Falacy of the Electric Car

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:39:54 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

> On Oct 30, 11:53*pm, elmer > wrote:
>
>> It takes the same amount of energy to move x vehicle regardless of that
>> form of energy.
>
> Absolute nonsense.
>
> Different sources of mechanical energy have various efficiencies in
> converting fuel to energy. Further, different fuel sources have
> varying costs in obtaining and distributing the fuel. For example,
> they say making ethanol uses more energy than it saves in gasoline.
>

That is being said by those who promote the total exclusive use of fossil
fuel. For instance, "Waste management" is powering homes and businesses
simply by tapping the natural creation of ethanol from the landfills.


> New technologies change the energy efficiency. Automobile engines are
> much more efficient than years ago.

In the 70's we were told to expect cars being produced that would obtain
over 50mpg. Doing so, would cut down the demand of fossil fuel, which would
cut down the demand on vehicles. Do ya really think the car makers are
gonna cut their own throat?


>
>> If one tenth of the vehicles become electric and plug in to recharge,
>> after a long commute, on a hot August day, there is going to be a brown
>> out and possibly a collapse of the grid.
>
> As others correctly pointed out, electric cars would get charged late
> overnight when power consumption is much lower and there is idle
> generating and grid capacity.
>
> This will have no choice but to go nuclear to meet current electric
> demand, let alone new demands. Fossile fuels are finite, and far too
> much comes from places run by whack-job governments.

No. You produce power on a more local level. I see no reason why the city
of Los Angeles can't produce all the power they need locally. If they had
several power plants producing for a smaller area, they wouldn't have brown
outs so frequently.

The same principle used in the Hoover dam could be scaled down easily. As
the water can be recycled, all you would need is a holding tank. The water
simply passes over the turbine blades causing them to spin and generate the
power.

On 2009-10-31, Free Lunch > wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 18:52:59 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote in misc.transport.road:
>
>>On 2009-10-31, James Robinson > wrote:
>>> Brent > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Scott in SoCal > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> There's no question the way roads are funded is going to have to
>>>>> change. Fuel taxes have been poorly managed for DECADES, and haven't
>>>>> even kept pace with inflation. Alternative vehicle fuels are going to
>>>>> be the death knell for fuel taxes. Of the remaining alternatives,
>>>>> tolls are certanly the most fair. If a way can be found to administer
>>>>> them efficiently without sacrificing privacy, then that may be the
>>>>> best way to go.
>>>>
>>>> So the answer to poorly run government is more poorly run government and
>>>> less freedom for us. Governments mis-manages the fuel taxes by
>>>> diverting them to other purposes. The federal government causes the
>>>> inflation by monkeying around with the economy and over spending.
>>>> Governments squander the money through mis-management and fraud in road
>>>> projects. This doesn't change with tolls. Look at the IL tollway
>>>> authority.
>>>
>>> So now that you've pointed out all the problems, your solution is? ....
>>
>>The solution starts with stop rewarding government failure with more
>>government. People need to realize that first otherwise anything else is
>>pointless and tilting at windmills.
>>
>
> But the gasoline tax and the construction of federally funded highways
> are an example of success that only began to fail when those responsible
> for collecting enough revenue to maintain it refused to keep taxes at an
> appropriate level to pay the expenses. The relatively small diversions
> certainly didn't help roads, but they were not the proximate cause of
> the problem.

The only reason federal road funds are down is because fewer heavy trucks
have been sold because of the present economy. It was some hocus-pocus
the government was doing as an excuse for tracking system type tolling.
I've posted the cite for it previously. The info is on thenewspaper.com
if someone wants to search it out again.

On Oct 31, 2:51*pm, Brent > wrote:
> On 2009-10-31, > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 31, 1:35*pm, Brent > wrote:
> >> On 2009-10-31, Scott in SoCal > wrote:
>
> >> > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Larry G > said:
>
> >> >>but the most compelling issue is what happens to funding for roads?
>
> >> >>I'm pretty skeptical that we are going to go to a GPS-in-car mileage
> >> >>system.. so I'm thinking we're going to see a LOT MORE tolls..
> >> >>including cordon tolls.
>
> >> >>thoughts?
>
> >> > There's no question the way roads are funded is going to have to
> >> > change. Fuel taxes have been poorly managed for DECADES, and haven't
> >> > even kept pace with inflation. Alternative vehicle fuels are going to
> >> > be the death knell for fuel taxes. Of the remaining alternatives,
> >> > tolls are certanly the most fair. If a way can be found to administer
> >> > them efficiently without sacrificing privacy, then that may be the
> >> > best way to go.
>
> >> So the answer to poorly run government is more poorly run government and
> >> less freedom for us. Governments mis-manages the fuel taxes by
> >> diverting them to other purposes. The federal government causes the
> >> inflation by monkeying around with the economy and over spending.
> >> Governments squander the money through mis-management and fraud in road
> >> projects. This doesn't change with tolls. Look at the IL tollway
> >> authority.
>
> > so lets use the corrupt criminal finance houses to administer roads
> > and you keep whining about diverting them to other purposes,
> > what is it you do not understand
> > unless there is a constitutional prohibition against doing that
> > there is nothing prohibiting the ELECTED LEGISLATURE from doing
> > exactly that
> > again what is it you do not understand
> > it is so very simple
>
> It's you who "doesn't understand" or just doesn't want to deal with the
> truth. The question is why do you reward people with more power and more
> money for failure and corruption?

nope, I understand perfectly

what you fail to comprehend is you are not hurting those with more
money/more power one little bit

and you are a fool if you think you are

you are only hurting yourself and millions of others stuck on
substandard roads

any bridges near you closed?

we had one in Union Co, NJ, closed for FOUR years because they did not
have the money for replacement

had you car damaged due to potholes? how about increasing accidents

you think you are hurting "them". they have multiple sources of
income. if not transportation, then education, hospitals, or
something else

you only think you are smart

On Oct 31, 4:20*pm, necromancer
rg> wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:38:52 +0000 (UTC), Brent
>
> > wrote:
> >Furthermore, show that there is a problem with road funding levels as
> >they are first.
>
> I'd say there isn't one. My example of this would be right here in
> Georgia where there is an ongoing project to widen IH95 from the
> Florida line to the South Carolina line. It is being done with no
> increase in the gas tax (except for twice yearly adjustments tied to
> the price of gas), no public-private partnerships and *no tolls.*
>
> --
>

big deal, 112 miles of interstate

costs next to nothing

On 2009-10-31, > wrote:
> On Oct 31, 2:51*pm, Brent > wrote:
>> On 2009-10-31, > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Oct 31, 1:35*pm, Brent > wrote:
>> >> On 2009-10-31, Scott in SoCal > wrote:
>>
>> >> > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Larry G > said:
>>
>> >> >>but the most compelling issue is what happens to funding for roads?
>>
>> >> >>I'm pretty skeptical that we are going to go to a GPS-in-car mileage
>> >> >>system.. so I'm thinking we're going to see a LOT MORE tolls..
>> >> >>including cordon tolls.
>>
>> >> >>thoughts?
>>
>> >> > There's no question the way roads are funded is going to have to
>> >> > change. Fuel taxes have been poorly managed for DECADES, and haven't
>> >> > even kept pace with inflation. Alternative vehicle fuels are going to
>> >> > be the death knell for fuel taxes. Of the remaining alternatives,
>> >> > tolls are certanly the most fair. If a way can be found to administer
>> >> > them efficiently without sacrificing privacy, then that may be the
>> >> > best way to go.
>>
>> >> So the answer to poorly run government is more poorly run government and
>> >> less freedom for us. Governments mis-manages the fuel taxes by
>> >> diverting them to other purposes. The federal government causes the
>> >> inflation by monkeying around with the economy and over spending.
>> >> Governments squander the money through mis-management and fraud in road
>> >> projects. This doesn't change with tolls. Look at the IL tollway
>> >> authority.
>>
>> > so lets use the corrupt criminal finance houses to administer roads
>> > and you keep whining about diverting them to other purposes,
>> > what is it you do not understand
>> > unless there is a constitutional prohibition against doing that
>> > there is nothing prohibiting the ELECTED LEGISLATURE from doing
>> > exactly that
>> > again what is it you do not understand
>> > it is so very simple
>>
>> It's you who "doesn't understand" or just doesn't want to deal with the
>> truth. The question is why do you reward people with more power and more
>> money for failure and corruption?
>
> nope, I understand perfectly
>
> what you fail to comprehend is you are not hurting those with more
> money/more power one little bit
>
> and you are a fool if you think you are

Where did you get the idea I even thought that? Oh wait you just made it
up.

> you are only hurting yourself and millions of others stuck on
> substandard roads

Giving them more money won't make the roads less substandard.

> any bridges near you closed?

Giving them more money won't fix the bridges.

> we had one in Union Co, NJ, closed for FOUR years because they did not
> have the money for replacement

Because it was stolen and diverted and the bridge never maintained.
Giving them more money won't change that.

> had you car damaged due to potholes? how about increasing accidents

Giving them more money won't change that.

> you think you are hurting "them". they have multiple sources of
> income. if not transportation, then education, hospitals, or
> something else

Giving them more money won't change that.

> you only think you are smart

Giving them more money won't change things. It will just be giving them
more money.

Give a crack whore $3000 to get herself an apartment and some new clothes
to get her life back on track. What's the crack whore going to do with
it? Buy more crack. Your elected rulers will do the same thing with more
money they do with the present money, mismanage and steal it.

"richard" > wrote
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:39:54 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
> ????
> No. You produce power on a more local level. I see no reason why the city
> of Los Angeles can't produce all the power they need locally. If they had
> several power plants producing for a smaller area, they wouldn't have
> brown
> outs so frequently.
>
> The same principle used in the Hoover dam could be scaled down easily. As
> the water can be recycled, all you would need is a holding tank. The water
> simply passes over the turbine blades causing them to spin and generate
> the
> power.
> ???

Are you aware that about 1000 MW are used in the state of California to
pump water? Are you aware that, except for the Owens Valley and local
sources of water from the LA Basin's mountains, that all the rest of the
drinking water for LA, San Diego other inland locations is pumped? You're
talking nonsense; ever heard of the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

FloydR

"Scott in SoCal" > wrote in message
...
> Last time on rec.autos.driving, elmer > said:
>
>>There is no free lunch. The proponents of Electric Cars haven't got a
>>clue or are just trying to feather their pockets.
>>It takes the same amount of energy to move x vehicle regardless of that
>>form of energy.
>>There are many jokes about everybody plugging in at the same time but it
>>is no joke.
>>Take Southern California where the this lunacy is at it's zenith.
>>If one tenth of the vehicles become electric and plug in to recharge,
>>after a long commute, on a hot August day, there is going to be a brown
>>out and possibly a collapse of the grid.
>
> Solution: don't charge your car during periods of peak demand. A
> simple timer will allow it to be charged late at night when demand is
> lowest and supply is more than ample.
>
Electric cars are useful because they are currently a small niche market
compared to hybrids, gasoline, and diesel vehicles.

But what if nearly *everyone* bought an electric car in the future?

Everyone would be charging their cars when they arrive at work, when enough
electric cars demand the installation of sufficient charging stations at
workplaces. Everyone would likely be charging their cars when they get home
from work, again, once enough electric cars demand the installation of
sufficient charging stations in residential areas.

Even if groups could stagger their charging intervals, say in cascading
hours, there will always be a significant charging demand once enough
electric cars exist and are used.

Can the electric power grids keep up with that in the short term, in the
long term? What is it going to cost the provider of these charging stations
in non-residential areas, and how will the cost be defrayed by passing on
some of it to the user of the charging station? How much more will it cost a
person on their electric bill to charge their vehicle daily in addition to
whatever their current electricity usage might be?

[snip...]

elmer > wrote in :

> Scott in SoCal wrote:
>> Last time on rec.autos.driving, elmer > said:
>>
>>> solar cells at night or evening? Interesting.
>>
>> You could certainly use solar to charge your car while it sits in the
>> parking lot all day at work. If you have storage batteries at home,
>> you could charge those with solar and transfer the stored charge to
>> your car when you get home. Or use the panels to charge your other two
>> vehicles - the ones you don't use for commuting.
>>
>>> So you get home wait until when to plug in? When will the load go down.
>>
>> The power utility itself can tell you. Already there are devices which
>> will shut off your air conditioner during periods of peak demand, as
>> well as meters which charge different rates at different times of the
>> day depending on demand. If electric cars start to cause stress to the
>> system, it will be trivial to provide this data.
>>
>>> There is no magic. Power out means power in.
>>
>> There is no magic source of fossil fuels, either - when the oil runs
>> out, the oil runs out. On that day, we'll need something else to power
>> our vehicles. If not electricity, then what? Ethanol? Hydrogen? Both
>> cost even MORE in terms of energy inputs than you can recover in
>> energy outputs. ISTM that electric vehicles are the best option we
>> will have for the forseeable future.
>>
>> Now is the time to start preparing for the end of cheap oil. If the
>> electric grid needs to be built up to handle electric cars, then let's
>> get started. Let's not wait until the last drops are trickling out of
>> the barrel and everyone is in a panic before we begin to act.
> A lot of these points are not friendly to Citizens/Consumers, such as,
> cutting off air conditioners when it is the hottest. that sorta defeats
> the purpose of air conditioning.
> Someone made the point that there are thousands of hybrids out there and
> not affecting electric provision. But there are 10s of millions, perhaps
> the number is larger, of cars not yet tapping the electric grid in
> California. I have no idea what the number will be that causes a
> problem. It is pretty low though based on the current situation there.
> I think, certainly, that 10%, of vehicles, tapping the power grid would
> cause a big problem at one time. 20% would be a really big drain at one
> time and perhaps overloading capabilities if spread over the course of
> the day.,
> Perhaps the way to figure it is their target, of gasoline and diesel
> replaced. Electricity will consume x times perhaps as much as 3 times,
> probably around 2 times,energy that gasoline and diesel. Electricity is
> produced from energy. They are simply shifting the source somewhat.
> Instead of coming out of the tailpipes it will be coming out of huge
> smokestacks and going in to huge tailing dumps and ponds. It will cost a
> lot more than the gasoline and diesel.
> Nuclear energy is not here now and they don't want to bring it on board.
> Solar cells are a joke and a stop gap for such a large requirement and
> very expensive.
> Electricity is not free. Wind energy and geothermal and so contribute to
> electricity production but unless you carpet the rest, of the west, with
> big hideous prop blades but not in their yard of course, it wouldn't
> work and will cost much more. Those things have associated costs and
> environmental impacts too.
> So far these People have not solved their problems but have multiplied
> the costs, of vehicles, fuel costs and everything else for the rest, of
> the Country.
>

Businesses are not going to install solar panels and the other necessary
equipment to charge their employees autos.They aren't going to pay for
them,nor pay for the maintenance needed to keep solar panels at full
output. solar panels are NOT "self-cleaning",and subject to damage from
hailstorms,airborne debris,and high winds.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

"Floyd Rogers" > wrote in
acquisition:

> "elmer" > wrote
>> Scott in SoCal wrote:
>>> Last time on rec.autos.driving, elmer > said:
>
>> Nuclear energy is not here now and they don't want to bring it on board.
>> Solar cells are a joke and a stop gap for such a large requirement and
>> very expensive.
>
> Statements like that are why people regard postings like your's a joke.
> Nuclear reactors produce almost 20% of the US's power. Last time
> I checked, the Diablo reactors (near Avila Beach/San Luis Obispo) and
> the San Onofre reactor (north of San Diego) *ARE* in California.
>
> FloydR
>
>
>

No,he's right about "they don't want to bring it on board"(no NEW nuke
plants),as Obama has said he will not permit new nuclear plants WITHOUT
HAVING "SAFE STORAGE" FOR THE WASTES. And Obama(with the DemocRATS) has -
cancelled- Yucca Mountain Waste Repository,cut off it's funding,with NO
plans for any other site.

and California eco-nuts are against nuclear power and also high voltage
transmission lines to deliver more power from ANY new electric source.

then add in his plans for putting the coal industry out of business,his
position of no new oil or gas drilling/production.
-CONNECT THE DOTS-!!

Obama has SAID publicly that he intends for energy costs to climb
drastically. Obama wants us to reduce our lifestyles.

Wake up.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

"Floyd Rogers" > wrote in
news
> "richard" > wrote
>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:39:54 -0700 (PDT),
>> wrote: ????
>> No. You produce power on a more local level. I see no reason why the
>> city of Los Angeles can't produce all the power they need locally. If
>> they had several power plants producing for a smaller area, they
>> wouldn't have brown
>> outs so frequently.
>>
>> The same principle used in the Hoover dam could be scaled down
>> easily. As the water can be recycled, all you would need is a holding
>> tank. The water simply passes over the turbine blades causing them to
>> spin and generate the
>> power.
>> ???
>
> Are you aware that about 1000 MW are used in the state of California
> to pump water? Are you aware that, except for the Owens Valley and
> local sources of water from the LA Basin's mountains, that all the
> rest of the drinking water for LA, San Diego other inland locations is
> pumped? You're talking nonsense; ever heard of the 2nd law of
> thermodynamics?
>
> FloydR
>
>
>

"recycle" water for electric generation?
talk about repealing the laws of physics.

water turbines require water flow from a water source ABOVE the
turbines,once the water is below the turbines,it has no remaining potential
energy.WHERE does this guy think the water gets it's energy from????

geez,people should HAVE to take physics/science in high school.
Or have schools dumbed that down to worthless,like much of the other
fields?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com