|
Nope, the right wing says this won't work.
"iBoaterer" wrote in message
... In article , says... "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article , says... "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article , says... "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... http://www.sfgate.com/business/artic...Smooth-silent- fast-3706414.php ----------------------------------------------------------------- The fiscal conservatives are saying why is the government throwing money at a car only the rich can afford? If you want to crank up the electric car market, look at subsidies for ZAP and other cheap around town cars. Not one where the average purchaser has a $250,000 Adjusted Gross Income. Again, as with all new technology, at first, it's expensive. ------------------------------------ New Technology? there were about 20 electric car companies in 1920. Got 30-50 miles on a charge then. How about supporting a $2000 electric car? Yes, new technology. Compare the Tesla to those built in 1920 and get back with me. -------------------------------------------------- comparison. Still costs 3x a gasoline car. Gets a few more miles per charge. Still uses fossil fuel to get charged. Better looking, more comfortable. 1920, did not get taxpayer subsidy. Nastier stuff for the battery. Lots more fossil fuel to build the fluff that makes the car look so cool. Still good for around town. Want to go on a 300 mile trip? Plug in a fossil fuel powered internal combustion engine. Again, and again, you fail to understand that new technology is expensive at first, but then gets cheaper and cheaper. That's just the way it is. As crude as the model T was, it would cost $14,000 in today's dollars. That isn't cheap for something that crude. ----------------------------------------------- That $14k was not that crude, and was fairly reasonable in the time. Just like a $14k car would be reasonable now. We are not against Technology. Hell I live in a very nice neighborhood and have a very comfortable retirement because of Technology. But the government tossing $30,000 of taxpayer money at Tesla per car is not investing in Tech, that is paying off campaign donors. How many other electric vehicles could the 90% buy if you give a $10,000 subsidy to a Tango or other electric town car. You are going to need a Hybrid for any extended trips. |
Nope, the right wing says this won't work.
"iBoaterer" wrote in message
... In article , says... "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article m, says... On 7/15/2012 9:19 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article om, says... On 7/15/2012 8:29 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... In article , says... On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 11:13:03 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: http://www.sfgate.com/business/artic...Smooth-silent- fast-3706414.php "Model S prices range all the way from $57,400 to $105,400 before state and federal incentives. The silver sedan I tried would cost about $70,000." Yeah this is a car for the masses. Make sure you read up on the "bricking" problem that Tesla's have. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/au...tery-Failures- Make-Bricking-a-Buzzword.html?pagewanted=all And no gasoline cars have problems right? You do realize don't you, that this is new technology, R&D is ongoing. What sort of new technology have you invested in? Actually quite a bit. Most of my stocks are in technology. YOU NEED TO DIVERSIFY Um, I never said that all of my investable money is in stocks..... What I said, and you failed to comprehend is that most of my STOCKS are in technology. Look at NENE for one. -------------------------------------- IMO You are a fool to have most of your stocks in tech. Why? Most "fools" are too stupid to understand that oil is a very finite resource and we MUST find energy somewhere else. OH, and I suppose someone that has tech stocks like Apple, HP, NENE, etc. are fools???? ------------------------------------------------- Nope, to have most of your stocks in tech is bad. Just go back to the Tech Bubble. |
Nope, the right wing says this won't work.
"iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article , says... "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article , says... In article om, says... On 7/14/2012 12:55 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In article m, says... On 7/14/2012 11:13 AM, iBoaterer wrote: http://www.sfgate.com/business/artic...Smooth-silent- fast-3706414.php How much is it? I want one. But it doesn't use fossil fuel, how could you possibly drive one? Also, it's new technology, and in conservative's minds, that's a bad thing. Way ahead of you Bozo. I have 2 electric vehicles already. Where does the electricity come from? 45% of the electricity generated in the US comes from fossil fuels. Yes, but the point you hard core righties fail to understand is that the equivalent fuel mileage is around 100 miles per gallon. If we get off of our asses and build more non fossil fuel electric infrastructure that number will go down. But stupid people are just too afraid of getting off of fossil fuel. ------------------------------------------------- Probably a lot less than 100 mpg. There is loss in the lines getting the power to your house. About 8% now. Loss in the charging equipment (heat) and loss in the battery itself in charging. Probably maybe 70% tops efficiency in charging the car. And then loss in the car discharging the battery. How many KWH at the power plant required for the car to go 50 miles? No, it's 100 mpg. --------------------------------- That's an "equivalent" rating based on the average cost of electricity as it produced today for current usages. There are over 250 million cars on the road in the USA. If a quarter to half of them were replaced with electrics that require electricity generation for charging, what do think will happen to the cost of electricity and to it's "equivalent" rating in terms of mpg? |
Nope, the right wing says this won't work.
On Jul 15, 8:22*pm, "Eisboch" wrote:
"iBoaterer" *wrote in message ... In article , says... "iBoaterer" *wrote in message ... In article , says... In article om, says... On 7/14/2012 12:55 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In article m, says... On 7/14/2012 11:13 AM, iBoaterer wrote: http://www.sfgate.com/business/artic...Smooth-silent- fast-3706414.php How much is it? I want one. But it doesn't use fossil fuel, how could you possibly drive one? Also, it's new technology, and in conservative's minds, that's a bad thing. Way ahead of you Bozo. I have 2 electric vehicles already. Where does the electricity come from? 45% of the electricity generated in the US comes from fossil fuels. Yes, but the point you hard core righties fail to understand is that the equivalent fuel mileage is around 100 miles per gallon. If we get off of our asses and build more non fossil fuel electric infrastructure that number will go down. But stupid people are just too afraid of getting off of fossil fuel. ------------------------------------------------- Probably a lot less than 100 mpg. *There is loss in the lines getting the power to your house. *About 8% now. *Loss in the charging equipment (heat) and loss in the battery itself in charging. *Probably maybe 70% tops efficiency in charging the car. *And then loss in the car discharging the battery. *How many KWH at the power plant required for the car to go 50 miles? No, it's 100 mpg. --------------------------------- That's an "equivalent" rating based on the average cost of electricity as it produced today for current usages. * *There are over 250 million cars on the road in the USA. * If a quarter to half of them were replaced with electrics that require electricity generation for charging, what do think will happen to the cost of electricity and to it's "equivalent" rating in terms of mpg? Most don't think of that, Richard. Electric power stations are fairly maxing as it is to keep up with today's electrical demands, especially for this boiling hot summers air conditioning. Honestly with people trying to stay cool, I'm surprised there hasn't been power outages in my area, and we have very reliable service. |
Nope, the right wing says this won't work.
wrote in message ...
On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 18:10:56 -0700, "Califbill" wrote: ----------------------------------------------- That $14k was not that crude, and was fairly reasonable in the time. Just like a $14k car would be reasonable now. We are not against Technology. Hell I live in a very nice neighborhood and have a very comfortable retirement because of Technology. But the government tossing $30,000 of taxpayer money at Tesla per car is not investing in Tech, that is paying off campaign donors. How many other electric vehicles could the 90% buy if you give a $10,000 subsidy to a Tango or other electric town car. You are going to need a Hybrid for any extended trips. I have been interested in an electric car for 15 years, since I retired and I don't need a long distance car. I still can't get the numbers even close and that was getting a kit to convert a car I already own. It is the battery. (also the "li-ion"s share of the cost of the Tesla) Even using a very mature technology like lead acid, you can't get close to the price of gasoline, even at $5 a gallon. When Car and driver ran the numbers on a Volt, they figured out you do a lot better with a Cruze. They really need to get the battery cost down before this will make sense. Until then, electric cars will be a rich man's toy that the tax payer is subsidizing, much like all of these alternate energy schemes. -------------------------------------------------- In Europe the small cars of choice are diesel. Both because of the tax differential on fuel and the fact they get 60-80 miles per gallon in say VW Jetta TDI. Even the Smart Car in the US is required to be gas and only gets about 40 mpg. http://green.autoblog.com/2012/02/21...s-teslas-elon/ It is now the $300-500 range. Probably cheaper in Flooded lead acid batteries, but lots more weight and displacement. |
Nope, the right wing says this won't work.
wrote in message ...
On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 18:02:43 -0700, "Califbill" wrote: NENE would not be an investment. Would either be a gamble or something to possible play with on a lark. Is a penny stock basically. Not enough to put much real money in to it. If you sold it in December it was a nice trade. If you bought it in December "Farewell and adieu to you spanish ladies...." ------------------------------------------------------------ It too small of a market stock. I have most of my stocks in the 3%+ dividend range. I do own High tech, as I have both purchased it and got it via stock purchase plans of High Tech companies I was an engineer for. Most has not done anywhere as well as the Altria and Healthcare and oil stocks I own. And I am interested in Electric cars a lot. both from being a car guy and also my degree major is Electro-mechanical engineering. Did not design a lot of motors but did do controls for them over the years. Until we get Fusion Power going or decide that we are going to have build modern Fission plants, there will not be enough generating capacity to charge that many electric cars. Plus the premium for higher usage of electricity. If you put in a large home PV power system, you are going to have $20k+ tied up with with tax credits. And you do not want so big of a system as to have zero electric bills as then you have excess generating with very high cost per watt. If you build a PV system, you want enough capacity to get you in to the cheapest tier of power rates. |
Nope, the right wing says this won't work.
On 7/15/2012 7:18 PM, Tim wrote:
On Jul 15, 8:22 pm, "Eisboch" wrote: That's an "equivalent" rating based on the average cost of electricity as it produced today for current usages. There are over 250 million cars on the road in the USA. If a quarter to half of them were replaced with electrics that require electricity generation for charging, what do think will happen to the cost of electricity and to it's "equivalent" rating in terms of mpg? Most don't think of that, Richard. Electric power stations are fairly maxing as it is to keep up with today's electrical demands, especially for this boiling hot summers air conditioning. Honestly with people trying to stay cool, I'm surprised there hasn't been power outages in my area, and we have very reliable service. Most charging would occur overnight during off-peak hours. |
Nope, the right wing says this won't work.
|
Nope, the right wing says this won't work.
On 7/16/12 8:23 AM, BAR wrote:
In article , says... On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 19:18:19 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: Most don't think of that, Richard. Electric power stations are fairly maxing as it is to keep up with today's electrical demands, especially for this boiling hot summers air conditioning. Honestly with people trying to stay cool, I'm surprised there hasn't been power outages in my area, and we have very reliable service. They make the projections based on people charging their car overnight but they also start talking about a charging station in front of every parking place at work ... oops. Talk about paying for parking. Those charging stations all cost money regardless of where they are located. If you pay with your credit card you are going to incur a 4% additional cost. Bertie Robbins...official newsgroup luddite. |
Nope, the right wing says this won't work.
In article ,
says... In article , says... On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 19:18:19 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: Most don't think of that, Richard. Electric power stations are fairly maxing as it is to keep up with today's electrical demands, especially for this boiling hot summers air conditioning. Honestly with people trying to stay cool, I'm surprised there hasn't been power outages in my area, and we have very reliable service. They make the projections based on people charging their car overnight but they also start talking about a charging station in front of every parking place at work ... oops. Talk about paying for parking. Those charging stations all cost money regardless of where they are located. If you pay with your credit card you are going to incur a 4% additional cost. Yeah, we should all just stick our heads in the sand, and pay the price for foreign crude, rape the landscape for oil sands, keep our polluting, stinking old technology cars. That's the ticket. |
Nope, the right wing says this won't work.
In article ,
says... "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article , says... "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article m, says... On 7/15/2012 9:19 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article om, says... On 7/15/2012 8:29 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... In article , says... On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 11:13:03 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: http://www.sfgate.com/business/artic...Smooth-silent- fast-3706414.php "Model S prices range all the way from $57,400 to $105,400 before state and federal incentives. The silver sedan I tried would cost about $70,000." Yeah this is a car for the masses. Make sure you read up on the "bricking" problem that Tesla's have. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/au...tery-Failures- Make-Bricking-a-Buzzword.html?pagewanted=all And no gasoline cars have problems right? You do realize don't you, that this is new technology, R&D is ongoing. What sort of new technology have you invested in? Actually quite a bit. Most of my stocks are in technology. YOU NEED TO DIVERSIFY Um, I never said that all of my investable money is in stocks..... What I said, and you failed to comprehend is that most of my STOCKS are in technology. Look at NENE for one. -------------------------------------- IMO You are a fool to have most of your stocks in tech. Why? Most "fools" are too stupid to understand that oil is a very finite resource and we MUST find energy somewhere else. OH, and I suppose someone that has tech stocks like Apple, HP, NENE, etc. are fools???? ------------------------------------------------- Nope, to have most of your stocks in tech is bad. Just go back to the Tech Bubble. Mine are doing very well, thank you. And once again, you fail to grasp the concept that stocks are a very small part of my investments. |
Nope, the right wing says this won't work.
In article ,
says... "Meyer" wrote in message eb.com... On 7/15/2012 9:49 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article m, says... On 7/15/2012 9:19 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article om, says... On 7/15/2012 8:29 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... In article , says... On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 11:13:03 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: http://www.sfgate.com/business/artic...Smooth-silent- fast-3706414.php "Model S prices range all the way from $57,400 to $105,400 before state and federal incentives. The silver sedan I tried would cost about $70,000." Yeah this is a car for the masses. Make sure you read up on the "bricking" problem that Tesla's have. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/au...tery-Failures- Make-Bricking-a-Buzzword.html?pagewanted=all And no gasoline cars have problems right? You do realize don't you, that this is new technology, R&D is ongoing. What sort of new technology have you invested in? Actually quite a bit. Most of my stocks are in technology. YOU NEED TO DIVERSIFY Um, I never said that all of my investable money is in stocks..... What I said, and you failed to comprehend is that most of my STOCKS are in technology. Look at NENE for one. Bye now -------------------------------------- NENE would not be an investment. Would either be a gamble or something to possible play with on a lark. Is a penny stock basically. Not enough to put much real money in to it. Hmm, did I say NENE was the only stock I invested in?? |
Nope, the right wing says this won't work.
|
Nope, the right wing says this won't work.
|
Nope, the right wing says this won't work.
"iBoaterer" wrote in message
... In article , says... "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article , says... "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article m, says... On 7/15/2012 9:19 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article om, says... On 7/15/2012 8:29 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... In article , says... On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 11:13:03 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: http://www.sfgate.com/business/artic...Smooth-silent- fast-3706414.php "Model S prices range all the way from $57,400 to $105,400 before state and federal incentives. The silver sedan I tried would cost about $70,000." Yeah this is a car for the masses. Make sure you read up on the "bricking" problem that Tesla's have. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/au...tery-Failures- Make-Bricking-a-Buzzword.html?pagewanted=all And no gasoline cars have problems right? You do realize don't you, that this is new technology, R&D is ongoing. What sort of new technology have you invested in? Actually quite a bit. Most of my stocks are in technology. YOU NEED TO DIVERSIFY Um, I never said that all of my investable money is in stocks..... What I said, and you failed to comprehend is that most of my STOCKS are in technology. Look at NENE for one. -------------------------------------- IMO You are a fool to have most of your stocks in tech. Why? Most "fools" are too stupid to understand that oil is a very finite resource and we MUST find energy somewhere else. OH, and I suppose someone that has tech stocks like Apple, HP, NENE, etc. are fools???? ------------------------------------------------- Nope, to have most of your stocks in tech is bad. Just go back to the Tech Bubble. Mine are doing very well, thank you. And once again, you fail to grasp the concept that stocks are a very small part of my investments. ----------------------------------- Unless you own lots of rental property, most investments should be in equities. |
Nope, the right wing says this won't work.
On 7/16/2012 12:30 PM, Califbill wrote:
"iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article , says... "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article , says... "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article m, says... On 7/15/2012 9:19 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article om, says... On 7/15/2012 8:29 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... In article , says... On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 11:13:03 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: http://www.sfgate.com/business/artic...Smooth-silent- fast-3706414.php "Model S prices range all the way from $57,400 to $105,400 before state and federal incentives. The silver sedan I tried would cost about $70,000." Yeah this is a car for the masses. Make sure you read up on the "bricking" problem that Tesla's have. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/au...tery-Failures- Make-Bricking-a-Buzzword.html?pagewanted=all And no gasoline cars have problems right? You do realize don't you, that this is new technology, R&D is ongoing. What sort of new technology have you invested in? Actually quite a bit. Most of my stocks are in technology. YOU NEED TO DIVERSIFY Um, I never said that all of my investable money is in stocks..... What I said, and you failed to comprehend is that most of my STOCKS are in technology. Look at NENE for one. -------------------------------------- IMO You are a fool to have most of your stocks in tech. Why? Most "fools" are too stupid to understand that oil is a very finite resource and we MUST find energy somewhere else. OH, and I suppose someone that has tech stocks like Apple, HP, NENE, etc. are fools???? ------------------------------------------------- Nope, to have most of your stocks in tech is bad. Just go back to the Tech Bubble. Mine are doing very well, thank you. And once again, you fail to grasp the concept that stocks are a very small part of my investments. ----------------------------------- Unless you own lots of rental property, most investments should be in equities. I don't think he's educable. |
Nope, the right wing says this won't work.
In article ,
says... "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article , says... "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article , says... "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article m, says... On 7/15/2012 9:19 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article om, says... On 7/15/2012 8:29 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... In article , says... On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 11:13:03 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: http://www.sfgate.com/business/artic...Smooth-silent- fast-3706414.php "Model S prices range all the way from $57,400 to $105,400 before state and federal incentives. The silver sedan I tried would cost about $70,000." Yeah this is a car for the masses. Make sure you read up on the "bricking" problem that Tesla's have. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/au...tery-Failures- Make-Bricking-a-Buzzword.html?pagewanted=all And no gasoline cars have problems right? You do realize don't you, that this is new technology, R&D is ongoing. What sort of new technology have you invested in? Actually quite a bit. Most of my stocks are in technology. YOU NEED TO DIVERSIFY Um, I never said that all of my investable money is in stocks..... What I said, and you failed to comprehend is that most of my STOCKS are in technology. Look at NENE for one. -------------------------------------- IMO You are a fool to have most of your stocks in tech. Why? Most "fools" are too stupid to understand that oil is a very finite resource and we MUST find energy somewhere else. OH, and I suppose someone that has tech stocks like Apple, HP, NENE, etc. are fools???? ------------------------------------------------- Nope, to have most of your stocks in tech is bad. Just go back to the Tech Bubble. Mine are doing very well, thank you. And once again, you fail to grasp the concept that stocks are a very small part of my investments. ----------------------------------- Unless you own lots of rental property, most investments should be in equities. Who told you THAT??? |
Nope, the right wing says this won't work.
On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 19:18:19 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote: On Jul 15, 8:22*pm, "Eisboch" wrote: "iBoaterer" *wrote in message ... In article , says... "iBoaterer" *wrote in message ... In article , says... In article om, says... On 7/14/2012 12:55 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In article m, says... On 7/14/2012 11:13 AM, iBoaterer wrote: http://www.sfgate.com/business/artic...Smooth-silent- fast-3706414.php How much is it? I want one. But it doesn't use fossil fuel, how could you possibly drive one? Also, it's new technology, and in conservative's minds, that's a bad thing. Way ahead of you Bozo. I have 2 electric vehicles already. Where does the electricity come from? 45% of the electricity generated in the US comes from fossil fuels. Yes, but the point you hard core righties fail to understand is that the equivalent fuel mileage is around 100 miles per gallon. If we get off of our asses and build more non fossil fuel electric infrastructure that number will go down. But stupid people are just too afraid of getting off of fossil fuel. ------------------------------------------------- Probably a lot less than 100 mpg. *There is loss in the lines getting the power to your house. *About 8% now. *Loss in the charging equipment (heat) and loss in the battery itself in charging. *Probably maybe 70% tops efficiency in charging the car. *And then loss in the car discharging the battery. *How many KWH at the power plant required for the car to go 50 miles? No, it's 100 mpg. --------------------------------- That's an "equivalent" rating based on the average cost of electricity as it produced today for current usages. * *There are over 250 million cars on the road in the USA. * If a quarter to half of them were replaced with electrics that require electricity generation for charging, what do think will happen to the cost of electricity and to it's "equivalent" rating in terms of mpg? Most don't think of that, Richard. Electric power stations are fairly maxing as it is to keep up with today's electrical demands, especially for this boiling hot summers air conditioning. Honestly with people trying to stay cool, I'm surprised there hasn't been power outages in my area, and we have very reliable service. Most of our electric power in the NW is produced by hydro. And we do not have a big air conditioning demands during the summer. Electric vehicles will be very good for the NW. |
Nope, the right wing says this won't work.
On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 22:01:31 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message ... On Jul 14, 5:17 pm, BAR wrote: In article , says... already. Where does the electricity come from? 45% of the electricity generated in the US comes from fossil fuels. Should have been 75%. OK, I said 65+... looks like i was a bit 'conservative' in my guestimation. --------------------------------- Natural gas, coal and petroleum are all fossil fuels and produce the bulk of the electricity used in the USA. Nuclear kicks in another 19 percent. Solar, wind, geothermal sources produce very little by comparison. There's no magic or anything particularly "green" about battery powered cars. The energy had to come from somewhere. http://mapawatt.com/wp-content/uploa...table_2010.gif Different regions produce it differently. NW is chiefly hydro. |
Nope, the right wing says this won't work.
In article om,
says... On 7/16/2012 12:30 PM, Califbill wrote: "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article , says... "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article , says... "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article m, says... On 7/15/2012 9:19 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article om, says... On 7/15/2012 8:29 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... In article , says... On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 11:13:03 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: http://www.sfgate.com/business/artic...Smooth-silent- fast-3706414.php "Model S prices range all the way from $57,400 to $105,400 before state and federal incentives. The silver sedan I tried would cost about $70,000." Yeah this is a car for the masses. Make sure you read up on the "bricking" problem that Tesla's have. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/au...tery-Failures- Make-Bricking-a-Buzzword.html?pagewanted=all And no gasoline cars have problems right? You do realize don't you, that this is new technology, R&D is ongoing. What sort of new technology have you invested in? Actually quite a bit. Most of my stocks are in technology. YOU NEED TO DIVERSIFY Um, I never said that all of my investable money is in stocks..... What I said, and you failed to comprehend is that most of my STOCKS are in technology. Look at NENE for one. -------------------------------------- IMO You are a fool to have most of your stocks in tech. Why? Most "fools" are too stupid to understand that oil is a very finite resource and we MUST find energy somewhere else. OH, and I suppose someone that has tech stocks like Apple, HP, NENE, etc. are fools???? ------------------------------------------------- Nope, to have most of your stocks in tech is bad. Just go back to the Tech Bubble. Mine are doing very well, thank you. And once again, you fail to grasp the concept that stocks are a very small part of my investments. ----------------------------------- Unless you own lots of rental property, most investments should be in equities. I don't think he's educable. I have a very capable planner. |
Nope, the right wing says this won't work.
|
Nope, the right wing says this won't work.
In article ,
says... On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 11:54:42 -0700, jps wrote: On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 14:21:05 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 09:53:59 -0700, jps wrote: Most of our electric power in the NW is produced by hydro. And we do not have a big air conditioning demands during the summer. Electric vehicles will be very good for the NW. That is probably true but those mountains will play hell with that 40 mile range thing. Most people in the US get their power from coal and in spite of the glossy ads, it is still a dirty way to get electricity. Natural gas is a viable alternative but this fracking thing has everyone freaked. In real life it is a minuscule number of wells with problems, compared to the number fracked but it does make for compelling TV. I suppose if we didn't mind paying 50 cents a KWH for solar power like the Germans do, we could do that. I just doubt the average American is that gullible. I pay more like 11-12 now. If your health care costs were 90% lower, you might not mind paying 4X for electricity. My family insurance premiums, including dental, are nearly $20K/anum, without copays or deductibles. I'm putting $6K into an FSA this year that will cover the rest. If a bullfrog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass all the time either. Where was there EVER a plan to cut health care costs by 90%? If you mean Germany you need to look at the whole tax load, not just the energy taxes, JPS saves money buying fine German screw drivers rather than the ones a the local hardware store. |
Nope, the right wing says this won't work.
wrote in message ...
On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 08:56:05 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 18:02:43 -0700, "Califbill" wrote: NENE would not be an investment. Would either be a gamble or something to possible play with on a lark. Is a penny stock basically. Not enough to put much real money in to it. If you sold it in December it was a nice trade. If you bought it in December "Farewell and adieu to you spanish ladies...." It's not over yet. I know, I have some WEST but I don't expect to make any money on it. As long as they keep finding more oil and gas, alternatives will not be competitive in a market driven economy.. The only way they work is for the government to put it's thumb on the scale in regressive programs like the rebates. Rich guys get tax payer money from people too poor to play. ----------------------------------------- But the NW needs more power and it is not going to be hydroelectric. WPPSS , the famous Whoops bonds were to pay for 5 nuke plants. so they are probably on the verge of running out of extra generating capacity. And if they did not have a crooked court, the rate payers in the NW would still be paying for those bonds. |
Nope, the right wing says this won't work.
On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 18:37:51 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 11:54:42 -0700, jps wrote: On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 14:21:05 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 09:53:59 -0700, jps wrote: Most of our electric power in the NW is produced by hydro. And we do not have a big air conditioning demands during the summer. Electric vehicles will be very good for the NW. That is probably true but those mountains will play hell with that 40 mile range thing. Most people in the US get their power from coal and in spite of the glossy ads, it is still a dirty way to get electricity. Natural gas is a viable alternative but this fracking thing has everyone freaked. In real life it is a minuscule number of wells with problems, compared to the number fracked but it does make for compelling TV. I suppose if we didn't mind paying 50 cents a KWH for solar power like the Germans do, we could do that. I just doubt the average American is that gullible. I pay more like 11-12 now. If your health care costs were 90% lower, you might not mind paying 4X for electricity. My family insurance premiums, including dental, are nearly $20K/anum, without copays or deductibles. I'm putting $6K into an FSA this year that will cover the rest. If a bullfrog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass all the time either. Where was there EVER a plan to cut health care costs by 90%? If you mean Germany you need to look at the whole tax load, not just the energy taxes, I'm talking about single payer, universal health care. The 10% would cover your Viagra. |
Nope, the right wing says this won't work.
On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 22:12:10 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
"X ` Man" wrote in message om... On 7/14/12 6:07 PM, BAR wrote: 45% of the electricity generated in the US comes from fossil fuels. Gee, does that mean 55 percent doesn't? Well, then, why do anything? What are you righties so scared of? ---------------------------------------------- BAR was in error and corrected himself. Using round numbers, 70 percent is from fossil fuels. 19 percent from nuclear reactors. 10 percent from solar, geothermal, wind, etc. Where's hydro? Rest of the country giggles about all our rain but we end up laughing last. Washington is the leading hydroelectric power producer in the Nation. Hydroelectric power accounts for nearly three-fourths of State electricity generation. And we sell that power to suckers in neighboring states. |
Nope, the right wing says this won't work.
On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 11:23:24 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
"iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article , says... "X ` Man" wrote in message m... On 7/14/12 6:07 PM, BAR wrote: 45% of the electricity generated in the US comes from fossil fuels. Gee, does that mean 55 percent doesn't? Well, then, why do anything? What are you righties so scared of? ---------------------------------------------- BAR was in error and corrected himself. Using round numbers, 70 percent is from fossil fuels. 19 percent from nuclear reactors. 10 percent from solar, geothermal, wind, etc. And that is the problem, the right wing is scared to death to wean off of fossil fuels. ------------------------------------------- I don't think responsible Republicans are *scared* to get off our dependence on fossil fuels. It's a issue of practicality and reality. Eventually we won't be using fossil fuels but it isn't going to happen tomorrow. Solar, wind, geothermal have all been in development for decades. Despite the promise and despite the advances and improvements, they can't come close to meeting the energy needs even as it currently exists. Now, start adding millions of battery powered vehicles that need electrical power to run and the capacity of non-fossil energy sources to charge them becomes miniscule. Just like the laws of conservation of energy, we (as a technology driven society) have a habit of solving one problem by creating another. Not too long ago asbestos was the greatest thing since sliced bread for brake linings, school floor tiles and fire retardant insulation. Oooops! Let's talk about corn. Brazil is kicking our ass by growing sugar cane and we invested in corn. Could have been neck and neck with Brazil if we'd have invested in switchgrass or something that didn't necessarily benefit the farmer constituents of some thick headed congressmen. |
Nope, the right wing says this won't work.
|
Nope, the right wing says this won't work.
"jps" wrote in message ... On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 22:01:31 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "Tim" wrote in message ... On Jul 14, 5:17 pm, BAR wrote: In article , says... already. Where does the electricity come from? 45% of the electricity generated in the US comes from fossil fuels. Should have been 75%. OK, I said 65+... looks like i was a bit 'conservative' in my guestimation. --------------------------------- Natural gas, coal and petroleum are all fossil fuels and produce the bulk of the electricity used in the USA. Nuclear kicks in another 19 percent. Solar, wind, geothermal sources produce very little by comparison. There's no magic or anything particularly "green" about battery powered cars. The energy had to come from somewhere. http://mapawatt.com/wp-content/uploa...table_2010.gif Different regions produce it differently. NW is chiefly hydro. ------------------------------------------------- I don't disagree. The numbers cited are overall national sources. Hydro produces somewhere around 7 percent of all the electricity generated nationally. Good for your area but certainly cannot support the national demand, even without a major shift to electric cars. |
Nope, the right wing says this won't work.
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "jps" wrote in message ... On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 22:01:31 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "Tim" wrote in message ... On Jul 14, 5:17 pm, BAR wrote: In article , says... already. Where does the electricity come from? 45% of the electricity generated in the US comes from fossil fuels. Should have been 75%. OK, I said 65+... looks like i was a bit 'conservative' in my guestimation. --------------------------------- Natural gas, coal and petroleum are all fossil fuels and produce the bulk of the electricity used in the USA. Nuclear kicks in another 19 percent. Solar, wind, geothermal sources produce very little by comparison. There's no magic or anything particularly "green" about battery powered cars. The energy had to come from somewhere. http://mapawatt.com/wp-content/uploa...table_2010.gif Different regions produce it differently. NW is chiefly hydro. ------------------------------------------------- I don't disagree. The numbers cited are overall national sources. Hydro produces somewhere around 7 percent of all the electricity generated nationally. Good for your area but certainly cannot support the national demand, even without a major shift to electric cars. -------------------------------------------------- Hydro only produces 51% of the Northwets power. so there electric cars are going to have to have more steam generating power plants. Steam via coal, fission, NG but it is not going to be Hydro. http://www.nwcouncil.org/maps/power/overview.htm |
Nope, the right wing says this won't work.
|
Nope, the right wing says this won't work.
On 7/18/12 7:51 AM, BAR wrote:
In article , says... On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 11:23:24 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article , says... "X ` Man" wrote in message m... On 7/14/12 6:07 PM, BAR wrote: 45% of the electricity generated in the US comes from fossil fuels. Gee, does that mean 55 percent doesn't? Well, then, why do anything? What are you righties so scared of? ---------------------------------------------- BAR was in error and corrected himself. Using round numbers, 70 percent is from fossil fuels. 19 percent from nuclear reactors. 10 percent from solar, geothermal, wind, etc. And that is the problem, the right wing is scared to death to wean off of fossil fuels. ------------------------------------------- I don't think responsible Republicans are *scared* to get off our dependence on fossil fuels. It's a issue of practicality and reality. Eventually we won't be using fossil fuels but it isn't going to happen tomorrow. Solar, wind, geothermal have all been in development for decades. Despite the promise and despite the advances and improvements, they can't come close to meeting the energy needs even as it currently exists. Now, start adding millions of battery powered vehicles that need electrical power to run and the capacity of non-fossil energy sources to charge them becomes miniscule. Just like the laws of conservation of energy, we (as a technology driven society) have a habit of solving one problem by creating another. Not too long ago asbestos was the greatest thing since sliced bread for brake linings, school floor tiles and fire retardant insulation. Oooops! Let's talk about corn. Brazil is kicking our ass by growing sugar cane and we invested in corn. Could have been neck and neck with Brazil if we'd have invested in switchgrass or something that didn't necessarily benefit the farmer constituents of some thick headed congressmen. Spoken like a true believer in central planning. Thinking like yours, if it catches on, will quickly destroy the USA. Bertie is a well-credentialed economist, an educational background he received while in high school and the marins. |
Nope, the right wing says this won't work.
On 7/18/12 8:07 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 7/18/12 7:51 AM, BAR wrote: In article , says... On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 11:23:24 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article , says... "X ` Man" wrote in message m... On 7/14/12 6:07 PM, BAR wrote: 45% of the electricity generated in the US comes from fossil fuels. Gee, does that mean 55 percent doesn't? Well, then, why do anything? What are you righties so scared of? ---------------------------------------------- BAR was in error and corrected himself. Using round numbers, 70 percent is from fossil fuels. 19 percent from nuclear reactors. 10 percent from solar, geothermal, wind, etc. And that is the problem, the right wing is scared to death to wean off of fossil fuels. ------------------------------------------- I don't think responsible Republicans are *scared* to get off our dependence on fossil fuels. It's a issue of practicality and reality. Eventually we won't be using fossil fuels but it isn't going to happen tomorrow. Solar, wind, geothermal have all been in development for decades. Despite the promise and despite the advances and improvements, they can't come close to meeting the energy needs even as it currently exists. Now, start adding millions of battery powered vehicles that need electrical power to run and the capacity of non-fossil energy sources to charge them becomes miniscule. Just like the laws of conservation of energy, we (as a technology driven society) have a habit of solving one problem by creating another. Not too long ago asbestos was the greatest thing since sliced bread for brake linings, school floor tiles and fire retardant insulation. Oooops! Let's talk about corn. Brazil is kicking our ass by growing sugar cane and we invested in corn. Could have been neck and neck with Brazil if we'd have invested in switchgrass or something that didn't necessarily benefit the farmer constituents of some thick headed congressmen. Spoken like a true believer in central planning. Thinking like yours, if it catches on, will quickly destroy the USA. Bertie is a well-credentialed economist, an educational background he received while in high school and the marins. er, marines. |
Nope, the right wing says this won't work.
In article , dump-on-
says... On 7/18/12 8:07 AM, X ` Man wrote: On 7/18/12 7:51 AM, BAR wrote: In article , says... On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 11:23:24 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article , says... "X ` Man" wrote in message m... On 7/14/12 6:07 PM, BAR wrote: 45% of the electricity generated in the US comes from fossil fuels. Gee, does that mean 55 percent doesn't? Well, then, why do anything? What are you righties so scared of? ---------------------------------------------- BAR was in error and corrected himself. Using round numbers, 70 percent is from fossil fuels. 19 percent from nuclear reactors. 10 percent from solar, geothermal, wind, etc. And that is the problem, the right wing is scared to death to wean off of fossil fuels. ------------------------------------------- I don't think responsible Republicans are *scared* to get off our dependence on fossil fuels. It's a issue of practicality and reality. Eventually we won't be using fossil fuels but it isn't going to happen tomorrow. Solar, wind, geothermal have all been in development for decades. Despite the promise and despite the advances and improvements, they can't come close to meeting the energy needs even as it currently exists. Now, start adding millions of battery powered vehicles that need electrical power to run and the capacity of non-fossil energy sources to charge them becomes miniscule. Just like the laws of conservation of energy, we (as a technology driven society) have a habit of solving one problem by creating another. Not too long ago asbestos was the greatest thing since sliced bread for brake linings, school floor tiles and fire retardant insulation. Oooops! Let's talk about corn. Brazil is kicking our ass by growing sugar cane and we invested in corn. Could have been neck and neck with Brazil if we'd have invested in switchgrass or something that didn't necessarily benefit the farmer constituents of some thick headed congressmen. Spoken like a true believer in central planning. Thinking like yours, if it catches on, will quickly destroy the USA. Bertie is a well-credentialed economist, an educational background he received while in high school and the marins. er, marines. Don will surely chastise you for that. |
Nope, the right wing says this won't work.
On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:38:59 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 10:41:02 -0700, jps wrote: On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 18:37:51 -0400, wrote: If your health care costs were 90% lower, you might not mind paying 4X for electricity. My family insurance premiums, including dental, are nearly $20K/anum, without copays or deductibles. I'm putting $6K into an FSA this year that will cover the rest. If a bullfrog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass all the time either. Where was there EVER a plan to cut health care costs by 90%? If you mean Germany you need to look at the whole tax load, not just the energy taxes, I'm talking about single payer, universal health care. The German system is not single payer. True. It's unversal health care, administered by the government but funded by both taxes and employer/employee contributions. Low wage workers are exempted from the health insurance taxes. |
Nope, the right wing says this won't work.
On 7/18/12 7:13 PM, jps wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:38:59 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 10:41:02 -0700, jps wrote: On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 18:37:51 -0400, wrote: If your health care costs were 90% lower, you might not mind paying 4X for electricity. My family insurance premiums, including dental, are nearly $20K/anum, without copays or deductibles. I'm putting $6K into an FSA this year that will cover the rest. If a bullfrog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass all the time either. Where was there EVER a plan to cut health care costs by 90%? If you mean Germany you need to look at the whole tax load, not just the energy taxes, I'm talking about single payer, universal health care. The German system is not single payer. True. It's unversal health care, administered by the government but funded by both taxes and employer/employee contributions. Low wage workers are exempted from the health insurance taxes. Lots of countries have universal health care, but we don't. Further, for a number of illnesses and for the indigent, the waiting periods to get into a publicly funded facility can run a half year or more. In the Seattle area, for example, there hardly is any help available for the indigent facing serious mental health issues. |
Nope, the right wing says this won't work.
In article ,
says... On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:38:59 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 10:41:02 -0700, jps wrote: On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 18:37:51 -0400, wrote: If your health care costs were 90% lower, you might not mind paying 4X for electricity. My family insurance premiums, including dental, are nearly $20K/anum, without copays or deductibles. I'm putting $6K into an FSA this year that will cover the rest. If a bullfrog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass all the time either. Where was there EVER a plan to cut health care costs by 90%? If you mean Germany you need to look at the whole tax load, not just the energy taxes, I'm talking about single payer, universal health care. The German system is not single payer. True. It's unversal health care, administered by the government but funded by both taxes and employer/employee contributions. Low wage workers are exempted from the health insurance taxes. They may be exempted from paying it but it is part of their total compensation. If they were exempted the employers would have to pay them more so that they could pay the "tax." |
Nope, the right wing says this won't work.
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 20:26:58 -0400, X ` Man
wrote: In the Seattle area, for example, there hardly is any help available for the indigent facing serious mental health issues. ======== That appears to be true in Maryland also. |
Nope, the right wing says this won't work.
On 7/18/12 11:28 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 20:26:58 -0400, X ` Man wrote: In the Seattle area, for example, there hardly is any help available for the indigent facing serious mental health issues. ======== That appears to be true in Maryland also. Next time you are in Maryland, I'm sure my wife can find you a therapist who charges on a sliding scale. It's always "the right" that pokes fun at the indigent population, like that in Seattle, who can't get medical services. Assholes, all of you. |
Nope, the right wing says this won't work.
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:07 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com