In article ,
says...

On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 10:25:39 -0500, 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).

On the second count. As you have phrased the situation, you are
correct, but that isn't what corporations actually do.

They essentially "launder" the money and then elect to bring it back
to the US, or not.

This bit of corporate welfare is costing the US taxpayer over $40B per
year. I suspect this it is also costing a LOT of jobs, but I don't
have a figure.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...te_031611.html

You are whining about $40B a year? The federal budget is $3.5T a year.
$40B falls out of the Congress' pockets on their way in and out of their
chambers each year.

wrote in message ...

On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 22:53:44 -0800, "Califbill"
wrote:

wrote in message ...

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


-----------------------------
You seemed to be Math challenged. $3 a gallon is not $3 a pound. Around
here the tank exchange is about $18 and they are not full fill.

wrote in message ...

On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 10:04:11 -0500, Oscar wrote:

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

Maybe we need clarification on whether it is $3.00 per gallon or $3.00
per pound. Normally, one purchases LPG per pound, not gallon. Tanks
are size by pound, not gallon. Buying a gallon of product, without
control of density, is pretty lame.

In any case, when buying small quantities, you are paying about twice
what the product can be bought for (retail) in larger quantities.

----------------------------
I have never bought by the pound. The tank is a weight defined tank, but
every pump has a gallon meter to charge you when you purchase a fill.

In article ,
says...

In article m,
says...

On 3/8/2012 3:54 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 13:23:07 -0500, wrote:

On 3/8/2012 12:07 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 11:03:20 -0500, wrote:

On 3/8/2012 10:29 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 10:04:11 -0500, wrote:

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

Maybe we need clarification on whether it is $3.00 per gallon or $3.00
per pound. Normally, one purchases LPG per pound, not gallon. Tanks
are size by pound, not gallon. Buying a gallon of product, without
control of density, is pretty lame.

In any case, when buying small quantities, you are paying about twice
what the product can be bought for (retail) in larger quantities.

Storage tanks are sized in cubic feet.
Propane id dispensed by the gallon from the tank.
Usually, but not always, larger packages of something are sold at lower
per unit prices than smaller packages.

Sure looks like these storage tanks are being sold size by the gallon.
http://www.storagetankspropane.com/inventory.php

Stationary propane is dispensed from the tank by molecule, metered by
the gallon, and charged by the pound. Check with your local
distributor, better yet, just watch them fill a tank. If it doesn't
have an over-pressure shutoff, they will fill the tank by weight.
Otherwise, they just pump until it won't take any more.

Yep, agreed. Where I buy mine, they do just exactly that. By the way, if
you go to someplace where you exchange your 20# empty for a "filled"
one, you are getting ripped off. They fill those to 18# claiming it's
for safety. I go to Ace where I get a real 20# refill.




Look up OPD. then go discuss what you find with your nitwit friend. I'll
leave you two to jerk each other off.

What part of "According to statements appearing on the two companies?
websites, in 2008 both reduced the amount of propane in their ?full?
tanks sold consumers ..." didn't you get?

OPDs have been required since 2002, so it has nothing to do with short
fills.

A 20# LPG tank is made to HOLD 20#, that is why it has a tare weight
stamped on it. There is a void space in excess of the 20# amount to
account for the 80% fill. OPDs became necessary because people were
filling 20# tanks IN EXCESS of 20#.

Wow, I see old Oscar is getting all shook up!

Your task was to show that lpg is cheaper to use than gasoline. You
haven't proved your point. I guess I was expecting too much of you.

I don't think he understands the concept.

Sure I do, it's very easy to see that LPG is cheaper per energy unit
than gasoline.

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 19:06:23 -0500, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 06:35:14 -0500, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 18:36:58 -0500, BAR wrote:

LPG is generally higher priced than other fuel alternatives such as
CNG and gasoline.

Wrong.

I buy 33# forklift tanks for just over $14.00. That is about
$2.23/gallon at an 80% fill.

Don't argue with me, argue with the website where I got the information,
asshole.


I don't need to argue with you or any website. I know what I pay,
because I get the bills. Difference is, I know what I am talking about
and you are googling your ass off trying to prove me wrong.

All I did was post some information and showed you the source. You
started to argue with me about the information. Go argue with the
author.

Thus far, you have posted nothing but a string of incorrect
foolishness, from the fuel used by the Wrights through the cost of
LPG. Maybe you need an accuracy filter on that google account.

I have posted information that is different from your experience. You
have taken that as a challenge to your manhood. You are either stupid or
insecure and possibly both.

You posted links to "The History of the Internet" and a bunch of other
nutty stuff. You never posted anything at all that addressed your
assertion that gasoline was a cheaper fuel than LPG.

This apparently has a lot less to do with my manhood than your
apparent inebriation or the obvious creeping onset of senility.

I never asserted that gasoline was cheaper than LPG. I just posted some
information from a website that disagreed with you point.

If you want to argue with the website that I got my info from, please
feel free to contact them and argue to your hearts content.

It needs to be peer reviewed to be relevant, remember?

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 10:25:39 -0500, 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).

On the second count. As you have phrased the situation, you are
correct, but that isn't what corporations actually do.

They essentially "launder" the money and then elect to bring it back
to the US, or not.

This bit of corporate welfare is costing the US taxpayer over $40B per
year. I suspect this it is also costing a LOT of jobs, but I don't
have a figure.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...te_031611.html

You are whining about $40B a year? The federal budget is $3.5T a year.
$40B falls out of the Congress' pockets on their way in and out of their
chambers each year.

Apples and oranges.

In article ,
says...

wrote in message ...

On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 10:04:11 -0500, Oscar wrote:

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

Maybe we need clarification on whether it is $3.00 per gallon or $3.00
per pound. Normally, one purchases LPG per pound, not gallon. Tanks
are size by pound, not gallon. Buying a gallon of product, without
control of density, is pretty lame.

In any case, when buying small quantities, you are paying about twice
what the product can be bought for (retail) in larger quantities.

----------------------------
I have never bought by the pound. The tank is a weight defined tank, but
every pump has a gallon meter to charge you when you purchase a fill.

It doesn't matter in this case. We are talking about two different
things with two different theoretical amounts of energy produced. For
one to be "cheaper" than the other, it would have to have the ability to
produce X amount of energy for less cost than the other. That is what
LPG does.

On 3/8/2012 11:15 PM, Califbill wrote:
wrote in message ...

On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 22:53:44 -0800, "Califbill"
wrote:

wrote in message ...

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


-----------------------------
You seemed to be Math challenged. $3 a gallon is not $3 a pound. Around
here the tank exchange is about $18 and they are not full fill.

Where is the benefit of tank exchange when propane stations seem to be
everywhere?

--
O M G

On 3/9/2012 7:57 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 20:15:39 -0800, "Califbill"
wrote:

wrote in message ...

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.


-----------------------------
You seemed to be Math challenged. $3 a gallon is not $3 a pound. Around
here the tank exchange is about $18 and they are not full fill.

If you noted, I posted that it wasn't clear to me whether you meant
$3/# or $3/gal.

As for MY math: if you are paying $18/fill and a gallon costs $3, you
are accomplishing the impossible. You are getting a 25# (6 gal.) fill
in a 20# (4.7 gal.) tank!

My guess is you are paying closer to $4/gal. Prices in CA appear to be
from under $3 to almost $10 per gallon.

http://www.altfuelprices.com/

Maybe its not your math but your ability to read and reason.

--
O M G

On 3/9/2012 8:30 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

In ,
says...

On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 19:06:23 -0500, wrote:

In ,
says...

On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 06:35:14 -0500, wrote:

In ,
says...

On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 18:36:58 -0500, wrote:

LPG is generally higher priced than other fuel alternatives such as
CNG and gasoline.

Wrong.

I buy 33# forklift tanks for just over $14.00. That is about
$2.23/gallon at an 80% fill.

Don't argue with me, argue with the website where I got the information,
asshole.


I don't need to argue with you or any website. I know what I pay,
because I get the bills. Difference is, I know what I am talking about
and you are googling your ass off trying to prove me wrong.

All I did was post some information and showed you the source. You
started to argue with me about the information. Go argue with the
author.

Thus far, you have posted nothing but a string of incorrect
foolishness, from the fuel used by the Wrights through the cost of
LPG. Maybe you need an accuracy filter on that google account.

I have posted information that is different from your experience. You
have taken that as a challenge to your manhood. You are either stupid or
insecure and possibly both.

You posted links to "The History of the Internet" and a bunch of other
nutty stuff. You never posted anything at all that addressed your
assertion that gasoline was a cheaper fuel than LPG.

This apparently has a lot less to do with my manhood than your
apparent inebriation or the obvious creeping onset of senility.

I never asserted that gasoline was cheaper than LPG. I just posted some
information from a website that disagreed with you point.

If you want to argue with the website that I got my info from, please
feel free to contact them and argue to your hearts content.

It needs to be peer reviewed to be relevant, remember?

The reviews are in. Your peers are calling you an asshat/idiot.

--
O M G