[OT - US/Canada] E-85

Today ASAAR attempted to dazzle everyone with this profound
linguistic utterance

ASAAR, is that Asshole Spewing All Avenues of
Rediculousness?

Are you accusing me of being a pinko or can't you spell?

I can spell OK, but there's no spellung chekkur in Xnews. My
point, that your feeble mind overlooked, is that you never
speak except to disparage, and why don't you talk to whatever
(low) degree of intelligence you possess on this or any other
thread?

Instead of proving what an ass you are, as usual, why not
actually contribute to a discussion. I know you are a zero
with photography, afraid you'll show that you're equally
zero.zero in the car biz? Yes.

I was tempted to rebut several of your statements, but
after
considering their inanities decided it wasn't worth
stooping so low. Your infatuation with overpowered Chrysler
products bespeaks an adolescent trapped in a body worthy of
Dorian Gray. You have little to offer here, other than
your usual hostility and illogic.

Try to rebut. You'll fail, but you can try. It really is hard
to argue with facts, so I expect that is the reason for your
reticence:

"'Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak
and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln

--
ATM, aka Jerry

"'Illigitimus Non Carborundum', loosely translated from the
Latin to mean 'Don't let the *******s grind you down!" - Motto
of Oakland University School of Engineering, 1969

Today John McWilliams attempted to dazzle everyone with this
profound linguistic utterance

All Things Mopar wrote:


There is simply no shortage of crude oil in the world,
even if one excludes the Middle East.

Yas, yas, if your time frame is a few years.

A few /hundred/ years is more like it. The estimates of oil in
the Alaska wilds, where the environmentalists are standing in
the way of even a small number of exploratory wells, is
estimated in the tens of billions of barrels. Modern
geological techniques for finding old-fashioned pools of oil
could recover additional tens of billions of barrels in old
areas in North American and in Europe, to name just two. And,
adoption of secondary and tertiary recovery methods - if
approved by the EPA and local "save the spotted owl" fanatics,
is estimated to yield in the hundreds of billions of barrels.

Then, too, there is a simpler, more expedient method: depose
the dictators and simply take the oil. You can start in
Venezuala, where gas sells today for only US$0.12/gallon.
Ditto for the Middle East. It would take almost no military
effort to topple the petty dictatorships and get the oil.
Don't like unilateral military action for commercial gain?
Then do it for humanitarian reasons.

But, for the 3rd or 4th time, the real issue isn't a shortage
of crude, it is the inefficient use of it. Easy example, the
U.S. Energy Czar, Minetta, wants to revamp CAFE. Excellent
idea, it was a stupid idea in 1973 and has been ever since.
But, this time he wants to end the mpg credits that support
7,500 SUVs and replace it with an negative incentive to force
those stubborn car makers into builind more small cars. That
is read" Put a stiff tax on big cars that'll **** off buyers
badly enough that they will want to buy smaller, presumably
more fuel efficient cars". But, that is yet another example of
governmental mindless insanity - trying to manipulate buying
habits through hidden taxes.

--
ATM, aka Jerry

"'Illigitimus Non Carborundum', loosely translated from the
Latin to mean 'Don't let the *******s grind you down!" - Motto
of Oakland University School of Engineering, 1969

From what I've heard, ethanol must be trucked long distances because it
would ruin transport pipes due to its more corrosive nature.

It is because the ethanol would pick up too much water in the pipes.

All Things Mopar wrote:
Today John McWilliams attempted to dazzle everyone with this
profound linguistic utterance

All Things Mopar wrote:

There is simply no shortage of crude oil in the world,
even if one excludes the Middle East.
Yas, yas, if your time frame is a few years.

A few /hundred/ years is more like it. The estimates of oil in
the Alaska wilds, where the environmentalists are standing in ....

More like 15-25 years is when the crunch really binds. Don't forget to
factor in third world demand for petrol and petro-chemicals.


Put a stiff tax on big cars that'll **** off buyers
badly enough that they will want to buy smaller, presumably
more fuel efficient cars". But, that is yet another example of
governmental mindless insanity - trying to manipulate buying
habits through hidden taxes.

Oh, sure, anything you don't like becomes insanity....and mindless at
that! Taxing conspicuous consumption is something I rather like.....

--
John McWilliams

"John McWilliams" wrote in message
...

Taxing conspicuous consumption is something I rather like.....


Sounds like a new spin on taxing the rich, to me. Instead of taxing the
rich, you just want to tax, "conspicuous consumption".....Kind of sounds OK,
that way, doesn't it?

Today John McWilliams attempted to dazzle everyone with this
profound linguistic utterance

Put a stiff tax on big cars that'll **** off buyers
badly enough that they will want to buy smaller,
presumably more fuel efficient cars". But, that is yet
another example of governmental mindless insanity - trying
to manipulate buying habits through hidden taxes.

Oh, sure, anything you don't like becomes insanity....and
mindless at that! Taxing conspicuous consumption is
something I rather like.....

I was talking about the "gubmint", who aren't known for high
intelligence.

Where do you live and what do /you/ drive? If it is /anything/
other than some silly-ass greenmobile, John, then you just go
on a thinkin' "right" no matter how dumb it makes you sound.

If you read all of my recent posts - in context - I have said
repeatedly that I am not an advocate of "conspicuous
consumption" or Big Oil. I have also quoted some necessary,
but not sufficient, first steps to ending dependence on
foreign oil, beginning with redefining the entire concept of
mpg into l/100 km and the entire stupidness of CAFE.

Care to debate with me how CAFE is defined and tested for and
why it is "stupid"? No, I thought not. Just another
environmental extremist spewing forth propaganda in the "the
sky is falling, the sky is falling!" Chicken Little style.

While I'm waxing philosophical, kindly 'splain why there
hasn't been even one new oil refinery built anywhere in the
United States in two generations and no nuclear powerplants
even discussed for the same time span, much less construction
even started. Everybody wants low priced gas, cheap heating
oil, and an ever increasing but cheap source of electricity
but nobody wants a refinery or powerplant in their city.

Anytime you or anyone really wants to get serious about
breaking the dope - i.e., fossil fuel - addiction can sign up
for those 250 sq miles of solar cells I talked about. With
about 251 or 252 sq miles, there'd also be enough /free/ power
(once you pay one-time for the solar cells) to also charge up
100 million fully electic cars every night. You know, those
cars developed a decade ago that still aren't economically
viableyet today?

--
ATM, aka Jerry

"'Illigitimus Non Carborundum', loosely translated from the
Latin to mean 'Don't let the *******s grind you down!" - Motto
of Oakland University School of Engineering, 1969

Today William Graham attempted to dazzle everyone with this
profound linguistic utterance

Taxing conspicuous consumption is something I rather
like.....

Sounds like a new spin on taxing the rich, to me. Instead
of taxing the rich, you just want to tax, "conspicuous
consumption".....Kind of sounds OK, that way, doesn't it?

Forget the Blue vs Red method of taxation for a minute, if you
can, William. Just comtemplate the simple fact that /any/ kind
of tax on consumption, whether it be some VAT scheme on TVs or
cars or PCs, or a tax on gas guzzlers, it is /highly/
regressive.

I just read an article in the Detroit News about more and more
people buying cars /starting/ at $150,000. One minority couple
interviewed already had a Bentley coupe and has a turbo-charged
V-12 Bentley sedan, for $185,000, on order. Think these folks
give a **** what gas costs or how much tax they'll have to pay?

But, the poor - literally - smucks who have to drive to work
every day with a 15-year-old car that gets crappy mileage are
the real payees of a tax on the consumption of gas.

--
ATM, aka Jerry

"'Illigitimus Non Carborundum', loosely translated from the
Latin to mean 'Don't let the *******s grind you down!" - Motto
of Oakland University School of Engineering, 1969

It'll eat thru the steel pipes in time also.
Thats why the flex-fuel vehicles have stainless tanks and lines.

Cheers

"k-man" wrote in message
oups.com...

From what I've heard, ethanol must be trucked long distances because
it
would ruin transport pipes due to its more corrosive nature.

It is because the ethanol would pick up too much water in the pipes.

"All Things Mopar" wrote in message
1...
Today William Graham attempted to dazzle everyone with this
profound linguistic utterance

Taxing conspicuous consumption is something I rather
like.....

Sounds like a new spin on taxing the rich, to me. Instead
of taxing the rich, you just want to tax, "conspicuous
consumption".....Kind of sounds OK, that way, doesn't it?

Forget the Blue vs Red method of taxation for a minute, if you
can, William. Just comtemplate the simple fact that /any/ kind
of tax on consumption, whether it be some VAT scheme on TVs or
cars or PCs, or a tax on gas guzzlers, it is /highly/
regressive.

You are preaching to the choir......I am in favor of a flat across the board
income tax.....Preferably around 15% of net income. - And even this isn't
really, "flat"....Flat would be where everyone pays the same dollar
amount.....


I just read an article in the Detroit News about more and more
people buying cars /starting/ at $150,000. One minority couple
interviewed already had a Bentley coupe and has a turbo-charged
V-12 Bentley sedan, for $185,000, on order. Think these folks
give a **** what gas costs or how much tax they'll have to pay?

But, the poor - literally - smucks who have to drive to work
every day with a 15-year-old car that gets crappy mileage are
the real payees of a tax on the consumption of gas.

I think this is great....It means more and more people are getting rich
enough to afford 150 + grand cars......These are the people who start and
run businesses, and hire other people. These are the ones who make this
country great. Every one of those "poor smucks" you are talking about could
do the same thing. They got, (or should have gotten) the same education that
I got, and should be able to invest their money in a business, and run it
right, and become rich. I could have done that, but I was too timid, so I
just saved and invested my way to a comfortable retirement. But I am the
last one who would take those Bentleys away from the rich people. They
earned it, and they should enjoy it. They are my heroes, and my children's
role models......

This is Wayyyyy OT for the photo news groups but...

On Wed, 10 May 2006 18:05:55 -0500, All Things Mopar
wrote:
snip
While I'm waxing philosophical, kindly 'splain why there
hasn't been even one new oil refinery built anywhere in the
United States in two generations and no nuclear powerplants
even discussed for the same time span, much less construction
even started. Everybody wants low priced gas, cheap heating
oil, and an ever increasing but cheap source of electricity
but nobody wants a refinery or powerplant in their city.

Can't disagree with that, however more refineries would be placing us
in a worse position with more dependency than we have now.

Anytime you or anyone really wants to get serious about
breaking the dope - i.e., fossil fuel - addiction can sign up
for those 250 sq miles of solar cells I talked about. With

There are several problems with the very large solar array.
The first is vulnerability from both natural and un-natural acts. As
I recall the desert SW has suffered a number of severe storms over the
past few years and although rare there have been some bad hail storms
which are death on solar cells as are severe thunderstorms.
Fortunately they suffer far fewer of the things than most of the US.

Now there is the logistics problem of building such an array as well
as maintaining and operating it.

We are limited by the number of cells (due to break down voltages and
voltage distribution,) we can put in any particular array, but arrays
can be combined through switching, or storage switching in an almost
unlimited number theoretically.

There would be both the photovoltaic cells, temporary storage for the
electricity and inverters to change the DC to AC and phase adjusters
to give us the ability to combine power from multiple AC sources.

From both the practical stand point as well as the number of
inverters, their cost, and capacity we would want the arrays as large
as practical.
Another limitation for the inverters is heat. They generate a fair
amount of heat even in a switching environment let alone one that will
develop a clean wave form. Also the desert heat is more than a bit
much for most semiconductor devices to maintain reliability.

Semiconductors suffer from several maladies which are related to
purity and heat. Today's raw materials (poly crystalline Silicon) are
far more pure than the best we could do with float zone refining 30 to
40 years ago and they are a tiny fraction of the cost. That poly
crystalline Silicon is produced in thousands of metric tons a year
with I believe three major producers.

At any rate, impurities still creep in during the manufacturing
processes from producing the poly, the single crystal, and
manufacturing the solar cells. The devices have both majority and
minority carriers in them. (Explaining that would take a *lot* of
space) Heat can cause the carriers to migrate resulting in a
degradation of the efficiency of the device.

Now we are not talking a large array of a few hundred square feet, but
orders of magnitude larger at hundreds of square miles.

Most of us are familiar with cities generating their own weather due
to the extra heat absorption and higher temperatures in and around
those cities. A massive solar array of 250 square miles would
probably have a dramatic effect on the surface reflection for the area
with a corresponding rise in temperature which could affect areas many
hundreds of miles distant. The desert is quite reflective even as hot
as it gets while solar cells would absorb much more heat. For
instance, working with passive heating I've seen protected cells
(under glass) reach several hundred degrees and they can reach over
300F which would probably be a bit hard on the cells. Normally that
temperature rise can be easily handled in conventional sized arrays,
but you do have to have some place to dump the heat.

As a thought it might be better to have many smaller arrays of some
where between a few acres and a few hundred acres more widely
separated. I have no idea where size would cost us more than we'd
gain.

Solar cells do have a finite life although long and they are not
maintenance free so this would not be a one time expense with a build
it and forget it approach.

about 251 or 252 sq miles, there'd also be enough /free/ power
(once you pay one-time for the solar cells) to also charge up
100 million fully electic cars every night. You know, those
cars developed a decade ago that still aren't economically
viableyet today?

One major hurtle is our power grid which currently would only have the
capacity to handle a fraction of the cars on the road. That and we
need much better and larger batteries for range. Even with precise
power distribution and equalization across the grid we don't have the
capacity to handle wide spread heat waves and a 100 million cars would
sure exceed that on a cool day.

Beyond getting the range and distribution capacity, most of the high
capacity batteries will become a disposal problem as they are highly
toxic. One thing, although clean where they are used, electric cars
are expensive. Current battery packs are about $2500 for a hybrid car
with an all electric requiring a pack several times that size.

However for any of this to even approach becoming a reality we will
need $3.50 to $4.00 a gallon gas and it'll have to stay there.

It's going to be at least a decade or more before we come up with the
capacity for wide spread use of alternative energy sources and by then
it's unlikely they will be any cheaper than what we have now in
today's dollars. So we have two challenges, conserve and develop
alternative energy sources into physical and economic viability.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com