On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 16:16:10 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 17:12:28 -0400, JohnH wrote:


Typical liberal.

Typical asshole.

That's more like it.
--
John H

All decisions, even those of liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

"JohnRant" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 16:16:10 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 17:12:28 -0400, JohnH wrote:


Typical liberal.

Typical asshole.

That's more like it.
--
John H


I think he was talking about you Johnny.
I liked your old name.. 'JohnnyPreparationH' better than your new handle.

On Sat, 3 Oct 2009 23:01:02 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:


"JohnRant" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 16:16:10 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 17:12:28 -0400, JohnH wrote:


Typical liberal.

Typical asshole.

That's more like it.
--
John H


I think he was talking about you Johnny.
I liked your old name.. 'JohnnyPreparationH' better than your new handle.


I *hope* he was talking about me. I wouldn't want him calling you any
names like that.

Remember, a liberal's eventual response is name-calling, right Don?
--
John H

All decisions, even those of liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 15:14:56 -0400, JohnH wrote:


Gosh, if we went nuclear, like France, wouldn't that be much cleaner?
Don't you ever wonder what the liberal aversion to nuclear energy is all
about? Could it simply be an aversion to problem solving?

Liberal aversion? Yeah, right. Only if all businessmen are liberal.
France went nuclear because it doesn't have oil or coal reserves. We do,
and they are still cheaper than nuclear power. Of course, we could go
totally nuclear, but you explain to the American public the reason for
the surge in their utility bills.

It would have reduced or even eliminated our "dependence on foreign
oil." Isn't that a strategic goal of the USA.

The increase in electricty costs would have had a real and specific
reasons rather than redistribution of income via "Cap and Trade."

On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 09:30:41 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 15:14:56 -0400, JohnH wrote:


Gosh, if we went nuclear, like France, wouldn't that be much cleaner?
Don't you ever wonder what the liberal aversion to nuclear energy is all
about? Could it simply be an aversion to problem solving?

Liberal aversion? Yeah, right. Only if all businessmen are liberal.
France went nuclear because it doesn't have oil or coal reserves. We do,
and they are still cheaper than nuclear power. Of course, we could go
totally nuclear, but you explain to the American public the reason for
the surge in their utility bills.

It would have reduced or even eliminated our "dependence on foreign
oil." Isn't that a strategic goal of the USA.

The increase in electricty costs would have had a real and specific
reasons rather than redistribution of income via "Cap and Trade."


I think I mentioned that just before he called me an 'asshole'.
--
John H

All decisions, even those of liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 3 Oct 2009 08:54:04 -0400, BAR wrote:

Electricity isn't free. How much does it cost to charge the batteries?
And, how is this electricity being produced? Coal, oil? Is there an
outlet at your client's office 45 miles away?

An electric with any range at all will be using about 25-30 KWH of
energy per charge (that is the typical Ed Begly home built)
That translates to $4-$4.50 at my electric rate. A car that has the
performance of that electric would easily get 40 MPG so it is maybe
half to 2/3ds the cost of gas, even with $4 gas ... if you are talking
about fairly well moving traffic.
Where the electrics and hybrids make sense is stop and go traffic in a
place that is cool enough to ride with the windows down. Then your
"sitting" time is free .
The flip side of that is the computer fuel injected engines idle
cheaper than the old cars.

I just bought a Nissan Versa with a 1.6L engine. It is getting better
than 32 MPG around town with A/C and will get potentially greater than
40 MPG on the highway.

I can purchase gas for $2.39 per gallon locally.

I just don't see the benefits of electric or hybrids at this time. They
are not cost effective to the consumer and they are not eco-friendly.

On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 09:30:41 -0400, BAR wrote:


Liberal aversion? Yeah, right. Only if all businessmen are liberal.
France went nuclear because it doesn't have oil or coal reserves. We
do, and they are still cheaper than nuclear power. Of course, we could
go totally nuclear, but you explain to the American public the reason
for the surge in their utility bills.

It would have reduced or even eliminated our "dependence on foreign
oil." Isn't that a strategic goal of the USA.

Depends on which President, doesn't it? I remember Carter's initiative
to be energy independent by the year 2000. It was dismantled by Reagan,
who believed market forces would take care of us. While I believe the
money flight because of foreign oil dependence hasn't helped us, since
Reagan, nothing much has been done towards energy independence.

It's clear nuclear power will have to be part of our energy future, but I
don't think it's a silver bullet. Lifestyle changes, conservation,
solar, wind, etc., will also play a part.

The increase in electricty costs would have had a real and specific
reasons rather than redistribution of income via "Cap and Trade."

On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 09:37:30 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 3 Oct 2009 08:54:04 -0400, BAR wrote:

Electricity isn't free. How much does it cost to charge the batteries?
And, how is this electricity being produced? Coal, oil? Is there an
outlet at your client's office 45 miles away?

An electric with any range at all will be using about 25-30 KWH of
energy per charge (that is the typical Ed Begly home built)
That translates to $4-$4.50 at my electric rate. A car that has the
performance of that electric would easily get 40 MPG so it is maybe
half to 2/3ds the cost of gas, even with $4 gas ... if you are talking
about fairly well moving traffic.
Where the electrics and hybrids make sense is stop and go traffic in a
place that is cool enough to ride with the windows down. Then your
"sitting" time is free .
The flip side of that is the computer fuel injected engines idle
cheaper than the old cars.

I just bought a Nissan Versa with a 1.6L engine. It is getting better
than 32 MPG around town with A/C and will get potentially greater than
40 MPG on the highway.

I can purchase gas for $2.39 per gallon locally.

I just don't see the benefits of electric or hybrids at this time. They
are not cost effective to the consumer and they are not eco-friendly.

Well, the main reason to buy a Prius is to have a nice background for
your Obama sticker.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3168/...6445ddde56.jpg


--
John H

All decisions, even those of liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 3 Oct 2009 08:54:04 -0400, BAR wrote:

Electricity isn't free. How much does it cost to charge the batteries?
And, how is this electricity being produced? Coal, oil? Is there an
outlet at your client's office 45 miles away?

An electric with any range at all will be using about 25-30 KWH of
energy per charge (that is the typical Ed Begly home built)
That translates to $4-$4.50 at my electric rate. A car that has the
performance of that electric would easily get 40 MPG so it is maybe
half to 2/3ds the cost of gas, even with $4 gas ... if you are talking
about fairly well moving traffic.
Where the electrics and hybrids make sense is stop and go traffic in a
place that is cool enough to ride with the windows down. Then your
"sitting" time is free .
The flip side of that is the computer fuel injected engines idle
cheaper than the old cars.

I just bought a Nissan Versa with a 1.6L engine. It is getting better
than 32 MPG around town with A/C and will get potentially greater than
40 MPG on the highway.

I can purchase gas for $2.39 per gallon locally.

I just don't see the benefits of electric or hybrids at this time. They
are not cost effective to the consumer and they are not eco-friendly.

what gets me is I have owned several cars back in the 70-80s that got
the same mileage as we struggle for now...

On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 15:24:35 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 15:13:22 -0400, tiny
wrote:

I just don't see the benefits of electric or hybrids at this time. They
are not cost effective to the consumer and they are not eco-friendly.

what gets me is I have owned several cars back in the 70-80s that got
the same mileage as we struggle for now...

My 69 Corvette would get 22-23 if you could keep those Quadrajet
secondaries closed. Open them up and it would go ~140 MPH (at a whole
lot less MPG)

Shoot, my '52 Studebaker got up around 30mpg. Of course it didn't do
much better for oil. But, that re-refined oil (what the hell was it
called?) could be had for about 10cents a quart.
--
John H

All decisions, even those of liberals, are the result of binary thinking.