On 3/8/2012 2:13 AM, Califbill wrote:
"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 09:35:24 -0500, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...


http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2012...lectric-lemon/



Told you, and you laughed... snerk Sometimes it pays to
look
at the
world with an open mind...

Jeffrey Immelt, the CEO of GE who doesn't pay taxes, will
have to
find
another vehicle to force his people who have company cars to
purchase
and drive.


http://gas2.org/2012/02/20/ge-forcin...o-chevy-volts/

===

With all due respect Bert, that sounds like a regurgitation
from a
Rush Limbaugh rant. The republican party needs to put a
muzzle on
that dude before he alienates every swing voter in the country.

I think the jury is still out on electric cars but any
program at
all
which encourages energy independence is a good thing in my
opinion.

Exactly! I don't know why so many far right wingers are against
getting
us off of oil.

The alternatives are not cost effective and you cannot turn the
wind
on
when you need more power nor can you turn the Sun on when it is
night
time.

And there is a finite quantity of oil.

The amount of oil in North America makes Arabia look like an oil can
compared to a tanker truck.

Or so says FOX. So you think we should go to any length to get it, like
the oil sands of Canada? Isn't this a lovely sight:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...nd-landscapes/

Our whole country could look like that!


______________________________
So it is OK to drill and pollute the Middle East and South America,
but not
here? Looks about like an open pit mine for most any mineral in the
world.
US included. Most of the Electricity is oil or coal fired plants. So you
get to mine that or drill for that. Electric cars are burning fossil fuel
also, just not at the vehicle.

A well is a pipe in the ground, oil sands are gotten from stripping the
landscape, two entirely different things.

--------------------------------------------
A coal mine most likely anymore is a strip mine operation. Just like a
gravel quarry or a copper mine.

I visited a granite quarry in North Carolina via a Mayberry police car.
The deputy sheriff boasted that the quarry was reported visible from the
space shuttle. It probably wasn't a pretty site to behold. Were it not
for the mining industry we would still be living in mud huts or log
cabins and driving teams of horses.
What strikes me funny is the *progressives and green weenies* who oppose
progress, but wouldn't give up any of the creature comforts mining has
allowed them.

--
O M G

On 3/7/2012 11:52 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 12:39:04 -0500, X `
wrote:

I see no reason to help corporations achieve their goal of bleeding this
country dry.

===

You should buy stock in some of these evil corporations. It would
give you a voice at the annual meeting, the election of directors, and
a piece of the dividend pie.


Union operatives like Krause are forbidden to own stock in their enemy's
corporations.

--
O M G

On 3/8/2012 7:49 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 3/7/12 11:52 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 12:39:04 -0500, X `
wrote:

I see no reason to help corporations achieve their goal of bleeding this
country dry.

===

You should buy stock in some of these evil corporations. It would
give you a voice at the annual meeting, the election of directors, and
a piece of the dividend pie.



And just how is my participation or presence going to stop corporations
from bleeding this country dry and shipping cash and jobs overseas? It
isn't.

How else will they know that a union operative objects to the way they
do business?

--
O M G

On 3/8/2012 8:49 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 22:53:44 -0800, "Califbill"
wrote:

wrote in message ...

On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 14:25:15 -0500, wrote:

On 3/7/2012 1:33 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In web.com,
says...

On 3/7/2012 8:46 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

In ,
says...

On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 18:57:23 -0500, wrote:

In ,
says...

On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 10:00:39 -0800, "Califbill"
wrote:

wrote in message
...

On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 10:36:10 -0500,
wrote:

In ,
says...

http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2012...lectric-lemon/


Told you, and you laughed...snerk Sometimes it pays to look
at the
world with an open mind...

Has nothing to do with the technology and everything to do with
the
sales.

It has everything to do with the COST of the technology tho.

Basically the problem is battery cost vs price.
These things are rich man's toys. If saving money is your
objective,
buy a Cruze and put the left over $20,000-30,000 toward gas.

I understand the government will subsidize your electric car
purchase
to make that price delta look more attractive but that does not
reduce
the cost, it only transfers it to people who can't afford to buy
one.


-----------------------------------
Very true. Look at the subsidy for a Tesla. Average income of a
Tesla
buyer? $250k. As to technology. In 1919 an electric car got 30
miles to
the charge. What does a Volt get? 30 miles. Not a lot of
technology
improvement in nearly a 100 years. Still down to battery
technology. Plus
where is the power to charge going to come from? They say no
pollution.
What about that coal or oil fired generating plant?

Actually they had a range of about 100 miles, but you'd probably
bitch
about the 20 mph top speed, the eisenglass windows, and no gasoline
backup.

It appears that the same problems they were having 100 years ago
with
electric vehicles are the same problems they have today.

http://inventors.about.com/od/estart...c-Vehicles.htm

The initiation of mass production of internal combustion engine
vehicles
by Henry Ford made these vehicles widely available and affordable in
the
$500 to $1,000 price range. By contrast, the price of the less
efficiently produced electric vehicles continued to rise. In 1912,
an
electric roadster sold for $1,750, while a gasoline car sold for
$650.

I'm waiting on the fuel cell. You people talk like the Wright
Brothers
were idiots for not building the 747, first. Maybe Edison should
have
invented the halogen bulb, first.

You will notice that the Wright brothers plane runs on the same fuel
that today's 747 runs on.

I don't know where you came up with that gem of misinformation, but
it
is demonstrably totally wrong. (Like the rest of your assertions.)

The response you'll type to this will be possible because of all of
the money spent 50+ years ago on the space program, which a lot of
people said was idiotic and useless.

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

Things change and the gas station as we know it is on the same path
as
the blacksmith at the end of the 19th century.

The fueling station will not change for another 50 years.

You will soon be proven wrong. Look for LPG light trucks and cars in
the next model year or so, with road tractors soon to follow. It will
be a small leap to add electrical power.

http://www.extraordinaryroadtrip.org/research-
library/technology/liqufied-petroleum/ad-draw.asp

The drawbacks of LPG include:

In cold conditions, below 32 degrees Fahrenheit, starting could
be a
problem because of the low vapor pressure of propane at low
temperatures.
One gallon of LPG contains less energy than a gallon of
gasoline.
The driving range of a propane vehicle is about 14 percent lower than
a
comparable gasoline-powered vehicle.
LPG is generally higher priced than other fuel alternatives such
as
CNG and gasoline.
There are over 4,000 LPG refueling sites in the US, more than
all of
the other alternative fuels combined. Most of these stations, however,
are not readily available to consumers on a 24/7 basis. This is one of
the reasons why most on-road applications are bi-fuel vehicles, which
burn LPG and gasoline.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Energy_density.svg

You will notice that the Lion battery is way down near 0,0.

The Lion battery's days are numbered. Better technology is just
around
the corner.

They are working on the heat problem. They haven't come up with
anything
better, NiMh isn't any better. The plastic batteries are not ready for
prime time. And the ceramic batteries are not cost effective to
manufacture.

LPG is NOT higher priced than gasoline.

By what measure?

Cost.

Cost per gallon? Cost per pound? Engineers are supposed to be precise
and un ambiguous. So far you ain't doin so good.

Does it matter? Considering the current respective costs, cheaper is
cheaper.

At this time it is cheaper per gallon.

At this time it is cheaper per pound.

At this time it is cheaper in cost per distance covered.

At this time it is cheaper in BTU consumed.

It is cheaper to use as a fuel.
----------------------------------------
Cost per MPG? LPG is about $3+ around here.

$3 ? It costs $60 to fill a 20# grill tank? Holy crap! I can get one
filled, retail, for a little over $14.00, including tax.

I buy 33# for about the same price including tax, delivered. (This
company won't do consumer tanks.) Who knows what the stuff really
costs? And what the markup is.

Realize that $3 per gallon at 4 1/2 gallons equals $13.50

--
O M G

On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 07:49:56 -0500, X ` Man
wrote:

On 3/7/12 11:52 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 12:39:04 -0500, X `
wrote:

I see no reason to help corporations achieve their goal of bleeding this
country dry.

===

You should buy stock in some of these evil corporations. It would
give you a voice at the annual meeting, the election of directors, and
a piece of the dividend pie.



And just how is my participation or presence going to stop corporations
from bleeding this country dry and shipping cash and jobs overseas? It
isn't.

===

Well for one thing it might help teach you something about how the
world of economics and taxation *really* work.

The propaganda that you ingest and regurgitate is just as one sided as
the Rush Limbaugh garbage on the other side of the political fence.

Corporations have no interest in "bleeding the country dry". That's
ridiculous. Who would buy their products?

Likewise corporations have no interest in moving huge amounts of cash
offshore. They'd rather have it here. The problem is that when
corporations earn money offshore they can't bring it back without
being taxed a second time (first in the country where earned).

On 3/8/12 10:25 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 07:49:56 -0500, X ` Man
wrote:

On 3/7/12 11:52 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 12:39:04 -0500, X `
wrote:

I see no reason to help corporations achieve their goal of bleeding this
country dry.

===

You should buy stock in some of these evil corporations. It would
give you a voice at the annual meeting, the election of directors, and
a piece of the dividend pie.



And just how is my participation or presence going to stop corporations
from bleeding this country dry and shipping cash and jobs overseas? It
isn't.

===

Well for one thing it might help teach you something about how the
world of economics and taxation *really* work.

The propaganda that you ingest and regurgitate is just as one sided as
the Rush Limbaugh garbage on the other side of the political fence.

Corporations have no interest in "bleeding the country dry". That's
ridiculous. Who would buy their products?

Likewise corporations have no interest in moving huge amounts of cash
offshore. They'd rather have it here. The problem is that when
corporations earn money offshore they can't bring it back without
being taxed a second time (first in the country where earned).



Save your arrogance for someone who cares about your opinions, Wayne.

On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 08:49:42 -0500, wrote:

At this time it is cheaper in BTU consumed.

It is cheaper to use as a fuel.
----------------------------------------
Cost per MPG? LPG is about $3+ around here.

$3 ? It costs $60 to fill a 20# grill tank? Holy crap! I can get one
filled, retail, for a little over $14.00, including tax.

I buy 33# for about the same price including tax, delivered. (This
company won't do consumer tanks.) Who knows what the stuff really
costs? And what the markup is.

===

You are mixing up pounds and gallons. A 20 pound grill tank holds
about 3 gallons of LPG.

On Thursday, March 8, 2012 10:25:39 AM UTC-5, Wayne. B wrote:
On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 07:49:56 -0500, X ` Man
wrote:

On 3/7/12 11:52 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 12:39:04 -0500, X `
wrote:

I see no reason to help corporations achieve their goal of bleeding this
country dry.

===

You should buy stock in some of these evil corporations. It would
give you a voice at the annual meeting, the election of directors, and
a piece of the dividend pie.



And just how is my participation or presence going to stop corporations
from bleeding this country dry and shipping cash and jobs overseas? It
isn't.

===

Well for one thing it might help teach you something about how the
world of economics and taxation *really* work.

The propaganda that you ingest and regurgitate is just as one sided as
the Rush Limbaugh garbage on the other side of the political fence.

Corporations have no interest in "bleeding the country dry". That's
ridiculous. Who would buy their products?

Likewise corporations have no interest in moving huge amounts of cash
offshore. They'd rather have it here. The problem is that when
corporations earn money offshore they can't bring it back without
being taxed a second time (first in the country where earned).

Well said, Wayne. And spot on.

On 3/8/12 10:39 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, March 8, 2012 10:25:39 AM UTC-5, Wayne. B wrote:
On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 07:49:56 -0500, X ` Man
wrote:

On 3/7/12 11:52 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 12:39:04 -0500, X `
wrote:

I see no reason to help corporations achieve their goal of bleeding this
country dry.

===

You should buy stock in some of these evil corporations. It would
give you a voice at the annual meeting, the election of directors, and
a piece of the dividend pie.



And just how is my participation or presence going to stop corporations
from bleeding this country dry and shipping cash and jobs overseas? It
isn't.

===

Well for one thing it might help teach you something about how the
world of economics and taxation *really* work.

The propaganda that you ingest and regurgitate is just as one sided as
the Rush Limbaugh garbage on the other side of the political fence.

Corporations have no interest in "bleeding the country dry". That's
ridiculous. Who would buy their products?

Likewise corporations have no interest in moving huge amounts of cash
offshore. They'd rather have it here. The problem is that when
corporations earn money offshore they can't bring it back without
being taxed a second time (first in the country where earned).

Well said, Wayne. And spot on.


Heheheh. Right...

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 07:49:56 -0500, X ` Man
wrote:

On 3/7/12 11:52 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 12:39:04 -0500, X `
wrote:

I see no reason to help corporations achieve their goal of bleeding this
country dry.

===

You should buy stock in some of these evil corporations. It would
give you a voice at the annual meeting, the election of directors, and
a piece of the dividend pie.



And just how is my participation or presence going to stop corporations
from bleeding this country dry and shipping cash and jobs overseas? It
isn't.

===

Well for one thing it might help teach you something about how the
world of economics and taxation *really* work.

The propaganda that you ingest and regurgitate is just as one sided as
the Rush Limbaugh garbage on the other side of the political fence.

I agree 100%

Corporations have no interest in "bleeding the country dry". That's
ridiculous. Who would buy their products?

Again, agreed, 100%

Likewise corporations have no interest in moving huge amounts of cash
offshore. They'd rather have it here. The problem is that when
corporations earn money offshore they can't bring it back without
being taxed a second time (first in the country where earned).

And that's true as well.