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

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

In other words, you can't be bothered to read the
above links and comment intelligently on them.

Try this free textbook, written by a working physicist.

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9js5291m

writes:
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.

You obviously don't understand chemistry or stochiometry or EROEI,
or you'd not make silly comments about perpetual motion machines.



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


did you read the link you cited? Iowa irrigated 170,000 acres out of 30 million
acres. Literally a drop in the bucket. My 'zilch' comment was
incorrect, yes, I should have said that 0.5% of the agricultural
acreage of the state was irrigated. My bad, but the point still stands
that the corn grown in iowa is grown primarily from natural rainfall.

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

Bob F writes:
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)."

When we get farther toward the end of that curve, I expect governments
around the world to start some serious hoarding so they can keep their
respective military forces going. Who knows, though, maybe battery
technology will have advanced to the point where (unmanned) fighter jets
can be EVs.

On 5/27/2021 9:45 AM, rbowman wrote:
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.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.Â* 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.Â* 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.

Reminds me of a guy I know worked for GM and got a new truck every
couple of years. I drove him berserk when he drove up in his new truck
when I told him he must have taken advantage of the cash for clunkers
program.

On Thu, 27 May 2021 15:54:54 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
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.

You obviously don't understand chemistry or stochiometry or EROEI,
or you'd not make silly comments about perpetual motion machines.


I was just pointing out your misleading or intentionally incorrect
statement that you got twice as much energy out of breaking open water
and putting it back together again.
In fact, as the laws of thermodynamics dictate, you lose a little even
if your process was 100% efficient.



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


did you read the link you cited? Iowa irrigated 170,000 acres out of 30 million
acres. Literally a drop in the bucket. My 'zilch' comment was
incorrect, yes, I should have said that 0.5% of the agricultural
acreage of the state was irrigated. My bad, but the point still stands
that the corn grown in iowa is grown primarily from natural rainfall.

OK then we are still left with the inefficiency of producing Ethanol.

"If we sum the energy needed for production of corn and ethanol
conversion and distribution processes we end up with a total
expenditure of 68,206BTUs/gal. A gallon of ethanol contains
76,300BTUs/gal" Stanford U.
That is as rosy a picture as I can find. Some guesses make it closer
to break even.

On Wed, 26 May 2021 15:44:00 -0400, Tekkie©
wrote:


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

What I said, in the context of the thread, had noting to do with
replacement batteries, moron. Learn to read, then to think.

On Thu, 27 May 2021 08:27:00 -0400, Frank "frank wrote:

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.

https://www.insider.com/hummer-carrying-gas-caught-fire-florida-2021-5

No, carrying a battery wouldn't be useful. EVs run on hundreds of
volts and require a lot of power, something a small battery isn't
capable of doing, even for a little while.

On Wed, 26 May 2021 11:43:56 -0400, 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.

"practical" is a relative word. If we run out of oil, as many here
predict (not in many, many, hundreds of years, IMO) hydrogen becomes
more "practical". Inefficient, certainly, but so is towing around a
nuclear reactor.

The issue was the safety of hydrogen, not how "practical" it is.

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

Of course. If you want to sequester carbon...

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?

If there is no NG... That was the discussion. Portable fuel is
important but there are alternatives to gasoline but certainly not
attractive.

It's going to take a *lot* of helium to run your car. ;-)

On Wed, 26 May 2021 13:33:56 -0400, 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.

Fuel cells all have the problem of a contaminated catalyst. They're
very hard/impossible to make into a commercial product. They're
another "everyone will have one in 10 years", for the past 50 years.

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.

Prezactly. That's the only problem stopping nuclear energy.

On Wed, 26 May 2021 14:10:38 -0400, Frank "frank wrote:

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.

All of the energy from any reaction that produces work, ends up as
heat.

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.* 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/


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.

Because then he will lobby the government for more regulations forcing
E85?

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.

....and there is no worry about refilling the aquifers.

On Tue, 25 May 2021 22:23:51 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 5/25/2021 10:17 PM, wrote:


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.

I had two, also (still do). They were spaced far enough apart that
one was a junker. The other was really roadworthy. I now use both
for distance driving.

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.

Who ****ed in your Wheaties today. There are people who never leave
their town. There are couch potatoes who don't haul stuff. Sure,
there may be a market. It's *NOT* universal.

There are millions of cars sold every year. The market for them is huge
and many types available.

Actually, there aren't that many *cars* sold in the US anymore. Yes,
there is a wide variety. That's a bad thing?

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.

Get over yourself.

I guess you aren't smarter than that.

I guess not. ;-)

On Wed, 26 May 2021 01:04:58 -0400, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Tue, 25 May 2021 22:23:51 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 5/25/2021 10:17 PM, wrote:


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.

I had two, also (still do). They were spaced far enough apart that
one was a junker. The other was really roadworthy. I now use both
for distance driving.

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.

Who ****ed in your Wheaties today. There are people who never leave
their town. There are couch potatoes who don't haul stuff. Sure,
there may be a market. It's *NOT* universal.

There are millions of cars sold every year. The market for them is huge
and many types available.

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.

Get over yourself.

I guess you aren't smarter than that.
You mean you ever had a doubt????

Many people rent a vehicle for odd trips out of town because their
car is eother unsuitable by design, or old enough they don't want to
trust them on a trip.

s /Many/Few

On Wed, 26 May 2021 02:41:28 -0700 (PDT), "
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.

ANd our great, great, great, great,..., grand children.

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 happen to live in a metropolitan area. Hell, I live in a
large metropolitan area and there is no ride sharing, unless you want
to pay both ways.

If they want to get to a city 300 miles away, they fly.

300mi is a pretty short distance for flying. Much of the country
doesn't have commercial airports that close together. Hub and spoke
makes flying short distances even harder.

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

"We" aren't laying down our car keys.

On Wed, 26 May 2021 10:38:17 -0700, Bob F wrote:

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.

LOL!

On Wed, 26 May 2021 23:11:52 -0400, wrote:

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.

It will probably never run out, until we do.

On Wed, 26 May 2021 14:20:34 -0400, Frank "frank wrote:

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."

That's Tesla's whole business plan.

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

Them? Us!

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

The only thing that's not political, now, is politics.

On 5/27/2021 3:26 PM, wrote:

If they want to get to a city 300 miles away, they fly.

300mi is a pretty short distance for flying. Much of the country
doesn't have commercial airports that close together. Hub and spoke
makes flying short distances even harder.


When I lived in CT I traveled to Philadelphia often. It was faster to
drive than fly. At both ends the airport was an hour from my
destination, you had to be at the airport 1 to 2 hours before flight
time. Then I'd have to rent a car at destination. Not like the old days.

Now I'm 1200 miles away and still choose to drive it a few times a year.


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

"We" aren't laying down our car keys.


I'm not either but millions of people never drive more than 5 or 10
miles in a day. Does not take much to fit their needs.

On Thu, 27 May 2021 07:45:45 -0600, rbowman
wrote:

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.

Tree hugging, "green" yuppies don't give a **** about how poor people
get around or how much of their green policy gets subsidized by the
poor.
There is no better example than the subsidy for electric cars and
solar panels. The people rich enough to put $30,000 on their roof or
buy a $50,000 Tesla get discounted electricity and for $40,000 on the
roof they may even be selling power back at full retail rates while
that person living from check to check is paying for it in higher
rates to cover the difference.
The left loves to tell us taxes are the price we have to pay to have a
functioning society but they are not paying any fuel taxes to support
the roads they drive their EVs on. They get a tax rebate for buying
the EV.

On Wed, 26 May 2021 23:02:46 -0400, 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.

Maybe they can design a downsized and simplified version of an APU/EPU,
like fighter jets have, and power it with a very small tank of hydrazine.
When your batteries die, you fire up the APU and go another 50-60 miles.

Auxiliary Power Unit
Emergency Power Unit

On 5/27/2021 12:28 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 26 May 2021 23:11:52 -0400, wrote:

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.

It will probably never run out, until we do.


Right. Humans will be cooked off the planet long before we can get it
all out.

On 5/27/2021 12:27 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 26 May 2021 10:38:17 -0700, Bob F wrote:

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.

LOL!



Good Repub. Just ignore science.

On 5/27/2021 5:14 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2021 07:45:45 -0600, rbowman
wrote:

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.

Tree hugging, "green" yuppies don't give a **** about how poor people
get around or how much of their green policy gets subsidized by the
poor.
There is no better example than the subsidy for electric cars and
solar panels. The people rich enough to put $30,000 on their roof or
buy a $50,000 Tesla get discounted electricity and for $40,000 on the
roof they may even be selling power back at full retail rates while
that person living from check to check is paying for it in higher
rates to cover the difference.
The left loves to tell us taxes are the price we have to pay to have a
functioning society but they are not paying any fuel taxes to support
the roads they drive their EVs on. They get a tax rebate for buying
the EV.


States will follow states like Ohio who charges $200/year extra for EV
registration only $100 extra for hybrids.

On 5/20/2021 11:45 AM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/19/22442777/ford-f-150-lightning-electric-truck-specs-price


Just saw this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNKg0R-nkuQ

On 5/27/2021 6:58 PM, Frank wrote:
On 5/27/2021 5:14 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2021 07:45:45 -0600, rbowman
wrote:

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.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.Â* 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.Â* 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.

Tree hugging, "green" yuppies don't give a **** about how poor people
get around or how much of their green policy gets subsidized by the
poor.
There is no better example than the subsidy for electric cars and
solar panels. The people rich enough to put $30,000 on their roof or
buy a $50,000 Tesla get discounted electricity and for $40,000 on the
roof they may even be selling power back at full retail rates while
that person living from check to check is paying for it in higher
rates to cover the difference.
The left loves to tell us taxes are the price we have to pay to have a
functioning society but they are not paying any fuel taxes to support
the roads they drive their EVs on. They get a tax rebate for buying
the EV.


States will follow states like Ohio who charges $200/year extra for EV
registration only $100 extra for hybrids.

They should. Per mile would be more fair, just like the gas tax but
harder to implement. AFAIK. Hawaii is the only state that records miles
at inspection. Many states thankfully don't have inspection.

On 5/27/2021 7:03 PM, Frank wrote:
On 5/20/2021 11:45 AM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/19/22442777/ford-f-150-lightning-electric-truck-specs-price



Just saw this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNKg0R-nkuQ

At least he was honest and said "nobody knows". I don't know how he has
so many followers unless they have investments in caffeine. I can't
take a lot of hyper Scotty.

In article , says...

They should. Per mile would be more fair, just like the gas tax but
harder to implement. AFAIK. Hawaii is the only state that records miles
at inspection. Many states thankfully don't have inspection.



I wish my state NC would do away with them. Before the computer cars
many places would just scrape off the old sticker and put you a new one
on if they knew you . Never look at the car.
Now they plug in the computer and don't look at anything else.

The garages problably lobby to keep the money maker. Some of the
dealers and other will find a few things like windshield wipers that
'need' replacing.

On 5/27/2021 7:12 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 5/27/2021 6:58 PM, Frank wrote:
On 5/27/2021 5:14 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2021 07:45:45 -0600, rbowman
wrote:

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.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.Â* 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.Â* 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.

Tree hugging, "green" yuppies don't give a **** about how poor people
get around or how much of their green policy gets subsidized by the
poor.
There is no better example than the subsidy for electric cars and
solar panels. The people rich enough to put $30,000 on their roof or
buy a $50,000 Tesla get discounted electricity and for $40,000 on the
roof they may even be selling power back at full retail rates while
that person living from check to check is paying for it in higher
rates to cover the difference.
The left loves to tell us taxes are the price we have to pay to have a
functioning society but they are not paying any fuel taxes to support
the roads they drive their EVs on. They get a tax rebate for buying
the EV.


States will follow states like Ohio who charges $200/year extra for EV
registration only $100 extra for hybrids.

They should.Â* Per mile would be more fair, just like the gas tax but
harder to implement.Â* AFAIK. Hawaii is the only state that records miles
at inspection.Â* Many states thankfully don't have inspection.

Delaware does but you can get 5 years registration then another 2
without inspection then it is every two years. Not sure about Ohio
inspection but you need registration every year.

On 5/27/2021 7:30 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 5/27/2021 7:03 PM, Frank wrote:
On 5/20/2021 11:45 AM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/19/22442777/ford-f-150-lightning-electric-truck-specs-price



Just saw this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNKg0R-nkuQ

At least he was honest and said "nobody knows".Â* I don't know how he has
so many followers unless they have investments in caffeine.Â* I can't
take a lot of hyper Scotty.

I get a kick out of him but could understand some might not like his style.

On Thursday, May 27, 2021 at 6:04:04 PM UTC-5, Frank wrote:
On 5/20/2021 11:45 AM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/19/22442777/ford-f-150-lightning-electric-truck-specs-price


Just saw this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNKg0R-nkuQ

Some guy calling himself Two Bit Da Vinci
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKIRfPjR-To
23 minutes. He talks about battery cooling. They show a big screen in the dash.
My Toyota has one telling me not to use it while moving. Human
nature doesn't exist.

On Thu, 27 May 2021 16:59:05 -0500, Jim Joyce
wrote:

On Wed, 26 May 2021 23:02:46 -0400, 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.

Maybe they can design a downsized and simplified version of an APU/EPU,
like fighter jets have, and power it with a very small tank of hydrazine.
When your batteries die, you fire up the APU and go another 50-60 miles.

Hydrazine is really nasty stuff. Just a little on your hands will
ruin your whole month. There has been more than one tech maintaining
jets who have evidence of it, for life. I good friend is one.

There is no reason gas couldn't be used. Both need a large generator.

Auxiliary Power Unit
Emergency Power Unit

On Thu, 27 May 2021 15:12:04 -0700, Bob F wrote:

On 5/27/2021 12:28 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 26 May 2021 23:11:52 -0400, wrote:

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.

It will probably never run out, until we do.


Right. Humans will be cooked off the planet long before we can get it
all out.

It'll take a lot longer than that for the sun to go nova.

On Thu, 27 May 2021 15:22:37 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 26 May 2021 01:04:58 -0400, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Tue, 25 May 2021 22:23:51 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 5/25/2021 10:17 PM, wrote:


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.

I had two, also (still do). They were spaced far enough apart that
one was a junker. The other was really roadworthy. I now use both
for distance driving.

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.

Who ****ed in your Wheaties today. There are people who never leave
their town. There are couch potatoes who don't haul stuff. Sure,
there may be a market. It's *NOT* universal.

There are millions of cars sold every year. The market for them is huge
and many types available.

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.

Get over yourself.

I guess you aren't smarter than that.
You mean you ever had a doubt????

Many people rent a vehicle for odd trips out of town because their
car is eother unsuitable by design, or old enough they don't want to
trust them on a trip.

s /Many/Few

We rented a car a few times for a vacation but it was because we were
going to fly home. (Drive out, fly back)

On Thu, 27 May 2021 15:12:44 -0700, Bob F wrote:

On 5/27/2021 12:27 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 26 May 2021 10:38:17 -0700, Bob F wrote:

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.

LOL!



Good Repub. Just ignore science.

You wouldn't know science if it bit you on the ass.

On Thu, 27 May 2021 16:08:37 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 5/27/2021 3:26 PM, wrote:

If they want to get to a city 300 miles away, they fly.

300mi is a pretty short distance for flying. Much of the country
doesn't have commercial airports that close together. Hub and spoke
makes flying short distances even harder.


When I lived in CT I traveled to Philadelphia often. It was faster to
drive than fly. At both ends the airport was an hour from my
destination, you had to be at the airport 1 to 2 hours before flight
time. Then I'd have to rent a car at destination. Not like the old days.

I lived 70mi north of NYC. We had to go to DC for a meeting. I told
my boss that I'd beat him to the hotel, driving a rental car. I did,
by an hour.

Now I'm 1200 miles away and still choose to drive it a few times a year.

So do I. The brat still lives in Vt. When we lived in NY (and Vt),
we drove to Il twice a year.

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

"We" aren't laying down our car keys.


I'm not either but millions of people never drive more than 5 or 10
miles in a day. Does not take much to fit their needs.

I made that comment a while back about the couch potatoes.

On Thu, 27 May 2021 18:58:45 -0400, Frank "frank wrote:

On 5/27/2021 5:14 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2021 07:45:45 -0600, rbowman
wrote:

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.

Tree hugging, "green" yuppies don't give a **** about how poor people
get around or how much of their green policy gets subsidized by the
poor.
There is no better example than the subsidy for electric cars and
solar panels. The people rich enough to put $30,000 on their roof or
buy a $50,000 Tesla get discounted electricity and for $40,000 on the
roof they may even be selling power back at full retail rates while
that person living from check to check is paying for it in higher
rates to cover the difference.
The left loves to tell us taxes are the price we have to pay to have a
functioning society but they are not paying any fuel taxes to support
the roads they drive their EVs on. They get a tax rebate for buying
the EV.


States will follow states like Ohio who charges $200/year extra for EV
registration only $100 extra for hybrids.

That's not nearly enough.

On Thu, 27 May 2021 16:08:37 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 5/27/2021 3:26 PM, wrote:

If they want to get to a city 300 miles away, they fly.

300mi is a pretty short distance for flying. Much of the country
doesn't have commercial airports that close together. Hub and spoke
makes flying short distances even harder.


When I lived in CT I traveled to Philadelphia often. It was faster to
drive than fly. At both ends the airport was an hour from my
destination, you had to be at the airport 1 to 2 hours before flight
time. Then I'd have to rent a car at destination. Not like the old days.

Now I'm 1200 miles away and still choose to drive it a few times a year.


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

"We" aren't laying down our car keys.


I'm not either but millions of people never drive more than 5 or 10
miles in a day. Does not take much to fit their needs.

I am one of those guys who's range was well within an EV for my "going
to the store car", even using lead batteries but I had the problem
that with that meager fuel cost it was still hard to justify the
capital outlay so it is a double edged sword.
You need to hit that sweet spot where you drive enough to make the
difference between electric and gas economically viable against your
initial cost.
I ran the numbers on slapping a $4500 EV kit for a Civic into my
Prelude. I could buy a bunch of gas for $4500 and I knew that wasn't
going to be the only cost, even with me doing all the labor.
You don't get the $7500 tax credit for that either.
The idea was quickly abandoned.

On Thu, 27 May 2021 21:49:23 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 27 May 2021 15:22:37 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 26 May 2021 01:04:58 -0400, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Tue, 25 May 2021 22:23:51 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 5/25/2021 10:17 PM, wrote:


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.

I had two, also (still do). They were spaced far enough apart that
one was a junker. The other was really roadworthy. I now use both
for distance driving.

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.

Who ****ed in your Wheaties today. There are people who never leave
their town. There are couch potatoes who don't haul stuff. Sure,
there may be a market. It's *NOT* universal.

There are millions of cars sold every year. The market for them is huge
and many types available.

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.

Get over yourself.

I guess you aren't smarter than that.
You mean you ever had a doubt????

Many people rent a vehicle for odd trips out of town because their
car is eother unsuitable by design, or old enough they don't want to
trust them on a trip.

s /Many/Few

We rented a car a few times for a vacation but it was because we were
going to fly home. (Drive out, fly back)

Makes sense, depending on what you can get a rental for. One-way
rentals are usually ridiculously expensive.

On Thu, 27 May 2021 19:12:45 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 5/27/2021 6:58 PM, Frank wrote:
On 5/27/2021 5:14 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2021 07:45:45 -0600, rbowman
wrote:

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.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.Â* 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.Â* 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.

Tree hugging, "green" yuppies don't give a **** about how poor people
get around or how much of their green policy gets subsidized by the
poor.
There is no better example than the subsidy for electric cars and
solar panels. The people rich enough to put $30,000 on their roof or
buy a $50,000 Tesla get discounted electricity and for $40,000 on the
roof they may even be selling power back at full retail rates while
that person living from check to check is paying for it in higher
rates to cover the difference.
The left loves to tell us taxes are the price we have to pay to have a
functioning society but they are not paying any fuel taxes to support
the roads they drive their EVs on. They get a tax rebate for buying
the EV.


States will follow states like Ohio who charges $200/year extra for EV
registration only $100 extra for hybrids.

They should. Per mile would be more fair, just like the gas tax but
harder to implement. AFAIK. Hawaii is the only state that records miles
at inspection. Many states thankfully don't have inspection.

With smart metering it would only have to be a chip in the charger
that reports the amount of electricity that goes into the car,
directly to the PoCo receiver your meter talks to and they could
attach the road tax right there. God know they have no problem
collecting all the other taxes on your bill.