Electric Cars Not Yet Viable

[Jasen Betts]

On 2019-06-28, Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, June 28, 2019 at 3:01:06 AM UTC-4, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2019-06-28, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 05:22:49 -0000 (UTC), Jasen Betts
jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

On 2019-06-27, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 17:31:20 +0300, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 07:55:53 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 27/06/19 07:20, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jun 2019 23:42:43 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 6/26/19 10:09 PM, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, June 26, 2019 at 9:57:47 PM UTC-4, keith wright wrote:
On Wednesday, 26 June 2019 18:14:57 UTC-7, bitrex wrote:
...
"Charging at home will require
the installation of a dedicated high-capacity outlet"

a 40 amp level 2 charger unit is plenty for many use cases and
installing one is not a complex job. it won't charge up the car in a
couple hours. it'll charge a 3 up ~150 miles overnight, how many people
are driving 150 miles a day every day goddamn.

The summary seems to make it out like you can either charge from a 120
volt outlet over 1.5 days or you have to install a three phase AC-DC
level 3 charger with a cable 4" in diameter to charge the car.

...

'Which' is a UK magazine so a normal wall socket can do up to 2-3kW (as a reference other cars in the UK seem to be set to 10A resulting in 2.4kW).

I did forget that this was a UK magazine. I have talked about this with folks from there and I never got a clear answer, but it seems like they do 13 amp outlets easily, but to get more they wire 3 phase, which *is* a lot more hassle... at least I guess so. They talk about totally different wiring methods than we use and smaller service to the house, so maybe higher current 240 volt outlets aren't so easy. On the other hand, they tend to drive shorter distances so the daily need for charging is not as much. The 3 kW available from a standard outlet gets you around 180 miles on a model 3... assuming they don't do the derating thing that we do in the US. Can someone confirm that?

In the UK there are a number of smaller EVs available with smaller batteries and higher mileage. I don't know the names, but they seem to work well according to the owners.


I believe it's common in the UK and Europe to have smaller per-dwelling
or per apartment (flat?) structure distribution transformer/pole pig as
compared to the US where there's usually one large pole pig to supply a
neighborhood

It is the other way around. In Europe pole mounted transformers are
typically 100-315 kVA feeding dozens of detached houses up to several
hundred meters from the distribution transformer.

Here you /never/ see pole mounted transformers for
domestic properties.

So you have those low transformer buildings every few hundred meters
feeding the houses around it.

In Finland, you can get at least a 3x63 A 230/400 V up to 600 m from
the (ground or pole mounted) distribution transformer from most
electric companies.

In the US, due to lower voltage and hence large currents, a
distribution "pig" transformer only serves one or at most a few
houses.

That's silly. The size of a transfomer depends on KVAs, not voltage.

The size of the wire depends on voltage.

Current, actually.

For 115V you need wires 4 with
times cross section to get the same power loss as for and equivalent
power load at 240V (and it gets even better with three phase)

Makes no sense.

[...]
I didn't express myself very well.

what I meant was

The size of the wire depends on voltage. For 115V you need wires with
four times cross section to get the same power loss as for an equivalent
power load at 240V (and it gets even better with three phase)


So for 240V you can install fewer transformers and run longer drops (reducing maintenance
costs) and still come out ahead on energy loss and amount of copper used.

My house in the USA has 240 volt input from the
neighborhood distribution transformer. Houses in Europe also get 240
from their transformer. Both transformers step some kilovolts down to
240.

No, down to 415 3 phase wye in UK. (and here in NZ) they run that
along the street and tap off single phase feeds or three phase
feeds as required.

for example

at 415V three phase 1 MVA

the phase current is 1389 A
allowing a 10 kW loss (which is 1%) the cable can have a resistance of
1.73 milliohms

so that's 4 conductors of 478 S conductivity so 2314 S total. (IE
total conductivity of the 4 conductors in parallel)

at 240V "split" phase 1MVA

the phase current is 4167 A and the 1% loss occurs at only 0.288
millohms resistance, so that's three conductors of 3472 S so about
10416 S total conductivity.

looks about 4.5 times as much copper is needed to do the same job.

It looks to me like you are comparing apples and oranges. You are comparing 415 volt, 3 phase distribution in the UK to 240 volt, single phase distribution in the US.

yes, theat's the whole point

> We don't distribute power at 240 volts.

I was trying to use Larkins terminilogy, he said 240V I know thats
really 120-0-120 and I treated it as such. the three phase used in UK
is 240 to neutral, 415 between phases, I called it 415 to follow the
convention established by Larkin, that's also what they write on the
transformers.

> As has been explained, we use a transformer for typically 1 to 4 homes.

Or a "whole block" aparrently, whatever that means.

I expect if you compared the losses overall you would find they are
comparable. The US system has more, smaller transformers, the UK
system has fewer, larger transformers.

The discussion started off being about how using higher voltage allows
thiner wires.

--
When I tried casting out nines I made a hash of it.

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2019-06-28, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 06:56:45 -0000 (UTC), Jasen Betts
jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

On 2019-06-28, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 05:22:49 -0000 (UTC), Jasen Betts
jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

On 2019-06-27, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 17:31:20 +0300, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 07:55:53 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 27/06/19 07:20, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jun 2019 23:42:43 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 6/26/19 10:09 PM, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, June 26, 2019 at 9:57:47 PM UTC-4, keith wright wrote:
On Wednesday, 26 June 2019 18:14:57 UTC-7, bitrex wrote:
...
"Charging at home will require
the installation of a dedicated high-capacity outlet"

a 40 amp level 2 charger unit is plenty for many use cases and
installing one is not a complex job. it won't charge up the car in a
couple hours. it'll charge a 3 up ~150 miles overnight, how many people
are driving 150 miles a day every day goddamn.

The summary seems to make it out like you can either charge from a 120
volt outlet over 1.5 days or you have to install a three phase AC-DC
level 3 charger with a cable 4" in diameter to charge the car.

...

'Which' is a UK magazine so a normal wall socket can do up to 2-3kW (as a reference other cars in the UK seem to be set to 10A resulting in 2.4kW).

I did forget that this was a UK magazine. I have talked about this with folks from there and I never got a clear answer, but it seems like they do 13 amp outlets easily, but to get more they wire 3 phase, which *is* a lot more hassle... at least I guess so. They talk about totally different wiring methods than we use and smaller service to the house, so maybe higher current 240 volt outlets aren't so easy. On the other hand, they tend to drive shorter distances so the daily need for charging is not as much. The 3 kW available from a standard outlet gets you around 180 miles on a model 3... assuming they don't do the derating thing that we do in the US. Can someone confirm that?

In the UK there are a number of smaller EVs available with smaller batteries and higher mileage. I don't know the names, but they seem to work well according to the owners.


I believe it's common in the UK and Europe to have smaller per-dwelling
or per apartment (flat?) structure distribution transformer/pole pig as
compared to the US where there's usually one large pole pig to supply a
neighborhood

It is the other way around. In Europe pole mounted transformers are
typically 100-315 kVA feeding dozens of detached houses up to several
hundred meters from the distribution transformer.

Here you /never/ see pole mounted transformers for
domestic properties.

So you have those low transformer buildings every few hundred meters
feeding the houses around it.

In Finland, you can get at least a 3x63 A 230/400 V up to 600 m from
the (ground or pole mounted) distribution transformer from most
electric companies.

In the US, due to lower voltage and hence large currents, a
distribution "pig" transformer only serves one or at most a few
houses.

That's silly. The size of a transfomer depends on KVAs, not voltage.

The size of the wire depends on voltage.

Current, actually.

For 115V you need wires 4 with
times cross section to get the same power loss as for and equivalent
power load at 240V (and it gets even better with three phase)

Makes no sense.

[...]
I didn't express myself very well.

what I meant was

The size of the wire depends on voltage. For 115V you need wires with
four times cross section to get the same power loss as for an equivalent
power load at 240V (and it gets even better with three phase)


So for 240V you can install fewer transformers and run longer drops (reducing maintenance
costs) and still come out ahead on energy loss and amount of copper used.

My house in the USA has 240 volt input from the
neighborhood distribution transformer. Houses in Europe also get 240
from their transformer. Both transformers step some kilovolts down to
240.

No, down to 415 3 phase wye in UK. (and here in NZ) they run that
along the street and tap off single phase feeds or three phase
feeds as required.

for example

at 415V three phase 1 MVA

the phase current is 1389 A
allowing a 10 kW loss (which is 1%) the cable can have a resistance of
1.73 milliohms

so that's 4 conductors of 478 S conductivity so 2314 S total. (IE
total conductivity of the 4 conductors in parallel)

at 240V "split" phase 1MVA

the phase current is 4167 A and the 1% loss occurs at only 0.288
millohms resistance, so that's three conductors of 3472 S so about
10416 S total conductivity.

looks about 4.5 times as much copper is needed to do the same job.

Sorry. Your transformers output 240 volts to the wires that run down
the block to houses. So do ours.

they do, they also output 415V, yours also output 120V.

> No more copper is needed outside the houses.

Go away troll, there's no place for someone who doesn't want to
understand electrivity here.

 

[John Doe]

Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

For 115V you need wires 4 with times cross section to get the same
power loss as for and equivalent power load at 240V

I need a translation.

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christense]

lørdag den 29. juni 2019 kl. 11.33.29 UTC+2 skrev John Doe:

Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

For 115V you need wires 4 with times cross section to get the same
power loss as for and equivalent power load at 240V

I need a translation.

at half the voltage you need twice the current, twice the current
means 4 times the wire loss

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 12:52:23 -0700 (PDT), omnilobe@gmail.com wrote:

A battery exchange station will replace the gas station.
It is faster to remove a battery block and put a fresh
block in than it is to fill a tank with gasoline. It is
safer than a self-driving auto-pilot tesla.

Is anyone doing that?

Around ten years ago I thought, if this EV thing continues, then we'll
have to go that way. Like a car wash where your car is pulled in and the
battery pack swapped.

Since a lot of the enviro-left live in cities where they park on the
street you'd think they would have thought about the impossibility of
charging "at home." Imagine what would happen if there were charging
stations all along the sidewalk, aside from being ugly. Pay with a
credit card and plug in, then the next guy parks in between stations
that are in use, so he unplugs you and connects himself. Extension cords
would have become available by then.

 

On Sat, 29 Jun 2019 09:33:24 -0000 (UTC), John Doe
<always.look@message.header> wrote:

Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

For 115V you need wires 4 with times cross section to get the same
power loss as for and equivalent power load at 240V

I need a translation.

Assume that we want to transfer a specific amount of power at the same
distance. To transfer the same power at 120 V (U120) requires twice
the current (I120) compared to the current (I240) at 240 V (U240).
I120 = 2 x I240.

1.) Assume the same conductor with resistance R is used in both cases.
The voltage drop will be
V120 = R x I120 = R x 2 x I240 and power loss
P120 = R x I120˛ = R x (2 x I240)˛.
Thus the voltage drop is twice that and power loss 4 times.

2.) Assume the wire cross section is doubled for the 120 V case, thus
resistance R2 = R/2. The voltage drop will be
V120 = R2 x I120 = R/2 x 2 x I240 and power loss
P120 = R2 x I120˛ = R/2 x (2 x I240)˛ = R x 2 x I240˛.
Thus the voltage drop is the same and power loss 2 times.

3.) Since the allowed voltage drop in distribution system is expressed
as a percentage of nominal voltage, e.g. 5 % of nominal voltage, the
cross section must be further doubled, i.e. the cross section must be
4 times, i.e. R3 = R/4. The voltage drop will be
V120 = R3 x I120 = R/4 x 2 x I240 = R/2 x I120 and power loss
P120 = R3 x I120˛ = R/4 x (2xI240)˛ = R x I240˛..
Thus the voltage drop is halved and power loss is the same.

To conclude, in order to maintain the same voltage drop in percentage
voltage drop as well as also keep the total power losses the same, the
cross section needs to be quadrupled at 120 V compared to 240 V.

There are several situations that limits how much power can be
transferred in a wire, some technical, some economical.

1.) Maximum loss power allowed per meter. This depends of the heath
conductivity into the surrounding. A cable within some construction
material has the lowest allowed current density, an open wire in a
strong wind at sub-zero temperatures has the largest capacity.

2.) Maximum voltage allowed. This depends of the length of cable and
allowable voltage loss.

3.) Power lost in the cable is critical especially in high voltage
(high power) lines, i.e. how many power plants are needed for just
generate the power losses dissipated in a national grid. At some point
it becomes more economical to add thicker lines or complete new lines.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 29 Jun 2019 06:08:22 -0000 (UTC), Jasen Betts
<jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

On 2019-06-28, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 06:56:45 -0000 (UTC), Jasen Betts
jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

On 2019-06-28, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 05:22:49 -0000 (UTC), Jasen Betts
jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

On 2019-06-27, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 17:31:20 +0300, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 07:55:53 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 27/06/19 07:20, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jun 2019 23:42:43 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 6/26/19 10:09 PM, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, June 26, 2019 at 9:57:47 PM UTC-4, keith wright wrote:
On Wednesday, 26 June 2019 18:14:57 UTC-7, bitrex wrote:
...
"Charging at home will require
the installation of a dedicated high-capacity outlet"

a 40 amp level 2 charger unit is plenty for many use cases and
installing one is not a complex job. it won't charge up the car in a
couple hours. it'll charge a 3 up ~150 miles overnight, how many people
are driving 150 miles a day every day goddamn.

The summary seems to make it out like you can either charge from a 120
volt outlet over 1.5 days or you have to install a three phase AC-DC
level 3 charger with a cable 4" in diameter to charge the car.

...

'Which' is a UK magazine so a normal wall socket can do up to 2-3kW (as a reference other cars in the UK seem to be set to 10A resulting in 2.4kW).

I did forget that this was a UK magazine. I have talked about this with folks from there and I never got a clear answer, but it seems like they do 13 amp outlets easily, but to get more they wire 3 phase, which *is* a lot more hassle... at least I guess so. They talk about totally different wiring methods than we use and smaller service to the house, so maybe higher current 240 volt outlets aren't so easy. On the other hand, they tend to drive shorter distances so the daily need for charging is not as much. The 3 kW available from a standard outlet gets you around 180 miles on a model 3... assuming they don't do the derating thing that we do in the US. Can someone confirm that?

In the UK there are a number of smaller EVs available with smaller batteries and higher mileage. I don't know the names, but they seem to work well according to the owners.


I believe it's common in the UK and Europe to have smaller per-dwelling
or per apartment (flat?) structure distribution transformer/pole pig as
compared to the US where there's usually one large pole pig to supply a
neighborhood

It is the other way around. In Europe pole mounted transformers are
typically 100-315 kVA feeding dozens of detached houses up to several
hundred meters from the distribution transformer.

Here you /never/ see pole mounted transformers for
domestic properties.

So you have those low transformer buildings every few hundred meters
feeding the houses around it.

In Finland, you can get at least a 3x63 A 230/400 V up to 600 m from
the (ground or pole mounted) distribution transformer from most
electric companies.

In the US, due to lower voltage and hence large currents, a
distribution "pig" transformer only serves one or at most a few
houses.

That's silly. The size of a transfomer depends on KVAs, not voltage.

The size of the wire depends on voltage.

Current, actually.

For 115V you need wires 4 with
times cross section to get the same power loss as for and equivalent
power load at 240V (and it gets even better with three phase)

Makes no sense.

[...]
I didn't express myself very well.

what I meant was

The size of the wire depends on voltage. For 115V you need wires with
four times cross section to get the same power loss as for an equivalent
power load at 240V (and it gets even better with three phase)


So for 240V you can install fewer transformers and run longer drops (reducing maintenance
costs) and still come out ahead on energy loss and amount of copper used.

My house in the USA has 240 volt input from the
neighborhood distribution transformer. Houses in Europe also get 240
from their transformer. Both transformers step some kilovolts down to
240.

No, down to 415 3 phase wye in UK. (and here in NZ) they run that
along the street and tap off single phase feeds or three phase
feeds as required.

for example

at 415V three phase 1 MVA

the phase current is 1389 A
allowing a 10 kW loss (which is 1%) the cable can have a resistance of
1.73 milliohms

so that's 4 conductors of 478 S conductivity so 2314 S total. (IE
total conductivity of the 4 conductors in parallel)

at 240V "split" phase 1MVA

the phase current is 4167 A and the 1% loss occurs at only 0.288
millohms resistance, so that's three conductors of 3472 S so about
10416 S total conductivity.

looks about 4.5 times as much copper is needed to do the same job.

Sorry. Your transformers output 240 volts to the wires that run down
the block to houses. So do ours.

they do, they also output 415V, yours also output 120V.

No more copper is needed outside the houses.

Go away troll, there's no place for someone who doesn't want to
understand electrivity here.

Electrivity? No, I don't know much avout that.

I did take two semisters of electrical machinery in college, where we
did all the transformer and distribution math, with labs. And I have
designed four different electric meters that were used by utilities. I
do understand this stuff.

Here's my VME-based AC power meter.

http://www.highlandtechnology.com/DSS/V180DS.shtml

It's used mostly to analyze aircraft power systems and test APUs,
around 400 Hz. I don't do much 60 Hz metering these days.

Electric metering has some interesting math. It's actually hard to
make an electronic meter that's as good as the old rotating disk
things.

Have you designed any AC power stuff?



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christense]

lørdag den 29. juni 2019 kl. 17.06.41 UTC+2 skrev k...@notreal.com:

On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 00:01:23 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 7:52:00 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

Good thing we keep finding more oil and gas.

Addictions to other substances are destructive, as well.
Addicts don't always see it that way.

Addiction to things like air?

sure to kill you

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 13:55:40 -0700, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:

> you do know Ohms law ?

No, now you come to mention it, I've always wondered what that was. Must
look it up sometime. ;->



--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

 

On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 11:03:08 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 6/25/19 3:38 AM, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 03:21:13 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:


as far as I can tell JL neither believes that there are environmental
consequences to burning fossil fuels, or that the supply of fossil fuels
is in any way practically limited in other than a theoretical sense.

CO2 is greening the Earth. We have been in danger of running out over
the last hundred million years. The plants would all die if we don't
feed them.

As long as there are also sufficient more water and nutrients, the
higher CO2 level will increase plant growth.

Oh, do you suppose fresh water supplies _increase_ with increasing human
population and average temperatures?

With higher temperatures, the evaporation from sea and land will
increase, adding H2O into the atmosphere. To maintain humidity levels
below saturation, this will also increase total rainfall.

The rain might not fall in the same places as previously, but the
total rainfall is proportional to evaporation.


Right, fat lot of good it does if all that snow melt evaporates away in
the summer and rains out over the ocean before it can be used.

Of course it'll never snow again.

Lake Powell:

https://yourhub.denverpost.com/blog/2019/01/alert-lake-powell-is-near-historic-lows-and-thats-a-big-deal-for-denver/233480/

about 10% or more of the Colorado River's total yearly flow is now lost
in Lake Powell; the sandstone leaks about 3% of it away and the rest
into the evaporation rate which is increasing each year.

Sandstone is porous. That's something new! <what a maroon!>

 

On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 00:01:23 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 7:52:00 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

Good thing we keep finding more oil and gas.

Addictions to other substances are destructive, as well.
Addicts don't always see it that way.

Addiction to things like air?

 

On Wed, 26 Jun 2019 11:55:32 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 6/26/19 10:37 AM, trader4@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 8:02:15 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 6/25/19 7:53 PM, bitrex wrote:
On 6/25/19 5:51 PM, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 1:24:44 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 6/25/19 1:21 PM, bitrex wrote:

And you know what a young person might say at that point? FUCK YOU, OLD
MAN. Ha!

and I don't blame them one bit. Tell an old boostrap-theory
Puritan-work-ethic codger who could buy a new car for $2000 in 1973vto
go fuck themselves, today. It feels great!


Don't have to like it. Probably won't. Keep in mind though that a lot of
the "kids these days" think guillotines are a more cost-effective option
than caring for aging boomers who always want to go on and on about how
easy it all is.

Maybe we shouldn't teach French anymore?


citizens in positions of real power regularly, who are somewhat less
than pushing 75 years old on average, would probably be enough to please
'em.

The kids these days know well enough that the experience and wisdom that
can come with age has advantages in positions like that but lately often
have trouble finding anything but 10 year olds in 70 year old bodies
occupying them.

they accurately recognize having the bumbling and elderly running things
as the luxury-social-security-in-all-but-name program that it is and
start thinking about questions of expendability

Everyone's so shocked that there's a 29 y/o female ex-bartender holding
a seat in Congress only thing shocking is that it didn't happen sooner
given that prolly near half of her age bracket is stuck working service
industry dead-end jobs.

You think just maybe that's because she got a degree in economics and is
dumb as a brick?

She had a parent whose home was getting foreclosed on that needed
support and there aren't that many private sector jobs immediately
available for BU-educated economics majors in the Bronx, I imagine.

She probably could've done what many economics majors do and go for
their masters and PhD and end up teaching in the university system as an
adjunct, or in academia, respectively, but depending on the venue
bar-tending pays much better. and you don't end up $200,000 further in
debt. Doesn't sound so "economically illiterate" to me.

Six more years in college doesn't fix "dumb as a brick".

Also you don't have to deal with all the shit heads with PhDs in
academia who will be your bosses. they all got there because they were
very smart there was no sucking of dicks involved I assure you! okay
well maybe a few dicks.

Well, I suppose that is your experience. Mine's somewhat different.

still makes her "coastal elite" according to the standards of many
engineers here I'm sure; you can always be a "coastal elite" even if you
spent most your working life waiting tables while some probable autist
with an engineering degree who was playing with vacuum tubes at age 7
can imagine themselves working class by reading books about manly
professions like mining, trucking, logging and farming that they never did

As are you. Coastal elite snowflake.

 

On Sat, 29 Jun 2019 08:30:05 -0700 (PDT), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
<langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:

lřrdag den 29. juni 2019 kl. 17.06.41 UTC+2 skrev k...@notreal.com:
On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 00:01:23 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 7:52:00 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

Good thing we keep finding more oil and gas.

Addictions to other substances are destructive, as well.
Addicts don't always see it that way.

Addiction to things like air?

sure to kill you

So will going cold turkey.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 29 Jun 2019 11:06:25 -0400, krw@notreal.com wrote:

On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 00:01:23 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 7:52:00 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

Good thing we keep finding more oil and gas.

Addictions to other substances are destructive, as well.
Addicts don't always see it that way.

Addiction to things like air?

Coffee. Chocolate. Girls. Electronics.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

On Wed, 26 Jun 2019 19:34:57 -0000 (UTC), John Doe
<always.look@message.header> wrote:

Wait a minute... Just yesterday, Loony was bashing me for "knowing
nothing about electronics design". Now, Loony is bashing electronics
engineers...

What's so surprising? He's a coastal elite liberal-arts snowflake,
not an electronics engineer.

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 26 Jun 2019 11:55:32 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 6/26/19 10:37 AM, trader4@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 8:02:15 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 6/25/19 7:53 PM, bitrex wrote:
On 6/25/19 5:51 PM, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 1:24:44 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 6/25/19 1:21 PM, bitrex wrote:

And you know what a young person might say at that point? FUCK YOU, OLD
MAN. Ha!

and I don't blame them one bit. Tell an old boostrap-theory
Puritan-work-ethic codger who could buy a new car for $2000 in 1973vto
go fuck themselves, today. It feels great!


Don't have to like it. Probably won't. Keep in mind though that a lot of
the "kids these days" think guillotines are a more cost-effective option
than caring for aging boomers who always want to go on and on about how
easy it all is.

Maybe we shouldn't teach French anymore?


citizens in positions of real power regularly, who are somewhat less
than pushing 75 years old on average, would probably be enough to please
'em.

The kids these days know well enough that the experience and wisdom that
can come with age has advantages in positions like that but lately often
have trouble finding anything but 10 year olds in 70 year old bodies
occupying them.

they accurately recognize having the bumbling and elderly running things
as the luxury-social-security-in-all-but-name program that it is and
start thinking about questions of expendability

Everyone's so shocked that there's a 29 y/o female ex-bartender holding
a seat in Congress only thing shocking is that it didn't happen sooner
given that prolly near half of her age bracket is stuck working service
industry dead-end jobs.

You think just maybe that's because she got a degree in economics and is
dumb as a brick?

She had a parent whose home was getting foreclosed on that needed
support and there aren't that many private sector jobs immediately
available for BU-educated economics majors in the Bronx, I imagine.

She probably could've done what many economics majors do and go for
their masters and PhD and end up teaching in the university system as an
adjunct, or in academia, respectively, but depending on the venue
bar-tending pays much better. and you don't end up $200,000 further in
debt. Doesn't sound so "economically illiterate" to me.

Also you don't have to deal with all the shit heads with PhDs in
academia who will be your bosses. they all got there because they were
very smart there was no sucking of dicks involved I assure you! okay
well maybe a few dicks.

You seem to think about that a lot. Maybe some other newsgroup would
be more appropriate to your interests.




--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[whit3rd]

On Saturday, June 29, 2019 at 8:06:41 AM UTC-7, k...@notreal.com wrote:

On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 00:01:23 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 7:52:00 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

Good thing we keep finding more oil and gas.

Addictions to other substances are destructive, as well.
Addicts don't always see it that way.

Addiction to things like air?

In the old garden of Eden, there was no economy; all needs were
satisfied. For breathing air, that's still the economic model,
but it's an illusion: the (1952?) black fog in London killed thousands,
and air-quality regulation, with its associated costs, has been with us
ever since.

We don't just WANT air, we need it. Oil and gas, we just want. People
can live without consuming petrochemicals.

Corporate sales of air are not distorting your perceptions, but those of gas and
oil and coal put a LOT of PR money between your eyes and the reality.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, June 29, 2019 at 1:51:59 PM UTC+2, Tom Del Rosso wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 12:52:23 -0700 (PDT), omnilobe@gmail.com wrote:

A battery exchange station will replace the gas station.
It is faster to remove a battery block and put a fresh
block in than it is to fill a tank with gasoline. It is
safer than a self-driving auto-pilot tesla.

Is anyone doing that?

Around ten years ago I thought, if this EV thing continues, then we'll
have to go that way. Like a car wash where your car is pulled in and the
battery pack swapped.

Since a lot of the enviro-left live in cities where they park on the
street you'd think they would have thought about the impossibility of
charging "at home." Imagine what would happen if there were charging
stations all along the sidewalk, aside from being ugly.

Parking meters may be ugly, but there are a lot of them around, and throwing in a charging socket would trivial - Canadian parking meters already power your stop-the-radiator freezing heater ...

> Pay with a credit card and plug in, then the next guy parks in between stations that are in use, so he unplugs you and connects himself. Extension cords would have become available by then.

The paying-for-charging negotiation would be electronic, between the car and the charger. Next guy might unplug you and connect himself, but he'd pay for the current.

An electronically controlled mechanical lock on the charging plug/socket wouldn't be impractical.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 29 Jun 2019 11:53:15 -0400, krw@notreal.com wrote:

On Wed, 26 Jun 2019 19:34:57 -0000 (UTC), John Doe
always.look@message.header> wrote:

Wait a minute... Just yesterday, Loony was bashing me for "knowing
nothing about electronics design". Now, Loony is bashing electronics
engineers...

What's so surprising? He's a coastal elite liberal-arts snowflake,
not an electronics engineer.

Isn't he a coder?


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 11:03:08 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 6/25/19 3:38 AM, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 03:21:13 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:


as far as I can tell JL neither believes that there are environmental
consequences to burning fossil fuels, or that the supply of fossil fuels
is in any way practically limited in other than a theoretical sense.

CO2 is greening the Earth. We have been in danger of running out over
the last hundred million years. The plants would all die if we don't
feed them.

As long as there are also sufficient more water and nutrients, the
higher CO2 level will increase plant growth.

Oh, do you suppose fresh water supplies _increase_ with increasing human
population and average temperatures?

With higher temperatures, the evaporation from sea and land will
increase, adding H2O into the atmosphere. To maintain humidity levels
below saturation, this will also increase total rainfall.

The rain might not fall in the same places as previously, but the
total rainfall is proportional to evaporation.


Right, fat lot of good it does if all that snow melt evaporates away in
the summer and rains out over the ocean before it can be used.

Lake Powell:

https://yourhub.denverpost.com/blog/2019/01/alert-lake-powell-is-near-historic-lows-and-thats-a-big-deal-for-denver/233480/

about 10% or more of the Colorado River's total yearly flow is now lost
in Lake Powell; the sandstone leaks about 3% of it away and the rest
into the evaporation rate which is increasing each year.

Lake Powell is artificial, and most of its water is exported to
Arizona, Nevada, and California. There's nothing natural going on
there.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics