Power Plant Construction Cost << 2% of Liquid Fuel Cost Over

[Bret Cahill]

Because gas is still cheap? Because it isn't in the economic interest
of existing car companies to become commodity manufacturers? What a
silly question.

What a stupid statement. The first problem is the existing power
grid. I heard on the news that 120 billion is needed right now to add
capacity.

We paid that much for overseas oil in the past 10 weeks.

An all electric transportation system would make that a drop
in the money pit.

We don't need to worry about where "drop in the money pit" goes in the
spread sheet.

This is the most elementary of calculations:

1. the mechanical energy possible with a $3 gallon of fuel is 13 kW-
hr so buying fuel for 13 kW 24/7/52 of power over the next 50 years
costs $3/hr X 24 hours X 356 days/yr X 50 yr =

$1.3 million dollars

2. a power plant costs $2 - $4 /watt so running a 13 kW electric
motor over the next 50 years would cost

$26,000 - $53,000.

Now compare $26,000 - $53,000 in power plant cost to $1.3 million in
fuel costs.

The power plant capital cost pays for itself in fuel savings by a
factor of 20 - 50 times over.

And that's assuming fuel will remain at $3/gallon (yesterday's price
for unleaded in LA).

More realistically the price of fuel will be $10/gallon in 3 years and
much much more in the not too distant future.

Then the capital cost of the power plant is so negligible compared to
fuel it can be omitted altogether in _any_ spread sheet.

A much larger cost is the operating cost of the plant: $500,000 -
$800,000 for the 13 kW over the 50 year period.

If you transport the electricity by charging batteries, the cost of 13
kW power over the next 50 years will be $1.7 million to $2 million.

It's cheaper to buy fuel at $3/gallon.

But nothing will be cheaper than roadbed electrification.

.. . .

You've been sold a bill of goods, and haven't done
any research.

Anytime you want to sue in small claims court to recover any tuition
you may have squandered on some scam electronics trade school, I'll be
glad to testify on your behalf.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

Not surprising when you do the numbers.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Green Energy Overtakes Fossil Fuel Investment, Says UN


by Terry Macalister


\


Green energy overtook fossil fuels in attracting investment for power
generation for the first time last year, according to figures released
today
by the United Nations.


Wind, solar and other clean technologies attracted $140bn (�85bn)
compared
with $110bn for gas and coal for electrical power generation, with
more than
a third of the green cash destined for Britain and the rest of
Europe.


The biggest growth for renewable investment came from China, India and
other
developing countries, which are fast catching up on the West in
switching
out of fossil fuels to improve energy security and tackle climate
change.


"There have been many milestones reached in recent years, but this
report
suggests renewable energy has now reached a tipping point where it is
as
important - if not more important - in the global energy mix than
fossil
fuels," said Achim Steiner, executive director of the UN's
Environment
Programme.


It was very encouraging that a variety of new renewable sectors were
attracting capital, while different geographical areas such as Kenya
and
Angola were entering the field, he added.


The UN still believes $750bn needs to be spent worldwide between 2009
and
2011 and the current year has started ominously with a 53% slump in
first
quarter renewables investment to $13.3bn.


Counting energy efficiency and other measures, more than $155bn of new
money
was invested in clean energy companies and projects, even though
capital
raised on public stock markets fell 51% to $11.4bn and green firms saw
share
prices slump more than 60% over 2008, according to the report, Global
Trends
in Sustainable Energy, drawn up for the UN by the New Energy Finance
(NEF)
consultancy in London.


Wind, where the US is now global leader, attracted the highest new
worldwide
investment, $51.8bn, followed by solar at $33.5bn. The former
represented
annual growth of only 1%, while the latter was up by nearly 50%
year-on-year.


Biofuels were the next most popular investment, winning $16.9bn, but
down 9%
on 2007, as the sector was hit by overcapacity issues in the US and
political opposition, with ethanol being blamed for rising food
prices.


Europe is still the main centre for investment in green power with
$50bn
being pumped into projects across the continent, an increase of 2% on
last
year, while the figure for America was $30bn, down 8%.


But while overall spending in the West dipped nearly 2%, there was a
27%
rise to $36.6bn in developing countries led by China, which pumped in
$15.6bn, mostly in wind and biomass plants.


China more than doubled its installed wind turbine capacity to 11GW
of
capacity, while Indian wind investment was up 17% to $2.6bn, as its
overall
clean tech spending rose to $4.1bn in 2008, 12% up on 2007 levels.


A number of Green New Deals - government reflationary packages
designed to
kickstart economies and boost action to counter climate change - have
been
laid out by ministers around the world.


The slump in global renewable �investment during the first quarter of
2009
has alarmed the UN and New Energy �Finance, the London-based
consultancy
that compiled the figures for the UN.


Michael Liebreich, chief executive of NEF, said the second quarter
had
revealed "green shoots" of recovery, which indicated this year could
end up
with investment at the upper end of a $95bn to $115bn range, but still
a
quarter down on 2008 at the least.


About $3bn of new money had been raised via initial public offerings
or
secondary issues on the stock markets in the second quarter, compared
with
none in the first three months of this year.


The New Energy Index of clean tech stocks, which had slumped from a
450 high
to 134 by March, had since bounced back to 230, while more project
financing
had been raised in the last six weeks than in the 13 before that, he
said.


But Steiner and Liebreich are still anxious that politicians do more
to
stimulate growth.


"There is a strong case for further measures, such as requiring
state-supported banks to raise lending to the �sector, providing
capital
gains tax exemptions on investments in clean technology, creating a
framework for Green Bonds and so on, all targeted at getting
investment
flowing," said Liebreich.


It is important stimulus funds start flowing immediately, not in a
year or
so, he added: "Many of the policies to achieve growth over the medium-
term
are already in place, including feed-in tariff regimes, mandatory
renewable
energy targets and tax incentives. There is too much emphasis amongst
some
policy-makers on support mechanisms, and not enough on the urgent
needs of
investors right now."


guardian.co.uk ďż˝ Guardian News and Media Limited 2009

Because gas is still cheap? Because it isn't in the economic interest
of existing car companies to become commodity manufacturers? What a
silly question.
What a stupid statement. The first problem is the existing power
grid. I heard on the news that 120 billion is needed right now to add
capacity.

We paid that much for overseas oil in the past 10 weeks.

An all electric transportation system would make that a drop
in the money pit.

We don't need to worry about where "drop in the money pit" goes in the
spread sheet.

This is the most elementary of calculations:

1. �the mechanical energy possible with a $3 gallon of fuel is 13 kW-
hr so buying fuel for 13 kW 24/7/52 of power over the next 50 years
costs $3/hr X 24 hours X 356 days/yr X 50 yr
$1.3 million dollars

2. �a power plant costs $2 - $4 /watt so running a 13 kW electric
motor over the next 50 years would cost

$26,000 - $53,000.

Now compare $26,000 - $53,000 in power plant cost to $1.3 million in
fuel costs.

The power plant capital cost pays for itself in fuel savings by a
factor of 20 - 50 times over.

And that's assuming fuel will remain at $3/gallon ďż˝(yesterday's price
for unleaded in LA).

More realistically the price of fuel will be $10/gallon in 3 years and
much much more in the not too distant future.

Then the capital cost of the power plant is so negligible compared to
fuel it can be omitted altogether in _any_ spread sheet.

A much larger cost is the operating cost of the plant: $500,000 -
$800,000 for the 13 kW over the 50 year period.

If you transport the electricity by charging batteries, the cost of 13
kW power over the next 50 years will be $1.7 million to $2 million.

It's cheaper to buy fuel at $3/gallon.

But nothing will be cheaper than roadbed electrification.

. . .

You've been sold a bill of goods, and haven't done
any research.

Anytime you want to sue in small claims court to recover any tuition
you may have squandered on some scam electronics trade school, I'll be
glad to testify on your behalf.

Bret Cahill

 

[Andy F.]

"Bret Cahill" &lt;BretCahill@peoplepc.com&gt; wrote in message
news:708de5a5-ae68-4375-95c7-a4aa80e30ec1@e20g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...

Because gas is still cheap? Because it isn't in the economic interest
of existing car companies to become commodity manufacturers? What a
silly question.

What a stupid statement. The first problem is the existing power
grid. I heard on the news that 120 billion is needed right now to add
capacity.

We paid that much for overseas oil in the past 10 weeks.

An all electric transportation system would make that a drop
in the money pit.

We don't need to worry about where "drop in the money pit" goes in the
spread sheet.

This is the most elementary of calculations:

1. the mechanical energy possible with a $3 gallon of fuel is 13 kW-
hr so buying fuel for 13 kW 24/7/52 of power over the next 50 years
costs $3/hr X 24 hours X 356 days/yr X 50 yr =

$1.3 million dollars

2. a power plant costs $2 - $4 /watt so running a 13 kW electric
motor over the next 50 years would cost

$26,000 - $53,000.

Now compare $26,000 - $53,000 in power plant cost to $1.3 million in
fuel costs.

The power plant capital cost pays for itself in fuel savings by a
factor of 20 - 50 times over.

And that's assuming fuel will remain at $3/gallon (yesterday's price
for unleaded in LA).

More realistically the price of fuel will be $10/gallon in 3 years and
much much more in the not too distant future.

Then the capital cost of the power plant is so negligible compared to
fuel it can be omitted altogether in _any_ spread sheet.

A much larger cost is the operating cost of the plant: $500,000 -
$800,000 for the 13 kW over the 50 year period.

If you transport the electricity by charging batteries, the cost of 13
kW power over the next 50 years will be $1.7 million to $2 million.

It's cheaper to buy fuel at $3/gallon.

But nothing will be cheaper than roadbed electrification.

That's a ridiculous claim, since you haven't even begun to estimate the

costs of building and maintaining the infrastructure you'd need for that.

 

[Bret Cahill]

Because gas is still cheap? Because it isn't in the economic interest
of existing car companies to become commodity manufacturers? What a
silly question.

What a stupid statement. The first problem is the existing power
grid. I heard on the news that 120 billion is needed right now to add
capacity.

We paid that much for overseas oil in the past 10 weeks.

An all electric transportation system would make that a drop
in the money pit.

We don't need to worry about where "drop in the money pit" goes in the
spread sheet.

This is the most elementary of calculations:

1. �the mechanical energy possible with a $3 gallon of fuel is 13 kW-
hr so buying fuel for 13 kW 24/7/52 of power over the next 50 years
costs $3/hr X 24 hours X 356 days/yr X 50 yr
$1.3 million dollars

2. �a power plant costs $2 - $4 /watt so running a 13 kW electric
motor over the next 50 years would cost

$26,000 - $53,000.

Now compare $26,000 - $53,000 in power plant cost to $1.3 million in
fuel costs.

The power plant capital cost pays for itself in fuel savings by a
factor of 20 - 50 times over.

And that's assuming fuel will remain at $3/gallon ďż˝(yesterday's price
for unleaded in LA).

More realistically the price of fuel will be $10/gallon in 3 years and
much much more in the not too distant future.

Then the capital cost of the power plant is so negligible compared to
fuel it can be omitted altogether in _any_ spread sheet.

A much larger cost is the operating cost of the plant: $500,000 -
$800,000 for the 13 kW over the 50 year period.

If you transport the electricity by charging batteries, the cost of 13
kW power over the next 50 years will be $1.7 million to $2 million.

It's cheaper to buy fuel at $3/gallon.

But nothing will be cheaper than roadbed electrification.

That's a ridiculous claim, since you haven't even begun to estimate the
costs of building and maintaining the infrastructure you'd need for that.

The issue was many thought power plant costs would be the killer when
actually it's negligible.

But now that you raised that issue, let's address the "design ready"
project:

A busy freeway lane dissipates 2 MW mech. energy /mile - lane.

2 MW cost $130/hr for grid power and $200/hour wear and tear for the
battery to store the grid energy.

That's almost $2 million a year/ mile - lane in battery usage paid for
by motorists.

So the question becomes, can you install 2 conductors with financing
from what is effectively a $2 million/year perpetuity?

If it cost $10,000,000/mile you'ld get it paid off in 5 - 6 years or
so.

And that doesn't even get to the convenience of electrification:

You charge up your Volt at your house out in the boondocks. You drive
40 miles to the nearest interstate. You charge up as you drive on the
freeway. You get off the freeway and drive another 40 miles and plug
in out in some other boonie area.

Except for some empty places like Nevada the geographical coverage of
a 40 mile range EV would be 100% in most of the U. S. Just take a "40
mile" magic marker to a map of the U. S.

99.9999% of all "normal" trips in the U. S. could soon be possible
without ever using any liquid fuel.

After the system was completed many would just drop the ICE
altogether.

But it's critically important to have series or "true" hybrids for the
transition. That's why we need to get away from diesel rabbits and
conventional drive train CAFE vehicles ASAP.


Bret Cahill

 

[Andy F.]

"Bret Cahill" &lt;BretCahill@peoplepc.com&gt; wrote in message
news:a2f21959-1b9c-47d5-acfc-c894733e12a3@z14g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

Because gas is still cheap? Because it isn't in the economic
interest
of existing car companies to become commodity manufacturers? What a
silly question.

What a stupid statement. The first problem is the existing power
grid. I heard on the news that 120 billion is needed right now to add
capacity.

We paid that much for overseas oil in the past 10 weeks.

An all electric transportation system would make that a drop
in the money pit.

We don't need to worry about where "drop in the money pit" goes in the
spread sheet.

This is the most elementary of calculations:

1. ?the mechanical energy possible with a $3 gallon of fuel is 13 kW-
hr so buying fuel for 13 kW 24/7/52 of power over the next 50 years
costs $3/hr X 24 hours X 356 days/yr X 50 yr =

$1.3 million dollars

2. ?a power plant costs $2 - $4 /watt so running a 13 kW electric
motor over the next 50 years would cost

$26,000 - $53,000.

Now compare $26,000 - $53,000 in power plant cost to $1.3 million in
fuel costs.

The power plant capital cost pays for itself in fuel savings by a
factor of 20 - 50 times over.

And that's assuming fuel will remain at $3/gallon ?(yesterday's price
for unleaded in LA).

More realistically the price of fuel will be $10/gallon in 3 years and
much much more in the not too distant future.

Then the capital cost of the power plant is so negligible compared to
fuel it can be omitted altogether in _any_ spread sheet.

A much larger cost is the operating cost of the plant: $500,000 -
$800,000 for the 13 kW over the 50 year period.

If you transport the electricity by charging batteries, the cost of 13
kW power over the next 50 years will be $1.7 million to $2 million.

It's cheaper to buy fuel at $3/gallon.

But nothing will be cheaper than roadbed electrification.

That's a ridiculous claim, since you haven't even begun to estimate the
costs of building and maintaining the infrastructure you'd need for that.

The issue was many thought power plant costs would be the killer when
actually it's negligible.

But now that you raised that issue, let's address the "design ready"
project:

A busy freeway lane dissipates 2 MW mech. energy /mile - lane.

2 MW cost $130/hr for grid power and $200/hour wear and tear for the
battery to store the grid energy.

That's almost $2 million a year/ mile - lane in battery usage paid for
by motorists.

So the question becomes, can you install 2 conductors with financing
from what is effectively a $2 million/year perpetuity?

The conductors need to be weather proof, shock proof, crash proof and idiot
proof.
If you're on a freeway, the cars need to be able to swerve to avoid
hazards.I don't know how you'd arrange that, if the conductors are under
ground.
Each car would need costly equipment to connect it to the power lines.

Also, you'd have the cost of metering, or if you don't meter the power
you've got the cost of excessive usage.

And the $2 million in perpetuity makes the absurd assumption that there
won't ever be any improvement in battery technology.

If it cost $10,000,000/mile you'ld get it paid off in 5 - 6 years or
so.

Only if you ignore maintenance costs.

And that doesn't even get to the convenience of electrification:

You charge up your Volt at your house out in the boondocks. You drive
40 miles to the nearest interstate. You charge up as you drive on the
freeway. You get off the freeway and drive another 40 miles and plug
in out in some other boonie area.

Except for some empty places like Nevada the geographical coverage of
a 40 mile range EV would be 100% in most of the U. S. Just take a "40
mile" magic marker to a map of the U. S.

99.9999% of all "normal" trips in the U. S. could soon be possible
without ever using any liquid fuel.

Or you could get the same coverage by using exchangeable batteries.

After the system was completed many would just drop the ICE
altogether.

But it's critically important to have series or "true" hybrids for the
transition. That's why we need to get away from diesel rabbits and
conventional drive train CAFE vehicles ASAP.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

On Jun 6, 6:56�am, "Andy F." &lt;never.m...@tesco.net&gt; wrote:

"Bret Cahill" &lt;BretCah...@peoplepc.com&gt; wrote in message

�news:a2f21959-1b9c-47d5-acfc-c894733e12a3@z14g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...





Because gas is still cheap? Because it isn't in the economic
interest
of existing car companies to become commodity manufacturers? What a
silly question.

What a stupid statement. The first problem is the existing power
grid. I heard on the news that 120 billion is needed right now to add
capacity.

We paid that much for overseas oil in the past 10 weeks.

An all electric transportation system would make that a drop
in the money pit.

We don't need to worry about where "drop in the money pit" goes in the
spread sheet.

This is the most elementary of calculations:

1. ?the mechanical energy possible with a $3 gallon of fuel is 13 kW-
hr so buying fuel for 13 kW 24/7/52 of power over the next 50 years
costs $3/hr X 24 hours X 356 days/yr X 50 yr
$1.3 million dollars

2. ?a power plant costs $2 - $4 /watt so running a 13 kW electric
motor over the next 50 years would cost

$26,000 - $53,000.

Now compare $26,000 - $53,000 in power plant cost to $1.3 million in
fuel costs.

The power plant capital cost pays for itself in fuel savings by a
factor of 20 - 50 times over.

And that's assuming fuel will remain at $3/gallon ?(yesterday's price
for unleaded in LA).

More realistically the price of fuel will be $10/gallon in 3 years and
much much more in the not too distant future.

Then the capital cost of the power plant is so negligible compared to
fuel it can be omitted altogether in _any_ spread sheet.

A much larger cost is the operating cost of the plant: $500,000 -
$800,000 for the 13 kW over the 50 year period.

If you transport the electricity by charging batteries, the cost of 13
kW power over the next 50 years will be $1.7 million to $2 million.

It's cheaper to buy fuel at $3/gallon.

But nothing will be cheaper than roadbed electrification.

That's a ridiculous claim, since you haven't even begun to estimate the
costs of building and maintaining the infrastructure you'd need for that.

The issue was many thought power plant costs would be the killer when
actually it's negligible.

But now that you raised that issue, let's address the "design ready"
project:

A busy freeway lane dissipates 2 MW mech. energy /mile - lane.

2 MW cost $130/hr for grid power and $200/hour wear and tear for the
battery to store the grid energy.

That's almost $2 million a year/ mile - lane in battery usage paid for
by motorists.

So the question becomes, can you install 2 conductors with financing
from what is effectively a $2 million/year perpetuity?

The conductors need to be weather proof, shock proof, crash proof and idiot
proof.

DoE and/or Google need to build a "slot car" track for Teslas and any
other fast EV for competition in the desert SW. Remove the batteries
and a Tesla could go from 0 - 60 in 3 seconds.

Between racing events the track would be used to help prototype the
freeway version.

Whatever you think could short out the rails, i. e., a semi roll over,
salt water on I - 10 from a hurricane, etc., or do any other damage to
disable the track, i.e., black ice, etc. you simulate it on the track.

If you're on a freeway, the cars need to be able to swerve to avoid
hazards.I don't know how you'd arrange that, if the conductors are under
ground.

The tracking would be something like cruise control for steering.
When you switch lanes, there is a negligible response time delay in
the steering to allow for the pickup to be retracted.

Each car would need costly equipment to connect it to the power lines.

Why would that be expensive?

Also, you'd have the cost of metering, or if you don't meter the power
you've got the cost of excessive usage.

Highway patrol could easily see if the pickup was deployed, determine
if you have a certified sealed meter connected to the pickup, right
along when they check your license, registration and other papers.

Power theft isn't like a moving violation. It is a crime.

And the $2 million in perpetuity makes the absurd assumption that there
won't ever be any improvement in battery technology.

It also makes the equally absurd assumption that there's an infinite
amount of resources, i. e., lithium, that will not soar in price
almost as fast as oil.

If it cost $10,000,000/mile you'ld get it paid off in 5 - 6 years or
so.

Only if you ignore maintenance costs.

Judging from the rough ride on some busy freeways, that's true for
_all_ highway construction.

And that doesn't even get to the convenience of electrification:

You charge up your Volt at your house out in the boondocks. �You drive
40 miles to the nearest interstate. �You charge up as you drive on the
freeway. �You get off the freeway and drive another 40 miles and plug
in out in some other boonie area.

Except for some empty places like Nevada the geographical coverage of
a 40 mile range EV would be 100% in most of the U. S. �Just take a "40
mile" magic marker to a map of the U. S.

99.9999% of all "normal" trips in the U. S. could soon be possible
without ever using any liquid fuel.

Or you could get the same coverage by using exchangeable batteries.

1. Charging batteries is 3X more costly/mile than motoring straight
off the grid.

A diesel gets 13 kW-hr mech energy from a gallon of 2-oil.
Grid power costs 10 - 15 cents/kW - hr or $1.30 - $1.95 / gal equiv.

A battery can only be charged a thousand times or so, however, so the
battery is an operating cost that is twice that of the electricity
itself.

You end up paying $5 - $6 / gallon equivalent if you charge and
discharge the batteries all the time.

2. Battery charging station are much less convenient than recharging
from the road. You only need to pull over to eat or sleep to go cross
country with highway electrificaton.

It also requires the construction of battery charging stations which
may be more expensive than electrification.

After the system was completed many would just drop the ICE
altogether.

But it's critically important to have series or "true" hybrids for the
transition. ďż˝ That's why we need to get away from diesel rabbits and
conventional drive train CAFE vehicles ASAP.

Even if you are a doubting Thomas when it comes to roadbed
electrification, write your legislators and tell then GM needs to go
all electric - hybrid.


Bret Cahill

 

[zzbunker@netscape.net]

On Jun 6, 12:08 pm, Bret Cahill &lt;BretCah...@peoplepc.com&gt; wrote:

On Jun 6, 6:56 am, "Andy F." &lt;never.m...@tesco.net&gt; wrote:





"Bret Cahill" &lt;BretCah...@peoplepc.com&gt; wrote in message

news:a2f21959-1b9c-47d5-acfc-c894733e12a3@z14g2000yqa.googlegroups.com....

Because gas is still cheap? Because it isn't in the economic
interest
of existing car companies to become commodity manufacturers? What a
silly question.

What a stupid statement. The first problem is the existing power
grid. I heard on the news that 120 billion is needed right now to add
capacity.

We paid that much for overseas oil in the past 10 weeks.

An all electric transportation system would make that a drop
in the money pit.

We don't need to worry about where "drop in the money pit" goes in the
spread sheet.

This is the most elementary of calculations:

1. ?the mechanical energy possible with a $3 gallon of fuel is 13 kW-
hr so buying fuel for 13 kW 24/7/52 of power over the next 50 years
costs $3/hr X 24 hours X 356 days/yr X 50 yr
$1.3 million dollars

2. ?a power plant costs $2 - $4 /watt so running a 13 kW electric
motor over the next 50 years would cost

$26,000 - $53,000.

Now compare $26,000 - $53,000 in power plant cost to $1.3 million in
fuel costs.

The power plant capital cost pays for itself in fuel savings by a
factor of 20 - 50 times over.

And that's assuming fuel will remain at $3/gallon ?(yesterday's price
for unleaded in LA).

More realistically the price of fuel will be $10/gallon in 3 years and
much much more in the not too distant future.

Then the capital cost of the power plant is so negligible compared to
fuel it can be omitted altogether in _any_ spread sheet.

A much larger cost is the operating cost of the plant: $500,000 -
$800,000 for the 13 kW over the 50 year period.

If you transport the electricity by charging batteries, the cost of 13
kW power over the next 50 years will be $1.7 million to $2 million..

It's cheaper to buy fuel at $3/gallon.

But nothing will be cheaper than roadbed electrification.

That's a ridiculous claim, since you haven't even begun to estimate the
costs of building and maintaining the infrastructure you'd need for that.

The issue was many thought power plant costs would be the killer when
actually it's negligible.

But now that you raised that issue, let's address the "design ready"
project:

A busy freeway lane dissipates 2 MW mech. energy /mile - lane.

2 MW cost $130/hr for grid power and $200/hour wear and tear for the
battery to store the grid energy.

That's almost $2 million a year/ mile - lane in battery usage paid for
by motorists.

So the question becomes, can you install 2 conductors with financing
from what is effectively a $2 million/year perpetuity?
The conductors need to be weather proof, shock proof, crash proof and idiot
proof.

DoE and/or Google need to build a "slot car" track for Teslas and any
other fast EV for competition in the desert SW.  Remove the batteries
and a Tesla could go from 0 - 60 in 3 seconds.

Between racing events the track would be used to help prototype the
freeway version.

Whatever you think could short out the rails, i. e., a semi roll over,
salt water on I - 10 from a hurricane, etc., or do any other damage to
disable the track, i.e., black ice, etc. you simulate it on the track.

If you're on a freeway, the cars need to be able to swerve to avoid
hazards.I don't know how you'd arrange that, if the conductors are under
ground.

The tracking would be something like cruise control for steering.
When you switch lanes, there is a negligible response time delay in
the steering to allow for the pickup to be retracted.

Each car would need costly equipment to connect it to the power lines.

Why would that be expensive?

Also, you'd have the cost of metering, or if you don't meter the power
you've got the cost of excessive usage.

Highway patrol could easily see if the pickup was deployed, determine
if you have a certified sealed meter connected to the pickup, right
along when they check your license, registration and other papers.

Power theft isn't like a moving violation.  It is a crime.

And the $2 million in perpetuity makes the absurd assumption that there
won't ever be any improvement in battery technology.

It also makes the equally absurd assumption that there's an infinite
amount of resources, i. e., lithium, that will not soar in price
almost as fast as oil.

If it cost $10,000,000/mile you'ld get it paid off in 5 - 6 years or
so.
Only if you ignore maintenance costs.

Judging from the rough ride on some busy freeways, that's true for
_all_ highway construction.

And that doesn't even get to the convenience of electrification:
You charge up your Volt at your house out in the boondocks. You drive
40 miles to the nearest interstate. You charge up as you drive on the
freeway. You get off the freeway and drive another 40 miles and plug
in out in some other boonie area.
Except for some empty places like Nevada the geographical coverage of
a 40 mile range EV would be 100% in most of the U. S. Just take a "40
mile" magic marker to a map of the U. S.

99.9999% of all "normal" trips in the U. S. could soon be possible
without ever using any liquid fuel.
Or you could get the same coverage by using exchangeable batteries.

1.  Charging batteries is 3X more costly/mile than motoring straight
off the grid.

A diesel gets 13 kW-hr mech energy from a gallon of 2-oil.
Grid power costs 10 - 15 cents/kW - hr or $1.30 - $1.95 / gal equiv.

A battery can only be charged a thousand times or so, however, so the
battery is an operating cost that is twice that of the electricity
itself.

You end up paying $5 - $6 / gallon equivalent if you charge and
discharge the batteries all the time.

2.  Battery charging station are much less convenient than recharging
from the road.  You only need to pull over to eat or sleep to go cross
country with highway electrificaton.

It also requires the construction of battery charging stations which
may be more expensive than electrification.

After the system was completed many would just drop the ICE
altogether.
But it's critically important to have series or "true" hybrids for the
transition. That's why we need to get away from diesel rabbits and
conventional drive train CAFE vehicles ASAP.

Even if you are a doubting Thomas when it comes to roadbed
electrification, write your legislators and tell then GM needs to go
all electric - hybrid.

Well, that's pretty much out of the question. Since both
GM Politics and Washington Politcs are both such lost causes in
perpetual fascist corporate lunacy,
that's why the people who undestand the issues build Biodiesel,
Solar Energy, Pv Cell Energy,
non lead-acid batteries, GPS, Digit Terrain Mapping, Holographics,
Light Sticks,
Compact Flourescent Lighting Self-Assembling Robots, Self-
Replicating Machines,
Digital Fiber Optics, Broadband, Cell Phones, Atomic Clock
Wristwatches,
Flat Screen Software Debuggers, All--In-One Printers, On-Line
Banking, On-Line Shopping,
On-Line Publishing, Thermo-Electric Cooling, Microwave Cooling, C++,
XML, USB,
Optical Computers, and Distributed Processing, rather than more
roads.

Bret Cahill- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

 

[Andy F.]

"Bret Cahill" &lt;BretCahill@peoplepc.com&gt; wrote in message

news:476c66df-5a74-4a75-affd-6693d0ae0c9f@h11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 6, 6:56?am, "Andy F." &lt;never.m...@tesco.net&gt; wrote:
"Bret Cahill" &lt;BretCah...@peoplepc.com&gt; wrote in message

?news:a2f21959-1b9c-47d5-acfc-c894733e12a3@z14g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...





Because gas is still cheap? Because it isn't in the economic
interest
of existing car companies to become commodity manufacturers? What
a
silly question.

What a stupid statement. The first problem is the existing power
grid. I heard on the news that 120 billion is needed right now to
add
capacity.

We paid that much for overseas oil in the past 10 weeks.

An all electric transportation system would make that a drop
in the money pit.

We don't need to worry about where "drop in the money pit" goes in
the
spread sheet.

This is the most elementary of calculations:

1. ?the mechanical energy possible with a $3 gallon of fuel is 13
kW-
hr so buying fuel for 13 kW 24/7/52 of power over the next 50 years
costs $3/hr X 24 hours X 356 days/yr X 50 yr =

$1.3 million dollars

2. ?a power plant costs $2 - $4 /watt so running a 13 kW electric
motor over the next 50 years would cost

$26,000 - $53,000.

Now compare $26,000 - $53,000 in power plant cost to $1.3 million in
fuel costs.

The power plant capital cost pays for itself in fuel savings by a
factor of 20 - 50 times over.

And that's assuming fuel will remain at $3/gallon ?(yesterday's
price
for unleaded in LA).

More realistically the price of fuel will be $10/gallon in 3 years
and
much much more in the not too distant future.

Then the capital cost of the power plant is so negligible compared
to
fuel it can be omitted altogether in _any_ spread sheet.

A much larger cost is the operating cost of the plant: $500,000 -
$800,000 for the 13 kW over the 50 year period.

If you transport the electricity by charging batteries, the cost of
13
kW power over the next 50 years will be $1.7 million to $2 million.

It's cheaper to buy fuel at $3/gallon.

But nothing will be cheaper than roadbed electrification.

That's a ridiculous claim, since you haven't even begun to estimate
the
costs of building and maintaining the infrastructure you'd need for
that.

The issue was many thought power plant costs would be the killer when
actually it's negligible.

But now that you raised that issue, let's address the "design ready"
project:

A busy freeway lane dissipates 2 MW mech. energy /mile - lane.

2 MW cost $130/hr for grid power and $200/hour wear and tear for the
battery to store the grid energy.

That's almost $2 million a year/ mile - lane in battery usage paid for
by motorists.

So the question becomes, can you install 2 conductors with financing
from what is effectively a $2 million/year perpetuity?

The conductors need to be weather proof, shock proof, crash proof and
idiot
proof.

DoE and/or Google need to build a "slot car" track for Teslas and any
other fast EV for competition in the desert SW. Remove the batteries
and a Tesla could go from 0 - 60 in 3 seconds.

Between racing events the track would be used to help prototype the
freeway version.

Whatever you think could short out the rails, i. e., a semi roll over,
salt water on I - 10 from a hurricane, etc., or do any other damage to
disable the track, i.e., black ice, etc. you simulate it on the track.

If you're on a freeway, the cars need to be able to swerve to avoid
hazards.I don't know how you'd arrange that, if the conductors are under
ground.

The tracking would be something like cruise control for steering.
When you switch lanes, there is a negligible response time delay in
the steering to allow for the pickup to be retracted.

Each car would need costly equipment to connect it to the power lines.

Why would that be expensive?

It's moving at 70mph and carrying a powerful electric current.It needs to be
safe and reliable enough so that people don't get electrocuted.

Have you thought about what voltage you'd use? Electric trains usually use a
25000 volt supply. Are you sure it would be safe to have 25000V just below
the surface of a public road?

Also, you'd have the cost of metering, or if you don't meter the power
you've got the cost of excessive usage.

Highway patrol could easily see if the pickup was deployed, determine
if you have a certified sealed meter connected to the pickup, right
along when they check your license, registration and other papers.

Power theft isn't like a moving violation. It is a crime.

And the $2 million in perpetuity makes the absurd assumption that there
won't ever be any improvement in battery technology.

It also makes the equally absurd assumption that there's an infinite
amount of resources, i. e., lithium, that will not soar in price
almost as fast as oil.

If it cost $10,000,000/mile you'ld get it paid off in 5 - 6 years or
so.

Only if you ignore maintenance costs.

Judging from the rough ride on some busy freeways, that's true for
_all_ highway construction.

And that doesn't even get to the convenience of electrification:

You charge up your Volt at your house out in the boondocks. ?You drive
40 miles to the nearest interstate. ?You charge up as you drive on the
freeway. ?You get off the freeway and drive another 40 miles and plug
in out in some other boonie area.

Except for some empty places like Nevada the geographical coverage of
a 40 mile range EV would be 100% in most of the U. S. ?Just take a "40
mile" magic marker to a map of the U. S.

99.9999% of all "normal" trips in the U. S. could soon be possible
without ever using any liquid fuel.

Or you could get the same coverage by using exchangeable batteries.

1. Charging batteries is 3X more costly/mile than motoring straight
off the grid.

You made that ridiculous claim before.It was pointed out that you haven't
even begun to estimate the costs of building and maintaining the
infrastructure you'd need for that.

A diesel gets 13 kW-hr mech energy from a gallon of 2-oil.
Grid power costs 10 - 15 cents/kW - hr or $1.30 - $1.95 / gal equiv.

A battery can only be charged a thousand times or so, however, so the
battery is an operating cost that is twice that of the electricity
itself.

You end up paying $5 - $6 / gallon equivalent if you charge and
discharge the batteries all the time.

2. Battery charging station are much less convenient than recharging
from the road. You only need to pull over to eat or sleep to go cross
country with highway electrificaton.

Stopping for a few minutes every 100 miles wouldn't be a major
inconvenience.

It also requires the construction of battery charging stations which
may be more expensive than electrification.

All you'd need would be a shed with a power supply.

After the system was completed many would just drop the ICE
altogether.

But it's critically important to have series or "true" hybrids for the
transition. ? That's why we need to get away from diesel rabbits and
conventional drive train CAFE vehicles ASAP.

Even if you are a doubting Thomas when it comes to roadbed
electrification, write your legislators and tell then GM needs to go
all electric - hybrid.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

And that doesn't even get to the convenience of electrification:

You charge up your Volt at your house out in the boondocks. ?You drive
40 miles to the nearest interstate. ?You charge up as you drive on the
freeway. ?You get off the freeway and drive another 40 miles and plug
in out in some other boonie area.

Except for some empty places like Nevada the geographical coverage of
a 40 mile range EV would be 100% in most of the U. S. ?Just take a "40
mile" magic marker to a map of the U. S.

99.9999% of all "normal" trips in the U. S. could soon be possible
without ever using any liquid fuel.

Or you could get the same coverage by using exchangeable batteries.

1. �Charging batteries is 3X more costly/mile than motoring straight
off the grid.

You made that ridiculous claim before.

Calculate it yourself. Look up the specifications for _any_ battery
and you can get the number of cycles before efficiency and capacity
drop off, the energy/cycle and the cost of the battery/ amp hour.

It'll be over twice the cost of all the grid electricity that ever
flows through it.

It was pointed out that you haven't
even begun to estimate the costs of building and maintaining the
infrastructure you'd need for that.

As the U. C. Berkeley study said, it's difficult to predict costs on
new technology.

That's why we need to build test tracks and eventually do CA 99.

Whatever happened to the pioneer spirit?

A diesel gets 13 kW-hr mech energy from a gallon of 2-oil.
Grid power costs 10 - 15 cents/kW - hr or $1.30 - $1.95 / gal equiv.

A battery can only be charged a thousand times or so, however, so the
battery is an operating cost that is twice that of the electricity
itself.

You end up paying $5 - $6 / gallon equivalent if you charge and
discharge the batteries all the time.

2. �Battery charging station are much less convenient than recharging
from the road. �You only need to pull over to eat or sleep to go cross
country with highway electrificaton.

Stopping for a few minutes every 100 miles wouldn't be a major
inconvenience.

1. The "few minutes" will be more like 20 - 40 minutes and the time
wasted long haul is even longer. It takes the average trucker 2 hours
to get into and out of a truck stop.

2. Stopping every 100 miles is OK for those have prostate issues.
Some of us sometimes need to get somewhere.

It also requires the construction of battery charging stations which
may be more expensive than electrification.

All you'd need would be a shed

A "shed" with an electrical substation.

with a power supply.

At least several MW.

Batteries are as inefficient as induction.

After the system was completed many would just drop the ICE
altogether.

But it's critically important to have series or "true" hybrids for the
transition. ? That's why we need to get away from diesel rabbits and
conventional drive train CAFE vehicles ASAP.

Even if you are a doubting Thomas when it comes to roadbed
electrification, write your legislators and tell then GM needs to go
all electric - hybrid.

As owner of GM, you need to write yer congress critter and _demand_
that GM go all electric ASAP.


Bret Cahill

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 7 Jun 2009 02:01:25 -0700 (PDT), "zzbunker@netscape.net"
&lt;zzbunker@netscape.net&gt; wrote:

Well, that's pretty much out of the question. Since both
GM Politics and Washington Politcs are both such lost causes in
perpetual fascist corporate lunacy,
that's why the people who undestand the issues build Biodiesel,
Solar Energy, Pv Cell Energy,
non lead-acid batteries, GPS, Digit Terrain Mapping, Holographics,
Light Sticks,
Compact Flourescent Lighting Self-Assembling Robots, Self-
Replicating Machines,
Digital Fiber Optics, Broadband, Cell Phones, Atomic Clock
Wristwatches,
Flat Screen Software Debuggers, All--In-One Printers, On-Line
Banking, On-Line Shopping,
On-Line Publishing, Thermo-Electric Cooling, Microwave Cooling, C++,
XML, USB,
Optical Computers, and Distributed Processing, rather than more
roads.

---
Trying to get recognised, are you?

JF

 

[Andy F.]

"Bret Cahill" &lt;BretCahill@peoplepc.com&gt; wrote in message

news:29a29e33-5634-4393-9968-b0dea4c3b4b3@h11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
And that doesn't even get to the convenience of electrification:

You charge up your Volt at your house out in the boondocks. ?You
drive
40 miles to the nearest interstate. ?You charge up as you drive on
the
freeway. ?You get off the freeway and drive another 40 miles and
plug
in out in some other boonie area.

Except for some empty places like Nevada the geographical coverage
of
a 40 mile range EV would be 100% in most of the U. S. ?Just take a
"40
mile" magic marker to a map of the U. S.

99.9999% of all "normal" trips in the U. S. could soon be possible
without ever using any liquid fuel.

Or you could get the same coverage by using exchangeable batteries.

1. ?Charging batteries is 3X more costly/mile than motoring straight
off the grid.

You made that ridiculous claim before.

Calculate it yourself. Look up the specifications for _any_ battery
and you can get the number of cycles before efficiency and capacity
drop off, the energy/cycle and the cost of the battery/ amp hour.

It'll be over twice the cost of all the grid electricity that ever
flows through it.

If that's true it means charging batteries is 3x more costly than running a
hairdryer off the grid. Motoring off the grid isn't available at any
price.And if it ever becomes available, it won't be cheap.

It was pointed out that you haven't
even begun to estimate the costs of building and maintaining the
infrastructure you'd need for that.

As the U. C. Berkeley study said, it's difficult to predict costs on
new technology.

So you shouldn't keep going on about how cheap it is.

That's why we need to build test tracks and eventually do CA 99.

Yes, they should be researching that, along with all the other alternatives.

Whatever happened to the pioneer spirit?

A diesel gets 13 kW-hr mech energy from a gallon of 2-oil.
Grid power costs 10 - 15 cents/kW - hr or $1.30 - $1.95 / gal equiv.

A battery can only be charged a thousand times or so, however, so the
battery is an operating cost that is twice that of the electricity
itself.

You end up paying $5 - $6 / gallon equivalent if you charge and
discharge the batteries all the time.

2. ?Battery charging station are much less convenient than recharging
from the road. ?You only need to pull over to eat or sleep to go cross
country with highway electrificaton.

Stopping for a few minutes every 100 miles wouldn't be a major
inconvenience.

1. The "few minutes" will be more like 20 - 40 minutes and the time
wasted long haul is even longer. It takes the average trucker 2 hours
to get into and out of a truck stop.

No reason it couldn't be done in 5 minutes.The gas stations would become
battery stations, and if they want to make money they'd make sure they did
it fast.

2. Stopping every 100 miles is OK for those have prostate issues.
Some of us sometimes need to get somewhere.

An extre half hour on a 600 mile journey isn't going to kill you.

It also requires the construction of battery charging stations which
may be more expensive than electrification.

All you'd need would be a shed

A "shed" with an electrical substation.

with a power supply.

At least several MW.

Batteries are as inefficient as induction.

After the system was completed many would just drop the ICE
altogether.

But it's critically important to have series or "true" hybrids for
the
transition. ? That's why we need to get away from diesel rabbits and
conventional drive train CAFE vehicles ASAP.

Even if you are a doubting Thomas when it comes to roadbed
electrification, write your legislators and tell then GM needs to go
all electric - hybrid.

As owner of GM, you need to write yer congress critter and _demand_
that GM go all electric ASAP.


Fortunately I'm not the owner of GM. And if I was I wouldn't want them to

tthrow my money down the drain.

 

[Bret Cahill]

And that doesn't even get to the convenience of electrification:

You charge up your Volt at your house out in the boondocks. ?You
drive
40 miles to the nearest interstate. ?You charge up as you drive on
the
freeway. ?You get off the freeway and drive another 40 miles and
plug
in out in some other boonie area.

Except for some empty places like Nevada the geographical coverage
of
a 40 mile range EV would be 100% in most of the U. S. ?Just take a
"40
mile" magic marker to a map of the U. S.

99.9999% of all "normal" trips in the U. S. could soon be possible
without ever using any liquid fuel.

Or you could get the same coverage by using exchangeable batteries.

1. ?Charging batteries is 3X more costly/mile than motoring straight
off the grid.

You made that ridiculous claim before.

Calculate it yourself. �Look up the specifications for _any_ battery
and you can get the number of cycles before efficiency and capacity
drop off, the energy/cycle and the cost of the battery/ amp hour.

It'll be over twice the cost of all the grid electricity that ever
flows through it.

If that's true it means charging batteries is 3x more costly than running a
hairdryer off the grid.

3X more costly _overall_.

Motoring off the grid isn't available at any
price.

Not yet. When fuel is $15/gallon -- long before the CAFE cars are out
-- motorists will want solutions.

And if it ever becomes available, it won't be cheap.

Sounds like we need to start working on it ASAP to better determine
the price.

It was pointed out that you haven't
even begun to estimate the costs of building and maintaining the
infrastructure you'd need for that.

As the U. C. Berkeley study said, it's difficult to predict costs on
new technology.

So you shouldn't keep going on about how cheap it is.

We already pay half a trillion / year for foreign oil.

Look at the supply curve for oil.

It is dropping.

Look at the demand curve for oil.

It is increasing. Countries like China and India still have a
positive growth rate in the middle of this recession.

As the price of oil goes to infinity, it doesn't really matter what
the price is. Sooner or later we'll have to electrify.

Why not electrify now _before_ we give $100 trillion to the Iranians?

That's why we need to build test tracks and eventually do CA 99.

Yes, they should be researching that, along with all the other alternatives.

Start off with a couple race tracks, one using induction and the other
with a slotted pipe underground.

Few deny either will work. It will be fun and educational for the
public as well as the researchers.

Then do a couple hundred miles on a freeway with a lot of dedicated
runs.

Whatever happened to the pioneer spirit?

A diesel gets 13 kW-hr mech energy from a gallon of 2-oil.
Grid power costs 10 - 15 cents/kW - hr or $1.30 - $1.95 / gal equiv.

A battery can only be charged a thousand times or so, however, so the
battery is an operating cost that is twice that of the electricity
itself.

You end up paying $5 - $6 / gallon equivalent if you charge and
discharge the batteries all the time.

2. ?Battery charging station are much less convenient than recharging
from the road. ?You only need to pull over to eat or sleep to go cross
country with highway electrificaton.

Stopping for a few minutes every 100 miles wouldn't be a major
inconvenience.

1. �The "few minutes" will be more like 20 - 40 minutes and the time
wasted long haul is even longer. �It takes the average trucker 2 hours
to get into and out of a truck stop.

No reason it couldn't be done in 5 minutes.

No one in industry believes the handling of a battery is faster or
easier than pumping a liquid.

No one.

The gas stations would become
battery stations, and if they want to make money they'd make sure they did
it fast.

What would happen is so few would ever buy the battery vehicle in the
first place the stations would go out of business and/or lose their
public funding.

2. �Stopping every 100 miles is OK for those have prostate issues.

Some of us sometimes need to get somewhere.

An extre half hour on a 600 mile journey isn't going to kill you.

Except it won't be a half hour.

It'll be 2 extra hours.

It also requires the construction of battery charging stations which
may be more expensive than electrification.

All you'd need would be a shed

A "shed" with an electrical substation.

with a power supply.

At least several MW.

Batteries are as inefficient as induction.

After the system was completed many would just drop the ICE
altogether.

But it's critically important to have series or "true" hybrids for
the
transition. ? That's why we need to get away from diesel rabbits and
conventional drive train CAFE vehicles ASAP.

Even if you are a doubting Thomas when it comes to roadbed
electrification, write your legislators and tell then GM needs to go
all electric - hybrid.

As owner of GM, you need to write yer congress critter and _demand_
that GM go all electric ASAP.

Fortunately I'm not the owner of GM. And if I was I wouldn't want them to
tthrow my money down the drain.

That's what they are doing now with their CAFE cars no one will be
able to afford to drive when fuel is $15/gallon.


Bret Cahill

 

[Andy F.]

"Bret Cahill" &lt;BretCahill@aol.com&gt; wrote in message

news:f72718fd-0f37-4e6e-9825-1703aeb47c95@l32g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
And that doesn't even get to the convenience of electrification:

You charge up your Volt at your house out in the boondocks. ?You
drive
40 miles to the nearest interstate. ?You charge up as you drive
on
the
freeway. ?You get off the freeway and drive another 40 miles and
plug
in out in some other boonie area.

Except for some empty places like Nevada the geographical
coverage
of
a 40 mile range EV would be 100% in most of the U. S. ?Just take
a
"40
mile" magic marker to a map of the U. S.

99.9999% of all "normal" trips in the U. S. could soon be
possible
without ever using any liquid fuel.

Or you could get the same coverage by using exchangeable batteries.

1. ?Charging batteries is 3X more costly/mile than motoring straight
off the grid.

You made that ridiculous claim before.

Calculate it yourself. ?Look up the specifications for _any_ battery
and you can get the number of cycles before efficiency and capacity
drop off, the energy/cycle and the cost of the battery/ amp hour.

It'll be over twice the cost of all the grid electricity that ever
flows through it.

If that's true it means charging batteries is 3x more costly than running
a
hairdryer off the grid.

3X more costly _overall_.

Motoring off the grid isn't available at any
price.

Not yet. When fuel is $15/gallon -- long before the CAFE cars are out
-- motorists will want solutions.

And if it ever becomes available, it won't be cheap.

Sounds like we need to start working on it ASAP to better determine
the price.

It was pointed out that you haven't
even begun to estimate the costs of building and maintaining the
infrastructure you'd need for that.

As the U. C. Berkeley study said, it's difficult to predict costs on
new technology.

So you shouldn't keep going on about how cheap it is.

We already pay half a trillion / year for foreign oil.

Look at the supply curve for oil.

It is dropping.

Look at the demand curve for oil.

It is increasing. Countries like China and India still have a
positive growth rate in the middle of this recession.

As the price of oil goes to infinity, it doesn't really matter what
the price is. Sooner or later we'll have to electrify.

Even if the oil price "goes to infinity"- which of course it won't - it only
makes sense to electrify the roads if it's cheaper than batteries, hydrogen,
biofuel or any other alternative.

Why not electrify now _before_ we give $100 trillion to the Iranians?

That's why we need to build test tracks and eventually do CA 99.

Yes, they should be researching that, along with all the other
alternatives.

Start off with a couple race tracks, one using induction and the other
with a slotted pipe underground.

Few deny either will work. It will be fun and educational for the
public as well as the researchers.

Then do a couple hundred miles on a freeway with a lot of dedicated
runs.

Whatever happened to the pioneer spirit?

A diesel gets 13 kW-hr mech energy from a gallon of 2-oil.
Grid power costs 10 - 15 cents/kW - hr or $1.30 - $1.95 / gal equiv.

A battery can only be charged a thousand times or so, however, so
the
battery is an operating cost that is twice that of the electricity
itself.

You end up paying $5 - $6 / gallon equivalent if you charge and
discharge the batteries all the time.

2. ?Battery charging station are much less convenient than
recharging
from the road. ?You only need to pull over to eat or sleep to go
cross
country with highway electrificaton.

Stopping for a few minutes every 100 miles wouldn't be a major
inconvenience.

1. ?The "few minutes" will be more like 20 - 40 minutes and the time
wasted long haul is even longer. ?It takes the average trucker 2 hours
to get into and out of a truck stop.

No reason it couldn't be done in 5 minutes.

No one in industry believes the handling of a battery is faster or
easier than pumping a liquid.

No one.

A system for changing a battery in under 5 minutes would be very simple to

design.

Much easier than a device to connect a fast moving car through a narrow slot
in the freeway to a high voltage cable safely buried deep under ground, and
then disconnect and retract itself in a fraction of a second when you need
to change lanes.

The gas stations would become
battery stations, and if they want to make money they'd make sure they
did
it fast.

What would happen is so few would ever buy the battery vehicle in the
first place the stations would go out of business and/or lose their
public funding.

Unless you electrified every inch of road in the country, every car would

need a battery.

 

[Rod Speed]

Bret Cahill wrote:

On Jun 10, 5:14?am, "Andy F." &lt;never.m...@tesco.net&gt; wrote:
?"Bret Cahill" &lt;BretCah...@aol.com&gt; wrote in message





news:f72718fd-0f37-4e6e-9825-1703aeb47c95@l32g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
And that doesn't even get to the convenience of
electrification:

You charge up your Volt at your house out in the boondocks.
?You drive
40 miles to the nearest interstate. ?You charge up as you
drive on
the
freeway. ?You get off the freeway and drive another 40 miles
and plug
in out in some other boonie area.

Except for some empty places like Nevada the geographical
coverage
of
a 40 mile range EV would be 100% in most of the U. S. ?Just
take a
"40
mile" magic marker to a map of the U. S.

99.9999% of all "normal" trips in the U. S. could soon be
possible
without ever using any liquid fuel.

Or you could get the same coverage by using exchangeable
batteries.

1. ?Charging batteries is 3X more costly/mile than motoring
straight off the grid.

You made that ridiculous claim before.

Calculate it yourself. ?Look up the specifications for _any_
battery and you can get the number of cycles before efficiency
and capacity drop off, the energy/cycle and the cost of the
battery/ amp hour.

It'll be over twice the cost of all the grid electricity that ever
flows through it.

If that's true it means charging batteries is 3x more costly than
running a
hairdryer off the grid.

3X more costly _overall_.

Motoring off the grid isn't available at any
price.

Not yet. ?When fuel is $15/gallon -- long before the CAFE cars are
out -- motorists will want solutions.

And if it ever becomes available, it won't be cheap.

Sounds like we need to start working on it ASAP to better determine
the price.

It was pointed out that you haven't
even begun to estimate the costs of building and maintaining the
infrastructure you'd need for that.

As the U. C. Berkeley study said, it's difficult to predict costs
on new technology.

So you shouldn't keep going on about how cheap it is.

We already pay half a trillion / year for foreign oil.

Look at the supply curve for oil.

It is dropping.

Look at the demand curve for oil.

It is increasing. ?Countries like China and India still have a
positive growth rate in the middle of this recession.

As the price of oil goes to infinity, it doesn't really matter what
the price is. ?Sooner or later we'll have to electrify.

Even if the oil price "goes to infinity"- which of course it won't -
it only makes sense to electrify the roads if it's cheaper than
batteries, hydrogen, biofuel or any other alternative.





Why not electrify now _before_ we give $100 trillion to the
Iranians?

That's why we need to build test tracks and eventually do CA 99.

Yes, they should be researching that, along with all the other
alternatives.

Start off with a couple race tracks, one using induction and the
other with a slotted pipe underground.

Few deny either will work. ?It will be fun and educational for the
public as well as the researchers.

Then do a couple hundred miles on a freeway with a lot of dedicated
runs.

Whatever happened to the pioneer spirit?

A diesel gets 13 kW-hr mech energy from a gallon of 2-oil.
Grid power costs 10 - 15 cents/kW - hr or $1.30 - $1.95 / gal
equiv.

A battery can only be charged a thousand times or so, however,
so the
battery is an operating cost that is twice that of the
electricity itself.

You end up paying $5 - $6 / gallon equivalent if you charge and
discharge the batteries all the time.

2. ?Battery charging station are much less convenient than
recharging
from the road. ?You only need to pull over to eat or sleep to go
cross
country with highway electrificaton.

Stopping for a few minutes every 100 miles wouldn't be a major
inconvenience.

1. ?The "few minutes" will be more like 20 - 40 minutes and the
time wasted long haul is even longer. ?It takes the average
trucker 2 hours to get into and out of a truck stop.

No reason it couldn't be done in 5 minutes.

No one in industry believes the handling of a battery is faster or
easier than pumping a liquid.

No one.

A system for changing a battery in under 5 minutes would be very simple to design.

Like hell it is.

Why hasn't anyone done that with common electric fork lift battery stations?

Because its nothing like that easy.

Motorists don't want a post modern car so the battery compartment must
have a pretty door that must not be damaged by either collision or
dripping fluids when opened.

Thats just plain silly. The current engine compartments work fine.

lugs must be disconnected. The heavy battery must
be mechanically secured when in motion so some kind of clamp must be
disconnected. The entire process reversed for the installation.

That is quite doable, tho not that cheap to do.

Farm electrification with battery powered tractors presents
even less problems than vehicle battery changing stations.
No one cares what a tractor looks like.

Yes, but the problem is that their power needs are much higher.

Much easier than a device to connect a fast moving car through a
narrow slot in the freeway to a high voltage cable safely buried
deep under ground, and then disconnect and retract itself in a
fraction of a second when you need to change lanes.

Design cost is always a small part of overall costs.

It's the _overall_ cost that matter.

Yes.

Do you really want to process 15 million tons of lithium every year?

We certainly dont want to have to wire all the roads.

Does the planet even have 15 million tons of Li?

No idea.

Thats why it makes a lot more sense to stop wasting natural
gas on heating houses and to heat the houses with electricity
from nukes and use the natural gas in cars. And when the
natural gas is getting low, use hydrogen from nukes in cars.

Electric cars may be viable for short distance
cars, but not for long distance car travel.

The gas stations would become
battery stations, and if they want to make money they'd make sure
they did
it fast.

What would happen is so few would ever buy the battery vehicle in
the first place the stations would go out of business and/or lose
their public funding.

Unless you electrified every inch of road in the country, every car
would need a battery.

True and at least during the transition, a fuel engine.

Highway electrification does not compete against either battery
development or bio diesel.

And the immense cost of it makes it completely impractical.

There are some remote areas where battery rental stations may make sense.

Thats never going to make sense, there just isnt the volume of use to make it viable.

"Magic bullet" solution romantics aren't going to solve any problems.

Your electrification of highways in spades.

 

[Rod Speed]

(David P.) wrote:

"Rod Speed" &lt;rod.speed....@gmail.com&gt; wrote:
[...]
Thats why it makes a lot more sense to stop wasting natural
gas on heating houses and to heat the houses with electricity
from nukes and use the natural gas in cars. And when the
natural gas is getting low, use hydrogen from nukes in cars.

Also makes a lot of sense to limit longevity by stopping
the suppression of influenza, so we stop wasting energy
on the growing percentage of demented, Alzheimers,
invalids, etc.

Makes more sense to do what the chinese do with their drunks, bullet
in the back of the neck and send the bill for the bullet to the relos.

 

[Bret Cahill]

On Jun 10, 5:14�am, "Andy F." &lt;never.m...@tesco.net&gt; wrote:

ďż˝"Bret Cahill" &lt;BretCah...@aol.com&gt; wrote in message





news:f72718fd-0f37-4e6e-9825-1703aeb47c95@l32g2000vba.googlegroups.com....
And that doesn't even get to the convenience of electrification:

You charge up your Volt at your house out in the boondocks. ?You
drive
40 miles to the nearest interstate. ?You charge up as you drive
on
the
freeway. ?You get off the freeway and drive another 40 miles and
plug
in out in some other boonie area.

Except for some empty places like Nevada the geographical
coverage
of
a 40 mile range EV would be 100% in most of the U. S. ?Just take
a
"40
mile" magic marker to a map of the U. S.

99.9999% of all "normal" trips in the U. S. could soon be
possible
without ever using any liquid fuel.

Or you could get the same coverage by using exchangeable batteries.

1. ?Charging batteries is 3X more costly/mile than motoring straight
off the grid.

You made that ridiculous claim before.

Calculate it yourself. ?Look up the specifications for _any_ battery
and you can get the number of cycles before efficiency and capacity
drop off, the energy/cycle and the cost of the battery/ amp hour.

It'll be over twice the cost of all the grid electricity that ever
flows through it.

If that's true it means charging batteries is 3x more costly than running
a
hairdryer off the grid.

3X more costly _overall_.

Motoring off the grid isn't available at any
price.

Not yet. �When fuel is $15/gallon -- long before the CAFE cars are out
-- motorists will want solutions.

And if it ever becomes available, it won't be cheap.

Sounds like we need to start working on it ASAP to better determine
the price.

It was pointed out that you haven't
even begun to estimate the costs of building and maintaining the
infrastructure you'd need for that.

As the U. C. Berkeley study said, it's difficult to predict costs on
new technology.

So you shouldn't keep going on about how cheap it is.

We already pay half a trillion / year for foreign oil.

Look at the supply curve for oil.

It is dropping.

Look at the demand curve for oil.

It is increasing. �Countries like China and India still have a
positive growth rate in the middle of this recession.

As the price of oil goes to infinity, it doesn't really matter what
the price is. �Sooner or later we'll have to electrify.

Even if the oil price "goes to infinity"- which of course it won't - it only
makes sense to electrify the roads if it's cheaper than batteries, hydrogen,
biofuel or any other alternative.





Why not electrify now _before_ we give $100 trillion to the Iranians?

That's why we need to build test tracks and eventually do CA 99.

Yes, they should be researching that, along with all the other
alternatives.

Start off with a couple race tracks, one using induction and the other
with a slotted pipe underground.

Few deny either will work. �It will be fun and educational for the
public as well as the researchers.

Then do a couple hundred miles on a freeway with a lot of dedicated
runs.

Whatever happened to the pioneer spirit?

A diesel gets 13 kW-hr mech energy from a gallon of 2-oil.
Grid power costs 10 - 15 cents/kW - hr or $1.30 - $1.95 / gal equiv.

A battery can only be charged a thousand times or so, however, so
the
battery is an operating cost that is twice that of the electricity
itself.

You end up paying $5 - $6 / gallon equivalent if you charge and
discharge the batteries all the time.

2. ?Battery charging station are much less convenient than
recharging
from the road. ?You only need to pull over to eat or sleep to go
cross
country with highway electrificaton.

Stopping for a few minutes every 100 miles wouldn't be a major
inconvenience.

1. ?The "few minutes" will be more like 20 - 40 minutes and the time
wasted long haul is even longer. ?It takes the average trucker 2 hours
to get into and out of a truck stop.

No reason it couldn't be done in 5 minutes.

No one in industry believes the handling of a battery is faster or
easier than pumping a liquid.

No one.

A system for changing a battery in under 5 minutes would be very simple to
design.

Why hasn't anyone done that with common electric fork lift battery
stations?

Motorists don't want a post modern car so the battery compartment must
have a pretty door that must not be damaged by either collision or
dripping fluids when opened. High current [large] lugs must be
disconnected. The heavy battery must be mechanically secured when in
motion so some kind of clamp must be disconnected. The entire process
reversed for the installation.

Farm electrification with battery powered tractors presents even less
problems than vehicle battery changing stations. No one cares what a
tractor looks like.

Much easier than a device to connect a fast moving car through a narrow slot
in the freeway to a high voltage cable safely buried deep under ground, and
then disconnect and retract itself in a fraction of a second when you need
to change lanes.

Design cost is always a small part of overall costs.

It's the _overall_ cost that matter.

Do you really want to process 15 million tons of lithium every year?
Does the planet even have 15 million tons of Li?

The gas stations would become
battery stations, and if they want to make money they'd make sure they
did
it fast.

What would happen is so few would ever buy the battery vehicle in the
first place the stations would go out of business and/or lose their
public funding.

Unless you electrified every inch of road in the country, every car would
need a battery.

True and at least during the transition, a fuel engine.

Highway electrification does not compete against either battery
development or bio diesel.

There are some remote areas where battery rental stations may make
sense.

"Magic bullet" solution romantics aren't going to solve any problems.


Bret Cahill

 

[(David P.)]

"Rod Speed" &lt;rod.speed....@gmail.com&gt; wrote:

Thats why it makes a lot more sense to stop wasting natural
gas on heating houses and to heat the houses with electricity
from nukes and use the natural gas in cars. And when the
natural gas is getting low, use hydrogen from nukes in cars.

Also makes a lot of sense to limit longevity by stopping
the suppression of influenza, so we stop wasting energy
on the growing percentage of demented, Alzheimers,
invalids, etc.
..
..
--

 

[Rod Speed]

Bret Cahill wrote:

Thats why it makes a lot more sense to stop wasting natural
gas on heating houses and to heat the houses with electricity
from nukes and use the natural gas in cars. And when the
natural gas is getting low, use hydrogen from nukes in cars.

Also makes a lot of sense to limit longevity by stopping the suppression of influenza,

A couple months ago UCSD or some place in La Jolla announced a new
vaccine that will take care of most of the big flu strains including bird flu.

Pity its useless against swine flu.

The harder medical researchers work the harder energy researchers must work.

Mindlessly silly.

And the medical folk just upped the ante big time.

Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.

 

[Bret Cahill]

Thats why it makes a lot more sense to stop wasting natural
gas on heating houses and to heat the houses with electricity
from nukes and use the natural gas in cars. And when the
natural gas is getting low, use hydrogen from nukes in cars.

Also makes a lot of sense to limit longevity by stopping
the suppression of influenza,

A couple months ago UCSD or some place in La Jolla announced a new
vaccine that will take care of most of the big flu strains including
bird flu.

The harder medical researchers work the harder energy researchers must
work.

And the medical folk just upped the ante big time.


Bret Cahill

 

[Andy F.]

"Andy F." &lt;never.mind@tesco.net&gt; wrote in message
news:79b3ttF1pk526U1@mid.individual.net...

"Bret Cahill" &lt;BretCahill@aol.com&gt; wrote in message
news:7fb7015e-bde4-4b05-913f-db4725f41f60@s28g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 10, 5:14?am, "Andy F." &lt;never.m...@tesco.net&gt; wrote:
?"Bret Cahill" &lt;BretCah...@aol.com&gt; wrote in message





news:f72718fd-0f37-4e6e-9825-1703aeb47c95@l32g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
And that doesn't even get to the convenience of
electrification:

You charge up your Volt at your house out in the boondocks.
?You
drive
40 miles to the nearest interstate. ?You charge up as you
drive
on
the
freeway. ?You get off the freeway and drive another 40 miles
and
plug
in out in some other boonie area.

Except for some empty places like Nevada the geographical
coverage
of
a 40 mile range EV would be 100% in most of the U. S. ?Just
take
a
"40
mile" magic marker to a map of the U. S.

99.9999% of all "normal" trips in the U. S. could soon be
possible
without ever using any liquid fuel.

Or you could get the same coverage by using exchangeable
batteries.

1. ?Charging batteries is 3X more costly/mile than motoring
straight
off the grid.

You made that ridiculous claim before.

Calculate it yourself. ?Look up the specifications for _any_ battery
and you can get the number of cycles before efficiency and capacity
drop off, the energy/cycle and the cost of the battery/ amp hour.

It'll be over twice the cost of all the grid electricity that ever
flows through it.

If that's true it means charging batteries is 3x more costly than
running
a
hairdryer off the grid.

3X more costly _overall_.

Motoring off the grid isn't available at any
price.

Not yet. ?When fuel is $15/gallon -- long before the CAFE cars are out
-- motorists will want solutions.

And if it ever becomes available, it won't be cheap.

Sounds like we need to start working on it ASAP to better determine
the price.

It was pointed out that you haven't
even begun to estimate the costs of building and maintaining the
infrastructure you'd need for that.

As the U. C. Berkeley study said, it's difficult to predict costs on
new technology.

So you shouldn't keep going on about how cheap it is.

We already pay half a trillion / year for foreign oil.

Look at the supply curve for oil.

It is dropping.

Look at the demand curve for oil.

It is increasing. ?Countries like China and India still have a
positive growth rate in the middle of this recession.

As the price of oil goes to infinity, it doesn't really matter what
the price is. ?Sooner or later we'll have to electrify.

Even if the oil price "goes to infinity"- which of course it won't - it
only
makes sense to electrify the roads if it's cheaper than batteries,
hydrogen,
biofuel or any other alternative.





Why not electrify now _before_ we give $100 trillion to the Iranians?

That's why we need to build test tracks and eventually do CA 99.

Yes, they should be researching that, along with all the other
alternatives.

Start off with a couple race tracks, one using induction and the other
with a slotted pipe underground.

Few deny either will work. ?It will be fun and educational for the
public as well as the researchers.

Then do a couple hundred miles on a freeway with a lot of dedicated
runs.

Whatever happened to the pioneer spirit?

A diesel gets 13 kW-hr mech energy from a gallon of 2-oil.
Grid power costs 10 - 15 cents/kW - hr or $1.30 - $1.95 / gal
equiv.

A battery can only be charged a thousand times or so, however, so
the
battery is an operating cost that is twice that of the
electricity
itself.

You end up paying $5 - $6 / gallon equivalent if you charge and
discharge the batteries all the time.

2. ?Battery charging station are much less convenient than
recharging
from the road. ?You only need to pull over to eat or sleep to go
cross
country with highway electrificaton.

Stopping for a few minutes every 100 miles wouldn't be a major
inconvenience.

1. ?The "few minutes" will be more like 20 - 40 minutes and the time
wasted long haul is even longer. ?It takes the average trucker 2
hours
to get into and out of a truck stop.

No reason it couldn't be done in 5 minutes.

No one in industry believes the handling of a battery is faster or
easier than pumping a liquid.

No one.

A system for changing a battery in under 5 minutes would be very simple
to
design.

Why hasn't anyone done that with common electric fork lift battery
stations?

Because they don't need to.

Motorists don't want a post modern car so the battery compartment must
have a pretty door that must not be damaged by either collision or
dripping fluids when opened. High current [large] lugs must be
disconnected. The heavy battery must be mechanically secured when in
motion so some kind of clamp must be disconnected. The entire process
reversed for the installation.

All of which could be done in a couple of minutes, using the kind of
technology already being used on production lines.

Of course it won't be economically viable to do that until there are lots of
people wanting to change batteries quickly.
Which isn't likely to happen unless liquid fuels get a lot more expensive.

Farm electrification with battery powered tractors presents even less
problems than vehicle battery changing stations. No one cares what a
tractor looks like.


Much easier than a device to connect a fast moving car through a narrow
slot
in the freeway to a high voltage cable safely buried deep under ground,
and
then disconnect and retract itself in a fraction of a second when you
need
to change lanes.

Design cost is always a small part of overall costs.

Not always.

It's the _overall_ cost that matter.

Right. When you've designed it then you can look at all the expensive
materials you need to make it work, and how often they need replacing.

Do you really want to process 15 million tons of lithium every year?
Does the planet even have 15 million tons of Li?

The gas stations would become
battery stations, and if they want to make money they'd make sure they
did
it fast.

What would happen is so few would ever buy the battery vehicle in the
first place the stations would go out of business and/or lose their
public funding.

Unless you electrified every inch of road in the country, every car would
need a battery.

True and at least during the transition, a fuel engine.

Highway electrification does not compete against either battery
development or bio diesel.

There are some remote areas where battery rental stations may make
sense.

"Magic bullet" solution romantics aren't going to solve any problems.


Bret Cahill