Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If you knew the cost of the power plants isn't all that important,A busy freeway lane (1/2 safe following distance) dissipates 2 MW
mechanical energy/mile/lane.
Now let's be complete morons and ignore the supply - demand curve for
oil and ignore Obama holding the Fed by the short hairs and pretend
fuel will stay at $2.50 gallon:
$2.50/gallon X 2,000 kW/mile / (13 kW-hr mechanical energy/gallon) =
$385/mile-hr = $3.2 million/mile-year for fuel.
If the cost of a power plant is $4/watt then the cost of the power
plant/mile is $8 million.
In other words, the fuel savings from electrification would pay for
the capital cost of the power plants in 2 1/2 years.
Maybe.
A few weeks would be closer to the payback time as fuel will be $15/
gallon before this is shovel ready.
Once again you totally ignore the cost to build the necessary infrastructure
and maintain it, which would be far more than the power plants.
The percentage is irrelevant if it is anything more than zero.Do you know the percentage of time it is raining in various parts of
the country?
Oil isn't sold by the gallon.And then that cost is compared to the cost of the trillions of dollars
going to oil rich despotisms.
Annual US oil import have totalled about 5 billion barrels for years.
In 2008, oil was at it's higest price
Which will seem like the good ol' days in a couple of years.
and averaged a bit under $100/bbl
for the year.
That's $0.5 trillion, not trillions.
0.5 trillion / year or 3 - 5 trillion by the time electrification is
"shovel ready."
But only a complete moron thinks oil will stay at or below $5/gallon.
I though your big concern was oil from "oil rich despotisms".Roughly 3/5 of the imported oil came from Canada and Mexico.
It's irrelevant which country it comes from as all oil is traded at
world market prices.
You seem to be obsessed by spreadsheets.I'm still having trouble figgering out where the word "huge" goes in
Excel.
Yes, you are, you just don't seem to be able to understand that.No one said anything about rebuilding the entire Eisenhower Interstate
Highway System, although, if that became necessary, it would certainly
be more cost effective than paying $15/gallon for fuel.
No, it can't, and it is childish to think it could be, but irrelevantJust cut out some concrete and insert the conductor. It could be done
from a truck.
You certainly are obsessed with spreadsheets.Where does the term "far more" go into the spread sheet?
If you think it is otherwise, let's see some numbers.Once again you totally ignore the cost to build the necessary infrastructure
and maintain it, which would be far more than the power plants.
You have a number for "far more?"
Maybe you meant an "order of magnitude more."
The vast majority find it more economical to buy.I once considered an electric car conversion, because
electricity is cheaper than gasoline. The batteries are the
killer. Cost of batteries per mile is about the same as gasoline
per mile. That pushed the advantage to the gasoline powered car.
If you could dispose of the batteries, it would be no contest:
electric cars would be the way to go.
What if you didn't have to buy the batteries?
http://www.betterplace.com/
You _always_ have to buy the batteries.
Is it against the law to lease batteries where you live?
Is it against the law to lease cars where you live?
If not, then why are so few doing it?
The reason is it's cheaper to get financing and _buy_ the car.
That depends on the initial cost of the car. Many high end cars *are*
leased because it is cheaper to do that than get financing to buy them.
Also leasers tend to accept that they will not be keeping the car for
its entire life. Lot's of people lease their housing for the same reason.
Does the charge last a week?Using the Better Place business model, the car owner will only posses a
particular battery for about a week
The battery doesn't even exist?out of its proposed 25 year
life-span.
Depends on what you are charging and on what basis.At that turnover rate, it's silly to buy.
No answer?Seriously though, look at Better Place's business plan.
A business plan ain't going to reduce the 3X higher cost of motoring
using battery only.
Then why is it a "proposed" battery?They aren't
hoping for some pie in the sky "future technology",
The sooner you quit using my name / threads for free advertising ofThen it's _guaranteed_ that it'll be 3X more expensive than road bed
electrification.
I guess you will have to put me in the same camp as the rest of your
detractors then.
And roadbed electrification is pay as you go with hybrid electricWe are stuck with having to evolve from what we have to
what we want.
You have it backwards.If 100% roadbed electrification is your goal, then the
first step is to dramatically increase the number of EVs on the road.
How does that preclude batteries that are bought outright?That can only be done with batteries on board.
Your first step needs to be able to explain why it's cheaper forI expect that you might dispute my first step, if so, then what do you
think the first step should be?
Let me guess, you have testimonials from "happy customers."they are fully in
the here and now. As far as I understand, they already have two
countries (Israel and Denmark) and one state (Hawaii) signed up.
Let me guess, your sales are top secret.If you want to discuss niche markets, feel free to start another
thread.
I think discussing "niche markets" is better than discussing
non-markets, especially if whole countries are considered "niche".
Do you know the percentage of time it is raining in various parts ofIf the cost of a power plant is $4/watt then the cost of the power
plant/mile is $8 million.
In other words, the fuel savings from electrification would pay for the
capital cost of the power plants in 2 1/2 years.
What is the cost to run power conductors in the roads, and to re-work all
cars to be electric? I'm not saying it is a bad idea; had we gone with
electric cars from the beginning, this would be an excellent idea. But it
sounds like a lot of re-work and the analysis isn't complete.
It might work in a small community. Zermatt in
Switzerland banned internal combustion engine
vehicles (except for some special vehicles like
fire engines) about 20 years ago, both to reduce
air pollution (important in this tourist town)
and because of the very narrow streets. Almost
all vehicle trffic is electric, running off
batteries. It would be much greener to have
no batteries at all and run everything directly
off the grid.
And if we had Mr. Fusioni running on banana peels, life would be wonderful.
Everyone agrees an electrification system could be made to work in a
controlled environment. �We only need to look at subways and toys to
know it works.
Toys?
The only plausible issues that have been raised so far that may be a
problem are rainwater, dust, crankcase oil and debris from vehicles
and possibly vehicles themselves rolling over.
May be a problem?
News flash; water is conductive and causes all sorts of problems
for electrical systems.
These problems -- and their solutions -- could be identified at very
low cost without adapting a single Prius or Peterbilt or GM Volt.
The problem has already been identified at zero cost; water is conductive..
Just for giggles I looked it up.Do you know the percentage of time it is raining in various parts of
the country?
Which will seem like the good ol' days in a couple of years.And then that cost is compared to the cost of the trillions of dollars
going to oil rich despotisms.
Annual US oil import have totalled about 5 billion barrels for years.
In 2008, oil was at it's higest price
0.5 trillion / year or 3 - 5 trillion by the time electrification isand averaged a bit under $100/bbl
for the year.
That's $0.5 trillion, not trillions.
It's irrelevant which country it comes from as all oil is traded atRoughly 3/5 of the imported oil came from Canada and Mexico.
Until you try to get it, on the fly, into a car that's going 85 MPH.A busy freeway lane (1/2 safe following distance) dissipates 2 MW
mechanical energy/mile/lane.
Now let's be complete morons and ignore the supply - demand curve for
oil and ignore Obama holding the Fed by the short hairs and pretend
fuel will stay at $2.50 gallon:
$2.50/gallon X 2,000 kW/mile / ?(13 kW-hr mechanical energy/gallon) =
$385/mile-hr = $3.2 million/mile-year for fuel.
If the cost of a power plant is $4/watt then the cost of the power
plant/mile is $8 million.
In other words, the fuel savings from electrification would pay for
the capital cost of the power plants in 2 1/2 years.
Maybe.
Your units are so bizarre it is hard to make sense of your numbers.
Yes. He's comparing the one-time capital cost of an electric plant to
an ongoing gasoline fuel cost. Do electric plants get their fuel for
free?
Jimmy Carter got the grid off of liquid fuel decades ago.
That's the _whole point_ of electrification.
Oil free grid power is much cheaper than liquid fuel.
If your ideas make economic sense, they'll happen. Let's wait and see.Are you this dumb in real life or are you just pulling our legs?
OK, just never drive more than 40 miles from a freeway.. . .
A more sane person would use the daily vehicle-miles times the
average vehicle MPG to get the fuel usage.
Now, what is the construction and maintenance costs to electrify
roadways?
That, too.
Sounds like you want to be on the committee that sets up the spread
sheet.
We could use overhead metal sheets, like the bumper cars at
the beach.
Then thangs are ugly at the beach and would be even uglier on the
freeway.
And what do you do when you exit the freeway for the street?
That's when you use the battery which has just been fully charged up
from the freeway.
Hey, we could have biofuel reloading facilities near every freeway! WeOr you could use bio fuel in your plug in hybrid's tank.
made to push their dead, heavy electric cars off the roadway.The single magic bullet solution folk need to be lined up and . . .
No one said anything about rebuilding the entire Eisenhower InterstateA busy freeway lane (1/2 safe following distance) dissipates 2 MW
mechanical energy/mile/lane.
Now let's be complete morons and ignore the supply - demand curve for
oil and ignore Obama holding the Fed by the short hairs and pretend
fuel will stay at $2.50 gallon:
$2.50/gallon X 2,000 kW/mile / (13 kW-hr mechanical energy/gallon) =
$385/mile-hr = $3.2 million/mile-year for fuel.
If the cost of a power plant is $4/watt then the cost of the power
plant/mile is $8 million.
In other words, the fuel savings from electrification would pay for
the capital cost of the power plants in 2 1/2 years.
Maybe.
A few weeks would be closer to the payback time as fuel will be $15/
gallon before this is shovel ready.
Once again you totally ignore the cost to build the necessary infrastructure
and maintain it, which would be far more than the power plants.
If you knew the cost of the power plants isn't all that important,
then why did _you_ raise the issue?
It isn't that much by comparison to the cost of building and maintaining
the roadway infrastructure,
But, as was clearly shown above, electrification pays for the "hugebut it is still a huge cost.
You have a number for "far more?"A busy freeway lane (1/2 safe following distance) dissipates 2 MW
mechanical energy/mile/lane.
Now let's be complete morons and ignore the supply - demand curve for
oil and ignore Obama holding the Fed by the short hairs and pretend
fuel will stay at $2.50 gallon:
$2.50/gallon X 2,000 kW/mile / (13 kW-hr mechanical energy/gallon) =
$385/mile-hr = $3.2 million/mile-year for fuel.
If the cost of a power plant is $4/watt then the cost of the power
plant/mile is $8 million.
In other words, the fuel savings from electrification would pay for
the capital cost of the power plants in 2 1/2 years.
Maybe.
A few weeks would be closer to the payback time as fuel will be $15/
gallon before this is shovel ready.
Once again you totally ignore the cost to build the necessary infrastructure
and maintain it, which would be far more than the power plants.
I don't know enough about this subject to answer your questions, but IDaniel T. wrote:
If 100% roadbed electrification is your goal, then the
first step is to dramatically increase the number of EVs on the road.
You have it backwards.
The first step is to electrify the roadbed and then allow market
forces to allow consumers choice in selecting their vehicle.
I see you've not studied science either.I get it now. Usenet is a game where suckers come in and offer an idea,
and the regular users try and think of every stupid reason in the world
it is impossible and to belittle anyone who actually SAYS anything.
I see you're wrong.On Sun, 31 May 2009 18:46:00 -0500, Marvin the Martian
marvin@ontomars.org> wrote:
I get it now. Usenet is a game where suckers come in and offer an idea,
and the regular users try and think of every stupid reason in the world
it is impossible and to belittle anyone who actually SAYS anything.
I see you've not studied science either.
On Sun, 31 May 2009 18:51:54 -0500, krw wrote:
On Sun, 31 May 2009 18:46:00 -0500, Marvin the Martian
marvin@ontomars.org> wrote:
I get it now. Usenet is a game where suckers come in and offer an idea,
and the regular users try and think of every stupid reason in the world
it is impossible and to belittle anyone who actually SAYS anything.
I see you've not studied science either.
I see you're wrong.
My observation is that a bunch of people with weak egos come here to
insult people, throwing every petty and slightest objection at them as if
it was a law of physics.
Like the claim that snow makes electric cars on electrified roads
impossible. I still see the electric buses moving down Seattle streets
when it snows, so that is obviously not true. But the people making the
objections never have to PROVE their statements, so it is no problem to
them if they are completely wrong, and they go away feeling oh so
superior.
The goal was to run electric cars without batteries. It's been done withMarvin the Martian wrote:
On Sun, 31 May 2009 18:51:54 -0500, krw wrote:
On Sun, 31 May 2009 18:46:00 -0500, Marvin the Martian
marvin@ontomars.org> wrote:
I get it now. Usenet is a game where suckers come in and offer an
idea, and the regular users try and think of every stupid reason in
the world it is impossible and to belittle anyone who actually SAYS
anything.
I see you've not studied science either.
I see you're wrong.
My observation is that a bunch of people with weak egos come here to
insult people, throwing every petty and slightest objection at them as
if it was a law of physics.
Like the claim that snow makes electric cars on electrified roads
impossible. I still see the electric buses moving down Seattle streets
when it snows, so that is obviously not true. But the people making the
objections never have to PROVE their statements, so it is no problem to
them if they are completely wrong, and they go away feeling oh so
superior.
Those are powered by overhead canenary lines, not high voltage rails
embedded into the roadway.
Which proves that you're just another damaged ego on the usenet, lookingDon't go a way mad. Oh, too late, here they are with your straight
jacket. Just go away, and don't bother to write..
Nope, that was never in this thread.On Sun, 31 May 2009 20:15:59 -0400, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Sun, 31 May 2009 18:51:54 -0500, krw wrote:
On Sun, 31 May 2009 18:46:00 -0500, Marvin the Martian
marvin@ontomars.org> wrote:
I get it now. Usenet is a game where suckers come in and offer an
idea, and the regular users try and think of every stupid reason in
the world it is impossible and to belittle anyone who actually SAYS
anything.
I see you've not studied science either.
I see you're wrong.
My observation is that a bunch of people with weak egos come here to
insult people, throwing every petty and slightest objection at them as
if it was a law of physics.
Like the claim that snow makes electric cars on electrified roads
impossible. I still see the electric buses moving down Seattle streets
when it snows, so that is obviously not true. But the people making the
objections never have to PROVE their statements, so it is no problem to
them if they are completely wrong, and they go away feeling oh so
superior.
Those are powered by overhead canenary lines, not high voltage rails
embedded into the roadway.
The goal was to run electric cars without batteries. It's been done with
electric buses, electric trains and subways for a century. It is amazing
to find so many people think it is impossible.
Jim P. mentioned winter in another post. Snow wouldIf the cost of a power plant is $4/watt then the cost of the power
plant/mile is $8 million.
In other words, the fuel savings from electrification would pay for the
capital cost of the power plants in 2 1/2 years.
What is the cost to run power conductors in the roads, and to re-work all
cars to be electric? I'm not saying it is a bad idea; had we gone with
electric cars from the beginning, this would be an excellent idea. But it
sounds like a lot of re-work and the analysis isn't complete.
It might work in a small community. Zermatt in
Switzerland banned internal combustion engine
vehicles (except for some special vehicles like
fire engines) about 20 years ago, both to reduce
air pollution (important in this tourist town)
and because of the very narrow streets. Almost
all vehicle trffic is electric, running off
batteries. It would be much greener to have
no batteries at all and run everything directly
off the grid.
And if we had Mr. Fusioni running on banana peels, life would be wonderful.
Everyone agrees an electrification system could be made to work in a
controlled environment. We only need to look at subways and toys to
know it works.
The only plausible issues that have been raised so far that may be a
problem are rainwater, dust, crankcase oil and debris from vehicles
and possibly vehicles themselves rolling over.
These problems -- and their solutions -- could be identified at very
low cost without adapting a single Prius or Peterbilt or GM Volt.
A 50' section of a lane could be electrified in several different
environments and situations around the country in locations where it
was convenient to monitor, i. e., in front of truck scales.
If roads without proper drainage tended to short out the system then
the cost of draining all the low areas makes it way into the spread
sheet.
And then that cost is compared to the cost of the trillions of dollars
going to oil rich despotisms.
Bret Cahill