RBM wrote:


What is a homeowners permit?


I assume he means "owner/builder" permit that allows the homeowner to
pull a permit and do the work. YMMV on whether you can actually do
this. In Florida you can.


That's not legal in my county, in fact I'm pretty sure there is a
jail term for doing that, although the jail term may only be for
doing electrical work in someone else's house. I could look at the
laws, but they're really scary. I can't believe that half the stuff
in them is constitutional. Hard to believe that you can't legally
work in your own house.


In less enlightened climes, you need no permit at all. I've done two: at my
place and my son's. We replaced crappola builder-grade, Wesmokeless panels
with 200-Amp Square-D ones.

'Course our town's so backward we don't even have zoning.

And, believe it or not, we don't have many fires started due to poor wiring.
No, not many at all considering we're the 4th largest city in the nation.
Hardly even make the news.

Now assuming the original poster doesn't need or can get the required permit
(or is willing to work under a tent attached to the side of the house during
the dark of the moon) and:

a) has some common sense,
b) can use simple tools, and
c) is relatively close to a big box store, then

he can do the job himself for about $350.

"Officer, I have no idea. I'm as bewildered as you. I came home from work
and there was a large red ribbon attached to the box with an unsigned
birthday card and a bottle of Champagne sitting on the ground. I drank the
wine... Did I do something wrong?"

In article , (RBM) writes:
|
| "Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
| ...
|
| "RBM" wrote
| Wow, that's pretty funny. Of all the reasons one might find to upgrade an
| electric service, "electric vehicles are on the way", is certainly not
| one I would have thought of. I suppose with the new "Volt" coming out
| with it's revolutionary 40 miles (best case scenario) on a charge, people
| will be just tripping over each other to buy one. We electricians will be
| backlogged for the next ten years trying to upgrade everyone's service to
| accommodate these technological wonders.
|
|
| Funny today, maybe no so ten years from now. I read that California is
| installing thousands of charging stations now. That is keeping some
| electricians busy.
|
| I'd put one in if I was buying a Tesla. You won't catch me driving a
| Volt even though the payback is a mere 18 years or so.
|
| I think you hit the nail on the head. California is just putting more nails
| in their financial coffin, but for those of us living in the real world, the
| volt is a POS, and we can't afford the Tesla. I don't think I'll have to
| worry about installing piles of electric car outlets for a while yet

Something I've wondered about the payback projections for electric vehicles:
do they assume that there won't eventually be a road tax applied to the
electricity and if so is this a reasonable assumption? Or is there already
some sort of compensating mileage tax?

Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com

"rlz" wrote
the electriv vehicle comments, I have a 5.9L v-8 in a 1500 Dodge
Ram to haul loads of construction and landscaping material. I just
can't imagine a electric vehicle that will handle that unless I haul
miles of extension cables.

Rob

Check out the engines on trains. If they take the diesel electric design
and adapt it to a pickup, it can be done. Cost is the issue. There are
large electric vehicles operating in other industries too. My guess is we
will not ever see it, but I'd never say it cannot be done.

"Dan Lanciani" ddl@danlan.*com wrote in message
...
In article , (RBM) writes:
|
| "Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
| ...
|
| "RBM" wrote
| Wow, that's pretty funny. Of all the reasons one might find to
upgrade an
| electric service, "electric vehicles are on the way", is certainly
not
| one I would have thought of. I suppose with the new "Volt" coming out
| with it's revolutionary 40 miles (best case scenario) on a charge,
people
| will be just tripping over each other to buy one. We electricians
will be
| backlogged for the next ten years trying to upgrade everyone's
service to
| accommodate these technological wonders.
|
|
| Funny today, maybe no so ten years from now. I read that California
is
| installing thousands of charging stations now. That is keeping some
| electricians busy.
|
| I'd put one in if I was buying a Tesla. You won't catch me driving a
| Volt even though the payback is a mere 18 years or so.
|
| I think you hit the nail on the head. California is just putting more
nails
| in their financial coffin, but for those of us living in the real world,
the
| volt is a POS, and we can't afford the Tesla. I don't think I'll have to
| worry about installing piles of electric car outlets for a while yet

Something I've wondered about the payback projections for electric
vehicles:
do they assume that there won't eventually be a road tax applied to the
electricity and if so is this a reasonable assumption? Or is there
already
some sort of compensating mileage tax?

Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com

At this point, this administration is still trying to pay people to buy
them. Not to mention that this administration is buying something like 25%
of them itself. At some point, if some manufacturer builds one good enough
to be sold purely on it own merits, without subsidies, then they'll find a
way to tax them, my guess is by a per mile tax.

On 12/05/2010 07:32 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

"rlz" wrote
the electriv vehicle comments, I have a 5.9L v-8 in a 1500 Dodge
Ram to haul loads of construction and landscaping material. I just
can't imagine a electric vehicle that will handle that unless I haul
miles of extension cables.

Rob

Check out the engines on trains. If they take the diesel electric design
and adapt it to a pickup, it can be done. Cost is the issue. There are
large electric vehicles operating in other industries too. My guess is
we will not ever see it, but I'd never say it cannot be done.


GM is making hybrid pickups, which seem to be a much better idea than a
hybrid car, as the excess weight isn't nearly as much of a liability in
a truck, nor are truck buyers necessarily looking for nimble handling.
I don't think it ever had a Diesel version though.

nate


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

"RBM" wrote in message
...

"Dan Lanciani" ddl@danlan.*com wrote in message
...
In article , (RBM)
writes:
|
| "Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
| ...
|
| "RBM" wrote
| Wow, that's pretty funny. Of all the reasons one might find to
upgrade an
| electric service, "electric vehicles are on the way", is certainly
not
| one I would have thought of. I suppose with the new "Volt" coming
out
| with it's revolutionary 40 miles (best case scenario) on a charge,
people
| will be just tripping over each other to buy one. We electricians
will be
| backlogged for the next ten years trying to upgrade everyone's
service to
| accommodate these technological wonders.
|
|
| Funny today, maybe no so ten years from now. I read that California
is
| installing thousands of charging stations now. That is keeping some
| electricians busy.
|
| I'd put one in if I was buying a Tesla. You won't catch me driving
a
| Volt even though the payback is a mere 18 years or so.
|
| I think you hit the nail on the head. California is just putting more
nails
| in their financial coffin, but for those of us living in the real
world, the
| volt is a POS, and we can't afford the Tesla. I don't think I'll have
to
| worry about installing piles of electric car outlets for a while yet

Something I've wondered about the payback projections for electric
vehicles:
do they assume that there won't eventually be a road tax applied to the
electricity and if so is this a reasonable assumption? Or is there
already
some sort of compensating mileage tax?

Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com

At this point, this administration is still trying to pay people to buy
them. Not to mention that this administration is buying something like 25%
of them itself. At some point, if some manufacturer builds one good enough
to be sold purely on it own merits, without subsidies, then they'll find a
way to tax them, my guess is by a per mile tax.


The house already passed the cap and tax plan to equalize the utility rates.
Maybe the Senate can kill and it won't be brought back up in the new house.

But rest assured they will find a way to tax it if electric autos become a
lasting reality.

Colbyt

On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 20:06:21 -0500, Nate Nagel wrote:

On 12/05/2010 07:32 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

"rlz" wrote
the electriv vehicle comments, I have a 5.9L v-8 in a 1500 Dodge
Ram to haul loads of construction and landscaping material. I just
can't imagine a electric vehicle that will handle that unless I haul
miles of extension cables.

Rob

Check out the engines on trains. If they take the diesel electric design
and adapt it to a pickup, it can be done. Cost is the issue. There are
large electric vehicles operating in other industries too. My guess is
we will not ever see it, but I'd never say it cannot be done.


GM is making hybrid pickups, which seem to be a much better idea than a
hybrid car, as the excess weight isn't nearly as much of a liability in
a truck, nor are truck buyers necessarily looking for nimble handling.
I don't think it ever had a Diesel version though.

Weight is important in trucks used as trucks (and being heavier they will
require more batteries). Also space is generally more of a premium than it is
in a "commuter".

On Sun, 5 Dec 2010 20:35:53 -0500, "Colbyt"
wrote:


"RBM" wrote in message
...

"Dan Lanciani" ddl@danlan.*com wrote in message
...
In article , (RBM)
writes:
|
| "Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
| ...
|
| "RBM" wrote
| Wow, that's pretty funny. Of all the reasons one might find to
upgrade an
| electric service, "electric vehicles are on the way", is certainly
not
| one I would have thought of. I suppose with the new "Volt" coming
out
| with it's revolutionary 40 miles (best case scenario) on a charge,
people
| will be just tripping over each other to buy one. We electricians
will be
| backlogged for the next ten years trying to upgrade everyone's
service to
| accommodate these technological wonders.
|
|
| Funny today, maybe no so ten years from now. I read that California
is
| installing thousands of charging stations now. That is keeping some
| electricians busy.
|
| I'd put one in if I was buying a Tesla. You won't catch me driving
a
| Volt even though the payback is a mere 18 years or so.
|
| I think you hit the nail on the head. California is just putting more
nails
| in their financial coffin, but for those of us living in the real
world, the
| volt is a POS, and we can't afford the Tesla. I don't think I'll have
to
| worry about installing piles of electric car outlets for a while yet

Something I've wondered about the payback projections for electric
vehicles:
do they assume that there won't eventually be a road tax applied to the
electricity and if so is this a reasonable assumption? Or is there
already
some sort of compensating mileage tax?

Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com

At this point, this administration is still trying to pay people to buy
them. Not to mention that this administration is buying something like 25%
of them itself. At some point, if some manufacturer builds one good enough
to be sold purely on it own merits, without subsidies, then they'll find a
way to tax them, my guess is by a per mile tax.


The house already passed the cap and tax plan to equalize the utility rates.
Maybe the Senate can kill and it won't be brought back up in the new house.

But rest assured they will find a way to tax it if electric autos become a
lasting reality.

As they should. Someone has to pay for the roads. Who better than the users?

On Dec 5, 9:23*pm, "
wrote:

But rest assured they will find a way to tax it if electric autos become a
lasting reality.

As they should. *Someone has to pay for the roads. *Who better than the users?

Who better to pay for the roads? I see it this way.
The municipal governments pay for maintaining
the roads, then they put another chunk of money
into trying to set up urban mass-transit. They've
got it all wrong. They are subsidizing the oil
companies by repairing the roads that are being
used by their customers. Let the oil companies pay
for the roads.
And hey, the U.S. owns about 40% of GM, let GM
be turning out cablecars.

On 12/5/2010 10:32 PM, Michael B wrote:
On Dec 5, 9:23 pm, zzz
wrote:

But rest assured they will find a way to tax it if electric autos become a
lasting reality.

As they should. Someone has to pay for the roads. Who better than the users?

Who better to pay for the roads? I see it this way.
The municipal governments pay for maintaining
the roads, then they put another chunk of money
into trying to set up urban mass-transit. They've
got it all wrong. They are subsidizing the oil
companies by repairing the roads that are being
used by their customers. Let the oil companies pay
for the roads.
And hey, the U.S. owns about 40% of GM, let GM
be turning out cablecars.

Oh, grow up. You can't put a streetcar track down EVERY street, even in
dense urban areas. Roads will ALWAYS be needed. Even where mass transit
passes the common-sense test, the cheapest solution is almost always
rubber-tired bus service. Steel wheels only make sense on high-volume,
high-traffic corridors.

Standard disclaimer- if the buses ran out this far, and went where I
needed to go, I would ride them. I did in college, and liked it a lot.
But I'm not gonna freeze my ass off downtown waiting for a transfer, or
take an hour each way getting to work, when I can drive it in 12 minutes
on a bad day.

--
aem sends...

On Dec 5, 10:42*pm, aemeijers wrote:
On 12/5/2010 10:32 PM, Michael B wrote:



On Dec 5, 9:23 pm, zzz
wrote:

But rest assured they will find a way to tax it if electric autos become a
lasting reality.

As they should. *Someone has to pay for the roads. *Who better than the users?

Who better to pay for the roads? I see it this way.
The municipal governments pay for maintaining
the roads, then they put another chunk of money
into trying to set up urban mass-transit. They've
got it all wrong. They are subsidizing the oil
companies by repairing the roads that are being
used by their customers. Let the oil companies pay
for the roads.
And hey, the U.S. owns about 40% of GM, let GM
be turning out cablecars.

Oh, grow up. You can't put a streetcar track down EVERY street, even in
dense urban areas. Roads will ALWAYS be needed. Even where mass transit
passes the common-sense test, the cheapest solution is almost always
rubber-tired bus service. Steel wheels only make sense on high-volume,
high-traffic corridors.

Standard disclaimer- if the buses ran out this far, and went where I
needed to go, I would ride them. I did in college, and liked it a lot.
But I'm not gonna freeze my ass off downtown waiting for a transfer, or
take an hour each way getting to work, when I can drive it in 12 minutes
on a bad day.

Actually, I agree with you. And know that places like
London have their act together, but it'll eventually
show up here. They have a BIG tax on the gas, it
goes to setting up and maintaining mass transit,
and just to "encourage" its use, they have a
"congestion tax" of 14 pounds or so for driving in
the deep urban services district.
Most bus companies are just doing the dance. In
London they don't have bus schedules, they have
maps. Even if you just missed it, there will be
another within 15 minutes. At least, that was our
experience.
Wait till gas gets to $5 a gallon, I'll still drive to the
Home Depot and back. Because it's simply not
practical to do it otherwise. But when/if it's $10
a gallon, I'll consider the bus.

Wait till gas gets to $5 a gallon, I'll still drive to the
Home Depot and back. Because it's simply not
practical to do it otherwise. But when/if it's $10
a gallon, I'll consider the bus.

Umm...how will you get 45 2x4s home on the bus?

On Sun, 5 Dec 2010 19:32:29 -0800 (PST), Michael B
wrote:

On Dec 5, 9:23*pm, "
wrote:

But rest assured they will find a way to tax it if electric autos become a
lasting reality.

As they should. *Someone has to pay for the roads. *Who better than the users?

Who better to pay for the roads? I see it this way.
The municipal governments pay for maintaining
the roads, then they put another chunk of money
into trying to set up urban mass-transit. They've
got it all wrong. They are subsidizing the oil
companies by repairing the roads that are being
used by their customers. Let the oil companies pay
for the roads.

....and who pays for the oil?

And hey, the U.S. owns about 40% of GM, let GM
be turning out cablecars.

Spoken like a true socialist Obamanut.

On Dec 6, 12:41*am, "
wrote:
On Sun, 5 Dec 2010 19:32:29 -0800 (PST), Michael B
wrote:





On Dec 5, 9:23 pm, "
wrote:

But rest assured they will find a way to tax it if electric autos become a
lasting reality.

As they should. Someone has to pay for the roads. Who better than the users?

Who better to pay for the roads? I see it this way.
The municipal governments pay for maintaining
the roads, then they put another chunk of money
into trying to set up urban mass-transit. They've
got it all wrong. They are subsidizing the oil
companies by repairing the roads that are being
used by their customers. Let the oil companies pay
for the roads.

...and who pays for the oil?

And hey, the U.S. owns about 40% of GM, let GM
be turning out cablecars.

Spoken like a true socialist Obamanut.

SAID THE OUTLANDISH FASCIST PIG.

PATECUM

wrote in message news:5ca819fb-5d9e-4cf6-a0e5-

stuff snipped

obama did a good thing keeping GM in america.

Agreed. We have so little manufacturing capability left in the US that it
was important to hang on to GM. When a manufacturer goes bankrupt, it's far
different than when a bunch of paper-pushing bandits like Lehman Brothers
goes under. There are tools, factories, people with know-how that will be
broken up and that constitutes a serious loss that would be very hard to
rebuild. Was GM mismanaged? Of course. Top-heavy, over-managed and
ineffecient? Yes, but those are correctable problems. Once you break down
the factory lines and disperse the employees, you've lost more than the
firesale worth of the components. All the king's horses and all the king's
men wouldn't be able to put GM back together again. I hate the fact that
shareholders got wiped out, but share the gain, share the pain.

in a total collapse its assets would of been bought by china, and all
parts and final assembly would of been moved to china. all those
american jobs gone forever.

Absolutely. GM was worth saving if only because in WWII they helped saved
the free world.

all that would remain here would of been some large parts warehouses.

If that.

GM is paying the money back.

I saw a great ad on TV for GM showing other "greats" that have stumbled and
thanking the American people for helping them get back on their feet. You
didn't see the money-grubbing banks thanking anyone. They're the ones that
did this to us, and they got to feed at the public trough just as deeply as
GM.

without obama unemployment today would be about 25% just like the
great depression.....

Adding GM to the list of dead US companies wouldn't have helped the
unemployment rate, that's for sure.

--
Bobby G.

Robert Green wrote:
wrote in message news:5ca819fb-5d9e-4cf6-a0e5-

stuff snipped

obama did a good thing keeping GM in america.

Agreed. ...
....

in a total collapse its assets would of been bought by china, and all
parts and final assembly would of been moved to china. all those
american jobs gone forever.
....

Unlikely. They (like many others before them) could and should have
reorganized under bankruptcy protection w/o the involvement of the
federal government.

As for the WW II, what about Studebaker and others who also built much
war materiel and are no longer w/ us? Why weren't they worth saving on
the same basis as GM?

--

On Dec 5, 2:11*pm, " wrote:
On Dec 5, 1:39*pm, Vic Smith wrote:





On Sun, 5 Dec 2010 12:52:26 -0500, "RBM" wrote:
I think that if 95% of the driving public go less than 40 miles per day, and the car could be built,sold,
and *maintained, and didn't need to be subsidized, and the car company could make a profit,
at least some *reasonable segment of the public would buy it. That currently isn't the case.
I also think that if GM believed that they had a "winner", they wouldn't have to come up with a
secret, convoluted formula for figuring MPG's @ 230

1. *You don't need 95% market share of anything to succeed.
2. *Yes, the product has to be solid.
3. *Yes, the Volt is being subsidized, as was the Toyota Prius and all
the high efficiency furnaces they're talking about in another thread.
4. *GM is making a profit.
5. *The EPA determines MPG figures, not GM. *And it's not 230 MPG.

So you're batting .400.
In baseball they'd call you Ted Williams and you'd be a hero.
With most work it just gets your ass fired.

--Vic

anything that cuts our importing of crude oil, espically from the mid
east is a good thing.....

our mucking about in those countries business over oil is largely why
terrorism exists.....

just look at wiki leaks, and what our country has been up to- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yeah, right. If we just put our head in the sand or better yet just
be nice and
kiss their asses as much as we can, all those radical muslims will
just go away.
Obama's been doing that for about 2 years now and has zippo to show
for it. If the world
were NOT buying oil from "those countries", then you'd be blaming the
US for terrorism,
because the countries had no decent economies. Yet those Islamic
extremists exist
in countries like Saudi Arabia that have oil and Yemen that do not.
They seem to thrive
in the UK too. Is that because of their North Sea oil?

Face it. There is evil in the world, whether it's in the form of
islamic extremists
or just nut jobs like North Korea, which doesn't have a pot to ****
in, yet they have built
an atom bomb and long range missles.

On Dec 5, 10:32*pm, Michael B wrote:
On Dec 5, 9:23*pm, "
wrote:

But rest assured they will find a way to tax it if electric autos become a
lasting reality.

As they should. *Someone has to pay for the roads. *Who better than the users?

Who better to pay for the roads? I see it this way.
The municipal governments pay for maintaining
the roads, then they put another chunk of money
into trying to set up urban mass-transit. They've
got it all wrong. They are subsidizing the oil
companies by repairing the roads that are being
used by their customers. Let the oil companies pay
for the roads.


That's a great idea. Then the price of gas will be the same and
instead of
the oil companies sending a check to the govt marked federal fuel tax,
they will be sending a
check for the same amount marked federal "insert new name" tax.
That's economics 101.



And hey, the U.S. owns about 40% of GM, let GM
be turning out cablecars.

On Dec 6, 8:52*am, " wrote:
On Dec 6, 12:41*am, "





wrote:
On Sun, 5 Dec 2010 19:32:29 -0800 (PST), Michael B
wrote:

On Dec 5, 9:23 pm, "
wrote:

But rest assured they will find a way to tax it if electric autos become a
lasting reality.

As they should. Someone has to pay for the roads. Who better than the users?

Who better to pay for the roads? I see it this way.
The municipal governments pay for maintaining
the roads, then they put another chunk of money
into trying to set up urban mass-transit. They've
got it all wrong. They are subsidizing the oil
companies by repairing the roads that are being
used by their customers. Let the oil companies pay
for the roads.

...and who pays for the oil?

And hey, the U.S. owns about 40% of GM, let GM
be turning out cablecars.

Spoken like a true socialist Obamanut.-

obama did a good thing keeping GM in america.

Funny how Obama gets all the credit. It was actually Bush who
instituted the $787 bil TARP
program and made the first loans in Dec 08 to GM and Chrysler. Why
do I get the feeling that had GM
gone down the tubes, you'd be reminding us of that part.



in a total collapse its assets would of been bought by china, and all
parts and final assembly would of been moved to china. *all those
american jobs gone forever.

all that would remain here would of been some large parts warehouses.

GM is paying the money back.

without obama unemployment today would be about 25% just like the
great depression.....

Again, it was under Bush that the $787bil TARP program was initiated
that
provided mostly loans, but also equity investments to wall street, GM,
Chrysler.
Most of that money has now been paid back and it's estimated by the
govt that at most
$80bil is still at risk. Meaning that's the most it will cost
taxpayers and it in fact
could be a profit.

Obama and the Dems on the other hand, pushed through
another $800bil+ stimulus that was money that was never to be
repaid. Unless
you subscribe to the newly created economic statistic of "jobs saved",
which of course
is any number you want to make it.

On Dec 5, 11:55*am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article , "RBM"
wrote:

I suppose with the new "Volt" coming out with it's
revolutionary 40 miles (best case scenario) on a charge, people will be just
tripping over each other to buy one.

For the record, reprinted without permission from Chevy:

" Volt is an electric car that uses gas to create its own electricity.
Plug it in, let it charge overnight, and it's ready to run on a pure
electric charge for up to 40 miles - gas and emissions free. After that,
Volt keeps going, even if you can't plug it in. Volt uses a
range-extending gas generator that produces enough energy to power it
for hundreds of miles on a single tank of gas."

Yawn... I didn't see anyone here say anything different. OF course
you
left out the part about how it's on a similar size platform and shares
components
with cars costing $17K, yet the Volt costs $42K.



A lot of scoffing done on a.h.r. about alternative energy, but it's
coming, and I believe it will help fuel (pun intended) our economic
recovery. Are the technologies mature and perfected? Hell no. Neither
was the Wright Flyer. I respect and appreciate the efforts of the
pioneers.

If you believe handing out $12K subsidies to build cars that are
economically
unviable is going to fuel our economic recovery, then maybe we should
start paying
people to dig holes and fill them back in.

wrote in message
...
On Dec 5, 11:55 am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article , "RBM"
wrote:

I suppose with the new "Volt" coming out with it's
revolutionary 40 miles (best case scenario) on a charge, people will be
just
tripping over each other to buy one.

For the record, reprinted without permission from Chevy:

" Volt is an electric car that uses gas to create its own electricity.
Plug it in, let it charge overnight, and it's ready to run on a pure
electric charge for up to 40 miles - gas and emissions free. After that,
Volt keeps going, even if you can't plug it in. Volt uses a
range-extending gas generator that produces enough energy to power it
for hundreds of miles on a single tank of gas."

Yawn... I didn't see anyone here say anything different. OF course
you
left out the part about how it's on a similar size platform and shares
components
with cars costing $17K, yet the Volt costs $42K.



A lot of scoffing done on a.h.r. about alternative energy, but it's
coming, and I believe it will help fuel (pun intended) our economic
recovery. Are the technologies mature and perfected? Hell no. Neither
was the Wright Flyer. I respect and appreciate the efforts of the
pioneers.

If you believe handing out $12K subsidies to build cars that are
economically
unviable is going to fuel our economic recovery, then maybe we should
start paying
people to dig holes and fill them back in.

I think that is exactly what this administration has in mind with it's never
ending unemployment "insurance"

On Dec 6, 4:51*pm, "RBM" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Dec 5, 11:55 am, Smitty Two wrote:





In article , "RBM"
wrote:

I suppose with the new "Volt" coming out with it's
revolutionary 40 miles (best case scenario) on a charge, people will be
just
tripping over each other to buy one.

For the record, reprinted without permission from Chevy:

" Volt is an electric car that uses gas to create its own electricity.
Plug it in, let it charge overnight, and it's ready to run on a pure
electric charge for up to 40 miles - gas and emissions free. After that,
Volt keeps going, even if you can't plug it in. Volt uses a
range-extending gas generator that produces enough energy to power it
for hundreds of miles on a single tank of gas."

Yawn... * I didn't see anyone here say anything different. *OF course
you
left out the part about how it's on a similar size platform and shares
components
with cars costing $17K, yet the Volt costs $42K.



A lot of scoffing done on a.h.r. about alternative energy, but it's
coming, and I believe it will help fuel (pun intended) our economic
recovery. Are the technologies mature and perfected? Hell no. Neither
was the Wright Flyer. I respect and appreciate the efforts of the
pioneers.

If you believe handing out $12K subsidies to build cars that are
economically
unviable is going to fuel our economic recovery, then maybe we should
start paying
people to dig holes and fill them back in.

I think that is exactly what this administration has in mind with it's never
ending unemployment "insurance"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

For every FIVE on unemployment theres just ONE job.

Unemployment is necessary. Without the obama stimulus unemployment
today would be 25%

wrote in message
...
On Dec 6, 4:51 pm, "RBM" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Dec 5, 11:55 am, Smitty Two wrote:





In article , "RBM"
wrote:

I suppose with the new "Volt" coming out with it's
revolutionary 40 miles (best case scenario) on a charge, people will
be
just
tripping over each other to buy one.

For the record, reprinted without permission from Chevy:

" Volt is an electric car that uses gas to create its own electricity.
Plug it in, let it charge overnight, and it's ready to run on a pure
electric charge for up to 40 miles - gas and emissions free. After that,
Volt keeps going, even if you can't plug it in. Volt uses a
range-extending gas generator that produces enough energy to power it
for hundreds of miles on a single tank of gas."

Yawn... I didn't see anyone here say anything different. OF course
you
left out the part about how it's on a similar size platform and shares
components
with cars costing $17K, yet the Volt costs $42K.



A lot of scoffing done on a.h.r. about alternative energy, but it's
coming, and I believe it will help fuel (pun intended) our economic
recovery. Are the technologies mature and perfected? Hell no. Neither
was the Wright Flyer. I respect and appreciate the efforts of the
pioneers.

If you believe handing out $12K subsidies to build cars that are
economically
unviable is going to fuel our economic recovery, then maybe we should
start paying
people to dig holes and fill them back in.

I think that is exactly what this administration has in mind with it's
never
ending unemployment "insurance"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

For every FIVE on unemployment theres just ONE job.

Unemployment is necessary. Without the obama stimulus unemployment
today would be 25%

Bull****, got a lawn mower, you got a job, got two hands, you got a job, got
some initiative you got a job. Got nothin but excuses, you can stand on line
with the rest of the bottom feeders and take obama scraps

On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 22:42:47 -0500, aemeijers
wrote:

On 12/5/2010 10:32 PM, Michael B wrote:
On Dec 5, 9:23 pm, zzz
wrote:

But rest assured they will find a way to tax it if electric autos become a
lasting reality.

As they should. Someone has to pay for the roads. Who better than the users?

Who better to pay for the roads? I see it this way.
The municipal governments pay for maintaining
the roads, then they put another chunk of money
into trying to set up urban mass-transit. They've
got it all wrong. They are subsidizing the oil
companies by repairing the roads that are being
used by their customers. Let the oil companies pay
for the roads.
And hey, the U.S. owns about 40% of GM, let GM
be turning out cablecars.

Oh, grow up. You can't put a streetcar track down EVERY street, even in
dense urban areas. Roads will ALWAYS be needed. Even where mass transit
passes the common-sense test, the cheapest solution is almost always
rubber-tired bus service. Steel wheels only make sense on high-volume,
high-traffic corridors.

Standard disclaimer- if the buses ran out this far, and went where I
needed to go, I would ride them. I did in college, and liked it a lot.
But I'm not gonna freeze my ass off downtown waiting for a transfer, or
take an hour each way getting to work, when I can drive it in 12 minutes
on a bad day.
Or bike it in 15 on a good day.

On Sun, 5 Dec 2010 20:11:49 -0800 (PST), Michael B
wrote:

On Dec 5, 10:42Â*pm, aemeijers wrote:
On 12/5/2010 10:32 PM, Michael B wrote:



On Dec 5, 9:23 pm, zzz
wrote:

But rest assured they will find a way to tax it if electric autos become a
lasting reality.

As they should. Â*Someone has to pay for the roads. Â*Who better than the users?

Who better to pay for the roads? I see it this way.
The municipal governments pay for maintaining
the roads, then they put another chunk of money
into trying to set up urban mass-transit. They've
got it all wrong. They are subsidizing the oil
companies by repairing the roads that are being
used by their customers. Let the oil companies pay
for the roads.
And hey, the U.S. owns about 40% of GM, let GM
be turning out cablecars.

Oh, grow up. You can't put a streetcar track down EVERY street, even in
dense urban areas. Roads will ALWAYS be needed. Even where mass transit
passes the common-sense test, the cheapest solution is almost always
rubber-tired bus service. Steel wheels only make sense on high-volume,
high-traffic corridors.

Standard disclaimer- if the buses ran out this far, and went where I
needed to go, I would ride them. I did in college, and liked it a lot.
But I'm not gonna freeze my ass off downtown waiting for a transfer, or
take an hour each way getting to work, when I can drive it in 12 minutes
on a bad day.

Actually, I agree with you. And know that places like
London have their act together, but it'll eventually
show up here. They have a BIG tax on the gas, it
goes to setting up and maintaining mass transit,
and just to "encourage" its use, they have a
"congestion tax" of 14 pounds or so for driving in
the deep urban services district.
Most bus companies are just doing the dance. In
London they don't have bus schedules, they have
maps. Even if you just missed it, there will be
another within 15 minutes. At least, that was our
experience.
Wait till gas gets to $5 a gallon, I'll still drive to the
Home Depot and back. Because it's simply not
practical to do it otherwise. But when/if it's $10
a gallon, I'll consider the bus.
Gas here in Ontario was up over $1.12 per liter on the weekend.
That's something like $4.23 a US Gallon.

wrote:

without obama unemployment today would be about 25% just like the
great depression.....

is that really what people wanted?

People _wanted_ the 5% rate under Bush, but would have settled for the 8%
the Obama administration predicted.

wrote:

For every FIVE on unemployment theres just ONE job.

Unemployment is necessary. Without the obama stimulus unemployment
today would be 25%

So you say. It's impossible to prove "what might have been."

You recall that, without the "stimulus," the Obama administration predicted
a peak of 8% unemployment.

On Dec 6, 8:39*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote:

For every FIVE on unemployment theres just ONE job.

Unemployment is necessary. Without the obama stimulus unemployment
today would be 25%

So you say. It's impossible to prove "what might have been."

You recall that, without the "stimulus," the Obama administration predicted
a peak of 8% unemployment.

well republicans ran on balancing the budget, and cutting spending.

So far republicans have agreed to lower taxes for the super wealthy,
and more spending...

60 minutes had Bernacke report unemployment near 10% for next 3
years....

If tea party and republicans really cut spending much they will crash
our economy, since ggovernment is about 1/3 of our economy.

No doubt thats because manufacturing has been shrinking for a
generation

On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 05:52:16 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Dec 6, 12:41*am, "
wrote:
On Sun, 5 Dec 2010 19:32:29 -0800 (PST), Michael B
wrote:





On Dec 5, 9:23 pm, "
wrote:

But rest assured they will find a way to tax it if electric autos become a
lasting reality.

As they should. Someone has to pay for the roads. Who better than the users?

Who better to pay for the roads? I see it this way.
The municipal governments pay for maintaining
the roads, then they put another chunk of money
into trying to set up urban mass-transit. They've
got it all wrong. They are subsidizing the oil
companies by repairing the roads that are being
used by their customers. Let the oil companies pay
for the roads.

...and who pays for the oil?

And hey, the U.S. owns about 40% of GM, let GM
be turning out cablecars.

Spoken like a true socialist Obamanut.-

obama did a good thing keeping GM in america.

Nonsense. It should have gone through bankruptcy court like any other
corporation.

in a total collapse its assets would of been bought by china, and all
parts and final assembly would of been moved to china. all those
american jobs gone forever.

More nonsense. Even if so, the other manufacturers would have taken up the
slack.

all that would remain here would of been some large parts warehouses.

GM is paying the money back.

With *taxpayer* money. That is *not* paying anything "back" to anyone.

without obama unemployment today would be about 25% just like the
great depression.....

Clueless.

is that really what people wanted?

Totally clueless.

On Mon, 06 Dec 2010 19:54:50 -0500, wrote:


The prius battery is twice as much as 14 golf cart batteries and still
does not provide nearly the same AH rating (range).
I suspect the only way you know a Prius battery is going bad is the
fuel consumption rises (they need more frequent charging so the engine
runs more). None of this is really relevant to a pure plug in. In that
case the owner is doing the battery management and they are more
likely to run it until it drops, which is tough on batteries.
Electric cars are really a pretty mature technology but it is all
being done in back yards and home garages.

Electric cars were a "mature technology" in 1915
I spent a lot of time looking at the experiences of people who have
had electric cars since the Carter administration.
The only new thing I see is a newer type of battery and computerized
battery management. The LiON is better because of weight per amp hour
and better life but that comes at a significant cost difference. It
may actually be more expensive 10 years out and it certainly is in the
first 6 years.

My electric ran on lead-acid batteries and a DC motor, just like an
old Baker.
The cost for equivalent range on LiOn batteries would be over 5o times
as high, and they were not available when I had mine. The chager would
be more expensive too.

For the same weight, the range would have been WAY more, along with
the price.

Newer motor control systems are a lot more efficient too - and a top
line PWM FET controller today is about half the price an old GE SCR or
ALLIS Transistorized controller was in the '80s. (and a lot smaller,
lighter, and more efficient - with more features)

On Mon, 06 Dec 2010 19:54:50 -0500, wrote:



The prius battery is twice as much as 14 golf cart batteries and still
does not provide nearly the same AH rating (range).
I suspect the only way you know a Prius battery is going bad is the
fuel consumption rises (they need more frequent charging so the engine
runs more). None of this is really relevant to a pure plug in.

In looking around I don't see much big bucks going to fix Prius
battery problems. Don't know much about them, but my curiosity about
their batteries got me looking on the net.
I see "rebuilt" batteries going for $500.
I don't really want to know any more.
The only pure electrics I see coming on line are the Leaf and Tesla.
The Volt had a big advantage over them, since it can be run as
electric only, but the engine gives it unlimited range.
Pretty sure the target audience is the same - those with short
commutes and low daily mileage.
I don't see why a person who often puts +100 daily miles on a car
would buy any of them, but some will, and push them past what they're
intended for.
We'll see what attracts a bigger market and how they pan out.

In that
case the owner is doing the battery management and they are more
likely to run it until it drops, which is tough on batteries.

Think I read the Volt won't go below +60% of charge before the
management kicks in the IC.

Electric cars are really a pretty mature technology but it is all
being done in back yards and home garages.
I spent a lot of time looking at the experiences of people who have
had electric cars since the Carter administration.
The only new thing I see is a newer type of battery and computerized
battery management. The LiON is better because of weight per amp hour
and better life but that comes at a significant cost difference. It
may actually be more expensive 10 years out and it certainly is in the
first 6 years.

Economy of scale has to kick in.
Until H Ford started the assembly line hardly anybody could afford a
car. Maybe that got charcoal and BBQ going good too.
From a little seed, a big tree...

--Vic

On 12/6/2010 8:07 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 22:42:47 -0500,
wrote:

On 12/5/2010 10:32 PM, Michael B wrote:
On Dec 5, 9:23 pm, zzz
wrote:

But rest assured they will find a way to tax it if electric autos become a
lasting reality.

As they should. Someone has to pay for the roads. Who better than the users?

Who better to pay for the roads? I see it this way.
The municipal governments pay for maintaining
the roads, then they put another chunk of money
into trying to set up urban mass-transit. They've
got it all wrong. They are subsidizing the oil
companies by repairing the roads that are being
used by their customers. Let the oil companies pay
for the roads.
And hey, the U.S. owns about 40% of GM, let GM
be turning out cablecars.

Oh, grow up. You can't put a streetcar track down EVERY street, even in
dense urban areas. Roads will ALWAYS be needed. Even where mass transit
passes the common-sense test, the cheapest solution is almost always
rubber-tired bus service. Steel wheels only make sense on high-volume,
high-traffic corridors.

Standard disclaimer- if the buses ran out this far, and went where I
needed to go, I would ride them. I did in college, and liked it a lot.
But I'm not gonna freeze my ass off downtown waiting for a transfer, or
take an hour each way getting to work, when I can drive it in 12 minutes
on a bad day.
Or bike it in 15 on a good day.

For a young jock, maybe. For a fat old fart like me, not much faster
than walking. 7.6 miles, about half uphill. Even 20 years ago when my
knees and butt were in better shape, I'd have to walk it up a couple of
those hills. With the traffic and idiot drivers on the roads in
question, I want steel around me. Not to mention, of course, that this
is frigging Michigan, and winter is 5+ months long here. Only a fool
rides a bike in traffic on a dark road.

The bus used to run to the apartments I lived in before I bought this
house, about 3/4 a crow mile closer to work. I rode it a few times when
car was in the shop. 2-3 of those times, I got tired of waiting for the
transfer bus, and walked the last 3/4 mile uphill to the office. Bus
system in this town is dying- they have collapsed the routes back to the
ones that had any actual ridership, mainly in the older poorer parts of
town.

--
aem sends...

On Mon, 06 Dec 2010 22:42:05 -0500, aemeijers
wrote:

On 12/6/2010 8:07 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 22:42:47 -0500,
wrote:

On 12/5/2010 10:32 PM, Michael B wrote:
On Dec 5, 9:23 pm, zzz
wrote:

But rest assured they will find a way to tax it if electric autos become a
lasting reality.

As they should. Someone has to pay for the roads. Who better than the users?

Who better to pay for the roads? I see it this way.
The municipal governments pay for maintaining
the roads, then they put another chunk of money
into trying to set up urban mass-transit. They've
got it all wrong. They are subsidizing the oil
companies by repairing the roads that are being
used by their customers. Let the oil companies pay
for the roads.
And hey, the U.S. owns about 40% of GM, let GM
be turning out cablecars.

Oh, grow up. You can't put a streetcar track down EVERY street, even in
dense urban areas. Roads will ALWAYS be needed. Even where mass transit
passes the common-sense test, the cheapest solution is almost always
rubber-tired bus service. Steel wheels only make sense on high-volume,
high-traffic corridors.

Standard disclaimer- if the buses ran out this far, and went where I
needed to go, I would ride them. I did in college, and liked it a lot.
But I'm not gonna freeze my ass off downtown waiting for a transfer, or
take an hour each way getting to work, when I can drive it in 12 minutes
on a bad day.
Or bike it in 15 on a good day.

For a young jock, maybe. For a fat old fart like me, not much faster
than walking. 7.6 miles, about half uphill. Even 20 years ago when my
knees and butt were in better shape, I'd have to walk it up a couple of
those hills. With the traffic and idiot drivers on the roads in
question, I want steel around me. Not to mention, of course, that this
is frigging Michigan, and winter is 5+ months long here. Only a fool
rides a bike in traffic on a dark road.

The bus used to run to the apartments I lived in before I bought this
house, about 3/4 a crow mile closer to work. I rode it a few times when
car was in the shop. 2-3 of those times, I got tired of waiting for the
transfer bus, and walked the last 3/4 mile uphill to the office. Bus
system in this town is dying- they have collapsed the routes back to the
ones that had any actual ridership, mainly in the older poorer parts of
town.

I'm 58 and not what you call a prime specimen - bad knees and hips and
shoulders and ablut 20 extra lbs.
I've got an electric assist bike - just a low powered Schwinn . When
the office was 8km away it took me 18 minutes to get to the office on
the bike, and about 10 by car. Never done it by Grand River Transit,
but a good guess would be 45 minutes to an hour with 2 transfers.

Moved the office -3km now but the same amount of hills (hey, Kitchener
was called SandHills before it became Berlin, then Kitchener, so you
KNOW it's not flat), I can do it in 7 minutes if I hit all the lights,
about 4 with the car (the bike trail is a wee tad shorter in distance
and 3 less lights) - and THAT is better than a 20 minute bus ride.

On 12/6/2010 5:15 PM, RBM wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Dec 6, 4:51 pm, wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Dec 5, 11:55 am, Smitty wrote:





In ,
wrote:

I suppose with the new "Volt" coming out with it's
revolutionary 40 miles (best case scenario) on a charge, people will
be
just
tripping over each other to buy one.

For the record, reprinted without permission from Chevy:

" Volt is an electric car that uses gas to create its own electricity.
Plug it in, let it charge overnight, and it's ready to run on a pure
electric charge for up to 40 miles - gas and emissions free. After that,
Volt keeps going, even if you can't plug it in. Volt uses a
range-extending gas generator that produces enough energy to power it
for hundreds of miles on a single tank of gas."

Yawn... I didn't see anyone here say anything different. OF course
you
left out the part about how it's on a similar size platform and shares
components
with cars costing $17K, yet the Volt costs $42K.



A lot of scoffing done on a.h.r. about alternative energy, but it's
coming, and I believe it will help fuel (pun intended) our economic
recovery. Are the technologies mature and perfected? Hell no. Neither
was the Wright Flyer. I respect and appreciate the efforts of the
pioneers.

If you believe handing out $12K subsidies to build cars that are
economically
unviable is going to fuel our economic recovery, then maybe we should
start paying
people to dig holes and fill them back in.

I think that is exactly what this administration has in mind with it's
never
ending unemployment "insurance"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

For every FIVE on unemployment theres just ONE job.

Unemployment is necessary. Without the obama stimulus unemployment
today would be 25%

Bull****, got a lawn mower, you got a job, got two hands, you got a job, got
some initiative you got a job. Got nothin but excuses, you can stand on line
with the rest of the bottom feeders and take obama scraps



RBM, you know as well as I do that there is always work available. I
have no problem finding work, it usually finds me. My problem is trying
to overcome medical problems to get out of bed and do the work. I often
have to suppress the urge to slap a healthy lad who says he can't find
work.

TDD

On 12/6/2010 7:59 PM, wrote:
On Dec 6, 8:39 pm, wrote:
wrote:

For every FIVE on unemployment theres just ONE job.

Unemployment is necessary. Without the obama stimulus unemployment
today would be 25%

So you say. It's impossible to prove "what might have been."

You recall that, without the "stimulus," the Obama administration predicted
a peak of 8% unemployment.

well republicans ran on balancing the budget, and cutting spending.

So far republicans have agreed to lower taxes for the super wealthy,
and more spending...

60 minutes had Bernacke report unemployment near 10% for next 3
years....

If tea party and republicans really cut spending much they will crash
our economy, since ggovernment is about 1/3 of our economy.

No doubt thats because manufacturing has been shrinking for a
generation

Hummm, 1/3 of the economy? The government should never be a substantial
part of the economy because there is no such thing as government money.
The government doesn't produce wealth, all it can do is destroy it.

TDD

On 12/6/2010 10:18 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 06 Dec 2010 21:20:47 -0500, wrote:

My electric ran on lead-acid batteries and a DC motor, just like an
old Baker.
The cost for equivalent range on LiOn batteries would be over 5o times
as high, and they were not available when I had mine. The chager would
be more expensive too.

For the same weight, the range would have been WAY more, along with
the price.

Newer motor control systems are a lot more efficient too - and a top
line PWM FET controller today is about half the price an old GE SCR or
ALLIS Transistorized controller was in the '80s. (and a lot smaller,
lighter, and more efficient - with more features)

I agree the technology can take advantage of better batteries and
better motors but the payback still is way out there ... assuming you
never wreck it.

The two ton elephant in the room is still the heat and the air
conditioner. Where are you getting 20,000 BTUH? That is about what a
regular HAVC system is, both ways.
In a permanently temperate climate you may be able to just open the
windows but you are not driving where water freezes or anywhere in the
sun belt. Actually most of the US population thinks A/C is a must in
the summer.

Your $50,000 Volt might be like a 56 Morgan. Fun to drive on a nice
spring day but you are not going out in the snow.


I do seem to remember the old air cooled VW Beetle having an option for
a gasoline burning auxiliary heater for those really cold climates. I
suppose a propane heater for the new electric cars and perhaps a big
insulated compartment for ice to use to air condition them in warmer
weather. People seem to forget the simplest details when it comes to
alternative energy used for transportation. :-)

TDD

"The Daring Dufas" wrote

I do seem to remember the old air cooled VW Beetle having an option for
a gasoline burning auxiliary heater for those really cold climates. I
suppose a propane heater for the new electric cars and perhaps a big
insulated compartment for ice to use to air condition them in warmer
weather. People seem to forget the simplest details when it comes to
alternative energy used for transportation. :-)

TDD

I have a remote starter on my car and often warm it up 3 to 5 minutes in the
morning. I doubt the electrics can do that, unless they have a plug in
heater. That remote is really a nice gadget when the temperature is in the
teens or lower.

The Daring Dufas wrote:

well republicans ran on balancing the budget, and cutting spending.

So far republicans have agreed to lower taxes for the super wealthy,
and more spending...

60 minutes had Bernacke report unemployment near 10% for next 3
years....

If tea party and republicans really cut spending much they will crash
our economy, since ggovernment is about 1/3 of our economy.

No doubt thats because manufacturing has been shrinking for a
generation

Hummm, 1/3 of the economy? The government should never be a
substantial part of the economy because there is no such thing as
government money. The government doesn't produce wealth, all it can
do is destroy it.

The government does, however, produce money, but they can't even do an
acceptable job of that.

The Bureau of Engraving and Printing recently printed $100 billion worth of
new $100 bills. A substantial portion of the one billion individual bills
are defective. The government is currently trying to automate a process to
actually discover which of the bills to not put in circulation (to check
them by hand would take decades). While these bills are quarantined, the
Bureau has fallen back on printing the usual bills.

Each of the new bills cost about twelve cents to print.

Oh well.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...=feeds-newsxml

On Dec 6, 9:10*pm, "
wrote:
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 05:52:16 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:





On Dec 6, 12:41 am, "
wrote:
On Sun, 5 Dec 2010 19:32:29 -0800 (PST), Michael B
wrote:

On Dec 5, 9:23 pm, "
wrote:

But rest assured they will find a way to tax it if electric autos become a
lasting reality.

As they should. Someone has to pay for the roads. Who better than the users?

Who better to pay for the roads? I see it this way.
The municipal governments pay for maintaining
the roads, then they put another chunk of money
into trying to set up urban mass-transit. They've
got it all wrong. They are subsidizing the oil
companies by repairing the roads that are being
used by their customers. Let the oil companies pay
for the roads.

...and who pays for the oil?

And hey, the U.S. owns about 40% of GM, let GM
be turning out cablecars.

Spoken like a true socialist Obamanut.-

obama did a good thing keeping GM in america.

Nonsense. *It should have gone through bankruptcy court like any other
corporation.

in a total collapse its assets would of been bought by china, and all
parts and final assembly would of been moved to china. *all those
american jobs gone forever.

More nonsense. *Even if so, the other manufacturers would have taken up the
slack.


What other US manufacturers? Chrysler was bankrupt too.

And Ford had been at bankruptcy and managed to restructure right
before our economic collapse. The ford family no longer controls the
company. they had no resoureces to buy GM..

Its sad so many are so clueless, the stimulus spending prevented a
DEPRESSION, with 25% unemployment.

china would of bought GM and moved everything there but some parts
warehouses.....

The LEAF should have a OPTION, a small easy to tow trailer with a
gasoline engine.

So if you need to make a long trip just hitch up and go.

No doubt a smart fellow somewhere will produce them. Just a power
plant on wheels