On 5/26/2021 1:33 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 26 May 2021 12:01:04 -0400, Frank "frank wrote:

On 5/26/2021 11:43 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 25 May 2021 22:13:15 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 25 May 2021 19:36:41 -0600, rbowman
wrote:

On 05/25/2021 06:24 PM, wrote:
If anyone believes in free energy, there's always hydrogen.

When we were making aircraft strobe lights some were soda glass and some
were quartz glass. Oxy-acetylene is fine for soda but you need the
higher temperature of an oxy-hydrogen flame to blow the quartz tubes. So
we made arrangements to have a tube trailer spotted on site. This
required a permit.

That's when I learned that in a free association test if you say
hydrogen the response is 'bomb'. Arguably the hydrogen was safer than
the tanks of LOX and acetylene but it has a bad rap.

Hydrogen is safer. It's very difficult to get hydrogen to explode.
Since it's much lighter than air, it dissipates quickly and won't
"pool".

That does highlight a problem with hydrogen. The tubes have to handle
around 3000 psi so you're not getting a whole lot of hydrogen in a
traditional steel tube rig. Composites help but it's still a problem.

Sure, it's a problem but the range should be equivalent to EVs and a
whole lot easier to fill.

Fix all that and it's still not a good fuel. Energy isn't free.

Hydrogen isn't really a fuel in the practical sense. It is just a
fairly inefficient storage scheme.
If you are deriving your hydrogen from water, you use more energy
getting it out than you get when you burn it.
OTOH most commercially derived hydrogen comes from natural gas so you
end up with the same issues we are talking about with possibly
dwindling supply if we really started using any large quantity.
Have you priced helium lately?


I recalled the suggestion years ago of using methanol for fuel cells in
cars. Good article still makes a lot of sense:

https://news.usc.edu/5621/George-Ola...energy-crisis/

He still points out methanol is a by product of fossil fuels and when
he goes off on the hydrogen from water tangent he ignores the
inefficiency of that process and ignores where that "sufficient cheap
energy" will come from.
Ne does go down the nuclear rabbit hole with Rod/Joey but that seems a
pretty remote possibility until they take away Jane Fonda's Oscar for
China Syndrome and dismiss the film as a Roadrunner cartoon.


ICE's are probably at maximum efficiency because like incandescent light
bulbs most of the energy goes into heat. He does point out that
methanol fuel cells are twice as efficient and should get better. You
would also not need all that new infrastructure and regular gas stations
could handle methanol. The fuel cells may give off CO2 but are less
polluting.

On 5/26/2021 1:48 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 5/26/2021 12:01 PM, Frank wrote:

That's when I learned that in a free association test if you say
hydrogen the response is 'bomb'. Arguably the hydrogen was safer than
the tanks of LOX and acetylene but it has a bad rap.

Hydrogen is safer.Â* It's very difficult to get hydrogen to explode.
Since it's much lighter than air, it dissipates quickly and won't
"pool".

That does highlight a problem with hydrogen. The tubes have to handle
around 3000 psi so you're not getting a whole lot of hydrogen in a
traditional steel tube rig. Composites help but it's still a problem.

Sure, it's a problem but the range should be equivalent to EVs and a
whole lot easier to fill.

Fix all that and it's still not a good fuel.Â* Energy isn't free.

Hydrogen isn't really a fuel in the practical sense. It is just a
fairly inefficient storage scheme.
If you are deriving your hydrogen from water, you use more energy
getting it out than you get when you burn it.
OTOH most commercially derived hydrogen comes from natural gas so you
end up with the same issues we are talking about with possibly
dwindling supply if we really started using any large quantity.
Have you priced helium lately?


I recalled the suggestion years ago of using methanol for fuel cells
in cars.Â* Good article still makes a lot of sense:

https://news.usc.edu/5621/George-Ola...energy-crisis/


They do run E85 in places so it can work.Â* I wonder how mny cornfields
will be needed.Â* No wonder Gates is buying up farmland.

Something that I think got buried in the whole ethanol argument is that
like methanol you can most likely make ethanol more efficiently from
petroleum. That would not benefit big AG who essentially bribed both
party's into the ethanol mandate.

On 5/26/2021 1:38 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 26 May 2021 12:14:25 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 5/26/2021 11:30 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 25 May 2021 21:52:47 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 5/25/2021 8:24 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 25 May 2021 19:26:07 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:


Why? If it gets me where I want to go, it does not matter. If range
drops from 300 miles to 200 miles I can still make my 20 mile trip
today. Non-issue for most of us.

But not my 1200mi trip, or the 500mi trip next month.

Never said it is perfect for everyone in every circumstance. I make a
2499 mile trip a few times a year and no, I'd rather not do it in an
electric with present range.

The average commute to work in the US is 16 miles, or a 32 mile round
trip. For most, no problem.

But we don't buy a car for each task. One has to do it all.

Many do. I now have one car but for years I had two. Would be easy to
use one for the long trips and the other for the short stuff. Good
friend of mine has two cars. One gets an occasional 100 mile run, the
other never goes more than 20 miles.

Just because it does not suit your every need does not mean it is not
the perfect car for others. I know a guy that does not even have a car.
Two or three times a year he rents one. Just as I know people with
pickups and the most it ever carries is two bags of groceries.

Seems like people have a once or twice a year circumstance and therefor
nix the idea for everyone. Makes no sense, you are smarter than that.

The flaw in the idea that you will just rent a car is there might not
be any to rent. Try getting one now and we have 300 million ICE cars.
I wanted to rent a car to go to Pompano and even a week out, nobody
had one. (Hertz, Enterprise or Avis/Budget).
Imagine what it would be like if we were making them go away by
design.
The hybrid sounds good but in real life they don't turn out to be that
much more efficient for the premium you pay to buy one.


You do know why there is a shortage today don't you? Has nothing to do
with what it will be like in 1, 5, 10, 20 years. With travel down,
rental companies sold off excess fleet.

They are still selling them tho. I just bought 2.
I am not sure why they remain so pessimistic. Hertz is Bankrupt tho.
If their business model is people renting to go on long distance
vacation it will be a different paradigm than folks just getting one
at the airport to drive around town for a few days.

Just read this morning, Ford is developing two new EV platforms. They
will be investing 30 Billion dollars in EV.

You probably know Volkswagen is going to stop making ICE in 2026.

Time will tell.


Yes, being pushed by government mandates plus auto companies will make
more profit.

Also just googled this up:

"Tesla also earns credits for exceeding emissions and fuel economy
standards and then selling them to other carmakers that fall short so
they can avoid penalties. The company earned $518m from sales of those
credits in the first quarter, an increase of 46% over the same quarter
in 2020."

Big business likes big government if they can extract funds from them.

Problem they are creating for all of us tax payers is the trouble caused
by legislating science and technology.

writes:
On Tue, 25 May 2021 22:13:15 -0400, wrote:


Hydrogen isn't really a fuel in the practical sense. It is just a
fairly inefficient storage scheme.

Incorrect. Airbus is planning on using H as a replacement for
JET-A and burn it in standard turbofan engines.

https://www.airbus.com/innovation/ze...gen/zeroe.html

"All three ZEROe concepts are hybrid-hydrogen aircraft. They are
powered by hydrogen combustion through modified gas turbine engines.
Liquid hydrogen is used as fuel for combustion with oxygen."

If you are deriving your hydrogen from water, you use more energy
getting it out than you get when you burn it.

Incorrect. One mole of H requires 286kJ to disassociate from the
O2 molecule in water. One mole of H burned produces 570kJ.


Have you priced helium lately?

Do you really not know the difference between Helium and
Hydrogen? One is 75% of the matter in the universe, the
other is 24% of the matter in the universe. The ratios
are much more lopsided when you look at planetary sources.

The scarcity of He is the reason for the high prices.

Bob F writes:
On 5/26/2021 2:41 AM, wrote:
On Tuesday, May 25, 2021 at 9:52:52 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 5/25/2021 8:24 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 25 May 2021 19:26:07 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:


Why? If it gets me where I want to go, it does not matter. If range
drops from 300 miles to 200 miles I can still make my 20 mile trip
today. Non-issue for most of us.

But not my 1200mi trip, or the 500mi trip next month.
Never said it is perfect for everyone in every circumstance. I make a
2499 mile trip a few times a year and no, I'd rather not do it in an
electric with present range.

The average commute to work in the US is 16 miles, or a 32 mile round
trip. For most, no problem.

But we don't buy a car for each task. One has to do it all.
Many do. I now have one car but for years I had two. Would be easy to
use one for the long trips and the other for the short stuff. Good
friend of mine has two cars. One gets an occasional 100 mile run, the
other never goes more than 20 miles.

Just because it does not suit your every need does not mean it is not
the perfect car for others. I know a guy that does not even have a car.
Two or three times a year he rents one. Just as I know people with
pickups and the most it ever carries is two bags of groceries.

Seems like people have a once or twice a year circumstance and therefor
nix the idea for everyone. Makes no sense, you are smarter than that.

One thing conspicuously absent from this discussion among old men is
demographics.

We'll all be dead before gas runs out.

Young people are not embracing driving in the numbers they used to. Fewer
have driver's licenses; fewer still own cars. Many of them are content to
call for a ride or rent a car when they need one. If they want to get to a
city 300 miles away, they fly.

Short-range electric vehicles might be much more palatable to those who
will be driving after we've laid down our car keys.

Cindy Hamilton


Of course, everyone knows the question is not "gas running out". The
question is do we want to badly change the planets climate.

Although the "proven reserves" curve has started the downward slide
in 2014, after forty years of growth. It is definitely a finite
resource, unless you are one of the believers in abiogenic production.

"The world has proven reserves equivalent to 46.6 times its annual
consumption levels. This means it has about 47 years of oil left
(at current consumption levels and excluding unproven reserves)."

On Thu, 27 May 2021 04:06:29 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
JimK addressing senile Rodent Speed:
"I really feel the quality of your trolling has dropped in the last few
months..."
MID:

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 May 2021 22:13:15 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 25 May 2021 19:36:41 -0600, rbowman
wrote:

On 05/25/2021 06:24 PM, wrote:
If anyone believes in free energy, there's always hydrogen.

When we were making aircraft strobe lights some were soda glass and some
were quartz glass. Oxy-acetylene is fine for soda but you need the
higher temperature of an oxy-hydrogen flame to blow the quartz tubes. So
we made arrangements to have a tube trailer spotted on site. This
required a permit.

That's when I learned that in a free association test if you say
hydrogen the response is 'bomb'. Arguably the hydrogen was safer than
the tanks of LOX and acetylene but it has a bad rap.

Hydrogen is safer. It's very difficult to get hydrogen to explode.
Since it's much lighter than air, it dissipates quickly and won't
"pool".

That does highlight a problem with hydrogen. The tubes have to handle
around 3000 psi so you're not getting a whole lot of hydrogen in a
traditional steel tube rig. Composites help but it's still a problem.

Sure, it's a problem but the range should be equivalent to EVs and a
whole lot easier to fill.

Fix all that and it's still not a good fuel. Energy isn't free.

Hydrogen isn't really a fuel in the practical sense.
It is just a fairly inefficient storage scheme.

Its rather more than that. It is in fact a transport fuel.

If you are deriving your hydrogen from water, you use
more energy getting it out than you get when you burn it.

OTOH most commercially derived hydrogen comes from
natural gas so you end up with the same issues we are
talking about with possibly dwindling supply if we really
started using any large quantity.

But that isnt true when you produce it
directly with nukes, and not via electricity.

Have you priced helium lately?

What is the relevance of that ?

That's because it occurs naturally but isnt very common at all.

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On 5/26/2021 11:30 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 25 May 2021 21:52:47 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 5/25/2021 8:24 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 25 May 2021 19:26:07 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:


Why? If it gets me where I want to go, it does not matter. If range
drops from 300 miles to 200 miles I can still make my 20 mile trip
today. Non-issue for most of us.

But not my 1200mi trip, or the 500mi trip next month.

Never said it is perfect for everyone in every circumstance. I make a
2499 mile trip a few times a year and no, I'd rather not do it in an
electric with present range.

The average commute to work in the US is 16 miles, or a 32 mile round
trip. For most, no problem.

But we don't buy a car for each task. One has to do it all.

Many do. I now have one car but for years I had two. Would be easy to
use one for the long trips and the other for the short stuff. Good
friend of mine has two cars. One gets an occasional 100 mile run, the
other never goes more than 20 miles.

Just because it does not suit your every need does not mean it is not
the perfect car for others. I know a guy that does not even have a car.
Two or three times a year he rents one. Just as I know people with
pickups and the most it ever carries is two bags of groceries.

Seems like people have a once or twice a year circumstance and therefor
nix the idea for everyone. Makes no sense, you are smarter than that.

The flaw in the idea that you will just rent a car is there might not
be any to rent. Try getting one now and we have 300 million ICE cars.
I wanted to rent a car to go to Pompano and even a week out, nobody
had one. (Hertz, Enterprise or Avis/Budget).
Imagine what it would be like if we were making them go away by
design.
The hybrid sounds good but in real life they don't turn out to be that
much more efficient for the premium you pay to buy one.


You do know why there is a shortage today don't you? Has nothing to do
with what it will be like in 1, 5, 10, 20 years. With travel down, rental
companies sold off excess fleet.

Just read this morning, Ford is developing two new EV platforms. They
will be investing 30 Billion dollars in EV.

They have gone broke before...

You probably know Volkswagen is going to stop making ICE in 2026.

We'll see...

On Tue, 25 May 2021 17:14:39 -0400, Ed Pawlowski posted for all of us to
digest...


On 5/25/2021 3:50 PM, Tekkie? wrote:

On Mon, 24 May 2021 21:58:32 -0400, Ed Pawlowski posted for all of us to
digest...






What if the cure is worse than the disease? What if these future batteries
cause sufarcus poisoning? All the EVs have them. What do you do then. Mandate
them out of existence, with no solutions.

Right, a lot of stuff to sort out. Do you do nothing? I'm sure there
will be different generations as we progress. Look, they even make
airplanes with just one wing now.


Why do you not set your sights on China? They are the worlds biggest polluters,
they use slave labor, they will ship their (supposedly compliant) crap over
here without restriction. That will would help your immediate issues and allow
time to develop longer term solutions. Why not attack the problem at it's
source?

So do nothing for us? What do we do when oil runs out? Are you really
that short sighted?

I don't have any solutions, I don't think you or anybody here has any solution.
There are plenty of people working on it that are smarter and it's in their
field of expertise, but the way I see it MANDATES are not one of them.

Again, later.

Right, they are working on it in a POSITITVE way but you only see
problems and don't want to try to change things. You and I cannot
change the mandates ut we can do things to make them work better for
us. Or we can just bitch about it.

You and I CAN change the mandates. The mandates are made to cater to a specific
class of people - such as yourself - to favor for support and backing. These
mandates have no science behind them, no freethinking other than the present.

OK, then get it changed. Once the restrictions on ICE cars is lifted
we can forget all of this. Let me know when it happens. There is
science behind it if you look. Plenty of arguments about how EVs are no
better but that is changing. It takes time to refine things.



I don't understand the logic of your posts. When you first started this thread
you were stating that we had to act now and quoted mandates. I stated I didn't
think mandates would work. You insisted we had to act now. I tried to expand
that mandates are the problem and you brought the future in. I added
agriculture because that is local to me and wanted your solution to the
abolition of gasoline.

I'm not abolishing gasoline but we will run out at some point, likely 40
to 50 years from now. Meantime, lets take steps for what we know is
coming, EV vehicles, like it or not. The less we use now, the longer it
will last for those combines you have.

Once the soon to be here problem is solved we can take care of the farm.
If oil use is reduced the farm problem can be delayed. It is all
working together.



Ed, what you espouse is an example of closed minded reasoning. I am not being
negative; I am calling out the opposite views as I see them. For every positive
there is a negative.

Again, what is your solution regarding China? Why not mandate they stop
polluting? Why not mandate that all travel must be by rail? Why not mandate the
airplanes be grounded?

WTF does China have to do with us driving cars. You keep bringing a
straw man into it. We can ask but we cannot make China do anything.
Lets keep on topic.

If we used more rail we would use cars less, a good thing. I'm not
suggesting mandates for it, you are.

We don't have to mandate grounding airplanes. Lack of jet fuel will do
that in 50 years.

Again, my position, mandates do NOT work, business and economics will solve the
problems you espouse.

Unfortunately, until you get those mandates changed we have to move
forward. Complaining about you cannot charge your EV when you visit
your brother is silly because that is an easily solved problem by the
time comes. Business is working on it.

When the time comes, industry will come up with farm equipment that is
either electric or mule powered but we don't have to do that yet.

Your position or my position on the mandates does not matter. What
matters is real life and we have to deal with it and make life as good
as possible. Let me know when you get them changed.

If you want to stop China from polluting, stop buying stuff from them.
The less they make, the less they pollute.

BTW. I do not own an electric car yet. If I had two cars, one may be.
I drove one and was quite impressed with many aspects of it, especially
how the AC worked on a sunny 90+ day.

Ed, I am respectfully ending this discussion. You believe the government should
control our lives and I don't. I believe the progression of EVs will be the
same as horses to cars, steam cars to gasoline. I have other thoughts but I'm
over & out. Thank you,

--
Tekkie

On Tue, 25 May 2021 17:20:01 -0400, posted for all of us to
digest...


On Tue, 25 May 2021 16:01:14 -0400, Tekkie©
wrote:


On Mon, 24 May 2021 23:55:10 -0500, Jim Joyce posted for all of us to digest...


On Mon, 24 May 2021 21:58:32 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 5/24/2021 5:36 PM, Tekkie? wrote:

On Mon, 24 May 2021 14:37:16 -0400, Ed Pawlowski posted for all of us to
digest...


How do I do that with all the employees plugged in? Think I'll be be able to
plugin to the nursing home outlet? Do you think they will have charging
stations for visitors?


Do you think minimum wage nursing home employees will have EVs?

No. but the doctors, nurses, therapists and visitors may. Remains to be
seen.



They may in the future. There are also many charging stations at rest
stops now. Some restaurants have them so you can stop for a snack and
get a charge. More charging stations are popping up every day.

"Stopping for a snack & get a charge" How far will this take you? What's the
mileage for say a 20 minute charge?

So the customers are subsidizing the EV users (again).

What is many? Who pays to install, maintain them?


OK. your lack of knowledge is showing. There are a few commercial
enterprises putting them in and they charge the customer to use them and
they make a profit. Works like gas stations but they sell electric
instead of gas. Some have plans for discounts.

I wonder if battery swaps, of some sort, will ever be part of the EV
solution. My goal would be to reduce the charging time to roughly equal the
time it currently takes to fill a gas tank rather than hanging around at
the charging station for hours and hours. I don't think current EVs are
designed with quick battery swaps in mind, for multiple reasons, but it
could be nice at some point.

snip

Yes, that would be a plus. You are correct in that quick swaps are not designed
in. I believe for crash protection and fires. IDK Might be a future business
opportunity.

It would create a whole different design criteria, basically building
the car around a particular battery and some vehicles like the F-150
might actually use 2 but I see it as a niche market. It will be more
expensive and fraught with opportunities for fraud.

On a second look at it you are correct. Nothing like running out of your
recharged crappy battery 125 miles from destination. Will AAA cover this?

Also the safety points I made in another post.

--
Tekkie

On Thu, 27 May 2021 05:24:05 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

On Tue, 25 May 2021 17:45:53 -0400, posted for all of us to
digest...


On Tue, 25 May 2021 16:04:05 -0400, Tekkie©
wrote:


On Tue, 25 May 2021 12:27:47 -0400, posted for all of us to
digest...


On Mon, 24 May 2021 23:55:10 -0500, Jim Joyce
wrote:

On Mon, 24 May 2021 21:58:32 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 5/24/2021 5:36 PM, Tekkie? wrote:

On Mon, 24 May 2021 14:37:16 -0400, Ed Pawlowski posted for all of us to
digest...


How do I do that with all the employees plugged in? Think I'll be be able to
plugin to the nursing home outlet? Do you think they will have charging
stations for visitors?


Do you think minimum wage nursing home employees will have EVs?

No. but the doctors, nurses, therapists and visitors may. Remains to be
seen.



They may in the future. There are also many charging stations at rest
stops now. Some restaurants have them so you can stop for a snack and
get a charge. More charging stations are popping up every day.

"Stopping for a snack & get a charge" How far will this take you? What's the
mileage for say a 20 minute charge?

So the customers are subsidizing the EV users (again).

What is many? Who pays to install, maintain them?


OK. your lack of knowledge is showing. There are a few commercial
enterprises putting them in and they charge the customer to use them and
they make a profit. Works like gas stations but they sell electric
instead of gas. Some have plans for discounts.

I wonder if battery swaps, of some sort, will ever be part of the EV
solution. My goal would be to reduce the charging time to roughly equal the
time it currently takes to fill a gas tank rather than hanging around at
the charging station for hours and hours. I don't think current EVs are
designed with quick battery swaps in mind, for multiple reasons, but it
could be nice at some point.

Not likely. People aren't going to want to trade a new battery for
something unknown. They're way too expensive to have the vehicle come
without a battery and pay a deposit for one at the electricity store.

There are already rebuilt batteries for Prius and other brands that were early
adopters.

Totally irrelevant but keep guessing.

IDK what your statement refers to but here is one link:
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=pri...tteries&ia=web

--
Tekkie

On Thu, 27 May 2021 05:27:39 +1000, Joey, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

FLUSH the trolling senile pest's latest troll**** unread


--
John addressing the senile Australian pest:
"You are a complete idiot. But you make me larf. LOL"
MID:

On 5/26/2021 3:31 PM, Tekkie� wrote:



Ed, I am respectfully ending this discussion. You believe the government should
control our lives and I don't. I believe the progression of EVs will be the
same as horses to cars, steam cars to gasoline. I have other thoughts but I'm
over & out. Thank you,


Fine, but I never said the government should control our lives. I just
see the inevitable and EVs will be much of our future.

I'd rather see efforts made to improve them, get rid of the lithium,
find better, easier ways to keep them charged. Sorry if that is too
progressive.

On Tue, 25 May 2021 18:59:05 -0400, Frank posted for all of us to digest...


On 5/25/2021 4:04 PM, Tekkie? wrote:

On Tue, 25 May 2021 12:27:47 -0400, posted for all of us to
digest...


On Mon, 24 May 2021 23:55:10 -0500, Jim Joyce
wrote:

On Mon, 24 May 2021 21:58:32 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 5/24/2021 5:36 PM, Tekkie? wrote:

On Mon, 24 May 2021 14:37:16 -0400, Ed Pawlowski posted for all of us to
digest...


How do I do that with all the employees plugged in? Think I'll be be able to
plugin to the nursing home outlet? Do you think they will have charging
stations for visitors?


Do you think minimum wage nursing home employees will have EVs?

No. but the doctors, nurses, therapists and visitors may. Remains to be
seen.



They may in the future. There are also many charging stations at rest
stops now. Some restaurants have them so you can stop for a snack and
get a charge. More charging stations are popping up every day.

"Stopping for a snack & get a charge" How far will this take you? What's the
mileage for say a 20 minute charge?

So the customers are subsidizing the EV users (again).

What is many? Who pays to install, maintain them?


OK. your lack of knowledge is showing. There are a few commercial
enterprises putting them in and they charge the customer to use them and
they make a profit. Works like gas stations but they sell electric
instead of gas. Some have plans for discounts.

I wonder if battery swaps, of some sort, will ever be part of the EV
solution. My goal would be to reduce the charging time to roughly equal the
time it currently takes to fill a gas tank rather than hanging around at
the charging station for hours and hours. I don't think current EVs are
designed with quick battery swaps in mind, for multiple reasons, but it
could be nice at some point.

Not likely. People aren't going to want to trade a new battery for
something unknown. They're way too expensive to have the vehicle come
without a battery and pay a deposit for one at the electricity store.

There are already rebuilt batteries for Prius and other brands that were early
adopters.


Hybrid batteries are probably not that big but I read Tesla batteries a
half a ton

Ow, that would be a nut buster. I looked at the web site I posted and didn't
find any dimensions or weights. But I saw the remans are by Dorman which to
anyone in the trade would know to run from.

--
Tekkie

On Tue, 25 May 2021 20:08:00 -0600, rbowman posted for all of us to digest...


On 05/25/2021 02:41 PM, Tekkie? wrote:
I put a little more thought into this post. One can't ignore the fact that
these batteries are rated for 600 volts and high amperage. That will more than
melt your monkey wrench. I think we all have to stay tuned...

I think the first responders may need a refresher course...

Toyota, from very early on had a course on how to handle responses on their
vehicles. They have a readily accessible disconnect. It's similar to the
protocol with airbags. IIRC Tesla had a course in the county about 6 months or
so ago. IDK because I don't get the training notices any more. I could look it
up but I'm too lazy. You would be surprised by the amount of people that leave
the ignition on & running, transmission in gear. We carry chocks. Need them for
unconscious, drunks or overdoses.

--
Tekkie

On Wed, 26 May 2021 11:32:48 -0400, posted for all of us to
digest...


On Tue, 25 May 2021 20:08:00 -0600, rbowman
wrote:

On 05/25/2021 02:41 PM, Tekkie? wrote:
I put a little more thought into this post. One can't ignore the fact that
these batteries are rated for 600 volts and high amperage. That will more than
melt your monkey wrench. I think we all have to stay tuned...

I think the first responders may need a refresher course...

I know they have trouble putting out a lithium battery fire. They
pretty much keep burning until the battery dies. Squirting water on it
doesn't do much.

Yeah, foam has to be used on car fires because of the ethanol. They are
different from the get go because of the batteries. Also the car manufacturers
are using 'exotic' metals so it can be a **** show.

--
Tekkie

On Tue, 25 May 2021 20:28:32 -0600, rbowman posted for all of us to digest...


On 05/25/2021 02:06 PM, Tekkie? wrote:

On Mon, 24 May 2021 19:47:44 -0600, rbowman posted for all of us to digest...


https://www.secretsofuniverse.in/tes...ion-technique/

There are some far field technologies but they have limited range and
tend to be detrimental to humans or other furry things that wander into
the beam.

I worked for a company that made dielectric heaters for the plastics
industry. Our quick and dirty test for a leaky RF cavity consisted of a
fluorescent tube taped to a broomstick. Transmitting enough power to
make it light up was not a good thing.

Sterility guaranteed!


There were two rumors -- sterility or increased fertility, take your
pick. This was the early '70s and microwave ovens weren't a thing. It
didn't take long for the people on the shop floor to figure out they
could heat their lunch in one, right after they learned to take their
meatball sandwich out of the tinfoil. The bigger models were 7.5 or 15
kilowatts.

We kept one of the little bench models in the engineering lab. It did
wonders for the day old stuff from Freihofer's Bakery across the bridge.


Freihofers is a name that I haven't heard in a loooong time. That was good
stuff.

fwiw, they were still using horsepower delivery in the city when I was a
kid.

https://s.hdnux.com/photos/20/35/52/...6/5/1200x0.jpg

Unfortunately we were out in the country and it was a bread truck
painted to match. Put the sign in the window if you wanted anything.



--
Tekkie

On 5/26/2021 3:38 PM, Tekkie� wrote:

On Tue, 25 May 2021 17:20:01 -0400, posted for all of us to
digest...


On Tue, 25 May 2021 16:01:14 -0400, Tekkie©
wrote:


On Mon, 24 May 2021 23:55:10 -0500, Jim Joyce posted for all of us to digest...


On Mon, 24 May 2021 21:58:32 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 5/24/2021 5:36 PM, Tekkie? wrote:

On Mon, 24 May 2021 14:37:16 -0400, Ed Pawlowski posted for all of us to
digest...


How do I do that with all the employees plugged in? Think I'll be be able to
plugin to the nursing home outlet? Do you think they will have charging
stations for visitors?


Do you think minimum wage nursing home employees will have EVs?

No. but the doctors, nurses, therapists and visitors may. Remains to be
seen.



They may in the future. There are also many charging stations at rest
stops now. Some restaurants have them so you can stop for a snack and
get a charge. More charging stations are popping up every day.

"Stopping for a snack & get a charge" How far will this take you? What's the
mileage for say a 20 minute charge?

So the customers are subsidizing the EV users (again).

What is many? Who pays to install, maintain them?


OK. your lack of knowledge is showing. There are a few commercial
enterprises putting them in and they charge the customer to use them and
they make a profit. Works like gas stations but they sell electric
instead of gas. Some have plans for discounts.

I wonder if battery swaps, of some sort, will ever be part of the EV
solution. My goal would be to reduce the charging time to roughly equal the
time it currently takes to fill a gas tank rather than hanging around at
the charging station for hours and hours. I don't think current EVs are
designed with quick battery swaps in mind, for multiple reasons, but it
could be nice at some point.

snip

Yes, that would be a plus. You are correct in that quick swaps are not designed
in. I believe for crash protection and fires. IDK Might be a future business
opportunity.

It would create a whole different design criteria, basically building
the car around a particular battery and some vehicles like the F-150
might actually use 2 but I see it as a niche market. It will be more
expensive and fraught with opportunities for fraud.

On a second look at it you are correct. Nothing like running out of your
recharged crappy battery 125 miles from destination. Will AAA cover this?

Also the safety points I made in another post.


Yes, I know someone that had his EV towed for that reason. His admitted
fault. Just as it is stupid to run out of gas. Happened to someone
here recently on a highway bridge and a passenger got out and was killed
by a drunk driver. So, check that fuel level and if applicable, battery
level.

On Wed, 26 May 2021 13:48:07 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 5/26/2021 12:01 PM, Frank wrote:

That's when I learned that in a free association test if you say
hydrogen the response is 'bomb'. Arguably the hydrogen was safer than
the tanks of LOX and acetylene but it has a bad rap.

Hydrogen is safer.Â* It's very difficult to get hydrogen to explode.
Since it's much lighter than air, it dissipates quickly and won't
"pool".

That does highlight a problem with hydrogen. The tubes have to handle
around 3000 psi so you're not getting a whole lot of hydrogen in a
traditional steel tube rig. Composites help but it's still a problem.

Sure, it's a problem but the range should be equivalent to EVs and a
whole lot easier to fill.

Fix all that and it's still not a good fuel.Â* Energy isn't free.

Hydrogen isn't really a fuel in the practical sense. It is just a
fairly inefficient storage scheme.
If you are deriving your hydrogen from water, you use more energy
getting it out than you get when you burn it.
OTOH most commercially derived hydrogen comes from natural gas so you
end up with the same issues we are talking about with possibly
dwindling supply if we really started using any large quantity.
Have you priced helium lately?


I recalled the suggestion years ago of using methanol for fuel cells in
cars.Â* Good article still makes a lot of sense:

https://news.usc.edu/5621/George-Ola...energy-crisis/


They do run E85 in places so it can work. I wonder how mny cornfields
will be needed. No wonder Gates is buying up farmland.

There are plenty os studies that question the "green" aspects of E-85
and ethanol in general. Even if you throw out the carbon footprint of
the farmers and distillers you are still left with the water issues
that everyone forgets about. The Ogallala Aquifer that waters all of
that corn is dropping every day and that is fossil water that is not
being replaced nearly as fast as we pump it out. They are trying to
get farmers to change their ways but planting more corn to burn in
cars is not going to help.

"At the current rate of use, part of the Ogallala could be exhausted
within this century and may take 6,000 years to restore".

James P. Dobrowolski, PhD, National Program Leader, Division of
Environmental Systems, National Institute of Food and Agriculture
(NIFA), U.S. Department of Agriculture in Research and Science
May 01, 2020

California agriculture and a few cities built in the desert (LA,
Phoenix and Las Vegas for a few) are draining the Colorado river.
Florida is sucking it's aquifers dry.

We are going to run out of fresh water long before we run out of oil.

On Wed, 26 May 2021 18:28:23 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Tue, 25 May 2021 22:13:15 -0400, wrote:


If you are deriving your hydrogen from water, you use more energy
getting it out than you get when you burn it.

Incorrect. One mole of H requires 286kJ to disassociate from the
O2 molecule in water. One mole of H burned produces 570kJ.


Are you saying you have created the perpetual motion machine?

You seem to be saying you have a way to crack water open, then extract
more energy than you put in by recombining it back into water... Way
cool.

Perpetual motion only requires you break even on the energy transfer
and you seem to say you can double it.

You better get down to the patent office right away.

On Wed, 26 May 2021 18:50:38 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

Bob F writes:
On 5/26/2021 2:41 AM, wrote:
On Tuesday, May 25, 2021 at 9:52:52 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 5/25/2021 8:24 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 25 May 2021 19:26:07 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:


Why? If it gets me where I want to go, it does not matter. If range
drops from 300 miles to 200 miles I can still make my 20 mile trip
today. Non-issue for most of us.

But not my 1200mi trip, or the 500mi trip next month.
Never said it is perfect for everyone in every circumstance. I make a
2499 mile trip a few times a year and no, I'd rather not do it in an
electric with present range.

The average commute to work in the US is 16 miles, or a 32 mile round
trip. For most, no problem.

But we don't buy a car for each task. One has to do it all.
Many do. I now have one car but for years I had two. Would be easy to
use one for the long trips and the other for the short stuff. Good
friend of mine has two cars. One gets an occasional 100 mile run, the
other never goes more than 20 miles.

Just because it does not suit your every need does not mean it is not
the perfect car for others. I know a guy that does not even have a car.
Two or three times a year he rents one. Just as I know people with
pickups and the most it ever carries is two bags of groceries.

Seems like people have a once or twice a year circumstance and therefor
nix the idea for everyone. Makes no sense, you are smarter than that.

One thing conspicuously absent from this discussion among old men is
demographics.

We'll all be dead before gas runs out.

Young people are not embracing driving in the numbers they used to. Fewer
have driver's licenses; fewer still own cars. Many of them are content to
call for a ride or rent a car when they need one. If they want to get to a
city 300 miles away, they fly.

Short-range electric vehicles might be much more palatable to those who
will be driving after we've laid down our car keys.

Cindy Hamilton


Of course, everyone knows the question is not "gas running out". The
question is do we want to badly change the planets climate.

Although the "proven reserves" curve has started the downward slide
in 2014, after forty years of growth. It is definitely a finite
resource, unless you are one of the believers in abiogenic production.

"The world has proven reserves equivalent to 46.6 times its annual
consumption levels. This means it has about 47 years of oil left
(at current consumption levels and excluding unproven reserves)."


The difference is in how much of the earth we have not explored
looking for oil.
I understand drilling may have environmental costs we are not going to
be willing to absorb but that doesn't mean the fuel isn't there.
OTOH it might be a way to inject money into economies in places like
sub saharan Africa.

On Wed, 26 May 2021 16:26:18 -0400, Tekkie©
wrote:


On Tue, 25 May 2021 20:08:00 -0600, rbowman posted for all of us to digest...


On 05/25/2021 02:41 PM, Tekkie? wrote:
I put a little more thought into this post. One can't ignore the fact that
these batteries are rated for 600 volts and high amperage. That will more than
melt your monkey wrench. I think we all have to stay tuned...

I think the first responders may need a refresher course...

Toyota, from very early on had a course on how to handle responses on their
vehicles. They have a readily accessible disconnect. It's similar to the
protocol with airbags. IIRC Tesla had a course in the county about 6 months or
so ago. IDK because I don't get the training notices any more. I could look it
up but I'm too lazy. You would be surprised by the amount of people that leave
the ignition on & running, transmission in gear. We carry chocks. Need them for
unconscious, drunks or overdoses.

It really depends on how wadded up the car is. If a Prius gets hit by
a loaded concrete mixer, that disconnect might not be as accessible as
Toyota planned.

writes:
On Wed, 26 May 2021 13:48:07 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

There are plenty os studies that question the "green" aspects of E-85
and ethanol in general. Even if you throw out the carbon footprint of
the farmers and distillers you are still left with the water issues
that everyone forgets about. The Ogallala Aquifer that waters all of
that corn is dropping every day and that is fossil water that is not
being replaced nearly as fast as we pump it out. They are trying to
get farmers to change their ways but planting more corn to burn in
cars is not going to help.

Most of that corn is grown in Iowa and Illinois. There is no, zero, zilch
irrigation in either state. They use rainwater. They don't draw
down the aquifer.

writes:
On Wed, 26 May 2021 18:50:38 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

Bob F writes:
On 5/26/2021 2:41 AM, wrote:
On Tuesday, May 25, 2021 at 9:52:52 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 5/25/2021 8:24 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 25 May 2021 19:26:07 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:


Why? If it gets me where I want to go, it does not matter. If range
drops from 300 miles to 200 miles I can still make my 20 mile trip
today. Non-issue for most of us.

But not my 1200mi trip, or the 500mi trip next month.
Never said it is perfect for everyone in every circumstance. I make a
2499 mile trip a few times a year and no, I'd rather not do it in an
electric with present range.

The average commute to work in the US is 16 miles, or a 32 mile round
trip. For most, no problem.

But we don't buy a car for each task. One has to do it all.
Many do. I now have one car but for years I had two. Would be easy to
use one for the long trips and the other for the short stuff. Good
friend of mine has two cars. One gets an occasional 100 mile run, the
other never goes more than 20 miles.

Just because it does not suit your every need does not mean it is not
the perfect car for others. I know a guy that does not even have a car.
Two or three times a year he rents one. Just as I know people with
pickups and the most it ever carries is two bags of groceries.

Seems like people have a once or twice a year circumstance and therefor
nix the idea for everyone. Makes no sense, you are smarter than that.

One thing conspicuously absent from this discussion among old men is
demographics.

We'll all be dead before gas runs out.

Young people are not embracing driving in the numbers they used to. Fewer
have driver's licenses; fewer still own cars. Many of them are content to
call for a ride or rent a car when they need one. If they want to get to a
city 300 miles away, they fly.

Short-range electric vehicles might be much more palatable to those who
will be driving after we've laid down our car keys.

Cindy Hamilton


Of course, everyone knows the question is not "gas running out". The
question is do we want to badly change the planets climate.

Although the "proven reserves" curve has started the downward slide
in 2014, after forty years of growth. It is definitely a finite
resource, unless you are one of the believers in abiogenic production.

"The world has proven reserves equivalent to 46.6 times its annual
consumption levels. This means it has about 47 years of oil left
(at current consumption levels and excluding unproven reserves)."


The difference is in how much of the earth we have not explored
looking for oil.

The exploration companies and industry have explored pretty
much every viable area, including polar waters. Either physically
or computationally (using AI algorithms to process seismic and other
geological data).

I understand drilling may have environmental costs we are not going to
be willing to absorb but that doesn't mean the fuel isn't there. '

Not in the quantities needed to support today's daily usage,
much less ten years from now.

OTOH it might be a way to inject money into economies in places like
sub saharan Africa.

How so? The oil companies will suck them dry and leave them destitute.

Here's some reading about what happens if we _don't_ have a replacement
in place by the time petroleum becomes more scarce.

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/11/p...l-perspective/
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/the-energy-trap/

On Wednesday, May 26, 2021 at 5:31:36 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
writes:
On Wed, 26 May 2021 13:48:07 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

There are plenty os studies that question the "green" aspects of E-85
and ethanol in general. Even if you throw out the carbon footprint of
the farmers and distillers you are still left with the water issues
that everyone forgets about. The Ogallala Aquifer that waters all of
that corn is dropping every day and that is fossil water that is not
being replaced nearly as fast as we pump it out. They are trying to
get farmers to change their ways but planting more corn to burn in
cars is not going to help.
Most of that corn is grown in Iowa and Illinois. There is no, zero, zilch
irrigation in either state. They use rainwater. They don't draw
down the aquifer.

Well, believe it or not there is irrigation in both.
Illinois had about 6,600 center pivots back in 2014.
https://clearinghouse.isgs.illinois.edu/data/hydrology/illinois-center-pivot-irrigation
I couldn't find anything about pivots in Iowa. There is irrigation there too.
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/Online_Resources/Farm_and_Ranch_Irrigation_Survey/fris_1_0001_0001.pdf
Part of it is driven by seed corn companies. Timing is important in getting the seed going in the spring. The seed should start growing at the same time as much as possible. And either using a pivot to chemigate or to activate chemicals is nice too.

On 5/26/2021 3:44 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 5/26/2021 3:31 PM, Tekkie� wrote:



Ed, I am respectfully ending this discussion. You believe the
government should
control our lives and I don't. I believe the progression of EVs will
be the
same as horses to cars, steam cars to gasoline. I have other thoughts
but I'm
over & out. Thank you,


Fine, but I never said the government should control our lives.Â* I just
see the inevitable and EVs will be much of our future.

I'd rather see efforts made to improve them, get rid of the lithium,
find better, easier ways to keep them charged.Â* Sorry if that is too
progressive.

We are saying let nature take its course absent government intervention.

On 5/26/2021 7:37 PM, Frank wrote:
On 5/26/2021 3:44 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 5/26/2021 3:31 PM, Tekkie� wrote:



Ed, I am respectfully ending this discussion. You believe the
government should
control our lives and I don't. I believe the progression of EVs will
be the
same as horses to cars, steam cars to gasoline. I have other thoughts
but I'm
over & out. Thank you,


Fine, but I never said the government should control our lives.Â* I
just see the inevitable and EVs will be much of our future.

I'd rather see efforts made to improve them, get rid of the lithium,
find better, easier ways to keep them charged.Â* Sorry if that is too
progressive.

We are saying let nature take its course absent government intervention.

That is a very simple statement and I have no argument against it.

If everyone thought that all they had to do was say so. Instead there
were many reasons EV is no good, can't be charged, house has to be
rewired, the farm won't work, can't visit family,

Good point about government intervention, just like the original
automobile. The auto companies and dealers with private funds build the
highways to drive them on. They did it to promote sales.

On 05/26/2021 02:32 PM, Tekkie� wrote:
Freihofers is a name that I haven't heard in a loooong time. That was good
stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C4CocX5MGM

WRGB itself has history behind it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WRGB

My uncle had a radio store that morphed into radio and TV so we had a TV
with a massive 12" screen.

https://cbs6albany.com/community/pos...gb-ss-glendora

Glendora was another homegrown live show. Satellites were a big thing in
'57 and Satellite Six was too good a name to pass up.

Then there was Teenage Barn

https://friendsofalbanyhistory.wordp...-teenage-barn/

It was a different world.

On Wed, 26 May 2021 17:34:52 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 5/26/2021 3:38 PM, Tekkie? wrote:

On Tue, 25 May 2021 17:20:01 -0400, posted for all of us to
digest...


On Tue, 25 May 2021 16:01:14 -0400, Tekkie©
wrote:


On Mon, 24 May 2021 23:55:10 -0500, Jim Joyce posted for all of us to digest...


On Mon, 24 May 2021 21:58:32 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 5/24/2021 5:36 PM, Tekkie? wrote:

On Mon, 24 May 2021 14:37:16 -0400, Ed Pawlowski posted for all of us to
digest...


How do I do that with all the employees plugged in? Think I'll be be able to
plugin to the nursing home outlet? Do you think they will have charging
stations for visitors?


Do you think minimum wage nursing home employees will have EVs?

No. but the doctors, nurses, therapists and visitors may. Remains to be
seen.



They may in the future. There are also many charging stations at rest
stops now. Some restaurants have them so you can stop for a snack and
get a charge. More charging stations are popping up every day.

"Stopping for a snack & get a charge" How far will this take you? What's the
mileage for say a 20 minute charge?

So the customers are subsidizing the EV users (again).

What is many? Who pays to install, maintain them?


OK. your lack of knowledge is showing. There are a few commercial
enterprises putting them in and they charge the customer to use them and
they make a profit. Works like gas stations but they sell electric
instead of gas. Some have plans for discounts.

I wonder if battery swaps, of some sort, will ever be part of the EV
solution. My goal would be to reduce the charging time to roughly equal the
time it currently takes to fill a gas tank rather than hanging around at
the charging station for hours and hours. I don't think current EVs are
designed with quick battery swaps in mind, for multiple reasons, but it
could be nice at some point.

snip

Yes, that would be a plus. You are correct in that quick swaps are not designed
in. I believe for crash protection and fires. IDK Might be a future business
opportunity.

It would create a whole different design criteria, basically building
the car around a particular battery and some vehicles like the F-150
might actually use 2 but I see it as a niche market. It will be more
expensive and fraught with opportunities for fraud.

On a second look at it you are correct. Nothing like running out of your
recharged crappy battery 125 miles from destination. Will AAA cover this?

Also the safety points I made in another post.


Yes, I know someone that had his EV towed for that reason. His admitted
fault. Just as it is stupid to run out of gas. Happened to someone
here recently on a highway bridge and a passenger got out and was killed
by a drunk driver. So, check that fuel level and if applicable, battery
level.

The difference is someone can bring you a gallon or 2 of gas but you
are not walking to the charging station and bringing back a can of
kilowatts.

On Wed, 26 May 2021 22:31:30 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Wed, 26 May 2021 13:48:07 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

There are plenty os studies that question the "green" aspects of E-85
and ethanol in general. Even if you throw out the carbon footprint of
the farmers and distillers you are still left with the water issues
that everyone forgets about. The Ogallala Aquifer that waters all of
that corn is dropping every day and that is fossil water that is not
being replaced nearly as fast as we pump it out. They are trying to
get farmers to change their ways but planting more corn to burn in
cars is not going to help.

Most of that corn is grown in Iowa and Illinois. There is no, zero, zilch
irrigation in either state. They use rainwater. They don't draw
down the aquifer.

While you are in DC at the patent office, locking down that hydrogen
perpetual motion machine, drive down 14th street and see the people at
USDA about that water Iowa isn't using.


https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics...tion-11-19.pdf

On Wed, 26 May 2021 22:37:33 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Wed, 26 May 2021 18:50:38 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

Bob F writes:
On 5/26/2021 2:41 AM, wrote:
On Tuesday, May 25, 2021 at 9:52:52 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 5/25/2021 8:24 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 25 May 2021 19:26:07 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:


Why? If it gets me where I want to go, it does not matter. If range
drops from 300 miles to 200 miles I can still make my 20 mile trip
today. Non-issue for most of us.

But not my 1200mi trip, or the 500mi trip next month.
Never said it is perfect for everyone in every circumstance. I make a
2499 mile trip a few times a year and no, I'd rather not do it in an
electric with present range.

The average commute to work in the US is 16 miles, or a 32 mile round
trip. For most, no problem.

But we don't buy a car for each task. One has to do it all.
Many do. I now have one car but for years I had two. Would be easy to
use one for the long trips and the other for the short stuff. Good
friend of mine has two cars. One gets an occasional 100 mile run, the
other never goes more than 20 miles.

Just because it does not suit your every need does not mean it is not
the perfect car for others. I know a guy that does not even have a car.
Two or three times a year he rents one. Just as I know people with
pickups and the most it ever carries is two bags of groceries.

Seems like people have a once or twice a year circumstance and therefor
nix the idea for everyone. Makes no sense, you are smarter than that.

One thing conspicuously absent from this discussion among old men is
demographics.

We'll all be dead before gas runs out.

Young people are not embracing driving in the numbers they used to. Fewer
have driver's licenses; fewer still own cars. Many of them are content to
call for a ride or rent a car when they need one. If they want to get to a
city 300 miles away, they fly.

Short-range electric vehicles might be much more palatable to those who
will be driving after we've laid down our car keys.

Cindy Hamilton


Of course, everyone knows the question is not "gas running out". The
question is do we want to badly change the planets climate.

Although the "proven reserves" curve has started the downward slide
in 2014, after forty years of growth. It is definitely a finite
resource, unless you are one of the believers in abiogenic production.

"The world has proven reserves equivalent to 46.6 times its annual
consumption levels. This means it has about 47 years of oil left
(at current consumption levels and excluding unproven reserves)."


The difference is in how much of the earth we have not explored
looking for oil.

The exploration companies and industry have explored pretty
much every viable area, including polar waters. Either physically
or computationally (using AI algorithms to process seismic and other
geological data).

I understand drilling may have environmental costs we are not going to
be willing to absorb but that doesn't mean the fuel isn't there. '

Not in the quantities needed to support today's daily usage,
much less ten years from now.

OTOH it might be a way to inject money into economies in places like
sub saharan Africa.

How so? The oil companies will suck them dry and leave them destitute.

Here's some reading about what happens if we _don't_ have a replacement
in place by the time petroleum becomes more scarce.

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/11/p...l-perspective/
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/the-energy-trap/


I have been hearing about that peak oil boogie man since the Carter
administration. We are supposed to be out now.
I agree it will happen some day but we will be out of a lot of stuff
by then.

On Wed, 26 May 2021 16:33:59 -0700 (PDT), Dean Hoffman
wrote:

On Wednesday, May 26, 2021 at 5:31:36 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
writes:
On Wed, 26 May 2021 13:48:07 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

There are plenty os studies that question the "green" aspects of E-85
and ethanol in general. Even if you throw out the carbon footprint of
the farmers and distillers you are still left with the water issues
that everyone forgets about. The Ogallala Aquifer that waters all of
that corn is dropping every day and that is fossil water that is not
being replaced nearly as fast as we pump it out. They are trying to
get farmers to change their ways but planting more corn to burn in
cars is not going to help.
Most of that corn is grown in Iowa and Illinois. There is no, zero, zilch
irrigation in either state. They use rainwater. They don't draw
down the aquifer.

Well, believe it or not there is irrigation in both.
Illinois had about 6,600 center pivots back in 2014.
https://clearinghouse.isgs.illinois.edu/data/hydrology/illinois-center-pivot-irrigation
I couldn't find anything about pivots in Iowa. There is irrigation there too.
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/Online_Resources/Farm_and_Ranch_Irrigation_Survey/fris_1_0001_0001.pdf
Part of it is driven by seed corn companies. Timing is important in getting the seed going in the spring. The seed should start growing at the same time as much as possible. And either using a pivot to chemigate or to activate chemicals is nice too.

Corn needs to be "knee high by the 4th of July" according to my
Indiana inlaws. Otherwise you may not get the crop in.

On Wed, 26 May 2021 21:36:54 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 5/26/2021 7:37 PM, Frank wrote:
On 5/26/2021 3:44 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 5/26/2021 3:31 PM, Tekkie? wrote:



Ed, I am respectfully ending this discussion. You believe the
government should
control our lives and I don't. I believe the progression of EVs will
be the
same as horses to cars, steam cars to gasoline. I have other thoughts
but I'm
over & out. Thank you,


Fine, but I never said the government should control our lives.Â* I
just see the inevitable and EVs will be much of our future.

I'd rather see efforts made to improve them, get rid of the lithium,
find better, easier ways to keep them charged.Â* Sorry if that is too
progressive.

We are saying let nature take its course absent government intervention.

That is a very simple statement and I have no argument against it.

If everyone thought that all they had to do was say so. Instead there
were many reasons EV is no good, can't be charged, house has to be
rewired, the farm won't work, can't visit family,

Good point about government intervention, just like the original
automobile. The auto companies and dealers with private funds build the
highways to drive them on. They did it to promote sales.

Nobody was giving you a taxpayer funded check to buy a Model T and
Rockefeller did not get a subsidy to put a gas station in every hick
town.

On 5/26/2021 11:16 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 26 May 2021 21:36:54 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 5/26/2021 7:37 PM, Frank wrote:
On 5/26/2021 3:44 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 5/26/2021 3:31 PM, Tekkie? wrote:



Ed, I am respectfully ending this discussion. You believe the
government should
control our lives and I don't. I believe the progression of EVs will
be the
same as horses to cars, steam cars to gasoline. I have other thoughts
but I'm
over & out. Thank you,


Fine, but I never said the government should control our lives.Â* I
just see the inevitable and EVs will be much of our future.

I'd rather see efforts made to improve them, get rid of the lithium,
find better, easier ways to keep them charged.Â* Sorry if that is too
progressive.

We are saying let nature take its course absent government intervention.

That is a very simple statement and I have no argument against it.

If everyone thought that all they had to do was say so. Instead there
were many reasons EV is no good, can't be charged, house has to be
rewired, the farm won't work, can't visit family,

Good point about government intervention, just like the original
automobile. The auto companies and dealers with private funds build the
highways to drive them on. They did it to promote sales.

Nobody was giving you a taxpayer funded check to buy a Model T and
Rockefeller did not get a subsidy to put a gas station in every hick
town.

Did you forget the Cash for Clunkers program?

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 May 2021 18:28:23 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Tue, 25 May 2021 22:13:15 -0400, wrote:


If you are deriving your hydrogen from water, you use more energy
getting it out than you get when you burn it.

Incorrect. One mole of H requires 286kJ to disassociate from the
O2 molecule in water.

One mole of H burned produces 570kJ.

Nope, that's 2 moles.
https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_...tions-usi.html

Are you saying you have created the perpetual motion machine?

Nope, see above.

You seem to be saying you have a way to crack water open, then extract
more energy than you put in by recombining it back into water... Way
cool.

Perpetual motion only requires you break even on the energy transfer
and you seem to say you can double it.

You better get down to the patent office right away.

On Thu, 27 May 2021 13:47:51 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Richard addressing senile Rodent Speed:
"**** you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID:

On Wednesday, May 26, 2021 at 10:09:33 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Wed, 26 May 2021 22:31:30 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
writes:
On Wed, 26 May 2021 13:48:07 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

There are plenty os studies that question the "green" aspects of E-85
and ethanol in general. Even if you throw out the carbon footprint of
the farmers and distillers you are still left with the water issues
that everyone forgets about. The Ogallala Aquifer that waters all of
that corn is dropping every day and that is fossil water that is not
being replaced nearly as fast as we pump it out. They are trying to
get farmers to change their ways but planting more corn to burn in
cars is not going to help.

Most of that corn is grown in Iowa and Illinois. There is no, zero, zilch
irrigation in either state. They use rainwater. They don't draw
down the aquifer.
While you are in DC at the patent office, locking down that hydrogen
perpetual motion machine, drive down 14th street and see the people at
USDA about that water Iowa isn't using.
ve

https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics...tion-11-19.pdf

I noticed a couple differences between Iowa and Nebraska irrigation. Check valves, back flow preventers, are standard equipment on Nebraska irrigation wells. Flowmeters are too. Some Iowa well don't have those.
The local natural resources district just got done measuring groundwater levels in the observation wells. The level is
9 feet above the 1978 levels. Mandatory allocation would kick in if the levels get back down to the 1978 levels.

On 5/26/2021 11:02 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 26 May 2021 17:34:52 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 5/26/2021 3:38 PM, Tekkie? wrote:

On Tue, 25 May 2021 17:20:01 -0400, posted for all of us to
digest...


On Tue, 25 May 2021 16:01:14 -0400, Tekkie©
wrote:


On Mon, 24 May 2021 23:55:10 -0500, Jim Joyce posted for all of us to digest...


On Mon, 24 May 2021 21:58:32 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 5/24/2021 5:36 PM, Tekkie? wrote:

On Mon, 24 May 2021 14:37:16 -0400, Ed Pawlowski posted for all of us to
digest...


How do I do that with all the employees plugged in? Think I'll be be able to
plugin to the nursing home outlet? Do you think they will have charging
stations for visitors?


Do you think minimum wage nursing home employees will have EVs?

No. but the doctors, nurses, therapists and visitors may. Remains to be
seen.



They may in the future. There are also many charging stations at rest
stops now. Some restaurants have them so you can stop for a snack and
get a charge. More charging stations are popping up every day.

"Stopping for a snack & get a charge" How far will this take you? What's the
mileage for say a 20 minute charge?

So the customers are subsidizing the EV users (again).

What is many? Who pays to install, maintain them?


OK. your lack of knowledge is showing. There are a few commercial
enterprises putting them in and they charge the customer to use them and
they make a profit. Works like gas stations but they sell electric
instead of gas. Some have plans for discounts.

I wonder if battery swaps, of some sort, will ever be part of the EV
solution. My goal would be to reduce the charging time to roughly equal the
time it currently takes to fill a gas tank rather than hanging around at
the charging station for hours and hours. I don't think current EVs are
designed with quick battery swaps in mind, for multiple reasons, but it
could be nice at some point.

snip

Yes, that would be a plus. You are correct in that quick swaps are not designed
in. I believe for crash protection and fires. IDK Might be a future business
opportunity.

It would create a whole different design criteria, basically building
the car around a particular battery and some vehicles like the F-150
might actually use 2 but I see it as a niche market. It will be more
expensive and fraught with opportunities for fraud.

On a second look at it you are correct. Nothing like running out of your
recharged crappy battery 125 miles from destination. Will AAA cover this?

Also the safety points I made in another post.


Yes, I know someone that had his EV towed for that reason. His admitted
fault. Just as it is stupid to run out of gas. Happened to someone
here recently on a highway bridge and a passenger got out and was killed
by a drunk driver. So, check that fuel level and if applicable, battery
level.

The difference is someone can bring you a gallon or 2 of gas but you
are not walking to the charging station and bringing back a can of
kilowatts.


That is funny. I recall in the Carter gas crunch having a can of gas in
the trunk. I guess with an electric car you could carry an extra
charged battery.

On 05/26/2021 09:39 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 5/26/2021 11:16 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 26 May 2021 21:36:54 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 5/26/2021 7:37 PM, Frank wrote:
On 5/26/2021 3:44 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 5/26/2021 3:31 PM, Tekkie? wrote:



Ed, I am respectfully ending this discussion. You believe the
government should
control our lives and I don't. I believe the progression of EVs will
be the
same as horses to cars, steam cars to gasoline. I have other thoughts
but I'm
over & out. Thank you,


Fine, but I never said the government should control our lives. I
just see the inevitable and EVs will be much of our future.

I'd rather see efforts made to improve them, get rid of the lithium,
find better, easier ways to keep them charged. Sorry if that is too
progressive.

We are saying let nature take its course absent government
intervention.

That is a very simple statement and I have no argument against it.

If everyone thought that all they had to do was say so. Instead there
were many reasons EV is no good, can't be charged, house has to be
rewired, the farm won't work, can't visit family,

Good point about government intervention, just like the original
automobile. The auto companies and dealers with private funds build the
highways to drive them on. They did it to promote sales.

Nobody was giving you a taxpayer funded check to buy a Model T and
Rockefeller did not get a subsidy to put a gas station in every hick
town.

Did you forget the Cash for Clunkers program?

Yeah, great program. Get rid of affordable used cars by destroying them.
Poor people can walk.