Is This The Magic Battery?

Dave Head > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 18:58:30 -0500, Jim Yanik >
> wrote:
>
>>Dave Head > wrote in
m:
>>
>>> On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 23:01:31 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 2010-10-29, Dave Head > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Oh, yeah, the price has to come down... but the cost of fuel is a
>>>>> big mitigating factor.
>>>>
>>>>The issue I find is that the cost of electricity vs. the cost of
>>>>gasoline equation is generally rigged by not considering the taxes
>>>>on the electricity but including them on gasoline. Then there is the
>>>>question of taxes for roads which one way or another will be charged
>>>>towards electrics.
>>
>>he also ignores the basic fact that once electric cars are more widely
>>used,the electric rates will soar,
>
> If the electric rates increase by a factor of 8, they will probably
> equal the equivalent gasoline cost. Meanwhile, what happens to
> residential electrical rates? My bill last month would have gone from
> something like $70 to $560. My buddy says his electric is about $300
> a month - he's got a heat pump. His bill would go to $2400 a month.
> How much electric do you think they'd sell?
>
>
>>if the power is available at all,because
>>Comrade Obama has stifled nuclear power,
>
> Naw, that's the envirowackos. The envirowackos will absolutely
> collapse the economy if we let 'em - I've recently become convinced
> that it is their goal to collapse the economy, because they're all
> basically socialists that want to destroy capitalism.

No,it's not the envirowackos;Comrade Obama defunded an almost-finished
Yucca Mountain Repository,wasting billions of taxpayer dollars,and leaving
us with no safe storage facility.
>
>>the only practical way of new
>>electric generation,and plans to "bankrupt the coal industry" that
>>supplies 50% of US electric power. Solar and wind cannot make up the
>>loss,let alone add MORE capacity.
>
> Natural gas, but you'll have to shoot some envirowackos in order to
> drill it.

No complaint from me...
but do we have enough NG to add that much capacity? Will we for the
duration?
>
>>Each and every electric car is going to use many 1000's of KWH per
>>night.
>
> Show me the calcs. The Chevy Volt only requires 10 KwH to charge its
> battery completely, and it goes 40 miles on a pure electric charge. A
> car half as efficient that went 400 miles on a charge would only
> require 200 KwH to charge. Not 1000's. And of course people wouldn't
> be charging such a car every night because most people don't have time
> to drive it 400 miles every day.

last month,my 1BR apartment used 330 KWH. add 10KWH every night(worst case
engineering) and it doubles my electric usage.
then there are multiple car families.Dad's car,mom's,1 or 2 kids cars...
and most apartment complexes aren't going to be able to add charging
stations,without great costs.

>
>>We don't have that generating capacity now,we are close to capacity.
>
> Might have to build some. Again, have to shoot some envirowackos, a
> plesant task to contemplate... <G>
>
>>Some
>>areas already have rolling brownouts or blackouts when the temps stay
>>high too long.
>
> All due to envirowackos.



so what? It's still FACT. It's today's REALITY.
>>
>>>
>>> They're gonna have a hard time collecting road taxes from electrics,
>>> aren't they?
>>>
>>> Probably dump the road tax concept, just pay for it with general
>>> taxes.
>>>
>>
>>You have not been keeping up;
>>several states are considering mileage charges for electric
>>vehicles,some want in-car GPS data recorders to track and record your
>>trips for tax purposes.
>
> GPS tracking is illegal, an unconstitutional invasion of privacy.

OH? you think so? Where does it say that in the Constitution?
The concept is being tested by several states RIGHT NOW.

>
>>And if you think they are going to "dump the road tax concept" you are
>>very naive. the trend for states is going the opposite way;they are
>>enacting all sorts of NEW user fees/taxes.
>
> Then they'll get their money thru tolls. So, what's the problem then?

Tolls,great. more stop and go,reducing efficiency.Long lines,longer
commutes.
you just keep on making things worse.
>
>>Gotta pay for all those cushy gov't pension plans and Obamacare.
>
> Yep.
>
>>Hey,didja see the article about the US Navy going to 50% biofuel from
>>algae in their warships?
>
> No. Would be nice, if doable. I'm waiting to see the doable thing.
>
>>you may see a greater number of US diesel vehicles in the
>>future,rather than electric cars.
>
> Again, envirowackos don't like diesels because they make the US
> efficient, and would allow capitalism to continue by making our
> country more efficient. They abhor that.
>



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

Dave Head > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 00:57:51 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:
>
>>On 2010-10-30, Dave Head > wrote:
>>
>>> No, you don't. You pull into a fueling station and they remove your
>>> discharged battery and install a fully charged battery. The car will
>>> be made to allow this change to be performed rapidly.
>>
>>And get stuck with someone else's damaged, defective, or near end of
>>life expensive battery pack?
>
> So what? You don't own it, you're renting it.
>

you're DEPENDING on it to get you to your destination.
you sure don't want to run out of charge in the middle of your trip.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 08:00:52 -0500, Jim Yanik >
wrote:

>Dave Head > wrote in
:
>
>> On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 18:58:30 -0500, Jim Yanik >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Dave Head > wrote in
:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 23:01:31 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 2010-10-29, Dave Head > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, yeah, the price has to come down... but the cost of fuel is a
>>>>>> big mitigating factor.
>>>>>
>>>>>The issue I find is that the cost of electricity vs. the cost of
>>>>>gasoline equation is generally rigged by not considering the taxes
>>>>>on the electricity but including them on gasoline. Then there is the
>>>>>question of taxes for roads which one way or another will be charged
>>>>>towards electrics.
>>>
>>>he also ignores the basic fact that once electric cars are more widely
>>>used,the electric rates will soar,
>>
>> If the electric rates increase by a factor of 8, they will probably
>> equal the equivalent gasoline cost. Meanwhile, what happens to
>> residential electrical rates? My bill last month would have gone from
>> something like $70 to $560. My buddy says his electric is about $300
>> a month - he's got a heat pump. His bill would go to $2400 a month.
>> How much electric do you think they'd sell?
>>
>>
>>>if the power is available at all,because
>>>Comrade Obama has stifled nuclear power,
>>
>> Naw, that's the envirowackos. The envirowackos will absolutely
>> collapse the economy if we let 'em - I've recently become convinced
>> that it is their goal to collapse the economy, because they're all
>> basically socialists that want to destroy capitalism.
>
>No,it's not the envirowackos;Comrade Obama defunded an almost-finished
>Yucca Mountain Repository,wasting billions of taxpayer dollars,and leaving
>us with no safe storage facility.

He's a radical thru and thru. IOW, he's ONE OF the envirowackos. And
we don't need a freakin' storage facility. We need to reprocess our
waste and use it over. We're doing virutally everything wrong that we
can. The envirowackos want it that way, because they're
anti-capitalists, and are attempting to wreck capitalistic economies.
And they're succeeding, because virtually no one recognizes the threat
for what it really is.

>>>the only practical way of new
>>>electric generation,and plans to "bankrupt the coal industry" that
>>>supplies 50% of US electric power. Solar and wind cannot make up the
>>>loss,let alone add MORE capacity.
>>
>> Natural gas, but you'll have to shoot some envirowackos in order to
>> drill it.
>
>No complaint from me...
>but do we have enough NG to add that much capacity? Will we for the
>duration?

We have vast oceans of natural gas. It is really amazing how much we
have. We just have to drill it. There's at least 100 years of known
natural gas in the US, and then of course there's coal gassification.
>>>Each and every electric car is going to use many 1000's of KWH per
>>>night.
>>
>> Show me the calcs. The Chevy Volt only requires 10 KwH to charge its
>> battery completely, and it goes 40 miles on a pure electric charge. A
>> car half as efficient that went 400 miles on a charge would only
>> require 200 KwH to charge. Not 1000's. And of course people wouldn't
>> be charging such a car every night because most people don't have time
>> to drive it 400 miles every day.
>
>last month,my 1BR apartment used 330 KWH. add 10KWH every night(worst case
>engineering) and it doubles my electric usage.

OK, how much is that gonna cost ya? How much gasoline expense goes
away because of it? My electric for last month, at about 600 KwH if I
remember right, was something like $70. If it doubled, that'd be
$140. A tank of gas is about $35 - $40 in my car, and I bought about
12 tanks of gas last month. (I get around...) That'd be a whale of a
savings for me.

>then there are multiple car families.Dad's car,mom's,1 or 2 kids cars...
>and most apartment complexes aren't going to be able to add charging
>stations,without great costs.

I don't see the problem. Sure they are - the electric company is just
going to have to wire up the place for more service delivery.
Fortunately, the day of everyone having an electric is far in the
future, so they have alot of time to do that.

>>>We don't have that generating capacity now,we are close to capacity.
>>
>> Might have to build some. Again, have to shoot some envirowackos, a
>> plesant task to contemplate... <G>
>>
>>>Some
>>>areas already have rolling brownouts or blackouts when the temps stay
>>>high too long.
>>
>> All due to envirowackos.
>
>so what? It's still FACT. It's today's REALITY.

We have to defeat them, its that simple. The 1st step is making the
public aware that the envirowackos aren't about the environment,
they're about harming capitalism. That's their true goal. While I
often entertain pessimism on some things, I'm optimistic that these
people can be foiled in their attacks on America.

>>>
>>>>
>>>> They're gonna have a hard time collecting road taxes from electrics,
>>>> aren't they?
>>>>
>>>> Probably dump the road tax concept, just pay for it with general
>>>> taxes.
>>>>
>>>
>>>You have not been keeping up;
>>>several states are considering mileage charges for electric
>>>vehicles,some want in-car GPS data recorders to track and record your
>>>trips for tax purposes.
>>
>> GPS tracking is illegal, an unconstitutional invasion of privacy.
>
>OH? you think so? Where does it say that in the Constitution?
>The concept is being tested by several states RIGHT NOW.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
not be violated..." Amendment 4. Tracking someone is an unreasonable
search, and would require a judge's approval. So far, the ninth
circuit court doesn't think so, but it is expected that the supreme
court will formally say that the cops can't come on private property
and attach a GPS to a suspect's car without a court order. To do it
to non-suspect citizens should be even easier to refute.

And, of course, it just doesn't work, because it is too dangerous to
allow the information to exist in some cases. My buddy was working on
the A-12 attack aircraft before it was canceled. Even the meetings
were secret as to when and where. He couldn't afford to have such
tracking info exist, lest the Russian spies of the time were able to
access it and learn what contractors may be involved and so be able to
target their spying.

You just can't be tracking people, for lots of reasons.

>>
>>>And if you think they are going to "dump the road tax concept" you are
>>>very naive. the trend for states is going the opposite way;they are
>>>enacting all sorts of NEW user fees/taxes.
>>
>> Then they'll get their money thru tolls. So, what's the problem then?
>
>Tolls,great. more stop and go,reducing efficiency.Long lines,longer
>commutes.

Tolls are being collected at full speed, no slowing down on several
routes that I occasionally drive.

>you just keep on making things worse.

Not me. I'm for electric vehicles, which will make the nation's
transportation costs plummet. Electric vehicles are about 3X more
efficient than their internal combustion counterparts. Our great
distances that we must move things are one of our inefficiencies that
make the US at some disadvantages to dense anc compact places like
Europe. To mitigate that costs is to mitigate our disadvantage.

On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 08:02:10 -0500, Jim Yanik >
wrote:

>Dave Head > wrote in
:
>
>> On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 00:57:51 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2010-10-30, Dave Head > wrote:
>>>
>>>> No, you don't. You pull into a fueling station and they remove your
>>>> discharged battery and install a fully charged battery. The car will
>>>> be made to allow this change to be performed rapidly.
>>>
>>>And get stuck with someone else's damaged, defective, or near end of
>>>life expensive battery pack?
>>
>> So what? You don't own it, you're renting it.
>>
>
>you're DEPENDING on it to get you to your destination.
>you sure don't want to run out of charge in the middle of your trip.

So, make sure you have enough when you start. Its like filling a tank
with gasoline.

On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 07:49:35 -0500, Jim Yanik >
wrote:

>Dave Head > wrote in
:
>
>> On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 18:45:14 -0500, Jim Yanik >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Dave Head > wrote in
>>>news >>>
>>>> On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 07:13:56 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Oct 29, 4:30*am, Dave__67 > wrote:
>>>>>> On Oct 29, 6:59*am, Dave Head > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >http://www.caradvice.com.au/89483/au...ehicle-sets-60
>>>>>> >0k m...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > Maybe, if it doesn't cost a million dollars. *These guys have
>>>>>> > run a car for about 400 miles on a single battery charge at
>>>>>> > around 70 - 80 mph. *That's awesome if true. *It could be
>>>>>> > America's way out of buying foreign oil, and greatly reducing ur
>>>>>> > operating costs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > My Subaru WRX gets 25 mpg on a typical long trip. *A Chevy Volt
>>>>>> > goes 40 miles on a 10 KwH charge. *Around here, 10 KwH costs 62
>>>>>> > 1/2 cents. The WRX takes premium and costs about $4.72 to go 40
>>>>>> > miles. *Big difference. *Maybe we have cheap transportation
>>>>>> > again? *CAFE standards? *Unncessary. *And we have absolutely
>>>>>> > oceans of domestic natural gas to build clean power generation
>>>>>> > for these cars.
>>>
>>>better to use nuclear electric plants and save the hydrocarbons for
>>>industrial feedstocks. nukes don't emit any pollution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > Just hope its real.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> liPos are great- use them in *my model airplane.
>>>>>> Very light, awesome capacity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They have a huge downside though- physical trauma tends to make
>>>>>> them, well, explode.
>>>>>> So does overcharging.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They are also damaged if they are discharged beyond a certain
>>>>>> point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dave
>>>>>
>>>>>I haven't really dug into the electrics but I don't see them ever
>>>>>replacing IC powered, augmenting, yes. I would love to have one but
>>>>>it would have to be a 3rd vehicle and used just for local trips
>>>>>(within around 40 miles).
>>>>
>>>> Howcum? Why would you not want to jump in it and drive it from,
>>>> say, New York to Las Vegas?
>>>
>>>because you'd have to recharge it overnight after every 400 miles.(and
>>>more likely less than 400 miles)
>>
>> No, you don't. You pull into a fueling station and they remove your
>> discharged battery and install a fully charged battery. The car will
>> be made to allow this change to be performed rapidly.
>
>LMAO;
>you think every service station is going to keep enough exchange battery
>packs for every make and model of vehicle? Enough to cover the traffic
>volume every day? Or that the station you stop at will have their packs
>fully charged and ready whenever you drop in?
>Imagine the investment each station would require.
>You also probably think that automakers are going to standardize the
>battery packs so one or two models fit all the different makes and models.
>GULLIBLE.

You'd be surprised what can be done when a buck is to be made. Sure
they can do that. And, these service stations will likely be operated
by your power company, which will use a portion of those batteries to
feed power back into the grid when it is needed. They will likely
have 3X or more batteries than they need to service electric cars and
trucks. The ones that aren't going to be needed immediately are going
to be mitigating the big bug-a-boo of solar and wind power, which is
the sun not shining and the wind not blowing. At those times, these
batteries will be filling in for home electricity.

>then there's the cost of having a person do the exchange,in addition to the
>costs of electricity for recharging.

Probably robotized. The cost of electricity is a whale of a lot less
than the cost of gasoline, or alcohol for that matter.

>>
>>>I can drive a LOT farther than 400 miles before needing several hours
>>>off.
>>
>> Probably less than 2 minutes.
>>
>>>Most people can only afford one car for all their driving,not one for
>>>short trips and another for long distance.
>>
>> Right. That's why electrics have to be built to go far on a charge
>> and refuel quickly.
>
>And they ARE NOT being designed that way.

The original post of this thread appears to have solved the "far"
part. Its only a matter of formuating a standard for being able to
change out batteries quickly and easily. The batteries might even be
agreed to be cylinders the size shape of a very large D cell, at, say,
30 lbs. You could change it yourself at home if it came to that.
Maybe there are 20 of them in your vehicle. You'd just have to be
able to jack up the vehicle at home to get at the batteries.

>EVERY electric vehicle made today and for the near future is being designed
>with a built-in pack,not designed for quick-change.

One thing at a time. That sort of standarization is in the future,
where it makes the most sense to be. We don't have enough electrics in
existence to be thinking about doing this yet. Most are still
hybrids. We're just now getting cars that are made as electric-only,
and they mostly only go 100 miles or so, and are not really candidates
for long-distance cross-country travel where this mode of recharging
would be most in demand.

>Buried in the middle of the car.

They'll just have to change that.

>
>So you get stuck with a pack that somebody else may have abused or is
>reaching the end of it's life(and thus have shorter range).great.
>I think you will find that nobody has made any system that can tell you how
>many charges you have left on a battery pack.

I'm betting they'll find a way. It doesn't seem like it should be all
that hard.

>>>and you'll need a charging point at the other end of your journey.
>>
>> Yep, just like a regular gas station. Shouldn't be a problem to build
>> 'em pretty much everywhere.
>
>yeah,there's just SO much surplus generating capacity available.
>(NOT!)

We're a decade or more away from this. There should be a plenty of
time to remedy that situation by building the required infrastructure.

>>>>>Electrics, even the current ones, should do fine in an urban setting
>>>>>but the price is going to have to come down.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, yeah, the price has to come down... but the cost of fuel is a
>>>> big mitigating factor.
>>>
>>>the price of gas is artificially high because of political reasons.
>>
>> Nowhere close to what it is in Europe, tho.
>>
>
>They have to pay for their socialism somehow.And surrender a bit more of
>their freedoms.

A LOT of their freedoms. Good healthcare, for one. Yeah, they get
so-so healthcare to ALL the people, and the ones that are poor here
and can't afford it here and die here make their AVERAGE numbers look
better than our AVERAGE numbers. But if you have a life-threatening
disease, and CAN PAY FOR IT, you want to be here, not there.

For instance, there is a surgical machine known as a Da Vinci machine,
used to remove small cancers in breasts, prostates, and other internal
sites. These have a great advantage of very quick recovery time and
way less trauma and a smaller set of scars than regular operating
techniques. I live in Virginia, and can tell you that there are 88
surgeons in the state of Virginia that can operate one of these
machines. In all of Canada, one of these socialized medicine utopias,
there are only 66 surgeons in that whole country that can operate that
machine. Where do you want to get your cancer removed? Here, or
Canada, or maybe Europe? I got a prostate cancer removed on a
Tuesday, and went to "Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull" on Friday.
Try that with an "open" surgical technique.

On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 04:33:31 -0700 (PDT), Mark
> wrote:

>Petroleum will be depleted in 20 years.

That's a lotta envirowacko BS. There's PLENTY of oil. There's 3X the
amount of the Saudi reserves in the shale out west, and there's an
unknown, and likely vast amount in places where anti-capitalist
envirowackos have blocked access to exploration in Alaska. The
envirowackos who are trying to destroy the USA as a capitalistic
country are also attempting to get the shale oil so that it can't be
mined or drilled either. They are currently winning, and the country
is in danger of collapse. We just have to defeat the envirowackos,
and things can get a lot better.

On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 04:13:59 -0700 (PDT), Mark
> wrote:

>America is going to be invaded across the Mexican
>border by armed gangs too numerous to stop.

Oh, really. There are 250 million privately owne firearms in this
country, and, well, we're just going to have to see about any
invasion. Somebody's gonna get their asses shot off, and its going to
be a lot of foolish invaders. There will be a point where the
American people will abandon simple defense strategies, and go on the
offensive, and those people will die.


>There
>are going to be BILLIONS, not millions, of ecology
>refugees when the glaciers are gone in just a few
>years.

More envirowacko BS. This has already been shown to be wrong and
admitted to be wrong, and those glaciers are going to last for another
350 years. Hey, the climate changes, all by itself. Learn to live
with it, or die.

On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 04:24:11 -0700 (PDT), Mark
> wrote:

>On Oct 29, 11:08*pm, Dave Head > wrote:
>
>> The longevity will need to be improved, tho.
>
>It's already been done on a magnitude which
>exceeds petroleum. (which will be depleted
>in 20 years anyway)
>
>How about 500 miles on a 10 minute charge?
>Does that work for ya?

It works, if achievable.

>---
>Mark

On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 04:00:19 -0700 (PDT), Mark
> wrote:

>
>First, get up to speed on the new type of lithium
>batteries that are a different technology than the
>old lithium batteries. Then, listen to what I'm telling
>you. With nanoengineering, batteries have already
>been invented that are 10 times more powerful
>than the newest batteries being used today.
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCkXwwEC2p8
>
>---
>Mark

OK, but I'd like a little more technical explanation that I can read,
that says how they're actually doing it. Nanowire battery? Both
anode and cathode? There's a team from Stanford that is supposedly
working on this, but is this their battery, or some other battery.
Inquiring minds want to know....

Dave Head > wrote:
>Harry K > wrote:
>>Brent > wrote:
>>> Dave Head > wrote:
>>> >Brent > wrote:
>>> >>On 2010-10-30, Dave Head > wrote:

>>> >>> No, you don't. You pull into a fueling station and they remove your
>>> >>> discharged battery and install a fully charged battery. The car will
>>> >>> be made to allow this change to be performed rapidly.

"They" work as a charity, do "they"?

>>> >>And get stuck with someone else's damaged, defective, or near end of
>>> >>life expensive battery pack?
>>>
>>> > So what? You don't own it, you're renting it.

>>> So what? being stranded on the side of the road? The defective
>>> battery damaging your car? The owner of the battery blaming you and
>>> charging you for the damage to it? There's a whole a lot of hassle
>>> there.

>>> Plus you did pay for the original when you purchased the car. I don't
>>> know about you but to me handing over an expensive battery pack I paid
>>> for after 40 miles of use and getting some crappy beat up unit in
>>> exchange that I won't even be considered of the owner of sounds like a
>>> really crappy deal.

>>But for pie in the sky dreamers, 'practical' does not enter into it.
>>Dave has already built an entire network of battery swap places, each
>>one that would have to maintain a stock of what? 50? 100? packs.

>Probably 100's, or 1000's. But, you know what? Remember this thing
>called solar power? Remember wind? What's their big problem?
>Storage, for when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing.
>Now... the electric company will own millions of batteries tha will
>each be capable of storing maybe 200 KwH. What are they going to do

200 kWh? For a practical automotive environment with 1000+ cycles,
rapid charge and discharge? No "maybe" about it. It's BULL****.

200 kWh is hardly comparable to the energy available in the fuel tank
of a conventional motor car. You're looking at the nett energy from
about 45 litres of diesel fuel being used in a modern, turbocharged,
direct-injection diesel engine. 200 kWh that in that form takes a
minute to "re-charge" and weighs about 36kg.

Batteries with that nominal capacity will be at least 10 times the
mass and volume; making man-handling unfeasible.

Electric motor vehicles need to be functionally and financially
competitive with existing technology before they are accepted.

It is highly unlikely that the mode of energy storage to make it
viable will be electrolytic. Cathode and anode materials are at the
limits of potential. There aren't going to be huge leaps in
performance; just tweaking.

>with them? That's right, they're going to hook 'em up to the grid,
>and supply power when they need it. That'll make wind and solar more
>viable.

You prove once again that you have no sense of proportion.
That is a common problem with fanatics.

Wind and solar aren't viable to begin with. So no question of being
"more viable". That's like asking which of the ugly sisters is more
beautiful.

I have previously demonstrated that the amount of energy required by
such "filling stations". Each will need to have a small power
stations; probably nuclear because a grid connection supplying the
required energy means a whole new grid infrastructure.

John McCarthy said:
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense

You're talking nonsense.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | For every complex problem there is an
X against HTML mail | answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
/ \ and postings | --HL Mencken