had to pay ;-)
>---------------------------------------------------------
>Hertz just announced that in the major markets they will be offering
>a Tesla for $500/day.
Oh, wonderful. I can get a standard sized car for about 1/20th that
and drive it as far as I want.
>Assume that includes the $0.00/gal refuel charges.
Does it have to be returned fully charged?
On 09/16/2013 10:33 AM, Leon wrote:
> On 9/16/2013 10:12 AM, JoeTaxpayer wrote:
>> On 9/16/13 9:12 AM, Leon wrote:
>>> As more homes generate their own power, typically with the help of state
>>> or federal subsidies, they're buying less electricity from traditional
>>> utilities.
>>>
>>> Jeopardizing Grid
>>> PG&E Corp., California's biggest, has said this jeopardizes the power
>>> grid because there's less revenue to maintain the infrastructure. In
>>> response, utilities are raising rates, a burden that's a slightly
>>> heavier burden for people without solar power. In California they may
>>> eventually pass on as much as $1.3billion in annual costs to customers
>>> who don't have panels.
>>
>> I've been following Solar Power progress for some time now. The weak
>> link is still storage. My cost can be zero from sun-up to sun-down, but
>> we'll need power the rest of the day for years to come. That guaranteed
>> power will come at a cost.
>
> The problem with a back up generator is that even with natural gas the
> cost of running it will pretty much offset the savings. My sister and a
> neighbor have whole house back up generators and the expense to generate
> electricity with the generator is around 25~30 cents per kWh. We pay
> about 9 cents per kWh from the utility.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> When storage is so cheap the overnight backup isn't needed, and a
>> generator (I'm thinking natural gas, not gasoline) can kick in after the
>> 5th cloudy day, the grid might no longer be needed. That point is still
>> decades away and yes, there's a struggle with taxes trying balance
>> things out. But, tax the non-solar home and drive up their cost, and
>> you'll push them to solar even faster.
>>
>
> You also have to keep in mind that the government is heavily reliant on
> energy tax dollars. While taxing the non solar home to persuade them to
> go solar or what ever, when that is accomplished every one will
> eventually will be taxed for their own generation of energy.
>
>
That's true now. Even though my solar generates more than I use, the
utility taxes and fees are $18-19/month.
--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill
"Leon" wrote:
> Never said that oil was cheap, I mentioned that it is cheaper than
> the
> so called environmentally friendly energy sources.
<snip>
> Agree that we should continue too look, there might be a better
> solution in
> the future. But now oil is king and will be for decades to come.
> Right now
> however oil is considerably more environmentally friendly than it
> has been
> in the past and compared to batteries.
-------------------------------------------------------
The Koch brothers have got to love you.
They have at least one person who buys the crap they try to
spread around.
Wonder how many so called "dirty" batteries are required to equal
the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico?
Oil has been "cheap" because it is heavily subsidized, easy to
get and has not been required to clean up the pollution
it creates.
There is no question that electric vehicles are the future; however,
in the near turn, natural gas will be the fuel that transitions from
oil
powered to electric powered vehicles.
Oil and coal are both on stage for their final performances.
The king is dead, long live the king.
Here in SoCal, Nissan has introduced an electric vehicle and seems
to be enjoying some success.
50 years ago, the Japanese invaded the SoCal auto market and had
more than modest success.
Are we poised for a repeat performance?
Time will tell.
Lew
Bill <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> I just checked, and they have a Toyota pickup truck in their car
> "line-up". If they put a stand at Menards and Home Depot, and I'll
> use it.
Menards will rent you a Ford pickup (at least around here) for something
like $20 for 75 minutes. Good enough to get a refrigerator home, but
something loose and bulky like landscape stone might take longer to load
and unload.
I haven't needed to rent one yet, but just the plates for a year in IL will
cost you 5 times the rental cost of the truck. Add insurance and you can
rent the truck 10-20 times before it's cheaper than owning one.
Puckdropper
--
Make it to fit, don't make it fit.
On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 13:18:24 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>share a car?? As in leave your vehicle and take some one else's?
>
>I would not, maybe you would, be OK with lending my vehicle to a
>stranger and I cant begin to fathom the liability issues associated with
>this arrangement.
It's already in operation.
http://www.zipcar.com/
On 9/25/2013 9:44 AM, Swingman wrote:
> On 9/24/2013 11:36 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 13:18:24 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>> share a car?? As in leave your vehicle and take some one else's?
>>>
>>> I would not, maybe you would, be OK with lending my vehicle to a
>>> stranger and I cant begin to fathom the liability issues associated with
>>> this arrangement.
>>
>> It's already in operation.
>> http://www.zipcar.com/
>
> To satisfy my geek gene weekly I watch the TWIT podcast (This Week In
> Tech).
>
> I am surprised at the number of participants in the high tech business,
> most in their twenties and early thirties, who routinely use services
> like Zipcar and Airbnb as a matter of course.
>
I just checked, and they have a Toyota pickup truck in their car
"line-up". If they put a stand at Menards and Home Depot, and I'll use it.
Puckdropper wrote:
> Bill <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> I just checked, and they have a Toyota pickup truck in their car
>> "line-up". If they put a stand at Menards and Home Depot, and I'll
>> use it.
> Menards will rent you a Ford pickup (at least around here) for something
> like $20 for 75 minutes. Good enough to get a refrigerator home, but
> something loose and bulky like landscape stone might take longer to load
> and unload.
>
> I haven't needed to rent one yet, but just the plates for a year in IL will
> cost you 5 times the rental cost of the truck. Add insurance and you can
> rent the truck 10-20 times before it's cheaper than owning one.
>
> Puckdropper
Yes, Home Depot used to have a deal where if you spent over $100 you
could have an hour of truck rental for free. But when I last asked
about it no one there knew what I was talking about.
On 9/24/2013 11:36 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 13:18:24 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> share a car?? As in leave your vehicle and take some one else's?
>>
>> I would not, maybe you would, be OK with lending my vehicle to a
>> stranger and I cant begin to fathom the liability issues associated with
>> this arrangement.
>
> It's already in operation.
> http://www.zipcar.com/
To satisfy my geek gene weekly I watch the TWIT podcast (This Week In Tech).
I am surprised at the number of participants in the high tech business,
most in their twenties and early thirties, who routinely use services
like Zipcar and Airbnb as a matter of course.
--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
"Leon" wrote:
> A new dealer accepting a load of unique vehicles is not as good as
> it
> sounds.
-------------------------------------------------
Trust me as a salesman that if I get a chance to place an order for 28
widgets that
cost in excess of $20K each and resell 24 of them at a profit in 20
days, you can
bet your sweet rear end I'm a happy salesman.
Lew
"Lew Hodgett" wrote:
> Wonder how many so called "dirty" batteries are required to equal
> the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico?
------------------------------------------------------
"Leon" wrote:
> That oil spill is all but forgotten.
-------------------------------------------------------
Wonder if that is the reason BP is in the middle of a pubic relations
campaign across the country using the national media?
Somehow I don't think so.
That BP spill simply exposed what an environmental risk off shore
drilling can be.
This time around it won't be forgotten so quickly.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Leon" wrote:
> Please! Not required to clean up pollution??????? Did CA ax the
> automobile emissions laws?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
We are gaining on it in CA, too bad much of the rest of the country
has it's collective head where the moon doesn't shine.
----------------------------------------------------------------
"Lew Hodgett" wrote:
> There is no question that electric vehicles are the future;
> however,
> in the near turn, natural gas will be the fuel that transitions
> from
> oil
> powered to electric powered vehicles.
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Lew Hodgett" wrote:
>> Here in SoCal, Nissan has introduced an electric vehicle and seems
>> to be enjoying some success.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Leon" wrote:
>
> Electric vehicles are all over the place and enjoying the success of
> selling to the .05% of buyers that think they are making a
> difference.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Too many of the big boys are getting into the electric vehicle market
for it not to grow significantly.
VW as one comes to mind.
My guess is that in 10 years or less, the majority of vehicles
manufactured
will be electric.
Lew
On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 16:22:31 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 9/25/2013 12:32 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 20:50:14 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/24/2013 7:21 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Already a system is currently going up in Indianapolis, where you can
>>>>> "share" an electric car--dropping it off at one of numerous designated
>>>>> recharge stations.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, good grief, that's dumb! What's the cost of that?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Two possibilities
>>> 1. http://www.zipcar.com/
>>> 2. Buy shares, just as aircraft owners often do.
>>
>> If you're an OCCAISIONAL user of the appliance, it sometimes makes
>> sense to lease it. If the taxpayer gets involved, it makes sense more
>> often.
>>
>>> Works for the occasional user, not the daily commuter.
>>
>> That's what it's being sold as here. ...just grab one from the pool
>> and drive off - not going to work.
>>
>
>
>And apparently you still have to reserve the zipcar.
What I *don't* need is a time-share car. ;-)
On 9/25/2013 11:30 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 9/25/2013 7:13 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 16:22:31 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/25/2013 12:32 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 20:50:14 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/24/2013 7:21 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Already a system is currently going up in Indianapolis, where you
>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>> "share" an electric car--dropping it off at one of numerous
>>>>>>> designated
>>>>>>> recharge stations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, good grief, that's dumb! What's the cost of that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Two possibilities
>>>>> 1. http://www.zipcar.com/
>>>>> 2. Buy shares, just as aircraft owners often do.
>>>>
>>>> If you're an OCCAISIONAL user of the appliance, it sometimes makes
>>>> sense to lease it. If the taxpayer gets involved, it makes sense more
>>>> often.
>>>>
>>>>> Works for the occasional user, not the daily commuter.
>>>>
>>>> That's what it's being sold as here. ...just grab one from the pool
>>>> and drive off - not going to work.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And apparently you still have to reserve the zipcar.
>>
>> What I *don't* need is a time-share car. ;-)
>>
>
>
> I don't see the advantage to a regular rental car other than not having
> to be fill it for the next person.
LOCATION (walking distance to schools, hotels, downtown, Home Depot
(maybe), etc.).
Bill wrote:
> On 9/25/2013 11:30 PM, Leon wrote:
>> On 9/25/2013 7:13 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 16:22:31 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/25/2013 12:32 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 20:50:14 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/24/2013 7:21 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Already a system is currently going up in Indianapolis, where you
>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>> "share" an electric car--dropping it off at one of numerous
>>>>>>>> designated
>>>>>>>> recharge stations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh, good grief, that's dumb! What's the cost of that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Two possibilities
>>>>>> 1. http://www.zipcar.com/
>>>>>> 2. Buy shares, just as aircraft owners often do.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you're an OCCAISIONAL user of the appliance, it sometimes makes
>>>>> sense to lease it. If the taxpayer gets involved, it makes sense
>>>>> more
>>>>> often.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Works for the occasional user, not the daily commuter.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's what it's being sold as here. ...just grab one from the pool
>>>>> and drive off - not going to work.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And apparently you still have to reserve the zipcar.
>>>
>>> What I *don't* need is a time-share car. ;-)
>>>
>>
>>
>> I don't see the advantage to a regular rental car other than not having
>> to be fill it for the next person.
>
> LOCATION (walking distance to schools, hotels, downtown, Home Depot
> (maybe), etc.).
>
It costs about $75 if the car is kept for 24 hours, so a rental would
mostly likely be cheaper.
To a marketing person, it's a totally different product than a rental car.
On 9/25/2013 7:13 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 16:22:31 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 9/25/2013 12:32 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 20:50:14 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/24/2013 7:21 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Already a system is currently going up in Indianapolis, where you can
>>>>>> "share" an electric car--dropping it off at one of numerous designated
>>>>>> recharge stations.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, good grief, that's dumb! What's the cost of that?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Two possibilities
>>>> 1. http://www.zipcar.com/
>>>> 2. Buy shares, just as aircraft owners often do.
>>>
>>> If you're an OCCAISIONAL user of the appliance, it sometimes makes
>>> sense to lease it. If the taxpayer gets involved, it makes sense more
>>> often.
>>>
>>>> Works for the occasional user, not the daily commuter.
>>>
>>> That's what it's being sold as here. ...just grab one from the pool
>>> and drive off - not going to work.
>>>
>>
>>
>> And apparently you still have to reserve the zipcar.
>
> What I *don't* need is a time-share car. ;-)
>
I don't see the advantage to a regular rental car other than not having
to be fill it for the next person.
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 10:38:06 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> Never said that oil was cheap, I mentioned that it is cheaper than the
>> so called environmentally friendly energy sources.
>
> Sure, you're right, but that doesn't for one minute mean that the
> search for environmentally friendly and sustainable energy sources
> shouldn't continue. And, it's also possible that the current flock of
> those so called environmentally friendly energy sources might well
> eventually turn into true environmentally friendly energy sources.
Agree that we should continue too look, there might be a better solution in
the future. But now oil is king and will be for decades to come. Right now
however oil is considerably more environmentally friendly than it has been
in the past and compared to batteries.
On 9/24/2013 7:21 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> Already a system is currently going up in Indianapolis, where you can
>> "share" an electric car--dropping it off at one of numerous designated
>> recharge stations.
>
> Oh, good grief, that's dumb! What's the cost of that?
>
Two possibilities
1. http://www.zipcar.com/
2. Buy shares, just as aircraft owners often do.
Works for the occasional user, not the daily commuter.
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Somebody wrote:
>
>
>> Ah, I missed that. I thought it was a standard rental. I rented
>> a
>> car a couple of weeks ago (will do it again next week). I had to
>> put[*] 2-1/2 gallons of gas in it, at $4.09/gallon (Lew should
>> love
>> that data point ;).
>>
>> [*] Boss had to pay ;-)
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Hertz just announced that in the major markets they will be offering
> a Tesla for $500/day.
>
> Assume that includes the $0.00/gal refuel charge.
>
> Lew
He'll it should include a day at the Spa!
On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 23:25:57 -0500, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 11:46:50 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/26/2013 4:03 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 22:30:20 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/25/2013 7:13 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 16:22:31 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/25/2013 12:32 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 20:50:14 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 9/24/2013 7:21 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Already a system is currently going up in Indianapolis, where you can
>>>>>>>>>>> "share" an electric car--dropping it off at one of numerous designated
>>>>>>>>>>> recharge stations.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Oh, good grief, that's dumb! What's the cost of that?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Two possibilities
>>>>>>>>> 1. http://www.zipcar.com/
>>>>>>>>> 2. Buy shares, just as aircraft owners often do.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you're an OCCAISIONAL user of the appliance, it sometimes makes
>>>>>>>> sense to lease it. If the taxpayer gets involved, it makes sense more
>>>>>>>> often.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Works for the occasional user, not the daily commuter.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's what it's being sold as here. ...just grab one from the pool
>>>>>>>> and drive off - not going to work.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And apparently you still have to reserve the zipcar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What I *don't* need is a time-share car. ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't see the advantage to a regular rental car other than not having
>>>>> to be fill it for the next person.
>>>>
>>>> Except that you do.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You only have to fill it, according to the web site, if the tank goes
>>> below 1/4. You do not pay for gas separately, it is included in the
>>> hourly price of renting along with insurance.
>>
>> Ah, I missed that. I thought it was a standard rental. I rented a
>> car a couple of weeks ago (will do it again next week). I had to
>> put[*] 2-1/2 gallons of gas in it, at $4.09/gallon (Lew should love
>> that data point ;).
>>
>> [*] Boss had to pay ;-)
>
>I just noticed that Enterprise Leasing is offering basically the same type
>rental in Houston. I have never noticed that ad in the past.
I guess there were rental options. I could have bought a whole tank
of gas for $3.50/gallon or paid for them to fill it at $5.00 per
gallon. Neither made any sense (and are specifically discouraged by
accounting).
On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 23:25:57 -0500, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 11:46:50 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/26/2013 4:03 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 22:30:20 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/25/2013 7:13 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 16:22:31 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 9/25/2013 12:32 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 20:50:14 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/24/2013 7:21 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Already a system is currently going up in Indianapolis, where you can
>>>>>>>>>>>> "share" an electric car--dropping it off at one of numerous designated
>>>>>>>>>>>> recharge stations.
>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, good grief, that's dumb! What's the cost of that?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Two possibilities
>>>>>>>>>> 1. http://www.zipcar.com/
>>>>>>>>>> 2. Buy shares, just as aircraft owners often do.
>>>>>>>>> If you're an OCCAISIONAL user of the appliance, it sometimes makes
>>>>>>>>> sense to lease it. If the taxpayer gets involved, it makes sense more
>>>>>>>>> often.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Works for the occasional user, not the daily commuter.
>>>>>>>>> That's what it's being sold as here. ...just grab one from the pool
>>>>>>>>> and drive off - not going to work.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And apparently you still have to reserve the zipcar.
>>>>>>> What I *don't* need is a time-share car. ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't see the advantage to a regular rental car other than not having
>>>>>> to be fill it for the next person.
>>>>> Except that you do.
>>>>>
>>>> You only have to fill it, according to the web site, if the tank goes
>>>> below 1/4. You do not pay for gas separately, it is included in the
>>>> hourly price of renting along with insurance.
>>> Ah, I missed that. I thought it was a standard rental. I rented a
>>> car a couple of weeks ago (will do it again next week). I had to
>>> put[*] 2-1/2 gallons of gas in it, at $4.09/gallon (Lew should love
>>> that data point ;).
>>>
>>> [*] Boss had to pay ;-)
>>
>> At least in Indianapolis, these are supposed to be mostly electric cars.
>> $35 millionto set it up, so there should be at least something to see.
>
>Well if these vehicles were gasoline, there should be about 2300 units. But
>then you need the specialized charging stations in tons of locations.
>
>On another note, Houston added rail for mass transit 10+ years ago, it was
>all political and a hot bed for controversy.
>For the first year there was a vehicle collision with the train, on
>average, every day. It was always the other guys fault, I think that is
>because the train is always in the right, right or wrong. Mysteriously the
>accidents are no longer breaking news and you very seldom hear of an
>accident these days. I suspect that this is because the daily occourance
>became boring to report on or the city maybe suggested that not so much
>attention be paid to the problem.
>
>An interesting note, one of the news sources determined that the rail
>system cost so much money that it would have been less expensive to have
>purchased a Ferrari for each rider.
>
>I wonder how many vehicles $35,000,000 puts in service and or if Ferrari's
>would be less expensive.
> I wonder how many
But it's for the children!
wrote in message news:[email protected]...
On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 14:05:10 -0400, Bill <[email protected]>
wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 11:12:42 -0500, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> My guess is that in 10 years or less, the majority of vehicles
>>>>>> manufactured will be electric.
>>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm not quite that optimistic, but I can envision it happening
>>>>> within
>>>>> the next quarter century. With entrepreneurs like Tesla fully
>>>>> committed to electric vehicle promotion, it will happen sooner than
>>>>> later. Add onto that the fact that the Tesla *looks damned good*
>>>>> IMHO,
>>>>> the electric car field has nowhere to go except up.
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>> That 10 year number comes from the industry itself, not me,
>>>> I'm just the messenger.
>>>>
>>>> Lew
>>> Well first Lew, you say "your guess" is that in 10 years or less the
>>> "majority" of vehicles will be electric. Now you say this number comes
>> >from the industry.
>>> That industry naturally will make that claim, it's make it or break it
>>> time. That industry needs an enormous infusion of cash from investors
>>> to
>>> be able to mass produce a vehicle that will actually perform and go the
>>> distance and be at least equal in amenities as the much much lower price
>>> vehicles available right now with gasoline/diesel engines.
>>>
>>> I hope that 10 years is a realistic and achievable time frame but I
>>> don't
>>> see the trend growing that fast. It seems to be growing fast because
>>> of
>>> all of the attention it is getting but I am still seeing, in Houston,
>>> the
>>> vast majority of new vehicles being equipped with the traditional
>>> internal
>>> combustion engine. Many more hurdles will have to be over come before
>>> the
>>> "majority of new vehicle buyers make the switch.
>> My bet is that in ten years there will be FEWER electric and hybrid
>> cars on the market than there are now. Cars won't be smaller or get
>> much better mileage and barring (even more) government meddling, gas
>> won't be much more expensive in a decade, either. Two decades, even.
>
>Mercedes, IIRC, suggests they will have a "self-driving car" by the end
>of the decade. I expect an increase in mass transit, and fewer cars. A
>self-driving car would seem to support various forms of "sharing".
Self-driving cars, or some subset of such, is a definite possibility.
Mass transit, not a chance. No one wants it and there is no money to
pay for it if they did.
========================================================================
Seattle mass transit, they say, has record ridership but according to the
politicos, they are going to have to raise taxes on everyone to keep it
running. Now that's an efficient system. The plan is to raise vehicle
license rate so those of us that don't use the public system get to pay for
it.
On 9/24/2013 6:21 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 14:05:10 -0400, Bill <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 11:12:42 -0500, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> My guess is that in 10 years or less, the majority of vehicles
>>>>>>> manufactured will be electric.
>>>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not quite that optimistic, but I can envision it happening
>>>>>> within
>>>>>> the next quarter century. With entrepreneurs like Tesla fully
>>>>>> committed to electric vehicle promotion, it will happen sooner than
>>>>>> later. Add onto that the fact that the Tesla *looks damned good*
>>>>>> IMHO,
>>>>>> the electric car field has nowhere to go except up.
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> That 10 year number comes from the industry itself, not me,
>>>>> I'm just the messenger.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lew
>>>> Well first Lew, you say "your guess" is that in 10 years or less the
>>>> "majority" of vehicles will be electric. Now you say this number comes
>>> >from the industry.
>>>> That industry naturally will make that claim, it's make it or break it
>>>> time. That industry needs an enormous infusion of cash from investors to
>>>> be able to mass produce a vehicle that will actually perform and go the
>>>> distance and be at least equal in amenities as the much much lower price
>>>> vehicles available right now with gasoline/diesel engines.
>>>>
>>>> I hope that 10 years is a realistic and achievable time frame but I don't
>>>> see the trend growing that fast. It seems to be growing fast because of
>>>> all of the attention it is getting but I am still seeing, in Houston, the
>>>> vast majority of new vehicles being equipped with the traditional internal
>>>> combustion engine. Many more hurdles will have to be over come before the
>>>> "majority of new vehicle buyers make the switch.
>>> My bet is that in ten years there will be FEWER electric and hybrid
>>> cars on the market than there are now. Cars won't be smaller or get
>>> much better mileage and barring (even more) government meddling, gas
>>> won't be much more expensive in a decade, either. Two decades, even.
>>
>> Mercedes, IIRC, suggests they will have a "self-driving car" by the end
>> of the decade. I expect an increase in mass transit, and fewer cars. A
>> self-driving car would seem to support various forms of "sharing".
>
> Self-driving cars, or some subset of such, is a definite possibility.
> Mass transit, not a chance. No one wants it and there is no money to
> pay for it if they did.
>
>> Already a system is currently going up in Indianapolis, where you can
>> "share" an electric car--dropping it off at one of numerous designated
>> recharge stations.
>
> Oh, good grief, that's dumb! What's the cost of that?
>
I'm sure that it was sold with the understanding that the users will pay
very little. The government will be paying the lions share of the
expense. LOL
On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 14:05:10 -0400, Bill <[email protected]>
wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 11:12:42 -0500, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> My guess is that in 10 years or less, the majority of vehicles
>>>>>> manufactured will be electric.
>>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm not quite that optimistic, but I can envision it happening
>>>>> within
>>>>> the next quarter century. With entrepreneurs like Tesla fully
>>>>> committed to electric vehicle promotion, it will happen sooner than
>>>>> later. Add onto that the fact that the Tesla *looks damned good*
>>>>> IMHO,
>>>>> the electric car field has nowhere to go except up.
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>> That 10 year number comes from the industry itself, not me,
>>>> I'm just the messenger.
>>>>
>>>> Lew
>>> Well first Lew, you say "your guess" is that in 10 years or less the
>>> "majority" of vehicles will be electric. Now you say this number comes
>> >from the industry.
>>> That industry naturally will make that claim, it's make it or break it
>>> time. That industry needs an enormous infusion of cash from investors to
>>> be able to mass produce a vehicle that will actually perform and go the
>>> distance and be at least equal in amenities as the much much lower price
>>> vehicles available right now with gasoline/diesel engines.
>>>
>>> I hope that 10 years is a realistic and achievable time frame but I don't
>>> see the trend growing that fast. It seems to be growing fast because of
>>> all of the attention it is getting but I am still seeing, in Houston, the
>>> vast majority of new vehicles being equipped with the traditional internal
>>> combustion engine. Many more hurdles will have to be over come before the
>>> "majority of new vehicle buyers make the switch.
>> My bet is that in ten years there will be FEWER electric and hybrid
>> cars on the market than there are now. Cars won't be smaller or get
>> much better mileage and barring (even more) government meddling, gas
>> won't be much more expensive in a decade, either. Two decades, even.
>
>Mercedes, IIRC, suggests they will have a "self-driving car" by the end
>of the decade. I expect an increase in mass transit, and fewer cars. A
>self-driving car would seem to support various forms of "sharing".
Self-driving cars, or some subset of such, is a definite possibility.
Mass transit, not a chance. No one wants it and there is no money to
pay for it if they did.
>Already a system is currently going up in Indianapolis, where you can
>"share" an electric car--dropping it off at one of numerous designated
>recharge stations.
Oh, good grief, that's dumb! What's the cost of that?
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
> As more homes generate their own power, typically with the help of state
> or federal subsidies, they're buying less electricity from traditional utilities.
>
> Jeopardizing Grid
> PG&E Corp., California's biggest, has said this jeopardizes the power
> grid because there's less revenue to maintain the infrastructure. In
> response, utilities are raising rates, a burden that's a slightly heavier
> burden for people without solar power. In California they may eventually
> pass on as much as $1.3billion in annual costs to customers who don't have panels.
>
>
>
>
> As I have said time and again in the past, Changing your source of power
> only does that, you are going to pay one way or another for what you use.
Hell, when the cost of swimming pool chemicals and private schools rises
for upper management, ya gotta make it up somewhere.
--
www.ewoodshop.com (Mobile)
On 9/16/2013 8:37 AM, Swingman wrote:
> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>> As more homes generate their own power, typically with the help of state
>> or federal subsidies, they're buying less electricity from traditional utilities.
>>
>> Jeopardizing Grid
>> PG&E Corp., California's biggest, has said this jeopardizes the power
>> grid because there's less revenue to maintain the infrastructure. In
>> response, utilities are raising rates, a burden that's a slightly heavier
>> burden for people without solar power. In California they may eventually
>> pass on as much as $1.3billion in annual costs to customers who don't have panels.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> As I have said time and again in the past, Changing your source of power
>> only does that, you are going to pay one way or another for what you use.
>
> Hell, when the cost of swimming pool chemicals and private schools rises
> for upper management, ya gotta make it up somewhere.
>
Eggsactly!
Government is not going to allow a huge source of taxable income go away
with out raising taxes. You pay one way or another.
On 9/21/2013 9:42 AM, scritch wrote:
> On 9/16/2013 3:35 PM, Leon wrote:
>> On 9/16/2013 1:56 PM, JoeTaxpayer wrote:
>>> On 9/16/13 1:33 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I've been following Solar Power progress for some time now. The weak
>>>>> link is still storage. My cost can be zero from sun-up to sun-down,
>>>>> but
>>>>> we'll need power the rest of the day for years to come. That
>>>>> guaranteed
>>>>> power will come at a cost.
>>>>
>>>> The problem with a back up generator is that even with natural gas the
>>>> cost of running it will pretty much offset the savings. My sister
>>>> and a
>>>> neighbor have whole house back up generators and the expense to
>>>> generate
>>>> electricity with the generator is around 25~30 cents per kWh. We pay
>>>> about 9 cents per kWh from the utility.
>>>
>>> Understood. So, forget local generators.
>>>
>>> There will be a balance where the power companies are providing
>>> overnight service. They will scale down a bit as that demand won't ever
>>> be as high as daytime peak demand was.
>>>
>>> My only point is that there will be an equilibrium, that even if solar
>>> cost were zero (the absurd extreme) that bridging the gap would take
>>> another level of effort, another cost curve or service.
>>>
>>> To your numbers - I'm guessing the overnight is less than 1/3 or less of
>>> daily usage. So paying 3X to bridge that gap seems absurd. If it were
>>> less than 2X, or if the gap were just 1/6 daily power, the story
>>> changes.
>>>
>>
>> For those few individuals it will become cheaper.
>>
>>
>> Until the balance is upset. We as a society are not going to be able to
>> not pay for our energy whether we reduce the cost to produce it or not.
>> The government will see to that.
>>
>> Right now the government subsidies that encourage you to go solar cost
>> the rest of us more.
>>
>> Robbing Peter to pay Paul.
>>
>>
>> If we don't pay for it our great grand kids will.
>>
>> Basically changing for the sake of changing is not letting the free
>> market thrive, it creates a false economy. Oil is what people want, it
>> is the least expensive fuel to use and probably better for the
>> environment than all the caustic batteries that are going to have to be
>> dealt with some time in the future.
>>
>> For the individual the alternative fuels are good but not for the
>> society.
>>
>>
>>
> Leon, don't forget that oil is heavily subsidized, both explicitly in
> the forms of various tax credits and almost no charges for taking oil
> that is on what could be reasonably argued as land belonging to all of
> us, but also in the hidden costs of environmental and health
> degradation. Oil is not cheap.
>
Never said that oil was cheap, I mentioned that it is cheaper than the
so called environmentally friendly energy sources.
"Leon" <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 9/16/2013 1:56 PM, JoeTaxpayer wrote:
>> On 9/16/13 1:33 PM, Leon wrote:
>>
>>>> I've been following Solar Power progress for some time now. The weak
>>>> link is still storage. My cost can be zero from sun-up to sun-down, but
>>>> we'll need power the rest of the day for years to come. That guaranteed
>>>> power will come at a cost.
>>>
>>> The problem with a back up generator is that even with natural gas the
>>> cost of running it will pretty much offset the savings. My sister and a
>>> neighbor have whole house back up generators and the expense to generate
>>> electricity with the generator is around 25~30 cents per kWh. We pay
>>> about 9 cents per kWh from the utility.
>>
>> Understood. So, forget local generators.
>>
>> There will be a balance where the power companies are providing
>> overnight service. They will scale down a bit as that demand won't ever
>> be as high as daytime peak demand was.
>>
>> My only point is that there will be an equilibrium, that even if solar
>> cost were zero (the absurd extreme) that bridging the gap would take
>> another level of effort, another cost curve or service.
>>
>> To your numbers - I'm guessing the overnight is less than 1/3 or less of
>> daily usage. So paying 3X to bridge that gap seems absurd. If it were
>> less than 2X, or if the gap were just 1/6 daily power, the story changes.
>>
>
> For those few individuals it will become cheaper.
>
>
> Until the balance is upset. We as a society are not going to be able to
> not pay for our energy whether we reduce the cost to produce it or not.
> The government will see to that.
>
> Right now the government subsidies that encourage you to go solar cost the
> rest of us more.
>
> Robbing Peter to pay Paul.
>
>
> If we don't pay for it our great grand kids will.
>
> Basically changing for the sake of changing is not letting the free market
> thrive, it creates a false economy. Oil is what people want, it is the
> least expensive fuel to use and probably better for the environment than
> all the caustic batteries that are going to have to be dealt with some
> time in the future.
>
> For the individual the alternative fuels are good but not for the society.
>
>
++++1
This is *almost* what has happened in UK over the past few years and
continues unimpeded.
Solar & wind power energy production. Developed at huge costs with outputs
varying from little to Foxtrot Alpha. We don't have the rays that CA enjoys
and it is rare that the breeze is of the right flavour to enable wind farms
to operate at any efficiency.
Meanwhile, bill paying energy consumers subsidise the green revolution. Big
Time.
One good thing about a revolution, it always goes full circle.
Up there /\ /\ /\ is quoted 'We pay about 9 cents per kWh from the utility'.
I'm currently paying 15.5 pence per kWh. That's £sterling not $USD.
On top of that we have tax @ 20% and CCL (Climate Change Levy,
cough/choke/splutter).
So I reckon we are paying more than double than you guys.
If that is not enough to deter you from rushing to UK, the weather is p***
poor and the beer is room temp.[1]
I really like this group. Knowledgeable folk telling it like it is.
Good luck to all,
Nick.
[1] Mild in summer, bitter in winter.
On 9/16/2013 5:35 PM, Leon wrote:
> Until the balance is upset. We as a society are not going to be able to
> not pay for our energy whether we reduce the cost to produce it or not.
> The government will see to that.
>
> Right now the government subsidies that encourage you to go solar cost
> the rest of us more.
>
> Robbing Peter to pay Paul.
>
>
> If we don't pay for it our great grand kids will.
>
> Basically changing for the sake of changing is not letting the free
> market thrive, it creates a false economy. Oil is what people want, it
> is the least expensive fuel to use and probably better for the
> environment than all the caustic batteries that are going to have to be
> dealt with some time in the future.
>
> For the individual the alternative fuels are good but not for the society.
+1
"Mr Peabody's coal train done hauled it away."
--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
On 9/16/13 9:12 AM, Leon wrote:
> As more homes generate their own power, typically with the help of state
> or federal subsidies, they're buying less electricity from traditional
> utilities.
>
> Jeopardizing Grid
> PG&E Corp., California's biggest, has said this jeopardizes the power
> grid because there's less revenue to maintain the infrastructure. In
> response, utilities are raising rates, a burden that's a slightly
> heavier burden for people without solar power. In California they may
> eventually pass on as much as $1.3billion in annual costs to customers
> who don't have panels.
I've been following Solar Power progress for some time now. The weak
link is still storage. My cost can be zero from sun-up to sun-down, but
we'll need power the rest of the day for years to come. That guaranteed
power will come at a cost.
When storage is so cheap the overnight backup isn't needed, and a
generator (I'm thinking natural gas, not gasoline) can kick in after the
5th cloudy day, the grid might no longer be needed. That point is still
decades away and yes, there's a struggle with taxes trying balance
things out. But, tax the non-solar home and drive up their cost, and
you'll push them to solar even faster.
On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 00:46:08 -0500, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>As opposed to dealing with nuclear waste? Do you think Russia or Japan
>would agree?
Who mentioned nuclear waste? Certainly not me. Yes, I know, the vast
bulk of the world runs on oil and nuclear generated electricity.
And, just because the US hasn't experience any all encompassing
nuclear accidents lately, it's sheer arrogance to even think that it
couldn't happen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor_accidents_in_the_United_States#List_of_accidents_and_incidents
>> Running oil rigs in our oceans is a more screwed up act than I could
>> ever imagine.
>It sounds screwed up until you realize that the ocean oozes more oil
>naturally than any oil spill on any given day.
So, that means we should just go blithely ahead without any concern as
to how we might be adding to the pollution quotient? In addition,
those natural oozes are not man made either.
On 9/16/13 1:33 PM, Leon wrote:
>> I've been following Solar Power progress for some time now. The weak
>> link is still storage. My cost can be zero from sun-up to sun-down, but
>> we'll need power the rest of the day for years to come. That guaranteed
>> power will come at a cost.
>
> The problem with a back up generator is that even with natural gas the
> cost of running it will pretty much offset the savings. My sister and a
> neighbor have whole house back up generators and the expense to generate
> electricity with the generator is around 25~30 cents per kWh. We pay
> about 9 cents per kWh from the utility.
Understood. So, forget local generators.
There will be a balance where the power companies are providing
overnight service. They will scale down a bit as that demand won't ever
be as high as daytime peak demand was.
My only point is that there will be an equilibrium, that even if solar
cost were zero (the absurd extreme) that bridging the gap would take
another level of effort, another cost curve or service.
To your numbers - I'm guessing the overnight is less than 1/3 or less of
daily usage. So paying 3X to bridge that gap seems absurd. If it were
less than 2X, or if the gap were just 1/6 daily power, the story changes.
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
>
>>> My guess is that in 10 years or less, the majority of vehicles
>>> manufactured will be electric.
> --------------------------------------------------
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I'm not quite that optimistic, but I can envision it happening
>> within
>> the next quarter century. With entrepreneurs like Tesla fully
>> committed to electric vehicle promotion, it will happen sooner than
>> later. Add onto that the fact that the Tesla *looks damned good*
>> IMHO,
>> the electric car field has nowhere to go except up.
> ------------------------------------------------------
> That 10 year number comes from the industry itself, not me,
> I'm just the messenger.
>
> Lew
Well first Lew, you say "your guess" is that in 10 years or less the
"majority" of vehicles will be electric. Now you say this number comes
from the industry.
That industry naturally will make that claim, it's make it or break it
time. That industry needs an enormous infusion of cash from investors to
be able to mass produce a vehicle that will actually perform and go the
distance and be at least equal in amenities as the much much lower price
vehicles available right now with gasoline/diesel engines.
I hope that 10 years is a realistic and achievable time frame but I don't
see the trend growing that fast. It seems to be growing fast because of
all of the attention it is getting but I am still seeing, in Houston, the
vast majority of new vehicles being equipped with the traditional internal
combustion engine. Many more hurdles will have to be over come before the
"majority of new vehicle buyers make the switch.
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 11:46:50 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 9/26/2013 4:03 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 22:30:20 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/25/2013 7:13 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 16:22:31 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/25/2013 12:32 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 20:50:14 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 9/24/2013 7:21 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Already a system is currently going up in Indianapolis, where you can
>>>>>>>>>> "share" an electric car--dropping it off at one of numerous designated
>>>>>>>>>> recharge stations.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Oh, good grief, that's dumb! What's the cost of that?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Two possibilities
>>>>>>>> 1. http://www.zipcar.com/
>>>>>>>> 2. Buy shares, just as aircraft owners often do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you're an OCCAISIONAL user of the appliance, it sometimes makes
>>>>>>> sense to lease it. If the taxpayer gets involved, it makes sense more
>>>>>>> often.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Works for the occasional user, not the daily commuter.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's what it's being sold as here. ...just grab one from the pool
>>>>>>> and drive off - not going to work.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And apparently you still have to reserve the zipcar.
>>>>>
>>>>> What I *don't* need is a time-share car. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't see the advantage to a regular rental car other than not having
>>>> to be fill it for the next person.
>>>
>>> Except that you do.
>>>
>>
>> You only have to fill it, according to the web site, if the tank goes
>> below 1/4. You do not pay for gas separately, it is included in the
>> hourly price of renting along with insurance.
>
> Ah, I missed that. I thought it was a standard rental. I rented a
> car a couple of weeks ago (will do it again next week). I had to
> put[*] 2-1/2 gallons of gas in it, at $4.09/gallon (Lew should love
> that data point ;).
>
> [*] Boss had to pay ;-)
I just noticed that Enterprise Leasing is offering basically the same type
rental in Houston. I have never noticed that ad in the past.
"Lew Hodgett" wrote:
>>My guess is that in 10 years or less, the majority of vehicles
>>manufactured will be electric.
--------------------------------------------------
<[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm not quite that optimistic, but I can envision it happening
> within
> the next quarter century. With entrepreneurs like Tesla fully
> committed to electric vehicle promotion, it will happen sooner than
> later. Add onto that the fact that the Tesla *looks damned good*
> IMHO,
> the electric car field has nowhere to go except up.
------------------------------------------------------
That 10 year number comes from the industry itself, not me,
I'm just the messenger.
Lew
On 9/26/2013 4:03 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 22:30:20 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 9/25/2013 7:13 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 16:22:31 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/25/2013 12:32 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 20:50:14 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/24/2013 7:21 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Already a system is currently going up in Indianapolis, where you can
>>>>>>>> "share" an electric car--dropping it off at one of numerous designated
>>>>>>>> recharge stations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh, good grief, that's dumb! What's the cost of that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Two possibilities
>>>>>> 1. http://www.zipcar.com/
>>>>>> 2. Buy shares, just as aircraft owners often do.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you're an OCCAISIONAL user of the appliance, it sometimes makes
>>>>> sense to lease it. If the taxpayer gets involved, it makes sense more
>>>>> often.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Works for the occasional user, not the daily commuter.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's what it's being sold as here. ...just grab one from the pool
>>>>> and drive off - not going to work.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And apparently you still have to reserve the zipcar.
>>>
>>> What I *don't* need is a time-share car. ;-)
>>>
>>
>>
>> I don't see the advantage to a regular rental car other than not having
>> to be fill it for the next person.
>
> Except that you do.
>
You only have to fill it, according to the web site, if the tank goes
below 1/4. You do not pay for gas separately, it is included in the
hourly price of renting along with insurance.
On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 22:30:20 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 9/25/2013 7:13 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 16:22:31 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/25/2013 12:32 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 20:50:14 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/24/2013 7:21 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Already a system is currently going up in Indianapolis, where you can
>>>>>>> "share" an electric car--dropping it off at one of numerous designated
>>>>>>> recharge stations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, good grief, that's dumb! What's the cost of that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Two possibilities
>>>>> 1. http://www.zipcar.com/
>>>>> 2. Buy shares, just as aircraft owners often do.
>>>>
>>>> If you're an OCCAISIONAL user of the appliance, it sometimes makes
>>>> sense to lease it. If the taxpayer gets involved, it makes sense more
>>>> often.
>>>>
>>>>> Works for the occasional user, not the daily commuter.
>>>>
>>>> That's what it's being sold as here. ...just grab one from the pool
>>>> and drive off - not going to work.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And apparently you still have to reserve the zipcar.
>>
>> What I *don't* need is a time-share car. ;-)
>>
>
>
>I don't see the advantage to a regular rental car other than not having
>to be fill it for the next person.
Except that you do.
On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 21:16:54 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
>My guess is that in 10 years or less, the majority of vehicles
>manufactured will be electric.
I'm not quite that optimistic, but I can envision it happening within
the next quarter century. With entrepreneurs like Tesla fully
committed to electric vehicle promotion, it will happen sooner than
later. Add onto that the fact that the Tesla *looks damned good* IMHO,
the electric car field has nowhere to go except up.
On 26 Sep 2013 22:00:09 GMT, Puckdropper
<puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
>Bill <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>>
>> I just checked, and they have a Toyota pickup truck in their car
>> "line-up". If they put a stand at Menards and Home Depot, and I'll
>> use it.
>
>Menards will rent you a Ford pickup (at least around here) for something
>like $20 for 75 minutes. Good enough to get a refrigerator home, but
>something loose and bulky like landscape stone might take longer to load
>and unload.
Lowes doesn't charge for appliance delivery. For building materials,
they also have trucks (bigger than a pickemup) for about the same $20.
>I haven't needed to rent one yet, but just the plates for a year in
IL will
>cost you 5 times the rental cost of the truck. Add insurance and you can
>rent the truck 10-20 times before it's cheaper than owning one.
Not as often as I use my truck. ;-) ...and I need a vehicle anyway.
On 9/16/2013 3:35 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 9/16/2013 1:56 PM, JoeTaxpayer wrote:
>> On 9/16/13 1:33 PM, Leon wrote:
>>
>>>> I've been following Solar Power progress for some time now. The weak
>>>> link is still storage. My cost can be zero from sun-up to sun-down, but
>>>> we'll need power the rest of the day for years to come. That guaranteed
>>>> power will come at a cost.
>>>
>>> The problem with a back up generator is that even with natural gas the
>>> cost of running it will pretty much offset the savings. My sister and a
>>> neighbor have whole house back up generators and the expense to generate
>>> electricity with the generator is around 25~30 cents per kWh. We pay
>>> about 9 cents per kWh from the utility.
>>
>> Understood. So, forget local generators.
>>
>> There will be a balance where the power companies are providing
>> overnight service. They will scale down a bit as that demand won't ever
>> be as high as daytime peak demand was.
>>
>> My only point is that there will be an equilibrium, that even if solar
>> cost were zero (the absurd extreme) that bridging the gap would take
>> another level of effort, another cost curve or service.
>>
>> To your numbers - I'm guessing the overnight is less than 1/3 or less of
>> daily usage. So paying 3X to bridge that gap seems absurd. If it were
>> less than 2X, or if the gap were just 1/6 daily power, the story changes.
>>
>
> For those few individuals it will become cheaper.
>
>
> Until the balance is upset. We as a society are not going to be able to
> not pay for our energy whether we reduce the cost to produce it or not.
> The government will see to that.
>
> Right now the government subsidies that encourage you to go solar cost
> the rest of us more.
>
> Robbing Peter to pay Paul.
>
>
> If we don't pay for it our great grand kids will.
>
> Basically changing for the sake of changing is not letting the free
> market thrive, it creates a false economy. Oil is what people want, it
> is the least expensive fuel to use and probably better for the
> environment than all the caustic batteries that are going to have to be
> dealt with some time in the future.
>
> For the individual the alternative fuels are good but not for the society.
>
>
>
Leon, don't forget that oil is heavily subsidized, both explicitly in
the forms of various tax credits and almost no charges for taking oil
that is on what could be reasonably argued as land belonging to all of
us, but also in the hidden costs of environmental and health
degradation. Oil is not cheap.
On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 23:57:38 -0500, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>Tesla is going to have to cut pricing by 2/3 to have a serious alternative
>to gasoline vehicles. The bigger less expensive vehicle that will go long
>distances will drive the market.
Sure, there's going to be some difficulties, but certainly many fewer
difficulties than Ford had when he started producing his model T.
The main thing is that the ball is rolling. I truly believe it's an
inexorable ball too. Go back a little as a twenty years. Who would
have believed that the electric car would be or *is* now a practical
reality.
Yeah, ten, twenty, twenty five years is a huge amount of time
considering our drive to produce new technology.
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Leon" wrote:
>
>> Tesla is going to have to cut pricing by 2/3 to have a serious
>> alternative
>> to gasoline vehicles. The bigger less expensive vehicle that will
>> go long
>> distances will drive the market.
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Tesla is already committed to producing a vehicle that will sell
> for about $30K within 3-5 years.
Committed. But that still is not yet a reality. Oldsmobile was committed
to build a Diesel engine. GM was committed to build a competitive small
car, Saturn. Karmen Fiscar was committed. The question will be, will they
be able to produce a vehicle that buyers will want at 1/3 their current
price and still be able to remain in business selling that cheaply in as
little as 3~5 years. It is only if the masses find the cheaper vehicle to
be at least equal to the traditional vehicles will that vehicle have a
chance of succeeding.
>
> Since the average daily auto trip is about 29 miles, per Nissan,
> long distances are the exception, not the rule.
Seriously, 29 is not even in the ball park for any relative big, not large
city, commuter. I was in the automotive business for most all of my
professional career and in particular in the repair end of the dealership
business. 32 miles a day every day is just under 12,000 moles a year.
When you see a vehicle that is only driven that distance it is considered a
below average low mileage vehicle. 24,000 miles a year is the actual
normal mileage that is placed on a vehicle and as one would expect a
majority of those miles are going to and from work. Since the 5 day work
week excludes weekend driving those a majority of those 24,000 miles are
racked up in 250 ish days vs 365 days. Now the daily travel distance for
the average city driver goes up to almost 100 miles a day.
While Nissan claims that the average auto trip is 29 miles a day I highly
suspect that what they are not telling you is that the average daily trip
for a Leaf driver will be 29 miles a day.
>
> 200 miles between recharge is already here.
>
And not as affordable as a gasoline equally equipped vehicle. Hell, those
experimental solar electrics go 1,000 miles in the desert but they too are
not yet affordable or practice.
I'm not saying that I'm against electrics but being a realist and observing
what is actually happening vs what the media wants to report I am looking
at what the electrics are going to have to offer that will be an advantage
over the competition before you see any majority shift in how the vehicle
is fueled.
> Economy has not been addressed in this thread.
>
> A KWH of power generated by an internal combustion engine is
> considerably more expensive than a KWH produced by a fixed utility.
>
> Reduced operating costs help to offset initial costs.
>
And I will add to that, 10 plus years ago it was a reality that a an
electric powered motor was 4 times efficient to power vs an internal
combustion engine. Read that as the electric only required 1/4 the energy
as the gasoline consumes to produce the same amount of power.
BUT a battery pack for storing generated electricity is countless times
more expensive than a gasoline fuel tank and today the capacity of the
electric power storage is 25~35% of the average energy stored in a gasoline
fuel tank.
And then finally, the biggest obstacle for the all electric vehicle is the
time it takes for replenishing to a full charge vs the five minutes it
takes to refuel a gasoline tank.
Unfortunately for the electrics is that they are going to end up at home
for recharging. It is next to impossible to consider it to be a practice
alternative for driving from Houston to the next largest city and back in
the same day. That fact in itself will be one of the deal breakers..
>
> Lew
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 23:57:38 -0500, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Tesla is going to have to cut pricing by 2/3 to have a serious alternative
>> to gasoline vehicles. The bigger less expensive vehicle that will go long
>> distances will drive the market.
>
> Sure, there's going to be some difficulties, but certainly many fewer
> difficulties than Ford had when he started producing his model T.
> The main thing is that the ball is rolling. I truly believe it's an
> inexorable ball too. Go back a little as a twenty years. Who would
> have believed that the electric car would be or *is* now a practical
> reality.
>
> Yeah, ten, twenty, twenty five years is a huge amount of time
> considering our drive to produce new technology.
I believe the electric car will evolve but I still believe it will take
decades at a minimum before they become an actual benefit to the
environment.. You still have to factor in the impact they have on the
environment during manufacture, the maintaining of their components, and
their eventual disposal/recycling. There should be disclosure statements
with each unit as to what the impact is going to be on the environment much
like the carbon foot print that is determined for each fossil fuel vehicle.
Ford's issue was building a vehicle fast enough to meet with demand.
Demand for the Model T was hundreds of times greater than it is for
electrics or hybrids. Yes demand for the electrics/hybrids are greater
than they were 15 + years ago, but there are more to choose from. The
problem is that they are still as much of an I'm pact on the environment as
ever and still pretty much have down time limitations for recharging when
they can't be used. They will be popular for those that believe that they
are doing the environment a good deed and have relatively small needs for
having a vehicle that will take them to a destination 60 miles away from
home and back. There are countless people that make a treck this far on a
daily basis just to go to work. In particular these commuters live in
heavy population areas, ironically this is where the electrics should be
most popular.. Time will tell how fast this transition will take place if
it actually does take place. IMHO electrics in the foreseeable future will
be more of a novelty to those that can afford..
On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 10:38:06 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>Never said that oil was cheap, I mentioned that it is cheaper than the
>so called environmentally friendly energy sources.
Sure, you're right, but that doesn't for one minute mean that the
search for environmentally friendly and sustainable energy sources
shouldn't continue. And, it's also possible that the current flock of
those so called environmentally friendly energy sources might well
eventually turn into true environmentally friendly energy sources.
On 9/24/2013 4:54 PM, Bill wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>> On 9/24/2013 1:05 PM, Bill wrote:
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 11:12:42 -0500, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My guess is that in 10 years or less, the majority of vehicles
>>>>>>>> manufactured will be electric.
>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not quite that optimistic, but I can envision it happening
>>>>>>> within
>>>>>>> the next quarter century. With entrepreneurs like Tesla fully
>>>>>>> committed to electric vehicle promotion, it will happen sooner than
>>>>>>> later. Add onto that the fact that the Tesla *looks damned good*
>>>>>>> IMHO,
>>>>>>> the electric car field has nowhere to go except up.
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> That 10 year number comes from the industry itself, not me,
>>>>>> I'm just the messenger.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lew
>>>>> Well first Lew, you say "your guess" is that in 10 years or less the
>>>>> "majority" of vehicles will be electric. Now you say this number
>>>>> comes
>>>> >from the industry.
>>>>> That industry naturally will make that claim, it's make it or break it
>>>>> time. That industry needs an enormous infusion of cash from
>>>>> investors to
>>>>> be able to mass produce a vehicle that will actually perform and go
>>>>> the
>>>>> distance and be at least equal in amenities as the much much lower
>>>>> price
>>>>> vehicles available right now with gasoline/diesel engines.
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope that 10 years is a realistic and achievable time frame but I
>>>>> don't
>>>>> see the trend growing that fast. It seems to be growing fast
>>>>> because of
>>>>> all of the attention it is getting but I am still seeing, in Houston,
>>>>> the
>>>>> vast majority of new vehicles being equipped with the traditional
>>>>> internal
>>>>> combustion engine. Many more hurdles will have to be over come
>>>>> before the
>>>>> "majority of new vehicle buyers make the switch.
>>>> My bet is that in ten years there will be FEWER electric and hybrid
>>>> cars on the market than there are now. Cars won't be smaller or get
>>>> much better mileage and barring (even more) government meddling, gas
>>>> won't be much more expensive in a decade, either. Two decades, even.
>>>
>>> Mercedes, IIRC, suggests they will have a "self-driving car" by the end
>>> of the decade. I expect an increase in mass transit, and fewer cars. A
>>> self-driving car would seem to support various forms of "sharing".
>>
>> Not a stretch, GM was playing with this idea some 15~20 years ago with
>> sensors built into the highway that guided the vehicle. And today
>> some vehicles will automatically parallel park.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Already a system is currently going up in Indianapolis, where you can
>>> "share" an electric car--dropping it off at one of numerous designated
>>> recharge stations.
>>>
>>
>> share a car?? As in leave your vehicle and take some one else's?
>
> Actually, now that I think about it, it's a "pay by the hour" system.
> One takes a car from any designated spot, and drops it off at any other
> available designated spot. So the advantage is, you don't need to own a
> car to use one of these. It is expected to appeal to many of our
> conventioneers. My understanding is that it is being built now.
>
> With regard to your concern, hopefully there will be some quality
> control! I assume a borrower would be responsible for not leaving
> french fries and related items in the car...
I think my concern would be with someone having an accident and the
hassle of filling out paperwork for rental by the hour each time you
rent one.
On 9/24/2013 2:18 PM, Leon wrote:
>>
>> Already a system is currently going up in Indianapolis, where you can
>> "share" an electric car--dropping it off at one of numerous designated
>> recharge stations.
>>
>
> share a car?? As in leave your vehicle and take some one else's?
>
> I would not, maybe you would, be OK with lending my vehicle to a
> stranger and I cant begin to fathom the liability issues associated with
> this arrangement.
He may be talking about a rental setup like Zip Car where the car is
parked on the street, not at a rental office.
OTOH, it may be a good idea to buy shares in a car. It has been done
with aircraft for years giving you a certain number of hours use. In a
big city it could work for the occasional driver..
I don't lend my car to anyone, even family.
On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 11:12:42 -0500, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
>>
>>>> My guess is that in 10 years or less, the majority of vehicles
>>>> manufactured will be electric.
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not quite that optimistic, but I can envision it happening
>>> within
>>> the next quarter century. With entrepreneurs like Tesla fully
>>> committed to electric vehicle promotion, it will happen sooner than
>>> later. Add onto that the fact that the Tesla *looks damned good*
>>> IMHO,
>>> the electric car field has nowhere to go except up.
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> That 10 year number comes from the industry itself, not me,
>> I'm just the messenger.
>>
>> Lew
>
>Well first Lew, you say "your guess" is that in 10 years or less the
>"majority" of vehicles will be electric. Now you say this number comes
>from the industry.
>
>That industry naturally will make that claim, it's make it or break it
>time. That industry needs an enormous infusion of cash from investors to
>be able to mass produce a vehicle that will actually perform and go the
>distance and be at least equal in amenities as the much much lower price
>vehicles available right now with gasoline/diesel engines.
>
>I hope that 10 years is a realistic and achievable time frame but I don't
>see the trend growing that fast. It seems to be growing fast because of
>all of the attention it is getting but I am still seeing, in Houston, the
>vast majority of new vehicles being equipped with the traditional internal
>combustion engine. Many more hurdles will have to be over come before the
>"majority of new vehicle buyers make the switch.
My bet is that in ten years there will be FEWER electric and hybrid
cars on the market than there are now. Cars won't be smaller or get
much better mileage and barring (even more) government meddling, gas
won't be much more expensive in a decade, either. Two decades, even.
Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 11:46:50 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/26/2013 4:03 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 22:30:20 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/25/2013 7:13 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 16:22:31 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/25/2013 12:32 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 20:50:14 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 9/24/2013 7:21 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Already a system is currently going up in Indianapolis, where you can
>>>>>>>>>>> "share" an electric car--dropping it off at one of numerous designated
>>>>>>>>>>> recharge stations.
>>>>>>>>>> Oh, good grief, that's dumb! What's the cost of that?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Two possibilities
>>>>>>>>> 1. http://www.zipcar.com/
>>>>>>>>> 2. Buy shares, just as aircraft owners often do.
>>>>>>>> If you're an OCCAISIONAL user of the appliance, it sometimes makes
>>>>>>>> sense to lease it. If the taxpayer gets involved, it makes sense more
>>>>>>>> often.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Works for the occasional user, not the daily commuter.
>>>>>>>> That's what it's being sold as here. ...just grab one from the pool
>>>>>>>> and drive off - not going to work.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And apparently you still have to reserve the zipcar.
>>>>>> What I *don't* need is a time-share car. ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't see the advantage to a regular rental car other than not having
>>>>> to be fill it for the next person.
>>>> Except that you do.
>>>>
>>> You only have to fill it, according to the web site, if the tank goes
>>> below 1/4. You do not pay for gas separately, it is included in the
>>> hourly price of renting along with insurance.
>> Ah, I missed that. I thought it was a standard rental. I rented a
>> car a couple of weeks ago (will do it again next week). I had to
>> put[*] 2-1/2 gallons of gas in it, at $4.09/gallon (Lew should love
>> that data point ;).
>>
>> [*] Boss had to pay ;-)
>
> At least in Indianapolis, these are supposed to be mostly electric cars.
> $35 millionto set it up, so there should be at least something to see.
Well if these vehicles were gasoline, there should be about 2300 units. But
then you need the specialized charging stations in tons of locations.
On another note, Houston added rail for mass transit 10+ years ago, it was
all political and a hot bed for controversy.
For the first year there was a vehicle collision with the train, on
average, every day. It was always the other guys fault, I think that is
because the train is always in the right, right or wrong. Mysteriously the
accidents are no longer breaking news and you very seldom hear of an
accident these days. I suspect that this is because the daily occourance
became boring to report on or the city maybe suggested that not so much
attention be paid to the problem.
An interesting note, one of the news sources determined that the rail
system cost so much money that it would have been less expensive to have
purchased a Ferrari for each rider.
I wonder how many vehicles $35,000,000 puts in service and or if Ferrari's
would be less expensive.
I wonder how many
Somebody wrote:
> Ah, I missed that. I thought it was a standard rental. I rented
> a
> car a couple of weeks ago (will do it again next week). I had to
> put[*] 2-1/2 gallons of gas in it, at $4.09/gallon (Lew should
> love
> that data point ;).
>
> [*] Boss had to pay ;-)
---------------------------------------------------------
Hertz just announced that in the major markets they will be offering
a Tesla for $500/day.
Assume that includes the $0.00/gal refuel charge.
Lew
[email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 11:46:50 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 9/26/2013 4:03 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 22:30:20 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/25/2013 7:13 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 16:22:31 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/25/2013 12:32 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 20:50:14 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 9/24/2013 7:21 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Already a system is currently going up in Indianapolis, where you can
>>>>>>>>>> "share" an electric car--dropping it off at one of numerous designated
>>>>>>>>>> recharge stations.
>>>>>>>>> Oh, good grief, that's dumb! What's the cost of that?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Two possibilities
>>>>>>>> 1. http://www.zipcar.com/
>>>>>>>> 2. Buy shares, just as aircraft owners often do.
>>>>>>> If you're an OCCAISIONAL user of the appliance, it sometimes makes
>>>>>>> sense to lease it. If the taxpayer gets involved, it makes sense more
>>>>>>> often.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Works for the occasional user, not the daily commuter.
>>>>>>> That's what it's being sold as here. ...just grab one from the pool
>>>>>>> and drive off - not going to work.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And apparently you still have to reserve the zipcar.
>>>>> What I *don't* need is a time-share car. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't see the advantage to a regular rental car other than not having
>>>> to be fill it for the next person.
>>> Except that you do.
>>>
>> You only have to fill it, according to the web site, if the tank goes
>> below 1/4. You do not pay for gas separately, it is included in the
>> hourly price of renting along with insurance.
> Ah, I missed that. I thought it was a standard rental. I rented a
> car a couple of weeks ago (will do it again next week). I had to
> put[*] 2-1/2 gallons of gas in it, at $4.09/gallon (Lew should love
> that data point ;).
>
> [*] Boss had to pay ;-)
At least in Indianapolis, these are supposed to be mostly electric cars.
$35 millionto set it up, so there should be at least something to see.
Leon wrote:
> Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 11:46:50 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/26/2013 4:03 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 22:30:20 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/25/2013 7:13 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 16:22:31 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 9/25/2013 12:32 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 20:50:14 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/24/2013 7:21 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Already a system is currently going up in Indianapolis, where you can
>>>>>>>>>>>> "share" an electric car--dropping it off at one of numerous designated
>>>>>>>>>>>> recharge stations.
>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, good grief, that's dumb! What's the cost of that?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Two possibilities
>>>>>>>>>> 1. http://www.zipcar.com/
>>>>>>>>>> 2. Buy shares, just as aircraft owners often do.
>>>>>>>>> If you're an OCCAISIONAL user of the appliance, it sometimes makes
>>>>>>>>> sense to lease it. If the taxpayer gets involved, it makes sense more
>>>>>>>>> often.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Works for the occasional user, not the daily commuter.
>>>>>>>>> That's what it's being sold as here. ...just grab one from the pool
>>>>>>>>> and drive off - not going to work.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And apparently you still have to reserve the zipcar.
>>>>>>> What I *don't* need is a time-share car. ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't see the advantage to a regular rental car other than not having
>>>>>> to be fill it for the next person.
>>>>> Except that you do.
>>>>>
>>>> You only have to fill it, according to the web site, if the tank goes
>>>> below 1/4. You do not pay for gas separately, it is included in the
>>>> hourly price of renting along with insurance.
>>> Ah, I missed that. I thought it was a standard rental. I rented a
>>> car a couple of weeks ago (will do it again next week). I had to
>>> put[*] 2-1/2 gallons of gas in it, at $4.09/gallon (Lew should love
>>> that data point ;).
>>>
>>> [*] Boss had to pay ;-)
>> At least in Indianapolis, these are supposed to be mostly electric cars.
>> $35 millionto set it up, so there should be at least something to see.
> Well if these vehicles were gasoline, there should be about 2300 units. But
> then you need the specialized charging stations in tons of locations.
>
> On another note, Houston added rail for mass transit 10+ years ago, it was
> all political and a hot bed for controversy.
> For the first year there was a vehicle collision with the train, on
> average, every day. It was always the other guys fault, I think that is
> because the train is always in the right, right or wrong. Mysteriously the
> accidents are no longer breaking news and you very seldom hear of an
> accident these days. I suspect that this is because the daily occourance
> became boring to report on or the city maybe suggested that not so much
> attention be paid to the problem.
>
> An interesting note, one of the news sources determined that the rail
> system cost so much money that it would have been less expensive to have
> purchased a Ferrari for each rider.
>
> I wonder how many vehicles $35,000,000 puts in service and or if Ferrari's
> would be less expensive.
> I wonder how many
As you mentioned, the $35 million includes setting up charging stations,
etc.
It seem that it's the taxi-cab business that should be most concerned.
On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 11:46:50 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 9/26/2013 4:03 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 22:30:20 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/25/2013 7:13 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 16:22:31 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/25/2013 12:32 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 20:50:14 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/24/2013 7:21 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Already a system is currently going up in Indianapolis, where you can
>>>>>>>>> "share" an electric car--dropping it off at one of numerous designated
>>>>>>>>> recharge stations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh, good grief, that's dumb! What's the cost of that?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Two possibilities
>>>>>>> 1. http://www.zipcar.com/
>>>>>>> 2. Buy shares, just as aircraft owners often do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you're an OCCAISIONAL user of the appliance, it sometimes makes
>>>>>> sense to lease it. If the taxpayer gets involved, it makes sense more
>>>>>> often.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Works for the occasional user, not the daily commuter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's what it's being sold as here. ...just grab one from the pool
>>>>>> and drive off - not going to work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And apparently you still have to reserve the zipcar.
>>>>
>>>> What I *don't* need is a time-share car. ;-)
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't see the advantage to a regular rental car other than not having
>>> to be fill it for the next person.
>>
>> Except that you do.
>>
>
>You only have to fill it, according to the web site, if the tank goes
>below 1/4. You do not pay for gas separately, it is included in the
>hourly price of renting along with insurance.
Ah, I missed that. I thought it was a standard rental. I rented a
car a couple of weeks ago (will do it again next week). I had to
put[*] 2-1/2 gallons of gas in it, at $4.09/gallon (Lew should love
that data point ;).
[*] Boss had to pay ;-)
[email protected] wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 11:12:42 -0500, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
>>>
>>>>> My guess is that in 10 years or less, the majority of vehicles
>>>>> manufactured will be electric.
>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm not quite that optimistic, but I can envision it happening
>>>> within
>>>> the next quarter century. With entrepreneurs like Tesla fully
>>>> committed to electric vehicle promotion, it will happen sooner than
>>>> later. Add onto that the fact that the Tesla *looks damned good*
>>>> IMHO,
>>>> the electric car field has nowhere to go except up.
>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>> That 10 year number comes from the industry itself, not me,
>>> I'm just the messenger.
>>>
>>> Lew
>> Well first Lew, you say "your guess" is that in 10 years or less the
>> "majority" of vehicles will be electric. Now you say this number comes
> >from the industry.
>> That industry naturally will make that claim, it's make it or break it
>> time. That industry needs an enormous infusion of cash from investors to
>> be able to mass produce a vehicle that will actually perform and go the
>> distance and be at least equal in amenities as the much much lower price
>> vehicles available right now with gasoline/diesel engines.
>>
>> I hope that 10 years is a realistic and achievable time frame but I don't
>> see the trend growing that fast. It seems to be growing fast because of
>> all of the attention it is getting but I am still seeing, in Houston, the
>> vast majority of new vehicles being equipped with the traditional internal
>> combustion engine. Many more hurdles will have to be over come before the
>> "majority of new vehicle buyers make the switch.
> My bet is that in ten years there will be FEWER electric and hybrid
> cars on the market than there are now. Cars won't be smaller or get
> much better mileage and barring (even more) government meddling, gas
> won't be much more expensive in a decade, either. Two decades, even.
Mercedes, IIRC, suggests they will have a "self-driving car" by the end
of the decade. I expect an increase in mass transit, and fewer cars. A
self-driving car would seem to support various forms of "sharing".
Already a system is currently going up in Indianapolis, where you can
"share" an electric car--dropping it off at one of numerous designated
recharge stations.
Leon wrote:
> On 9/24/2013 1:05 PM, Bill wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 11:12:42 -0500, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> My guess is that in 10 years or less, the majority of vehicles
>>>>>>> manufactured will be electric.
>>>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not quite that optimistic, but I can envision it happening
>>>>>> within
>>>>>> the next quarter century. With entrepreneurs like Tesla fully
>>>>>> committed to electric vehicle promotion, it will happen sooner than
>>>>>> later. Add onto that the fact that the Tesla *looks damned good*
>>>>>> IMHO,
>>>>>> the electric car field has nowhere to go except up.
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> That 10 year number comes from the industry itself, not me,
>>>>> I'm just the messenger.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lew
>>>> Well first Lew, you say "your guess" is that in 10 years or less the
>>>> "majority" of vehicles will be electric. Now you say this number
>>>> comes
>>> >from the industry.
>>>> That industry naturally will make that claim, it's make it or break it
>>>> time. That industry needs an enormous infusion of cash from
>>>> investors to
>>>> be able to mass produce a vehicle that will actually perform and go
>>>> the
>>>> distance and be at least equal in amenities as the much much lower
>>>> price
>>>> vehicles available right now with gasoline/diesel engines.
>>>>
>>>> I hope that 10 years is a realistic and achievable time frame but I
>>>> don't
>>>> see the trend growing that fast. It seems to be growing fast
>>>> because of
>>>> all of the attention it is getting but I am still seeing, in Houston,
>>>> the
>>>> vast majority of new vehicles being equipped with the traditional
>>>> internal
>>>> combustion engine. Many more hurdles will have to be over come
>>>> before the
>>>> "majority of new vehicle buyers make the switch.
>>> My bet is that in ten years there will be FEWER electric and hybrid
>>> cars on the market than there are now. Cars won't be smaller or get
>>> much better mileage and barring (even more) government meddling, gas
>>> won't be much more expensive in a decade, either. Two decades, even.
>>
>> Mercedes, IIRC, suggests they will have a "self-driving car" by the end
>> of the decade. I expect an increase in mass transit, and fewer cars. A
>> self-driving car would seem to support various forms of "sharing".
>
> Not a stretch, GM was playing with this idea some 15~20 years ago with
> sensors built into the highway that guided the vehicle. And today
> some vehicles will automatically parallel park.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Already a system is currently going up in Indianapolis, where you can
>> "share" an electric car--dropping it off at one of numerous designated
>> recharge stations.
>>
>
> share a car?? As in leave your vehicle and take some one else's?
Actually, now that I think about it, it's a "pay by the hour" system.
One takes a car from any designated spot, and drops it off at any other
available designated spot. So the advantage is, you don't need to own a
car to use one of these. It is expected to appeal to many of our
conventioneers. My understanding is that it is being built now.
With regard to your concern, hopefully there will be some quality
control! I assume a borrower would be responsible for not leaving
french fries and related items in the car...
>
> I would not, maybe you would, be OK with lending my vehicle to a
> stranger and I cant begin to fathom the liability issues associated
> with this arrangement.
Maybe my explanation about resolves your concern about this issue. To
me, it seems to resemble "renting a car".
>
>
>
Bill wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>> On 9/24/2013 1:05 PM, Bill wrote:
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 11:12:42 -0500, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My guess is that in 10 years or less, the majority of vehicles
>>>>>>>> manufactured will be electric.
>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not quite that optimistic, but I can envision it happening
>>>>>>> within
>>>>>>> the next quarter century. With entrepreneurs like Tesla fully
>>>>>>> committed to electric vehicle promotion, it will happen sooner than
>>>>>>> later. Add onto that the fact that the Tesla *looks damned good*
>>>>>>> IMHO,
>>>>>>> the electric car field has nowhere to go except up.
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> That 10 year number comes from the industry itself, not me,
>>>>>> I'm just the messenger.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lew
>>>>> Well first Lew, you say "your guess" is that in 10 years or less the
>>>>> "majority" of vehicles will be electric. Now you say this number
>>>>> comes
>>>> >from the industry.
>>>>> That industry naturally will make that claim, it's make it or
>>>>> break it
>>>>> time. That industry needs an enormous infusion of cash from
>>>>> investors to
>>>>> be able to mass produce a vehicle that will actually perform and
>>>>> go the
>>>>> distance and be at least equal in amenities as the much much lower
>>>>> price
>>>>> vehicles available right now with gasoline/diesel engines.
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope that 10 years is a realistic and achievable time frame but I
>>>>> don't
>>>>> see the trend growing that fast. It seems to be growing fast
>>>>> because of
>>>>> all of the attention it is getting but I am still seeing, in Houston,
>>>>> the
>>>>> vast majority of new vehicles being equipped with the traditional
>>>>> internal
>>>>> combustion engine. Many more hurdles will have to be over come
>>>>> before the
>>>>> "majority of new vehicle buyers make the switch.
>>>> My bet is that in ten years there will be FEWER electric and hybrid
>>>> cars on the market than there are now. Cars won't be smaller or get
>>>> much better mileage and barring (even more) government meddling, gas
>>>> won't be much more expensive in a decade, either. Two decades, even.
>>>
>>> Mercedes, IIRC, suggests they will have a "self-driving car" by the end
>>> of the decade. I expect an increase in mass transit, and fewer cars. A
>>> self-driving car would seem to support various forms of "sharing".
>>
>> Not a stretch, GM was playing with this idea some 15~20 years ago
>> with sensors built into the highway that guided the vehicle. And
>> today some vehicles will automatically parallel park.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Already a system is currently going up in Indianapolis, where you can
>>> "share" an electric car--dropping it off at one of numerous designated
>>> recharge stations.
>>>
>>
>> share a car?? As in leave your vehicle and take some one else's?
>
> Actually, now that I think about it, it's a "pay by the hour" system.
> One takes a car from any designated spot, and drops it off at any
> other available designated spot. So the advantage is, you don't need
> to own a car to use one of these. It is expected to appeal to many
> of our conventioneers. My understanding is that it is being built now.
>
> With regard to your concern, hopefully there will be some quality
> control! I assume a borrower would be responsible for not leaving
> french fries and related items in the car...
>
>
>
Here your go. I haven't read the whole article:
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/unlikely-city-claims-nations-largest-electric-car-share
And on a related note (rent-a-bike!):
http://www.wibc.com/news/story.aspx?ID=1984395
Leon wrote:
> On 9/24/2013 4:54 PM, Bill wrote:
>> Leon wrote:
>>> On 9/24/2013 1:05 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 11:12:42 -0500, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My guess is that in 10 years or less, the majority of vehicles
>>>>>>>>> manufactured will be electric.
>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not quite that optimistic, but I can envision it happening
>>>>>>>> within
>>>>>>>> the next quarter century. With entrepreneurs like Tesla fully
>>>>>>>> committed to electric vehicle promotion, it will happen sooner
>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>> later. Add onto that the fact that the Tesla *looks damned good*
>>>>>>>> IMHO,
>>>>>>>> the electric car field has nowhere to go except up.
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> That 10 year number comes from the industry itself, not me,
>>>>>>> I'm just the messenger.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lew
>>>>>> Well first Lew, you say "your guess" is that in 10 years or less the
>>>>>> "majority" of vehicles will be electric. Now you say this number
>>>>>> comes
>>>>> >from the industry.
>>>>>> That industry naturally will make that claim, it's make it or
>>>>>> break it
>>>>>> time. That industry needs an enormous infusion of cash from
>>>>>> investors to
>>>>>> be able to mass produce a vehicle that will actually perform and go
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> distance and be at least equal in amenities as the much much lower
>>>>>> price
>>>>>> vehicles available right now with gasoline/diesel engines.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I hope that 10 years is a realistic and achievable time frame but I
>>>>>> don't
>>>>>> see the trend growing that fast. It seems to be growing fast
>>>>>> because of
>>>>>> all of the attention it is getting but I am still seeing, in
>>>>>> Houston,
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> vast majority of new vehicles being equipped with the traditional
>>>>>> internal
>>>>>> combustion engine. Many more hurdles will have to be over come
>>>>>> before the
>>>>>> "majority of new vehicle buyers make the switch.
>>>>> My bet is that in ten years there will be FEWER electric and hybrid
>>>>> cars on the market than there are now. Cars won't be smaller or get
>>>>> much better mileage and barring (even more) government meddling, gas
>>>>> won't be much more expensive in a decade, either. Two decades, even.
>>>>
>>>> Mercedes, IIRC, suggests they will have a "self-driving car" by the
>>>> end
>>>> of the decade. I expect an increase in mass transit, and fewer cars. A
>>>> self-driving car would seem to support various forms of "sharing".
>>>
>>> Not a stretch, GM was playing with this idea some 15~20 years ago with
>>> sensors built into the highway that guided the vehicle. And today
>>> some vehicles will automatically parallel park.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Already a system is currently going up in Indianapolis, where you can
>>>> "share" an electric car--dropping it off at one of numerous designated
>>>> recharge stations.
>>>>
>>>
>>> share a car?? As in leave your vehicle and take some one else's?
>>
>> Actually, now that I think about it, it's a "pay by the hour" system.
>> One takes a car from any designated spot, and drops it off at any other
>> available designated spot. So the advantage is, you don't need to own a
>> car to use one of these. It is expected to appeal to many of our
>> conventioneers. My understanding is that it is being built now.
>>
>> With regard to your concern, hopefully there will be some quality
>> control! I assume a borrower would be responsible for not leaving
>> french fries and related items in the car...
>
> I think my concern would be with someone having an accident and the
> hassle of filling out paperwork for rental by the hour each time you
> rent one.
>
>
From the article, I get the impression that you pay a monthly fee, then
just stick your card in, take the keys and drive! Pay by the minute.
I think there will be no paperwork once one is "enrolled". Just bills..lol
>
>
>
>
>
>
On 9/24/2013 1:05 PM, Bill wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 11:12:42 -0500, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> My guess is that in 10 years or less, the majority of vehicles
>>>>>> manufactured will be electric.
>>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm not quite that optimistic, but I can envision it happening
>>>>> within
>>>>> the next quarter century. With entrepreneurs like Tesla fully
>>>>> committed to electric vehicle promotion, it will happen sooner than
>>>>> later. Add onto that the fact that the Tesla *looks damned good*
>>>>> IMHO,
>>>>> the electric car field has nowhere to go except up.
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>> That 10 year number comes from the industry itself, not me,
>>>> I'm just the messenger.
>>>>
>>>> Lew
>>> Well first Lew, you say "your guess" is that in 10 years or less the
>>> "majority" of vehicles will be electric. Now you say this number comes
>> >from the industry.
>>> That industry naturally will make that claim, it's make it or break it
>>> time. That industry needs an enormous infusion of cash from
>>> investors to
>>> be able to mass produce a vehicle that will actually perform and go the
>>> distance and be at least equal in amenities as the much much lower price
>>> vehicles available right now with gasoline/diesel engines.
>>>
>>> I hope that 10 years is a realistic and achievable time frame but I
>>> don't
>>> see the trend growing that fast. It seems to be growing fast
>>> because of
>>> all of the attention it is getting but I am still seeing, in Houston,
>>> the
>>> vast majority of new vehicles being equipped with the traditional
>>> internal
>>> combustion engine. Many more hurdles will have to be over come
>>> before the
>>> "majority of new vehicle buyers make the switch.
>> My bet is that in ten years there will be FEWER electric and hybrid
>> cars on the market than there are now. Cars won't be smaller or get
>> much better mileage and barring (even more) government meddling, gas
>> won't be much more expensive in a decade, either. Two decades, even.
>
> Mercedes, IIRC, suggests they will have a "self-driving car" by the end
> of the decade. I expect an increase in mass transit, and fewer cars. A
> self-driving car would seem to support various forms of "sharing".
Not a stretch, GM was playing with this idea some 15~20 years ago with
sensors built into the highway that guided the vehicle. And today some
vehicles will automatically parallel park.
>
> Already a system is currently going up in Indianapolis, where you can
> "share" an electric car--dropping it off at one of numerous designated
> recharge stations.
>
share a car?? As in leave your vehicle and take some one else's?
I would not, maybe you would, be OK with lending my vehicle to a
stranger and I cant begin to fathom the liability issues associated with
this arrangement.
On 9/24/2013 12:19 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 11:12:42 -0500, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
>>>
>>>>> My guess is that in 10 years or less, the majority of vehicles
>>>>> manufactured will be electric.
>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm not quite that optimistic, but I can envision it happening
>>>> within
>>>> the next quarter century. With entrepreneurs like Tesla fully
>>>> committed to electric vehicle promotion, it will happen sooner than
>>>> later. Add onto that the fact that the Tesla *looks damned good*
>>>> IMHO,
>>>> the electric car field has nowhere to go except up.
>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>> That 10 year number comes from the industry itself, not me,
>>> I'm just the messenger.
>>>
>>> Lew
>>
>> Well first Lew, you say "your guess" is that in 10 years or less the
>> "majority" of vehicles will be electric. Now you say this number comes
>>from the industry.
>>
>> That industry naturally will make that claim, it's make it or break it
>> time. That industry needs an enormous infusion of cash from investors to
>> be able to mass produce a vehicle that will actually perform and go the
>> distance and be at least equal in amenities as the much much lower price
>> vehicles available right now with gasoline/diesel engines.
>>
>> I hope that 10 years is a realistic and achievable time frame but I don't
>> see the trend growing that fast. It seems to be growing fast because of
>> all of the attention it is getting but I am still seeing, in Houston, the
>> vast majority of new vehicles being equipped with the traditional internal
>> combustion engine. Many more hurdles will have to be over come before the
>> "majority of new vehicle buyers make the switch.
>
> My bet is that in ten years there will be FEWER electric and hybrid
> cars on the market than there are now. Cars won't be smaller or get
> much better mileage and barring (even more) government meddling, gas
> won't be much more expensive in a decade, either. Two decades, even.
>
That is entirely possible too. In 1975 I bought an Oldsmobile Starfire
with a 3.8L V6, Vega/Pinto sized car. 110 HP. I got 25 mpg on the
highway, top speed around 95 mph
In August of last year I bought my wife a 2012 Camry SE with 3.5L V6,
268 HP and pretty much loaded. Top speed is supposed to be about 130
governor limited, nope I have not seen this but don't doubt the capability.
This past spring we took a few days off with come close friends, 4 of
us, on a 2 night away trip. The trunk was full of luggage.
Shortly after getting to highway speed, which I maintained with cruise
control for 1 hour, I zeroed the computer and after 1 hour of driving we
stopped for a break. Actually not really a break but the women saw a
store 6 miles down the road and we were going to stop, IYKWIM.
We went 72 miles in that hour and used 2 gallons of gas.
In town driving we average 26 MPG.
On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 17:33:17 -0500, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>however oil is considerably more environmentally friendly than it has been
>in the past and compared to batteries.
I'd argue the ethics of that comment. There maybe more stringent
controls on oil harvesting, but when you get disasters on the scale of
the gulf coast oil spill, the description of "environmentally
friendly" is completely out there.
Running oil rigs in our oceans is a more screwed up act than I could
ever imagine.
On 9/16/2013 1:56 PM, JoeTaxpayer wrote:
> On 9/16/13 1:33 PM, Leon wrote:
>
>>> I've been following Solar Power progress for some time now. The weak
>>> link is still storage. My cost can be zero from sun-up to sun-down, but
>>> we'll need power the rest of the day for years to come. That guaranteed
>>> power will come at a cost.
>>
>> The problem with a back up generator is that even with natural gas the
>> cost of running it will pretty much offset the savings. My sister and a
>> neighbor have whole house back up generators and the expense to generate
>> electricity with the generator is around 25~30 cents per kWh. We pay
>> about 9 cents per kWh from the utility.
>
> Understood. So, forget local generators.
>
> There will be a balance where the power companies are providing
> overnight service. They will scale down a bit as that demand won't ever
> be as high as daytime peak demand was.
>
> My only point is that there will be an equilibrium, that even if solar
> cost were zero (the absurd extreme) that bridging the gap would take
> another level of effort, another cost curve or service.
>
> To your numbers - I'm guessing the overnight is less than 1/3 or less of
> daily usage. So paying 3X to bridge that gap seems absurd. If it were
> less than 2X, or if the gap were just 1/6 daily power, the story changes.
>
For those few individuals it will become cheaper.
Until the balance is upset. We as a society are not going to be able to
not pay for our energy whether we reduce the cost to produce it or not.
The government will see to that.
Right now the government subsidies that encourage you to go solar cost
the rest of us more.
Robbing Peter to pay Paul.
If we don't pay for it our great grand kids will.
Basically changing for the sake of changing is not letting the free
market thrive, it creates a false economy. Oil is what people want, it
is the least expensive fuel to use and probably better for the
environment than all the caustic batteries that are going to have to be
dealt with some time in the future.
For the individual the alternative fuels are good but not for the society.