On 3/9/2012 8:29 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

In aweb.com,
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.
Are you figureing that 1 gal of propane has about 76% energy compared to
1 gal of gasoline?

If propane is $3 gas would have to be over $3.72 to be more expensive to
use.

--
O M G

On 3/9/2012 8:36 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In articleAuqdncSDOsD2GcTSnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@earthlink .com,
says...

wrote in message ...

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.

----------------------------
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.

What on God's green earth led you to that conclusion?

Here's some numbers for you
Propane 91690 btu/gal
Gasoline 120000 btu/gal
Plug in your own price at the pump numbers and do the math. Sheeeesh

--
O M G

On 3/9/12 9:34 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 19:23:09 -0500, wrote:

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.

Why would you knowingly post information as factual that you knew was
not?

Oh, my gosh, are you trolling again?


With his every post, of course.

On 3/9/2012 7:38 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 20:17:49 -0800, "Califbill"
wrote:

wrote in message ...

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.

----------------------------
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.

I've always thought that was a bit of crooked sleight of hand because
I've never known what an LPG "gallon" was.

If the "gallon" was established at a relatively low temperature, then
in warmer temperatures, a pound would ring up more gallons (dollars)
that at a lower temperature.

Gasoline (and other liquid fuels) are purchased by stations at a
particular API specific gravity and an ASTM chart is used to charge
for MASS not volume. 1000 gallons of gasoline bought at lower
temperatures will sell as more than 1000 gallons at higher
temperatures, since the motorist buys by volume, not weight. The
station realizes a blue sky profit.

I've never seen the chart for LPG.
If ambient temp lowers 10 degrees f then you gain 1.5% in propane weight
per gallon.

--
O M G

On 3/9/2012 9:45 AM, Oscar wrote:
On 3/9/2012 8:36 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In articleAuqdncSDOsD2GcTSnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@earthlink .com,
says...

wrote in message ...

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.

----------------------------
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.

What on God's green earth led you to that conclusion?

Here's some numbers for you
Propane 91690 btu/gal
Gasoline 120000 btu/gal
Plug in your own price at the pump numbers and do the math. Sheeeesh



Are you having trouble doing the math iBoaterer?

--
O M G

In article ,
says...

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?

When you need to grill a steak at 2:30 AM and you have no gas you can
trade your tank in for a "full" one at your local 24 hour convenience
store. Or, you can swap tanks with your neighbor and hope he is asleep.

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 19:23:09 -0500, BAR wrote:

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.

Why would you knowingly post information as factual that you knew was
not?

Oh, my gosh, are you trolling again?

Why did you fly off the handle like someone had killed your first born?

In article m,
says...

On 3/9/2012 9:45 AM, Oscar wrote:
On 3/9/2012 8:36 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In articleAuqdncSDOsD2GcTSnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@earthlink .com,
says...

wrote in message ...

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.

----------------------------
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.

What on God's green earth led you to that conclusion?

Here's some numbers for you
Propane 91690 btu/gal
Gasoline 120000 btu/gal
Plug in your own price at the pump numbers and do the math. Sheeeesh



Are you having trouble doing the math iBoaterer?

The fact that gasoline has 1/3 more energy than propane per gallon has
him baffled.

On 3/9/2012 5:30 PM, BAR wrote:
In web.com,
says...

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, 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?

When you need to grill a steak at 2:30 AM and you have no gas you can
trade your tank in for a "full" one at your local 24 hour convenience
store. Or, you can swap tanks with your neighbor and hope he is asleep.

Are you arguing with someone who can't see the benefit of trucking in
filled tanks as opposed to running a filling station? LOL!!!

On 3/9/2012 5:33 PM, BAR wrote:
In aweb.com,
says...

On 3/9/2012 9:45 AM, Oscar wrote:
On 3/9/2012 8:36 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In articleAuqdncSDOsD2GcTSnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@earthlink .com,
says...

wrote in message ...

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.

----------------------------
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.

What on God's green earth led you to that conclusion?

Here's some numbers for you
Propane 91690 btu/gal
Gasoline 120000 btu/gal
Plug in your own price at the pump numbers and do the math. Sheeeesh



Are you having trouble doing the math iBoaterer?

The fact that gasoline has 1/3 more energy than propane per gallon has
him baffled.

No it doesn't. Some folks are not happy unless they are fighting... I
saw a lot of that with young drunk couples when I was a kid.