"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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."