"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"F. George McDuffee"
wrote in message
...
On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 19:51:07 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip


So principle, yes, possibilities -- I'd have to see. It's easy to say
that this is what we have to do. It's much harder to say how we can
do it, in terms of politics as well as money.

http://tinyurl.com/ylkbqga

Gosh. A $189.00 book, and only five left! g

If I need another topic, I'll look into it. Meantime, it looks like a
subject just as big as the one I'm working on, and more difficult because
it's moving faster.

Can you tell us the Reader's Digest version? d8-)

For the record, here's the kind of junk that starts populating my mind when
we start talking about a subject like this. You mention all-electric cars;
my question is, with lithium-ion batteries? Maybe. Maybe not. And fuel
cells -- they've been working on them for over 40 years. When are they going
to make one that someone could actually buy?

And grids. Across whose back yard? Especially when they start running
100,000 Volts.

And so on. Timing, resources, development time...if you're going to tackle a
subject like that, you have to be ready to pour on everything you have,
because the subject wants to scatter your brains all over the place. And if
you DON'T get on top of it all, you write useless crap. Which I refuse to
do.

So, it's too much for me to take that one on. But it's very interesting, and
important.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"F. George McDuffee"
wrote in message
...
On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 19:51:07 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip


So principle, yes, possibilities -- I'd have to see. It's easy to
say that this is what we have to do. It's much harder to say how we
can do it, in terms of politics as well as money.

http://tinyurl.com/ylkbqga

Gosh. A $189.00 book, and only five left! g

If I need another topic, I'll look into it. Meantime, it looks like a
subject just as big as the one I'm working on, and more difficult
because it's moving faster.

Can you tell us the Reader's Digest version? d8-)

I don't have a crystal ball.
There are, however, several clear trends that are increasingly obvious
though.
One that you have probably noticed is the shift in emphasis away from
personal transportation.
Kids today, for example, are far less concerned about squiring themselves
around. Increasing numbers of teenagers and young adults aren't bothering to
obtain a driving license until doing so can't be avoided. Personal
transportation is an expense they avoid and an annoying use of capital once
they can't. Purchases are based almost exclusively on functional value
blended with the desire to minimize any outlay of capital. This, for
American's, represents a fundamental cultural shift. We are maturing as a
society and our economy reflects this.

Government has always lead the way into the future, not just in America, but
the world. Silicon Valley was built by entrepreneurs but they leveraged
technology that flowed from the investments made in basic research funded or
encouraged by Uncle Sam that was leveraged by the private sector. Cisco, for
instance, is the result of the transfer of intellectual property from the
public to private sector.



For the record, here's the kind of junk that starts populating my
mind when we start talking about a subject like this. You mention
all-electric cars; my question is, with lithium-ion batteries? Maybe.
Maybe not. And fuel cells -- they've been working on them for over 40
years. When are they going to make one that someone could actually
buy?

You could buy a vehicle powered by hydrogen fuel cell technology today.
Ford has been running a small fleet for several years now, for example. What
is lacking is an application of national will.
Tom Friedman wrote an interesting piece about his experience at Davos this
year. Did you see it?
The buzz surrounded what he mislabeled a lack of stability in American
governance.
The rest of the world is noticing that America, the country, isn't setting a
course into the future through policy because the politics can't be gotten
right.

That single observation might be the most meaningful insight into what
troubles America today.

The boom and bust cycles that define the American experience have ordinarily
left behind something tangible after the bust out.
This is why, in my mind at least, the asset bubble that is in the process of
dragging the world down is so significant, especially here in the United
States. At the expense of the largest transfer of wealth in the history of
the world there isn't anything tangible standing now that the heat has
evaporated. The value add was zero, even negative here in the United States.



And grids. Across whose back yard? Especially when they start running
100,000 Volts.

And so on. Timing, resources, development time...if you're going to
tackle a subject like that, you have to be ready to pour on
everything you have, because the subject wants to scatter your brains
all over the place.

All engineering problems Ed and they are imminently solvable.
The path from point A to point B needn't be known in advance beyond certain
rudimentary fundamentals.
Knowing that path is far less important that the decision to make the
journey.
Where the will wants not, a way opens.
It's always has and will be so.

And if you DON'T get on top of it all, you write
useless crap. Which I refuse to do.

I am not so afflicted Ed G
Obviously.


--
John R. Carroll

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"F. George McDuffee"
wrote in message
...
On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 19:51:07 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip


So principle, yes, possibilities -- I'd have to see. It's easy to
say that this is what we have to do. It's much harder to say how we
can do it, in terms of politics as well as money.

http://tinyurl.com/ylkbqga

Gosh. A $189.00 book, and only five left! g

If I need another topic, I'll look into it. Meantime, it looks like a
subject just as big as the one I'm working on, and more difficult
because it's moving faster.

Can you tell us the Reader's Digest version? d8-)

I don't have a crystal ball.
There are, however, several clear trends that are increasingly obvious
though.
One that you have probably noticed is the shift in emphasis away from
personal transportation.
Kids today, for example, are far less concerned about squiring themselves
around. Increasing numbers of teenagers and young adults aren't bothering
to
obtain a driving license until doing so can't be avoided. Personal
transportation is an expense they avoid and an annoying use of capital
once
they can't. Purchases are based almost exclusively on functional value
blended with the desire to minimize any outlay of capital. This, for
American's, represents a fundamental cultural shift. We are maturing as a
society and our economy reflects this.

Government has always lead the way into the future, not just in America,
but
the world. Silicon Valley was built by entrepreneurs but they leveraged
technology that flowed from the investments made in basic research funded
or
encouraged by Uncle Sam that was leveraged by the private sector. Cisco,
for
instance, is the result of the transfer of intellectual property from the
public to private sector.



For the record, here's the kind of junk that starts populating my
mind when we start talking about a subject like this. You mention
all-electric cars; my question is, with lithium-ion batteries? Maybe.
Maybe not. And fuel cells -- they've been working on them for over 40
years. When are they going to make one that someone could actually
buy?

You could buy a vehicle powered by hydrogen fuel cell technology today.
Ford has been running a small fleet for several years now, for example.
What
is lacking is an application of national will.
Tom Friedman wrote an interesting piece about his experience at Davos this
year. Did you see it?

Yeah. I'm a skeptic about command economies, even hybrids like Japan 30
years ago, or China now.

If the world wants a consensus and a direction from the US, they're going to
have to look elsewhere. We don't do consensus, except in all-out war. We do
chaos very well, however. But that's another story.

The buzz surrounded what he mislabeled a lack of stability in American
governance.
The rest of the world is noticing that America, the country, isn't setting
a
course into the future through policy because the politics can't be gotten
right.

That single observation might be the most meaningful insight into what
troubles America today.

As I said, if the world wants someone to set a course right now, they're
looking in the wrong place. Any kind of planning or consensus that would
deal rationally with our current problems, particularly financial ones, is
not going to happen in our current political environment.

I think we just got the final word on that, although there is still time and
room for things to change. But the basic problem is that rational solutions
to current problems are anethema to conservative thinking, and to the
Washington Consensus of economics. These are complicated problems and those
countries that are ruled by technocrats, like China, are, in the short term
at least, going to be able to make the big plans and the big moves that a
popular democracy -- like our -- cannot. Those are big-government solutions.
We have too much resistance to government for us to accomplish anything that
would require that kind of direction or shared effort.

We'll muddle through. When the pain becomes extreme, we'll get together and
do some necessary things. When the facts, like energy shortages, become too
big and too obvious to ignore, there will be a market for a solution. It
will come late in the game. That's how we work. Eventually, a cultural
change sweeps over the country and the narrative, which is up for grabs
right now, will settle down into something that allows us to respond
rationally to real problems. Then we'll revise history to sell the story
that we've always thought like that.

Here's one brief example: The Washington Consensus is that free markets for
goods and services, free flow of capital, and tight monetary control of
inflation are the ways for any developing country to succeed. The IMF and
the World Bank, two of our products, demand these things of developing
countries to which we loan money. We demand that they break down trade
barriers and barriers to capital flow. We point to our own history as proof
of the efficacy of these things. (So does the UK.) Addicted to our own
myths, we call it "fair trade."

But we've revised history in order to create that narrative. Our period of
most rapid growth occurred at a time when we had tariffs ranging upward of
40%; when we subsidized railroads and telegraphs, and nationalized highways.
We excluded foreign investment selectively; direct foreign investment,
entirely. We protected our infant industries with policies that,
collectively, are known as ISI (import substitution industrialization). We
were wildly protective, as was Britain, and we both emerged from it as two
of the most economically powerful nations in history.

Of course, we don't talk about that today. Most people don't even know the
extent to which it happened. We keep re-writing history and our own
narrative to suit our needs, and our politics. We'll do it again when the
pressure is too much to ignore. But we don't do it early, when the facts are
clear but inconvenient, and we can still pretend they aren't really there.


The boom and bust cycles that define the American experience have
ordinarily
left behind something tangible after the bust out.
This is why, in my mind at least, the asset bubble that is in the process
of
dragging the world down is so significant, especially here in the United
States. At the expense of the largest transfer of wealth in the history of
the world there isn't anything tangible standing now that the heat has
evaporated. The value add was zero, even negative here in the United
States.

Yes, a financial bubble is a mostly destructive thing, because it was all an
abstraction to begin with. Nothing real was there; the outcome is just the
collapse of a myth built upon an abstraction. There are no useful, tangible
byproducts.




And grids. Across whose back yard? Especially when they start running
100,000 Volts.

And so on. Timing, resources, development time...if you're going to
tackle a subject like that, you have to be ready to pour on
everything you have, because the subject wants to scatter your brains
all over the place.

All engineering problems Ed and they are imminently solvable.
The path from point A to point B needn't be known in advance beyond
certain
rudimentary fundamentals.
Knowing that path is far less important that the decision to make the
journey.
Where the will wants not, a way opens.
It's always has and will be so.

I hope so. The need will have to be compelling.


And if you DON'T get on top of it all, you write
useless crap. Which I refuse to do.

I am not so afflicted Ed G
Obviously.


--
John R. Carroll

Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"F. George McDuffee"
wrote in message
...
On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 19:51:07 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip


So principle, yes, possibilities -- I'd have to see. It's easy to
say that this is what we have to do. It's much harder to say how
we can do it, in terms of politics as well as money.

http://tinyurl.com/ylkbqga

Gosh. A $189.00 book, and only five left! g

If I need another topic, I'll look into it. Meantime, it looks like
a subject just as big as the one I'm working on, and more difficult
because it's moving faster.

Can you tell us the Reader's Digest version? d8-)

I don't have a crystal ball.
There are, however, several clear trends that are increasingly
obvious though.
One that you have probably noticed is the shift in emphasis away from
personal transportation.
Kids today, for example, are far less concerned about squiring
themselves around. Increasing numbers of teenagers and young adults
aren't bothering to
obtain a driving license until doing so can't be avoided. Personal
transportation is an expense they avoid and an annoying use of
capital once
they can't. Purchases are based almost exclusively on functional
value blended with the desire to minimize any outlay of capital.
This, for American's, represents a fundamental cultural shift. We
are maturing as a society and our economy reflects this.

Government has always lead the way into the future, not just in
America, but
the world. Silicon Valley was built by entrepreneurs but they
leveraged technology that flowed from the investments made in basic
research funded or
encouraged by Uncle Sam that was leveraged by the private sector.
Cisco, for
instance, is the result of the transfer of intellectual property
from the public to private sector.



For the record, here's the kind of junk that starts populating my
mind when we start talking about a subject like this. You mention
all-electric cars; my question is, with lithium-ion batteries?
Maybe. Maybe not. And fuel cells -- they've been working on them
for over 40 years. When are they going to make one that someone
could actually buy?

You could buy a vehicle powered by hydrogen fuel cell technology
today. Ford has been running a small fleet for several years now,
for example. What
is lacking is an application of national will.
Tom Friedman wrote an interesting piece about his experience at
Davos this year. Did you see it?

Yeah. I'm a skeptic about command economies, even hybrids like Japan
30 years ago, or China now.

The San Francisco building code will soon be revised to require that new
structures be wired for car chargers. Across the street from City Hall, some
drivers are already plugging converted hybrids into a row of charging
stations.

In nearby Silicon Valley, companies are ordering workplace charging stations
in the belief that their employees will be first in line when electric cars
begin arriving in showrooms. And at the headquarters of Pacific Gas and
Electric, utility executives are preparing "heat maps" of neighborhoods that
they fear may overload the power grid in their exuberance for electric cars.

"There is a huge momentum here," said Andrew Tang, an executive at P.G.& E.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/15/bu...ctric.html?hpw


--
John R. Carroll

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"F. George McDuffee"
wrote in message
...
On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 19:51:07 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip


So principle, yes, possibilities -- I'd have to see. It's easy to
say that this is what we have to do. It's much harder to say how
we can do it, in terms of politics as well as money.

http://tinyurl.com/ylkbqga

Gosh. A $189.00 book, and only five left! g

If I need another topic, I'll look into it. Meantime, it looks like
a subject just as big as the one I'm working on, and more difficult
because it's moving faster.

Can you tell us the Reader's Digest version? d8-)

I don't have a crystal ball.
There are, however, several clear trends that are increasingly
obvious though.
One that you have probably noticed is the shift in emphasis away from
personal transportation.
Kids today, for example, are far less concerned about squiring
themselves around. Increasing numbers of teenagers and young adults
aren't bothering to
obtain a driving license until doing so can't be avoided. Personal
transportation is an expense they avoid and an annoying use of
capital once
they can't. Purchases are based almost exclusively on functional
value blended with the desire to minimize any outlay of capital.
This, for American's, represents a fundamental cultural shift. We
are maturing as a society and our economy reflects this.

Government has always lead the way into the future, not just in
America, but
the world. Silicon Valley was built by entrepreneurs but they
leveraged technology that flowed from the investments made in basic
research funded or
encouraged by Uncle Sam that was leveraged by the private sector.
Cisco, for
instance, is the result of the transfer of intellectual property
from the public to private sector.



For the record, here's the kind of junk that starts populating my
mind when we start talking about a subject like this. You mention
all-electric cars; my question is, with lithium-ion batteries?
Maybe. Maybe not. And fuel cells -- they've been working on them
for over 40 years. When are they going to make one that someone
could actually buy?

You could buy a vehicle powered by hydrogen fuel cell technology
today. Ford has been running a small fleet for several years now,
for example. What
is lacking is an application of national will.
Tom Friedman wrote an interesting piece about his experience at
Davos this year. Did you see it?

Yeah. I'm a skeptic about command economies, even hybrids like Japan
30 years ago, or China now.

The San Francisco building code will soon be revised to require that new
structures be wired for car chargers. Across the street from City Hall,
some
drivers are already plugging converted hybrids into a row of charging
stations.

In nearby Silicon Valley, companies are ordering workplace charging
stations
in the belief that their employees will be first in line when electric
cars
begin arriving in showrooms. And at the headquarters of Pacific Gas and
Electric, utility executives are preparing "heat maps" of neighborhoods
that
they fear may overload the power grid in their exuberance for electric
cars.

"There is a huge momentum here," said Andrew Tang, an executive at P.G.&
E.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/15/bu...ctric.html?hpw


--
John R. Carroll

I'm sure I don't have to remind you about gushy media reports about
helicopters in every garage. g

It looks encouraging. At $0.20/mile for battery replacement cost, we're not
there yet. And it's disconcerting that it's taken so long to get even close
to a viable battery. It makes me question what kinds of brick walls they're
really running into. They should have had this one licked 20 years ago, and
it shouldn't have taken billions of dollars to get there.

But, in the long run, of course. Fuel cells, maybe. Batteries, probably.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"F. George McDuffee"
wrote in message
...
On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 19:51:07 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip


So principle, yes, possibilities -- I'd have to see. It's easy
to say that this is what we have to do. It's much harder to say
how we can do it, in terms of politics as well as money.

http://tinyurl.com/ylkbqga

Gosh. A $189.00 book, and only five left! g

If I need another topic, I'll look into it. Meantime, it looks
like a subject just as big as the one I'm working on, and more
difficult because it's moving faster.

Can you tell us the Reader's Digest version? d8-)

I don't have a crystal ball.
There are, however, several clear trends that are increasingly
obvious though.
One that you have probably noticed is the shift in emphasis away
from personal transportation.
Kids today, for example, are far less concerned about squiring
themselves around. Increasing numbers of teenagers and young adults
aren't bothering to
obtain a driving license until doing so can't be avoided. Personal
transportation is an expense they avoid and an annoying use of
capital once
they can't. Purchases are based almost exclusively on functional
value blended with the desire to minimize any outlay of capital.
This, for American's, represents a fundamental cultural shift. We
are maturing as a society and our economy reflects this.

Government has always lead the way into the future, not just in
America, but
the world. Silicon Valley was built by entrepreneurs but they
leveraged technology that flowed from the investments made in basic
research funded or
encouraged by Uncle Sam that was leveraged by the private sector.
Cisco, for
instance, is the result of the transfer of intellectual property
from the public to private sector.



For the record, here's the kind of junk that starts populating my
mind when we start talking about a subject like this. You mention
all-electric cars; my question is, with lithium-ion batteries?
Maybe. Maybe not. And fuel cells -- they've been working on them
for over 40 years. When are they going to make one that someone
could actually buy?

You could buy a vehicle powered by hydrogen fuel cell technology
today. Ford has been running a small fleet for several years now,
for example. What
is lacking is an application of national will.
Tom Friedman wrote an interesting piece about his experience at
Davos this year. Did you see it?

Yeah. I'm a skeptic about command economies, even hybrids like Japan
30 years ago, or China now.

The San Francisco building code will soon be revised to require that
new structures be wired for car chargers. Across the street from
City Hall, some
drivers are already plugging converted hybrids into a row of charging
stations.

In nearby Silicon Valley, companies are ordering workplace charging
stations
in the belief that their employees will be first in line when
electric cars
begin arriving in showrooms. And at the headquarters of Pacific Gas
and Electric, utility executives are preparing "heat maps" of
neighborhoods that
they fear may overload the power grid in their exuberance for
electric cars.

"There is a huge momentum here," said Andrew Tang, an executive at
P.G.& E.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/15/bu...ctric.html?hpw


--
John R. Carroll

I'm sure I don't have to remind you about gushy media reports about
helicopters in every garage. g

No, LOL, you don't. Do I have to remind you that no city or company ever
ordered the installation of the necessary infrastructure?


It looks encouraging. At $0.20/mile for battery replacement cost,
we're not there yet. And it's disconcerting that it's taken so long
to get even close to a viable battery. It makes me question what
kinds of brick walls they're really running into. They should have
had this one licked 20 years ago, and it shouldn't have taken
billions of dollars to get there.

Necessity, and it's relationship to invention.
We passed a law here in California at the end of the 90's requiring car
companies to sell 10% of their fleet as zero emission vehicles.
That would have meant 500,000 vehicles on an anual basis. No auto maker
would have been forced to do this - - unless they wanted to sell in the
California market.

There was a constitutional challenge, which failed, and then the first thing
the incoming Bush administration did was get the Atty. General and EPA
involved to kill the law. That did succeed. GM destroyed their rental fleet
of EV1's at the same time.
People are already looking back at thise two decisions and shaking their
collective
heads.
Operating costs for the rental hybrid fleet in the SF Bay area are working
out to $.025/mile.
It's an interesting system and obviously subsidized. You subscribe by the
month and never own a car. You use it and leave it.


But, in the long run, of course. Fuel cells, maybe. Batteries,
probably.

Like I said, these things nearly always begin with a law or ten. It's going
to take public financing to do this but industry will be able to make the
engineering side work. That's the way it's always been Ed, and you know it.
Do you realize how many jobs something like this has the potential to create
Ed?
Do you comprehend the effect this could have on our relationship with the
Saudi's and other petro producers?

When I mentioned the comments at Davos about American leadership, this is
the sort of thing I was referring to, not some path out of the woods for the
world to follow. What the world is concerned about, a lack of stability in
America, comes down to concern that we are too stupid to do what is so
obviously in our own, and coincidentally the worlds, best interests because
of the power of corporate lobbyists in our society.

You put money on the table along with a big market, even if that market is
commanded, and someone will figure out how to sit and eat.
Just look at the space program in the 60's. Nobody knew how, exactly, to do
that one either but we did.

--
John R. Carroll

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:56:42 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
It looks encouraging. At $0.20/mile for battery replacement cost, we're not
there yet. And it's disconcerting that it's taken so long to get even close
to a viable battery. It makes me question what kinds of brick walls they're
really running into. They should have had this one licked 20 years ago, and
it shouldn't have taken billions of dollars to get there.
snip
==========
It may be due to the way the payout is structured. You pay for
"research," you get "research." You pay for results, you get
results.

Another approach is to implement Deep Throat's advice and "follow
the money." Who are the corporations and individuals who have
the most to lose if there is a significant shift away from import
petroleum based fuels? In many cases the major losers would not
be the oil companies, who can shift their output from fuels to
petrochemicals, but rather the commodity traders/speculators, mid
eastern governments, etc.

It is well to remember that vehicle fuel taxes provide a
substantial amount state and local governmental funds. How will
this revenue be replaced if electric cars are widely introduced?


Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:56:42 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
It looks encouraging. At $0.20/mile for battery replacement cost, we're not
there yet. And it's disconcerting that it's taken so long to get even close
to a viable battery. It makes me question what kinds of brick walls they're
really running into. They should have had this one licked 20 years ago, and
it shouldn't have taken billions of dollars to get there.

But, in the long run, of course. Fuel cells, maybe. Batteries, probably.
N.B. ^^^^^^^^
--
Ed Huntress
========
Suzuki is making progress on fuel cells. Scooter on sale in 2015
depending on fuel availability.

See
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...ki-tested.html


Hydrogen fuel-cell Suzuki tested
Is hydrogen the future? Suzuki thinks it might be and has a
working prototype based on its Burgman scooter.


By Kevin Ash
Published: 4:00PM GMT 15 Feb 2010

snip
Suzuki doesn't see battery power as a practical solution, which
is why it's developing a hydrogen fuel-cell and battery hybrid
drivetrain, in conjunction with British fuel-cell specialist
Intelligent Energy (IE).
snip

The aim is to produce a vehicle that does not demand a change in
rider behaviour. Therefore, it must have comparable range, power
and refuelling times to conventional petrol scooters.

The prototype machine I rode matched most of these requirements.
The weight, for example, is similar to the production Burgman
125. It took slightly longer to refill than a tank of petrol, but
it was still only a few minutes.

The time between turning the "ignition" key and being able to
ride away is about one second, so no problem there, but the
claimed range is 200 miles at a steady 19mph.

snip

IE's Dr Damian Davies insists there's no reason why the range of
a production version shouldn't match the Burgman 125 in normal
riding, but figures better aligned with everyday use would have
been more convincing.

snip

Suzuki plans to have a viable production fuel-cell two-wheeler on
sale by 2015. It will cost more than a conventional,
petrol-engined Burgman 125, which costs just over £3,000, but
service costs will be minimal because the cell requires little
maintenance and is intended to last the life of the vehicle.

Compared with exorbitantly costly all-battery two-wheelers,
there's no question hydrogen fuel cells present a more realistic
alternative to petrol engines.

The Burgman I rode was barely distinguishable from the stock
machine and that's what matters.
==========

Anyone know how much money American companies have "invested" in
fuel cell vehicles with no results?


Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 03:18:34 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:
snip
We are maturing as a
society and our economy reflects this.
snip
As a nation we are getting older on the average.

While there does appear to be at least a small correlation
between age and maturity, in general if you are dumb/rash at 20,
you will dumb/rash at 30, at 40, etc. In general this is caused
by an inability or unwillingness to learn from our own mistakes,
if not the mistakes of others.

To be sure the society/economy does appear to reflect the age
change in demographics such as the shift in sales from
motorcycles and beer to walkers and viagra.


Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).