Numbers Just Aren't There To Continue With Internal Combusti

[Michael Coburn]

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 20:23:45 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

On 12 Jan 2009 23:06:19 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 12:16:51 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

On 11 Jan 2009 02:40:35 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net
wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 09:35:40 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 07:59:54 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

Right. ?If the USA had decent government run pension and health
care

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

systems

This is an oxymoron. We've had a government-run pension and health
care system since the Great Depression (1930's).

Nothing will work without tax hikes on the rich.

Surely you mean "nothing will work after tax hikes on the rich."

The best stimulus the government could do IMMEDIATELY is single payer
national health insurance.


Without some fundamental changes to the health care industry, just
having government pick up the "insurance" tab will probably make
things worse. Where's the money to come from?

The money comes from the same place it comes from now. It is just less
expensive to consolidate. The producers will take more money to the
bank as a result of the consolidation even though the tax bill will
rise.

Government-funded health care in the US is notorious for fraud and
waste. Insurance companies, for all their faults, are cost-sensitive; a
state getting Federal money is not.

What else would you like to jerk out of your ass and sling up on the
wall? The Republican mainstay. Just make shit up and lie as much as
possible. "a state getting federal money". Why would a state be
involved in a single payer national health insurance system? I know!!!
It would be so you could make shit up and lie as much as possible. It
might also be because you are just plain stupid.

The "legacy cost" at GM would shrink
considerably and no other American corporation would ever be ensnared
in that sort of crap again. The American companies can't compete with
the civilized nations and this is why.

Excuse me, but a lot of American companies do compete, and very well.

Manufacturing in the United States is much less profitable because we
can't take advantage of returns to scale in pensions and health care.
And that has been caused by unions and Republicans.

They tend to not be unionized, and the big unionized companies are
being Darwinized out of existance. That's life.

The union demands are being Darwinized and that is a fact. Many years
ago they went for the company health care deal because it fit their
closed shop approach. Now they are facing total destruction because of
it. But the points remain the same concerning health insurance and
pensions. The unions essentially screwed the non union workers out of
nationalized health insurance. They are now going to pay the price for
their private club greed.

The same situation exists with large versus small companies. The
smaller companies cannot compete with the larger because of the group
health size. And the proprietorships are totally screwed. Amazing how
the rightard can understand return to scale until you write government
on the box.

I have a small company, and we pay about the same for medical and dental
plans as a big one does.

And you probably have some land you'd like to sell.

And we have no desire to compete against big
companies. US companies can and do compete and thrive, but not in old
big-iron industries with massive unions dragging them down.

Must be those unions. It has to be. We don't need anything but
software. That is what makes corn, and wheat, and trucks and trains and
all the houses and all the rest.

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson

 

[John Larkin]

On 13 Jan 2009 07:25:21 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net>
wrote:

Must be those unions. It has to be. We don't need anything but
software. That is what makes corn, and wheat, and trucks and trains and
all the houses and all the rest.

In a low-margin business with established technology, like steel and
shipbuilding and manufacturing machine tools, labor costs are key to
survival, so low-wage offshore producers can kill US companies, and
have. US cars builders suffer form huge wage and benefit burdens as
well as years of klunky design.

US farmers are very productive, and not unionized.

The most successful US businesses have very high margins, selling
things for numbers like 5x what they cost to manufacture. The klunky
businesses are lucky to get a 5% margin, so are killed by competitors
with access to cheap labor.

Unless we wall off the rest of the world, that's the way things are
headed.

Got any thoughts, or just lame insults?

John

 

[krw]

In article <t3gpm4h50kfnd9fdjri68jt28jtkt261rs@4ax.com>,
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com says...>

On 13 Jan 2009 07:25:21 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net
wrote:



Must be those unions. It has to be. We don't need anything but
software. That is what makes corn, and wheat, and trucks and trains and
all the houses and all the rest.

In a low-margin business with established technology, like steel and
shipbuilding and manufacturing machine tools, labor costs are key to
survival, so low-wage offshore producers can kill US companies, and
have. US cars builders suffer form huge wage and benefit burdens as
well as years of klunky design.

The klunky design is a result of the same process that caused huge
costs.

US farmers are very productive, and not unionized.

Bingo!

The most successful US businesses have very high margins, selling
things for numbers like 5x what they cost to manufacture. The klunky
businesses are lucky to get a 5% margin, so are killed by competitors
with access to cheap labor.

Unless we wall off the rest of the world, that's the way things are
headed.

Which will cause even more problems.

Got any thoughts, or just lame insults?

Weenies never have thoughts, only whines.

 

[Michael Coburn]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 08:33:30 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

On 13 Jan 2009 07:25:21 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote:



Must be those unions. It has to be. We don't need anything but
software. That is what makes corn, and wheat, and trucks and trains and
all the houses and all the rest.

In a low-margin business with established technology, like steel and
shipbuilding and manufacturing machine tools, labor costs are key to
survival, so low-wage offshore producers can kill US companies, and
have. US cars builders suffer form huge wage and benefit burdens as well
as years of klunky design.

US farmers are very productive, and not unionized.

I think you need to spend a little more time on this one. The farmers
are very well organized and get a lot of government subsidies and other
goodies. And the real money is made in land rent as opposed to
production. They don't need a union because they have the lobby and they
have a lot of land ownership.

The most successful US businesses have very high margins, selling things
for numbers like 5x what they cost to manufacture. The klunky businesses
are lucky to get a 5% margin, so are killed by competitors with access
to cheap labor.

Go back to the farms. Take a look at the migrant Mexican labor pool.
The factories (helped along by the unions) are trying to do the same
thing. They are trying to unionize the illegals and the h2b workers.

Unless we wall off the rest of the world, that's the way things are
headed.

We could so with some walls.

Got any thoughts, or just lame insults?

The American middle class is getting screwed by "free trade". The trade
deficit is the 900 ton gorilla in this room.

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson

 

[krw]

In article <bdfd0e1f-c74b-465c-ad75-
c68401546acf@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>, BretCahill@peoplepc.com
says...>

?It
might also be because you are just plain stupid.

The idle banter of our sci.electronics.basics dunces is, without
question, a result of the recession.

Unemployed, eh Cahill?

It did not exist even two years ago.

It is 100% certain to get worse as the GOP tax cut recession gets
worse.

Oops. Make that "unemployable".

 

[Bret Cahill]

�It
might also be because you are just plain stupid.

The idle banter of our sci.electronics.basics dunces is, without
question, a result of the recession.

It did not exist even two years ago.

It is 100% certain to get worse as the GOP tax cut recession gets
worse.


Bret Cahill

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 08:30:30 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote:

?It
might also be because you are just plain stupid.

The idle banter of our sci.electronics.basics dunces is, without
question, a result of the recession.

---
Another attempt at casting a hook baited with "our"?

As if you had a good name around here and had some following?

You don't, and even the miscreants who support you, momentarily, realize
their error and evaporate.
---

It did not exist even two years ago.

---
The idle banter?

A lot you know.

It's always existed, and we've always been able to dispatch the idle
banterer's.

You're no exception.

You've already disgraced yourself with your claims expressing technical
acumen and your inability to support those claims, so you're just
another loser tossed up on our fair shores...

JF

 

[PinkFloyd43]

Bret Cahill wrote:

The most efficient power plant on the planet is a natural gas fired
industrial gas turbine made by GE -- 60% efficient.

It's down hill from there as far as efficiency is concerned so a few
points increase is a farce when compared to the impending 1000+%
increase in fuel prices.

The only way to go is hybrid electric with electrification of major
highways.

Do _not_ give automakers any bailout money unless they agree to go
completely hybrid.


Bret Cahill


OMG, Bret Cahill had the answer that literllay 1,000's of engineers

have been working on 10 hours a day for the past 30 years! You go
girl! BTW, I am also requesting bail-out as my home business is totally
in the shitter!

 

[Bret Cahill]

The most efficient power plant on the planet is a natural gas fired
industrial gas turbine made by GE -- 60% efficient.

It's down hill from there as far as efficiency is concerned so a few
points increase is a farce when compared to the impending 1000+%
increase in fuel prices.

The only way to go is hybrid electric with electrification of major
highways.

Do _not_ give automakers any bailout money unless they agree to go
completely hybrid.

Bret Cahill

OMG, Bret Cahill had the answer that literllay 1,000's of engineers
have been working on 10 hours a day for the past 30 years!

You care what happens to your taxpayer dollars?


Bret Cahill

 

[Eeyore]

Bret Cahill wrote:

The most efficient power plant on the planet is a natural gas fired
industrial gas turbine made by GE -- 60% efficient.

LIAR !

http://www.mandiesel.com/category_000082.html

MAN Diesel offers a wide range of engines for stationary power
generation. Outstanding fuel flexibility is one of our core competences.
Our system expertise ranges from captive power generation for
applications in the cement, textile, mining or oil and gas industries,
to power solutions for municipalities, utilities or independent power
producers.

MAN Diesel designs and builds turn-key power stations. On-shore or as
power barges, using modular designs. In this way, each power plant can
be extended step-by-step to keep pace with increasing power demand. In
combined heat and power mode (CHP) they generate both electrical power
and thermal energy and so overall energy utilisation levels as high as
95%. Our experts in application engineering and project management are
the key to achieving very short construction times: from zero to 280 MW
power output in 17 months.


Graham

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 12:33:19 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradguth@gmail.com>
wrote:

Bret Cahill wrote:
The most efficient power plant on the planet is a natural gas fired
industrial gas turbine made by GE -- 60% efficient.

It's down hill from there as far as efficiency is concerned so a few
points increase is a farce when compared to the impending 1000+%
increase in fuel prices.

The only way to go is hybrid electric with electrification of major
highways.

Do _not_ give automakers any bailout money unless they agree to go
completely hybrid.


Bret Cahill

This topic is going to get you into nothing but serious trouble with
the fossil fuel Mafia cabals and cartels.

Don't forget about green/renewable energy that's making affordable H2
and h2o2, not to mention helping to create nifty synfuels (including
out of CO2). There's also thorium reactors that'll give us clean and
failsafe energy at 10% the birth-to-grave cost of conventional nuclear
energy.

---
Interesting.

I just now stumbled onto your series of what seem to be nonsense posts
created, ostensibly, to make it seem like you know what you're talking
about.

In particular, it seems that for your thorium reactor's birth-to-death
cost of 10% of conventional nuke it'd put out something less than
conventional nuke would.

Where's the breakeven point?

JF

 

[BradGuth]

On Jan 24, 4:25 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 12:33:19 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com
wrote:



Bret Cahill wrote:
The most efficient power plant on the planet is a natural gas fired
industrial gas turbine made by GE -- 60% efficient.

It's down hill from there as far as efficiency is concerned so a few
points increase is a farce when compared to the impending 1000+%
increase in fuel prices.

The only way to go is hybrid electric with electrification of major
highways.

Do _not_ give automakers any bailout money unless they agree to go
completely hybrid.

Bret Cahill

This topic is going to get you into nothing but serious trouble with
the fossil fuel Mafia cabals and cartels.

Don't forget about green/renewable energy that's making affordable H2
and h2o2, not to mention helping to create nifty synfuels (including
out of CO2).  There's also thorium reactors that'll give us clean and
failsafe energy at 10% the birth-to-grave cost of conventional nuclear
energy.

---
Interesting.

I just now stumbled onto your series of what seem to be nonsense posts
created, ostensibly, to make it seem like you know what you're talking
about.

In particular, it seems that for your thorium reactor's birth-to-death
cost of 10% of conventional nuke it'd put out something less than
conventional nuke would.

Where's the breakeven point?

JF  

Obviously you don't wish to deal with the all-inclusive birth to grave
cost, including environmental and long term human health and even
genetic considerations.

There's no argument that thorium gives us back more than we'll ever
have to put into such energy usage, and it's long term impact isn't a
fraction of what conventional nuclear energy leaves us with.

What's the elimination of weapons grade plutonium and thus greatly
reducing the chances of WWIII worth? (obviously it's worth less than
nothing in your mindset).

It's takes a whole lot more thorium in order to create a sufficient
reaction for a thermonuclear reactor to extract sufficient energy
that's equal to a uranium fueled reactor. But so what? (we've got
more local thorium than we know what to do with)

~ BG

 

[Richard The Dreaded Liber]

On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 14:37:19 -0800, BradGuth wrote:

There's no argument that thorium gives us back more than we'll ever
have to put into such energy usage, and it's long term impact isn't a
fraction of what conventional nuclear energy leaves us with.

Is that American style "conventional", as in 1950's technology, or the
kind of "conventional" that arose from the ensuing 60 years of R&D in
the countries that aren't ruled by paranoids?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Michael Coburn]

On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 23:30:24 +0000, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian wrote:

On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 14:37:19 -0800, BradGuth wrote:

There's no argument that thorium gives us back more than we'll ever
have to put into such energy usage, and it's long term impact isn't a
fraction of what conventional nuclear energy leaves us with.

Is that American style "conventional", as in 1950's technology, or the
kind of "conventional" that arose from the ensuing 60 years of R&D in
the countries that aren't ruled by paranoids?

Does it matter?

I look at the thorium stuff and it looks pretty good to me. But that
isn't really saying much because I am no scientist. The major portions
are for me the cost per watt, the safety, and the long term disposal
problems. I am lead to believe that the thorium stuff kicks the hell out
of the French reactors and that it is much more easily decentralized
(modularized). Those things mean a lot to people who like to be
reasonably safe from terrorists. I speak of my own government being in
the terrorist business as well as the religious nutters. The idea of
building these modules in a factory and burying them on site for 10 years
and then hauling them to some place like Yucca Mountain and retrofitting
and disposing is very attractive to me. It really gets down to how
safely these things can be moved around. It may be that they are best
left on site for 10 years and then moved. All of that is as yet to be
discussed but it seems that there are a lot more options than with the
huge site built nuclear reactor deal.

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson

 

[BradGuth]

On Jan 27, 3:30 pm, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian <n...@example.net>
wrote:

On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 14:37:19 -0800, BradGuth wrote:

There's no argument that thorium gives us back more than we'll ever
have to put into such energy usage, and it's long term impact isn't a
fraction of what conventional nuclear energy leaves us with.

Is that American style "conventional", as in 1950's technology, or the
kind of "conventional" that arose from the ensuing 60 years of R&D in
the countries that aren't ruled by paranoids?

Thanks,
Rich

France is even going towards thorium, and perhaps they should know.

~ BG

 

[BradGuth]

On Jan 27, 4:51 pm, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:

On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 23:30:24 +0000, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian wrote:

On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 14:37:19 -0800, BradGuth wrote:

There's no argument that thorium gives us back more than we'll ever
have to put into such energy usage, and it's long term impact isn't a
fraction of what conventional nuclear energy leaves us with.

Is that American style "conventional", as in 1950's technology, or the
kind of "conventional" that arose from the ensuing 60 years of R&D in
the countries that aren't ruled by paranoids?

Does it matter?

I look at the thorium stuff and it looks pretty good to me.  But that
isn't really saying much because I am no scientist.  The major portions
are for me the cost per watt, the safety, and the long term disposal
problems.  I am lead to believe that the thorium stuff kicks the hell out
of the French reactors and that it is much more easily decentralized
(modularized).  Those things mean a lot to people who like to be
reasonably safe from terrorists.  I speak of my own government being in
the terrorist business as well as the religious nutters.  The idea of
building these modules in a factory and burying them on site for 10 years
and then hauling them to some place like Yucca Mountain and retrofitting
and disposing is very attractive to me.  It really gets down to how
safely these things can be moved around.  It may be that they are best
left on site for 10 years and then moved.  All of that is as yet to be
discussed but it seems that there are a lot more options than with the
huge site built nuclear reactor deal.

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson

Thorium reactors are failsafe enough to put in the center of most any
town, though ideally if mostly underground and using geothermal heat
transfer instead of the typical cooling tower. Even their waste heat
could be put to good commercial and residential use.

What town couldn't use a local gigawatt of affordably clean energy
that's mostly out of sight, reliable and relatively failsafe to boot?

~ BG