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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 10:59:42 -0700, jps wrote:


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.

We grow corn because that is what is geographically expedient. There
are only a few places in the US that sugar will grow and the
environmentalists are shutting that down. (for good reason IMHO but
still true)

If they had environmentalists in Brazil, they would shut that down
too. Draining wet lands and burning the rain forest to grow sugar is
not particularly ecologically sound.
Global warming? ... anyone? ... anyone? ... Bueller?

Switch grass sounds great until you actually look at the economics of
making fuel out of it.

I wonder if the switchgrass has been studied enough to not be a threat
to us, like Kudzu?

"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.

"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