I got this in my e-mail today from one of the people I now who send
jokes rather then bothers to write.

I initially was going to delete it but after reading it I wondered.

Is there any accuracy in this ?

------------------------
Cost to operate a Chevy Volt

Eric Bolling (Fox Business Channel's Follow the Money) test drove the
Chevy Volt at the invitation of General Motors.

For four days in a row, the fully charged battery lasted only 25 miles
before the Volt switched to the reserve gasoline engine.

Eric calculated the car got 30 mpg including the 25 miles it ran on
the battery. So, the range including the 9 gallon gas tank and the 16
kwh battery is approximately 270 miles.

It will take you 4 1/2 hours to drive 270 miles at 60 mph. Then add 10
hours to charge the battery and you have a total trip time of 14.5
hours.

In a typical road trip your average speed (including charging time)
would be 20 mph.

According to General Motors, the Volt battery hold 16 kwh
of electricity. It takes a full 10 hours to charge a drained battery.

The cost for the electricity to charge the Volt is never mentioned so
I looked up what I pay for electricity.

I pay approximately (it varies with amount used and the seasons) $1.16
per kwh.

16 kwh x $1.16 per kwh = $18.56 to charge the battery.

$18.56 per charge divided by 25 miles = $0.74 per mile to operate the
Volt using the battery.

Compare this to a similar size car with a gasoline engine only that
gets 32 mpg.

$3.19 per gallon divided by 32 mpg = $0.10 per mile.

The gasoline powered car cost about $15,000 while the Volt costs
$46,000.........

-----------------------------------

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Feb 26, 7:18*am, John B. wrote:
I got this in my e-mail today from one of the people I now who send
jokes rather then bothers to write.

I initially was going to delete it but after reading it I wondered.

Is there any accuracy in this ?

------------------------
Cost to operate a Chevy Volt

Eric Bolling (Fox Business Channel's Follow the Money) test drove the
Chevy Volt at the invitation of General Motors.

For four days in a row, the fully charged battery lasted only 25 miles
before the Volt switched to the reserve gasoline engine.

Eric calculated the car got 30 mpg including the 25 miles it ran on
the battery. So, the range including the 9 gallon gas tank and the 16
kwh battery is approximately 270 miles.

It will take you 4 1/2 hours to drive 270 miles at 60 mph. Then add 10
hours to charge the battery and you have a total trip time of 14.5
hours.

In a typical road trip your average speed (including charging time)
would be 20 mph.

According to General Motors, the Volt battery hold 16 kwh
of electricity. It takes a full 10 hours to charge a drained battery.

The cost for the electricity to charge the Volt is never mentioned so
I looked up what I pay for electricity.

I pay approximately (it varies with amount used and the seasons) $1.16
per kwh.

16 kwh x $1.16 per kwh = $18.56 to charge the battery.

$18.56 per charge divided by 25 miles = $0.74 per mile to operate the
Volt using the battery.

Compare this to a similar size car with a gasoline engine only that
gets 32 mpg.

$3.19 per gallon divided by 32 mpg = $0.10 per mile.

The gasoline powered car cost about $15,000 while the Volt costs
$46,000.........

-----------------------------------

--
Cheers,

John B.

Well, for starters, $1.16 per kWh? Where does this guy live? According
to the Department of Energy:
http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/i...cting_price s

The three States with the highest average price of electricity in 2010
we
Hawaii (25.12¢ per kWh)
Connecticut (17.39¢ per kWh)
New York (16.31¢ per kWh)

Those with the lowest average prices in 2010 we
Wyoming (6.20¢ per kWh)
Idaho (6.54¢ per kWh)
Kentucky (6.75¢ per kWh)

So, with a blatant fallacy like that, I would just line a birdcage
with the rest of the "article."

"rangerssuck" wrote in message
news:ce9e907c-6d1b-4531-9f5d-

Well, for starters, $1.16 per kWh? Where does this guy live?

After separating the fixed and proportional costs, I pay $0.159 per
KWH. If I simply divide the bill by the consumption it looks like
$0.25. I can run a gas generator for considerably less than $1.16 /
KWH.
http://www.p3international.com/products/p4460.html

Much more significant is the cost of the battery divided by its
capacity times cycle life, to give dollars per KWH. With lead-acids,
solar power doesn't break even for me if the panels are free.

jsw

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...

"rangerssuck" wrote in message
news:ce9e907c-6d1b-4531-9f5d-

Well, for starters, $1.16 per kWh? Where does this guy live?

After separating the fixed and proportional costs, I pay $0.159 per KWH.
If I simply divide the bill by the consumption it looks like $0.25. I can
run a gas generator for considerably less than $1.16 / KWH.

If I do the same division in NY, it comes out to 36c.... an effing
outtage.... I mean, outrage.....

In CA, after the Enron ass****ing, I believe they do get up to over $1
/kwhr, as the "tier" structure of their billing rapidly escalates the
charges.

Basically, the first few hours of many utilities' pricing is just a HD
low-price come-on..... after that, bend over.


http://www.p3international.com/products/p4460.html

Much more significant is the cost of the battery divided by its capacity
times cycle life, to give dollars per KWH. With lead-acids, solar power
doesn't break even for me if the panels are free.

Altho the calcs in that article are kind of bizarre, the bottom line with
electrics or hybrids is that over the life of the car -- or battery pack --
they are no bargain at all. I did some calcs which showed me that the
electrics/hybrids I would like to buy will cost me, per mile, *at least* 50%
more than my Honder ****.... I mean, Fit, will cost.

Actually, the Honda Fit is a perty neat car, and Consumer Reports regularly
lists it as the car that has THE lowest cost-to-own over 5 years -- 42-44c
per mile to operate.

Hybrids/electrics are waaaay over that, if you amortize the expected
replacement of the battery.

The price of the Volt is outrageous. When you think about it from a
machining pov, electrics don't have 1/100th the mechanical complexity of an
IC engine -- yet they cost more, for essentially a battery and an effing
motor.
--
EA



jsw

On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 11:36:03 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:


"rangerssuck" wrote in message
news:ce9e907c-6d1b-4531-9f5d-

Well, for starters, $1.16 per kWh? Where does this guy live?

After separating the fixed and proportional costs, I pay $0.159 per
KWH. If I simply divide the bill by the consumption it looks like
$0.25. I can run a gas generator for considerably less than $1.16 /
KWH.
http://www.p3international.com/products/p4460.html

Much more significant is the cost of the battery divided by its
capacity times cycle life, to give dollars per KWH. With lead-acids,
solar power doesn't break even for me if the panels are free.

I wonder how far a quiet li'l Honda EU generator would take an EV. The
Hondas run 8+ hours per tank of gas. Pop that puppy in the trunk,
route the exhaust out the bottom/back, and drive nonstop to Vegas from
anywhere! (Well, not from Australia.)

--
Courage and perseverance have a magical talisman, before
which difficulties disappear and obstacles vanish into air.
-- John Quincy Adams

Easier just to drive a Honda automobile.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...

I wonder how far a quiet li'l Honda EU generator would take an EV. The
Hondas run 8+ hours per tank of gas. Pop that puppy in the trunk,
route the exhaust out the bottom/back, and drive nonstop to Vegas from
anywhere! (Well, not from Australia.)

--
Courage and perseverance have a magical talisman, before
which difficulties disappear and obstacles vanish into air.
-- John Quincy Adams

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
.. .
Easier just to drive a Honda automobile.
Christopher A. Young .

"Larry Jaques" wrote
I wonder how far a quiet li'l Honda EU generator would take an EV.
The
Hondas run 8+ hours per tank of gas. Pop that puppy in the trunk,
route the exhaust out the bottom/back, and drive nonstop to Vegas
from
anywhere! (Well, not from Australia.)

To put this in numerical perspective, a 3KW generator needs a 5HP
engine. Ever drive a 40HP Volkswagen on long trips?

I had a 1978 Accord with 68 HP (51KW)
http://www.mpgomatic.com/2007/10/16/...age-1978-2007/

It really would give the mileage shown on the graph. I averaged 36 to
38 locally and up to 44 on a trip from NH to Georgia. I was satisfied
with its horsepower but it wouldn't sell now.

jsw

Larry Jaques wrote:



I wonder how far a quiet li'l Honda EU generator would take an EV. The
Hondas run 8+ hours per tank of gas. Pop that puppy in the trunk,
route the exhaust out the bottom/back, and drive nonstop to Vegas from
anywhere! (Well, not from Australia.)
Won't quite work. The typical US passenger car (presumably a smaller
model) takes somewhere between 12 - 15 Hp to propel it at highway
speed. Wind resistance goes up at the cube of speed, so slowing down
even a little helps a lot. Our university did an extended-range
hybrid some years ago with an 18-HP v-twin B&S lawnmower engine.
The team leader installed electronic fuel injection on the engine
to clean it up and reduce fuel consumption. The car was a donated
Ford Taurus station wagon with manual transmission. After trying
to figure out how to make a parallel hybrid for a while, they gave
up and made it a serial hybrid, with the engine electrically
coupled to the battery bus. The rules required 40 mile range on
electric only, and able to run 40 MPH, I think, on the gas engine.
I would have liked to get more test data on it, but they did achieve
those requirements.

So, a little gas generator in the 2 - 3 KW class won't do it.
Somewhere around 15 KW is going to be needed for continuous
highway driving, assuming some losses here and there.

Of course, Honda with the Civic and Insight hybrids and Toyota
with the Prius and clones have a BUNCH of tricks to help
out. The use 0W5 oil for low engine losses, low rolling
resistance tires, plastic panels under the entire car to
cut wind drag on the underside, and so on.

The original 2-seat Insight got GREAT gas mileage with a
950 CC 3-cyl engine. I saw one on eBay that had a lifetime
average of 87 MPG over 113K miles. They just photographed
the dashboard display. So, IT CAN be done!

Jon

On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 22:37:07 -0600, Jon Elson
wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:



I wonder how far a quiet li'l Honda EU generator would take an EV. The
Hondas run 8+ hours per tank of gas. Pop that puppy in the trunk,
route the exhaust out the bottom/back, and drive nonstop to Vegas from
anywhere! (Well, not from Australia.)
Won't quite work. The typical US passenger car (presumably a smaller
model) takes somewhere between 12 - 15 Hp to propel it at highway
speed. Wind resistance goes up at the cube of speed,

Ah, I believe that's the square of speed, Jon:

D = Cd pV^2A/2

(Drag equals coefficient of drag times gas density times velocity
squared times frontal area over two)

Where the cube factor comes into play is in the *power* required as
velocity increases. This is because you're moving farther in a given
amount of time, which requires more work in that amount of time. So
the drag is the relative velocities squared, and you multiply that
result by the relative rate of doing work, and you wind up with a cube
relationship.

I'm never very good at explaining these things. I hope that gets
through the static.

An example: Neglecting other forms of drag, if a car requires 10 hp at
40 mph, it will require 80 hp at 80 mph.

--
Ed Huntress

slowing down
even a little helps a lot. Our university did an extended-range
hybrid some years ago with an 18-HP v-twin B&S lawnmower engine.
The team leader installed electronic fuel injection on the engine
to clean it up and reduce fuel consumption. The car was a donated
Ford Taurus station wagon with manual transmission. After trying
to figure out how to make a parallel hybrid for a while, they gave
up and made it a serial hybrid, with the engine electrically
coupled to the battery bus. The rules required 40 mile range on
electric only, and able to run 40 MPH, I think, on the gas engine.
I would have liked to get more test data on it, but they did achieve
those requirements.

So, a little gas generator in the 2 - 3 KW class won't do it.
Somewhere around 15 KW is going to be needed for continuous
highway driving, assuming some losses here and there.

Of course, Honda with the Civic and Insight hybrids and Toyota
with the Prius and clones have a BUNCH of tricks to help
out. The use 0W5 oil for low engine losses, low rolling
resistance tires, plastic panels under the entire car to
cut wind drag on the underside, and so on.

The original 2-seat Insight got GREAT gas mileage with a
950 CC 3-cyl engine. I saw one on eBay that had a lifetime
average of 87 MPG over 113K miles. They just photographed
the dashboard display. So, IT CAN be done!

Jon

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...

....
Much more significant is the cost of the battery divided by its capacity times
cycle life, to give dollars per KWH. With lead-acids, solar power doesn't break
even for me if the panels are free.
jsw

That is a major factor that the mfgrs, media, politicians, and greenie weenies
seem to be ignoring.

According to
http://www.gavinshoebridge.com/elect...eir-lifespans/

Avg battery lifespan in electric vehicle applications
Normal Car Starting Batteries: 3-12 months
Marine Batteries: 1-6 years
Golf Cart Batteries: 2-7 years
AGM Deep Cycle: 4-7 years
Gelled Deep Cycle: 2-5 years
Ni-Cad Batteries: 1-20 years
Ni-MH Batteries: 2-10 years
LiFePO4 Batteries: 6-10 years

Nissan's cost for their Leaf elec car battery is $15,600 and this is not expected to
come down.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...934528502.html
So people like me who keep their cars for longer than this (I've had my Toyota PU for
28 years and the Ford Explorer for 19) would have this major replacement cost to look
forward to again and again.
Art

On Feb 26, 5:16*pm, "Artemus" wrote:
"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message

...



....
Much more significant is the cost of the battery divided by its capacity times
cycle life, to give dollars per KWH. With lead-acids, solar power doesn't break
even for me if the panels are free.
jsw

That is a major factor that the mfgrs, media, politicians, and greenie weenies
seem to be ignoring.

According tohttp://www.gavinshoebridge.com/electric-car-conversion/electric-car-b...

Avg battery lifespan in electric vehicle applications
* Normal Car Starting Batteries: 3-12 months
* Marine Batteries: 1-6 years
* Golf Cart Batteries: 2-7 years
* AGM Deep Cycle: 4-7 years
* Gelled Deep Cycle: 2-5 years
* Ni-Cad Batteries: 1-20 years
* Ni-MH Batteries: 2-10 years
* LiFePO4 Batteries: 6-10 years

Nissan's cost for their Leaf elec car battery is $15,600 and this is not expected to
come down.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57553624293452...
So people like me who keep their cars for longer than this (I've had my Toyota PU for
28 years and the Ford Explorer for 19) would have this major replacement cost to look
forward to again and again.
Art

Ever hear of costs dropping as sales go up?

The computer you are using is an example of it.

TMT

Artemus wrote:


Avg battery lifespan in electric vehicle applications
Normal Car Starting Batteries: 3-12 months
Marine Batteries: 1-6 years
Golf Cart Batteries: 2-7 years
AGM Deep Cycle: 4-7 years
Gelled Deep Cycle: 2-5 years
Ni-Cad Batteries: 1-20 years
Ni-MH Batteries: 2-10 years
LiFePO4 Batteries: 6-10 years

Nissan's cost for their Leaf elec car battery is $15,600 and this is not
expected to come down.
There is a cottage industry springing up with guys selling battery
rebuilding services and also the parts and instructions to rebuild
your OWN hybrid batteries for WAYY less than the factory rebuilds.
In many cases you can fix a seriously bad battery by replacing 2
to 5 cells for about $100 - 150. So, when the extended battery warranty
runs out, there are options besides a VERY expensive total replacement.

Jon

On 2/26/2012 7:18 AM, John B. wrote:


I got this in my e-mail today from one of the people I now who send
jokes rather then bothers to write.

I initially was going to delete it but after reading it I wondered.

Is there any accuracy in this ?


No, there is not.


http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/chevyvolt.asp

On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 09:29:47 -0500, Stuart Wheaton
wrote:

On 2/26/2012 7:18 AM, John B. wrote:


I got this in my e-mail today from one of the people I now who send
jokes rather then bothers to write.

I initially was going to delete it but after reading it I wondered.

Is there any accuracy in this ?


No, there is not.


http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/chevyvolt.asp



The Snopes rebuttle is fatally flawed. It takes the same amount of time
to drive across the country????

Hardly. Its sadly more of a mish mash than the original article

Gunner

On Feb 26, 10:53*am, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 09:29:47 -0500, Stuart Wheaton
wrote:





On 2/26/2012 7:18 AM, John B. wrote:

I got this in my e-mail today from one of the people I now who send
jokes rather then bothers to write.

I initially was going to delete it but after reading it I wondered.

Is there any accuracy in this ?

No, there is not.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/chevyvolt.asp

The Snopes rebuttle is fatally flawed. *It takes the same amount of time
to drive across the country????

Hardly. Its sadly more of a mish mash than the original article

Gunner- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey Mr. 57 year old Afternnon Delight...show your data.

TMT

On 2/26/2012 11:53 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 09:29:47 -0500, Stuart
wrote:

On 2/26/2012 7:18 AM, John B. wrote:


I got this in my e-mail today from one of the people I now who send
jokes rather then bothers to write.

I initially was going to delete it but after reading it I wondered.

Is there any accuracy in this ?


No, there is not.


http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/chevyvolt.asp



The Snopes rebuttle is fatally flawed. It takes the same amount of time
to drive across the country????

Since when the battery is run down it runs on the gas engine, yes, it
can go cross country just like any IC vehicle.

But the Volt is not designed for x-country use. It is optimised for the
large number of Americans who commute a dozen miles or so daily, who can
charge it during off peak hours every night, but still offers a back-up
plan so you never suffer the inability to go when you need to regardless
of the charging time.

OH yeah, you can fit it with a Gun rack too.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505145_1...ack-in-a-volt/





Hardly. Its sadly more of a mish mash than the original article

Gunner

On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 18:19:57 -0500, Stuart Wheaton
wrote:

On 2/26/2012 11:53 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 09:29:47 -0500, Stuart
wrote:

On 2/26/2012 7:18 AM, John B. wrote:


I got this in my e-mail today from one of the people I now who send
jokes rather then bothers to write.

I initially was going to delete it but after reading it I wondered.

Is there any accuracy in this ?


No, there is not.


http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/chevyvolt.asp



The Snopes rebuttle is fatally flawed. It takes the same amount of time
to drive across the country????

Since when the battery is run down it runs on the gas engine, yes, it
can go cross country just like any IC vehicle.

But the Volt is not designed for x-country use. It is optimised for the
large number of Americans who commute a dozen miles or so daily, who can
charge it during off peak hours every night, but still offers a back-up
plan so you never suffer the inability to go when you need to regardless
of the charging time.

OH yeah, you can fit it with a Gun rack too.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505145_1...ack-in-a-volt/


68% of Americans commute less than 15 miles one-way to work:

http://www.bts.gov/publications/omni...figure_02.html

In other words, the vast majority of those who drive to work can cover
their trips on electricity only, with an all-electric (Nissan Leaf) or
a plug-in hybrid (Chevy Volt).

--
Ed Huntress




Hardly. Its sadly more of a mish mash than the original article

Gunner

On Feb 26, 5:42*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 18:19:57 -0500, Stuart Wheaton





wrote:
On 2/26/2012 11:53 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 09:29:47 -0500, Stuart
wrote:

On 2/26/2012 7:18 AM, John B. wrote:

I got this in my e-mail today from one of the people I now who send
jokes rather then bothers to write.

I initially was going to delete it but after reading it I wondered.

Is there any accuracy in this ?

No, there is not.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/chevyvolt.asp

The Snopes rebuttle is fatally flawed. *It takes the same amount of time
to drive across the country????

Since when the battery is run down it runs on the gas engine, yes, it
can go cross country just like any IC vehicle.

But the Volt is not designed for x-country use. *It is optimised for the
large number of Americans who commute a dozen miles or so daily, who can
charge it during off peak hours every night, but still offers a back-up
plan so you never suffer the inability to go when you need to regardless
of the charging time.

OH yeah, you can fit it with a Gun rack too.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505145_1...-can-put-a-gun...

68% of Americans commute less than 15 miles one-way to work:

http://www.bts.gov/publications/omni...ue_04/html/fig...

In other words, the vast majority of those who drive to work can cover
their trips on electricity only, with an all-electric (Nissan Leaf) or
a plug-in hybrid (Chevy Volt).

--
Ed Huntress





Hardly. Its sadly more of a mish mash than the original article

Gunner- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And will...and without a drop of gasoline.

That is what keeps oil CEOs up at night.

TMT

On Feb 26, 5:19*pm, Stuart Wheaton wrote:
On 2/26/2012 11:53 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:





On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 09:29:47 -0500, Stuart
wrote:

On 2/26/2012 7:18 AM, John B. wrote:

I got this in my e-mail today from one of the people I now who send
jokes rather then bothers to write.

I initially was going to delete it but after reading it I wondered.

Is there any accuracy in this ?

No, there is not.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/chevyvolt.asp

The Snopes rebuttle is fatally flawed. *It takes the same amount of time
to drive across the country????

Since when the battery is run down it runs on the gas engine, yes, it
can go cross country just like any IC vehicle.

But the Volt is not designed for x-country use. *It is optimised for the
large number of Americans who commute a dozen miles or so daily, who can
charge it during off peak hours every night, but still offers a back-up
plan so you never suffer the inability to go when you need to regardless
of the charging time.

OH yeah, you can fit it with a Gun rack too.http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505145_1...-can-put-a-gun...





Hardly. Its sadly more of a mish mash than the original article

Gunner- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The real problem can you fit a conservative in it?

Those Republican boys and girls are WIDE LOADS.

TMT

On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 18:19:57 -0500, Stuart Wheaton
wrote:

On 2/26/2012 11:53 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 09:29:47 -0500, Stuart
wrote:

On 2/26/2012 7:18 AM, John B. wrote:


I got this in my e-mail today from one of the people I now who send
jokes rather then bothers to write.

I initially was going to delete it but after reading it I wondered.

Is there any accuracy in this ?


No, there is not.


http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/chevyvolt.asp



The Snopes rebuttle is fatally flawed. It takes the same amount of time
to drive across the country????

Since when the battery is run down it runs on the gas engine, yes, it
can go cross country just like any IC vehicle.

But the Volt is not designed for x-country use. It is optimised for the
large number of Americans who commute a dozen miles or so daily, who can
charge it during off peak hours every night, but still offers a back-up
plan so you never suffer the inability to go when you need to regardless
of the charging time.

So then you agree with the original statement and have found the Snopes
to be a mish mash.

Thanks for your agreement.

OH yeah, you can fit it with a Gun rack too.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505145_1...ack-in-a-volt/

""Seriously, when was the last time you saw a gun rack in ANY sedan?" He
adds that the Volt "can do a lot of things, but if you are looking for a
vehicle for your next hunting trip, it may not be your first choice. "

Ive had gun racks in each and every vehicle Ive ever owned. Including
the last 3 Volvos.

Hunting trips? Are gun racks only for hunting trips?

Odd that.

I often carry a combat shotgun in my racks. Hardly a hunting weapon.

Gunner





Hardly. Its sadly more of a mish mash than the original article

Gunner


--
One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

On Feb 26, 10:20*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 18:19:57 -0500, Stuart Wheaton
wrote:





On 2/26/2012 11:53 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 09:29:47 -0500, Stuart
wrote:

On 2/26/2012 7:18 AM, John B. wrote:

I got this in my e-mail today from one of the people I now who send
jokes rather then bothers to write.

I initially was going to delete it but after reading it I wondered.

Is there any accuracy in this ?

No, there is not.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/chevyvolt.asp

The Snopes rebuttle is fatally flawed. *It takes the same amount of time
to drive across the country????

Since when the battery is run down it runs on the gas engine, yes, it
can go cross country just like any IC vehicle.

But the Volt is not designed for x-country use. *It is optimised for the
large number of Americans who commute a dozen miles or so daily, who can
charge it during off peak hours every night, but still offers a back-up
plan so you never suffer the inability to go when you need to regardless
of the charging time.

So then *you agree with the original statement and have found the Snopes
to be a mish mash.

Thanks for your agreement.

OH yeah, you can fit it with a Gun rack too.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505145_1...-can-put-a-gun...

""Seriously, when was the last time you saw a gun rack in ANY sedan?" He
adds that the Volt "can do a lot of things, but if you are looking for a
vehicle for your next hunting trip, it may not be your first choice. "

Ive had gun racks in each and every vehicle Ive ever owned. Including
the last 3 Volvos.

Hunting trips? *Are gun racks only for hunting trips?

Odd that.

I often carry a combat shotgun in my racks. Hardly a hunting weapon.

Gunner



Hardly. Its sadly more of a mish mash than the original article

Gunner


And GummyBear proves that at last, he has lost what little was left of
his decrepit mind.

Stuart Wheaton wrote:

On 2/26/2012 7:18 AM, John B. wrote:


I got this in my e-mail today from one of the people I now who send
jokes rather then bothers to write.

I initially was going to delete it but after reading it I wondered.

Is there any accuracy in this ?


No, there is not.


http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/chevyvolt.asp

First, you DON'T have to stop and charge the thing via electricity
before getting going again. You fill the gas tank and go.
So, that part WAS false.

The electric rates cited were really bogus for anyplace in the
continental US. Maybe if you are on an island with only Diesel-
generated power from barged-in fuel, maybe. So, those cost
calcs were bogus.

But, MUCH of the rest of that article WAS true. Even the
snopes rebuttal says basically you are NOT SUPPOSED to drive
it long distances. Well, you can, but it just isn't efficient
that way. The electric range is about what others have reported
from test drives.

Jon

On 2012-02-26, John B wrote:


I got this in my e-mail today from one of the people I now who send
jokes rather then bothers to write.

I initially was going to delete it but after reading it I wondered.

Is there any accuracy in this ?

------------------------
Cost to operate a Chevy Volt

Eric Bolling (Fox Business Channel's Follow the Money) test drove the
Chevy Volt at the invitation of General Motors.

For four days in a row, the fully charged battery lasted only 25 miles
before the Volt switched to the reserve gasoline engine.

Eric calculated the car got 30 mpg including the 25 miles it ran on
the battery. So, the range including the 9 gallon gas tank and the 16
kwh battery is approximately 270 miles.

It will take you 4 1/2 hours to drive 270 miles at 60 mph. Then add 10
hours to charge the battery and you have a total trip time of 14.5
hours.

In a typical road trip your average speed (including charging time)
would be 20 mph.

According to General Motors, the Volt battery hold 16 kwh
of electricity. It takes a full 10 hours to charge a drained battery.

The cost for the electricity to charge the Volt is never mentioned so
I looked up what I pay for electricity.

I pay approximately (it varies with amount used and the seasons) $1.16
per kwh.

I pay about 7 cents per KwH.

i

16 kwh x $1.16 per kwh = $18.56 to charge the battery.

$18.56 per charge divided by 25 miles = $0.74 per mile to operate the
Volt using the battery.

Compare this to a similar size car with a gasoline engine only that
gets 32 mpg.

$3.19 per gallon divided by 32 mpg = $0.10 per mile.

The gasoline powered car cost about $15,000 while the Volt costs
$46,000.........

-----------------------------------


John B.

On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 08:38:16 -0600, Ignoramus1113
wrote:

On 2012-02-26, John B wrote:


I got this in my e-mail today from one of the people I now who send
jokes rather then bothers to write.

I initially was going to delete it but after reading it I wondered.

Is there any accuracy in this ?

------------------------
Cost to operate a Chevy Volt

Eric Bolling (Fox Business Channel's Follow the Money) test drove the
Chevy Volt at the invitation of General Motors.

For four days in a row, the fully charged battery lasted only 25 miles
before the Volt switched to the reserve gasoline engine.

Eric calculated the car got 30 mpg including the 25 miles it ran on
the battery. So, the range including the 9 gallon gas tank and the 16
kwh battery is approximately 270 miles.

It will take you 4 1/2 hours to drive 270 miles at 60 mph. Then add 10
hours to charge the battery and you have a total trip time of 14.5
hours.

In a typical road trip your average speed (including charging time)
would be 20 mph.

According to General Motors, the Volt battery hold 16 kwh
of electricity. It takes a full 10 hours to charge a drained battery.

The cost for the electricity to charge the Volt is never mentioned so
I looked up what I pay for electricity.

I pay approximately (it varies with amount used and the seasons) $1.16
per kwh.

I pay about 7 cents per KwH.

I pay 27 cents per kwh

i

16 kwh x $1.16 per kwh = $18.56 to charge the battery.

$18.56 per charge divided by 25 miles = $0.74 per mile to operate the
Volt using the battery.

Compare this to a similar size car with a gasoline engine only that
gets 32 mpg.

$3.19 per gallon divided by 32 mpg = $0.10 per mile.

The gasoline powered car cost about $15,000 while the Volt costs
$46,000.........

-----------------------------------


John B.

Gunner

--
One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

On Feb 26, 10:54*am, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 08:38:16 -0600, Ignoramus1113





wrote:
On 2012-02-26, John B wrote:

I got this in my e-mail today from one of the people I now who send
jokes rather then bothers to write.

I initially was going to delete it but after reading it I wondered.

Is there any accuracy in this ?

------------------------
Cost to operate a Chevy Volt

Eric Bolling (Fox Business Channel's Follow the Money) test drove the
Chevy Volt at the invitation of General Motors.

For four days in a row, the fully charged battery lasted only 25 miles
before the Volt switched to the reserve gasoline engine.

Eric calculated the car got 30 mpg including the 25 miles it ran on
the battery. So, the range including the 9 gallon gas tank and the 16
kwh battery is approximately 270 miles.

It will take you 4 1/2 hours to drive 270 miles at 60 mph. Then add 10
hours to charge the battery and you have a total trip time of 14.5
hours.

In a typical road trip your average speed (including charging time)
would be 20 mph.

According to General Motors, the Volt battery hold 16 kwh
of electricity. It takes a full 10 hours to charge a drained battery.

The cost for the electricity to charge the Volt is never mentioned so
I looked up what I pay for electricity.

I pay approximately (it varies with amount used and the seasons) $1.16
per kwh.

I pay about 7 cents per KwH.

I pay 27 cents per kwh







i

16 kwh x $1.16 per kwh = $18.56 to charge the battery.

$18.56 per charge divided by 25 miles = $0.74 per mile to operate the
Volt using the battery.

Compare this to a similar size car with a gasoline engine only that
gets 32 mpg.

$3.19 per gallon divided by 32 mpg = $0.10 per mile.

The gasoline powered car cost about $15,000 while the Volt costs
$46,000.........

-----------------------------------

John B.

Gunner

--
One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Gunner Asch- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey Mr. 57 year old Afternoon Delight...dildos today use
batteries...better dump your AC model.

Got those free condoms yet that they are handing out to Kern County?
TMT

On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 19:18:48 +0700, John B.
wrote:



I got this in my e-mail today from one of the people I now who send
jokes rather then bothers to write.

I initially was going to delete it but after reading it I wondered.

Is there any accuracy in this ?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/chevyvolt.asp

No, not hardly. It's not as economically efficient as a regular car
when you figure in the added purchase price, but only by a little.
It's the huge government subsidies that aren't figured into the
operating costs that make it a stupid move.

------------------------
Cost to operate a Chevy Volt

Eric Bolling (Fox Business Channel's Follow the Money) test drove the
Chevy Volt at the invitation of General Motors.


According to General Motors, the Volt battery hold 16 kwh
of electricity. It takes a full 10 hours to charge a drained battery.

The cost for the electricity to charge the Volt is never mentioned so
I looked up what I pay for electricity.

I pay approximately (it varies with amount used and the seasons) $1.16
per kwh.

16 kwh x $1.16 per kwh = $18.56 to charge the battery.

That's the big whopper in the piece, I even balked at that one before
even seeing the Snopes link - they have their energy priced 10X too
high, and probably on purpose to make it sound worse.

Depending on the region and the transportation costs part of the power
price of course, it's more like $0.10 to $0.12 a KWH range from a
fossil-fuel fired plant, not $1.10 to $1.20.

Even less if it's generated with Hydro. Once you recover the costs
of building the dams the operation and maintenance is damned cheap,
and the fuel is essentially 'free'.

The only places you're going to find energy that expensive is on a
small barrier island or other isolated Off Grid location where you're
running and maintaining a local Diesel fired generator plant and
having the fuel shipped in. Or you have to lay a new undersea
transmission cable from the mainland every few years when it shorts
out and fails, and they fold all those costs into the billing rates.

But that's what the Rural Electrification Administration is for, to
subsidize those costs. Otherwise great swaths of the Midwest and
Rockies would still be lighting their houses with Kerosene lanterns.

-- Bruce --

On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 08:07:22 -0800, "Bruce L. Bergman (munged human
readable)" wrote:

On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 19:18:48 +0700, John B.
wrote:



I got this in my e-mail today from one of the people I now who send
jokes rather then bothers to write.

I initially was going to delete it but after reading it I wondered.

Is there any accuracy in this ?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/chevyvolt.asp

No, not hardly. It's not as economically efficient as a regular car
when you figure in the added purchase price, but only by a little.
It's the huge government subsidies that aren't figured into the
operating costs that make it a stupid move.

BINGO!!!



------------------------
Cost to operate a Chevy Volt

Eric Bolling (Fox Business Channel's Follow the Money) test drove the
Chevy Volt at the invitation of General Motors.


According to General Motors, the Volt battery hold 16 kwh
of electricity. It takes a full 10 hours to charge a drained battery.

The cost for the electricity to charge the Volt is never mentioned so
I looked up what I pay for electricity.

I pay approximately (it varies with amount used and the seasons) $1.16
per kwh.

16 kwh x $1.16 per kwh = $18.56 to charge the battery.

That's the big whopper in the piece, I even balked at that one before
even seeing the Snopes link - they have their energy priced 10X too
high, and probably on purpose to make it sound worse.

Depending on the region and the transportation costs part of the power
price of course, it's more like $0.10 to $0.12 a KWH range from a
fossil-fuel fired plant, not $1.10 to $1.20.

Even less if it's generated with Hydro. Once you recover the costs
of building the dams the operation and maintenance is damned cheap,
and the fuel is essentially 'free'.

The only places you're going to find energy that expensive is on a
small barrier island or other isolated Off Grid location where you're
running and maintaining a local Diesel fired generator plant and
having the fuel shipped in. Or you have to lay a new undersea
transmission cable from the mainland every few years when it shorts
out and fails, and they fold all those costs into the billing rates.

But that's what the Rural Electrification Administration is for, to
subsidize those costs. Otherwise great swaths of the Midwest and
Rockies would still be lighting their houses with Kerosene lanterns.

-- Bruce --

--
One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 08:07:22 -0800, "Bruce L. Bergman (munged human
readable)" wrote:

On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 19:18:48 +0700, John B.
wrote:



I got this in my e-mail today from one of the people I now who send
jokes rather then bothers to write.

I initially was going to delete it but after reading it I wondered.

Is there any accuracy in this ?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/chevyvolt.asp

No, not hardly. It's not as economically efficient as a regular car
when you figure in the added purchase price, but only by a little.
It's the huge government subsidies that aren't figured into the
operating costs that make it a stupid move.


I'm generally not a fan of government subsidies, but this is an
exception. This technology won't get off the ground without it. If we
wait till fuel is $10 a gal to start, it will be too late.

The Volt needs more work before its ready. With just a bit more work,
there should be a commuter car that will take you on short trips twice
a day. That's a great potential to reduce our dependence on foreign
oil.

Karl

Karl Townsend wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 08:07:22 -0800, "Bruce L. Bergman (munged human
readable)" wrote:

On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 19:18:48 +0700, John B.
wrote:


I got this in my e-mail today from one of the people I now who send
jokes rather then bothers to write.

I initially was going to delete it but after reading it I wondered.

Is there any accuracy in this ?
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/chevyvolt.asp

No, not hardly. It's not as economically efficient as a regular car
when you figure in the added purchase price, but only by a little.
It's the huge government subsidies that aren't figured into the
operating costs that make it a stupid move.


I'm generally not a fan of government subsidies, but this is an
exception. This technology won't get off the ground without it. If we
wait till fuel is $10 a gal to start, it will be too late.

The Volt needs more work before its ready. With just a bit more work,
there should be a commuter car that will take you on short trips twice
a day. That's a great potential to reduce our dependence on foreign
oil.

Karl





Why is it that even though this technology has been around LONGER than
gas engines and almost as long as cars have even been available that
"Electrics need just a bit more work"???? And that everyone should have
to pay for this work?
How about the fact that they are NOT a practical vehicle for more than
a VERY small segment of the population who in all likelihood don't even
own a car now and that for the few people who actually want them now are
buying NOT for any real reason other than "SEE WHAT I DO FOR THE
ENVIRONMENT", Ever notice what these folks usually do with these cars?
Take look at the ones who buy them, they take them out for special
events and demonstrations but the rest of the time they drive the good
old reliable gas burner.

A "commuter car for short trips" Just going back and forth to work for
many is a 30 or more mile one way drive. What do you use while the
electric car is charging? How about when a big storm hits and knocks out
all the power for miles around? How do you charge up then?

"The technology just isn't there yet" Seems to be the constant cry of
the folks who think that Solar/Wind/electric/hybrid items are the best
way to go. Amazing when you look at how much money has been put into all
of them over the years and how many outright failures there have been.
You would think that after 100 plus years of research and money they
would have things up and running without needing to steal money from
other people to keep going.

Same thing with passenger rail. The current mantra is to build MORE high
speed rail, this in areas where passenger rail was removed over the past
30-40 years because it wasn't used enough to keep it operating. Sounds
just like the thing to do..

How about these companies go to the public and ask for the money instead
of grants through the government. If the products look to be truly
viable they will get funding. If they are a joke then they don't.

--
Steve W.

That's better than anything I could have written.

Go, man, go!

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Steve W." wrote in message
...

Why is it that even though this technology has been around LONGER than
gas engines and almost as long as cars have even been available that
"Electrics need just a bit more work"???? And that everyone should have
to pay for this work?
How about the fact that they are NOT a practical vehicle for more than
a VERY small segment of the population who in all likelihood don't even
own a car now and that for the few people who actually want them now are
buying NOT for any real reason other than "SEE WHAT I DO FOR THE
ENVIRONMENT", Ever notice what these folks usually do with these cars?
Take look at the ones who buy them, they take them out for special
events and demonstrations but the rest of the time they drive the good
old reliable gas burner.

A "commuter car for short trips" Just going back and forth to work for
many is a 30 or more mile one way drive. What do you use while the
electric car is charging? How about when a big storm hits and knocks out
all the power for miles around? How do you charge up then?

"The technology just isn't there yet" Seems to be the constant cry of
the folks who think that Solar/Wind/electric/hybrid items are the best
way to go. Amazing when you look at how much money has been put into all
of them over the years and how many outright failures there have been.
You would think that after 100 plus years of research and money they
would have things up and running without needing to steal money from
other people to keep going.

Same thing with passenger rail. The current mantra is to build MORE high
speed rail, this in areas where passenger rail was removed over the past
30-40 years because it wasn't used enough to keep it operating. Sounds
just like the thing to do..

How about these companies go to the public and ask for the money instead
of grants through the government. If the products look to be truly
viable they will get funding. If they are a joke then they don't.

--
Steve W.

On 2/26/2012 12:21 PM, Steve W. wrote:
Karl Townsend wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 08:07:22 -0800, "Bruce L. Bergman (munged human
readable)" wrote:

On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 19:18:48 +0700, John B.
wrote:


I got this in my e-mail today from one of the people I now who send
jokes rather then bothers to write.

I initially was going to delete it but after reading it I wondered.

Is there any accuracy in this ?
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/chevyvolt.asp

No, not hardly. It's not as economically efficient as a regular car
when you figure in the added purchase price, but only by a little.
It's the huge government subsidies that aren't figured into the
operating costs that make it a stupid move.


I'm generally not a fan of government subsidies, but this is an
exception. This technology won't get off the ground without it. If we
wait till fuel is $10 a gal to start, it will be too late.

The Volt needs more work before its ready. With just a bit more work,
there should be a commuter car that will take you on short trips twice
a day. That's a great potential to reduce our dependence on foreign
oil.

Karl





Why is it that even though this technology has been around LONGER than
gas engines and almost as long as cars have even been available that
"Electrics need just a bit more work"???? And that everyone should have
to pay for this work?
How about the fact that they are NOT a practical vehicle for more than a
VERY small segment of the population who in all likelihood don't even
own a car now and that for the few people who actually want them now are
buying NOT for any real reason other than "SEE WHAT I DO FOR THE
ENVIRONMENT", Ever notice what these folks usually do with these cars?
Take look at the ones who buy them, they take them out for special
events and demonstrations but the rest of the time they drive the good
old reliable gas burner.

A "commuter car for short trips" Just going back and forth to work for
many is a 30 or more mile one way drive. What do you use while the
electric car is charging? How about when a big storm hits and knocks out
all the power for miles around? How do you charge up then?

"The technology just isn't there yet" Seems to be the constant cry of
the folks who think that Solar/Wind/electric/hybrid items are the best
way to go. Amazing when you look at how much money has been put into all
of them over the years and how many outright failures there have been.
You would think that after 100 plus years of research and money they
would have things up and running without needing to steal money from
other people to keep going.

Same thing with passenger rail. The current mantra is to build MORE high
speed rail, this in areas where passenger rail was removed over the past
30-40 years because it wasn't used enough to keep it operating. Sounds
just like the thing to do..

How about these companies go to the public and ask for the money instead
of grants through the government. If the products look to be truly
viable they will get funding. If they are a joke then they don't.


perhaps you have never been to Europe or Asia where they actually have
had subsidized transit for decades, and they have mass transit and
electric cars and they work. It is only because our government has,
through the complicity of fools like the above poster, subsidized the
automotive industry and systematically destroyed passenger rail in many
locations that we have the absolute mess we are in now. Places like
Boston and Wash DC have trains that actually carry people around and
these people don't use cars - places like Los Angeles used to have a
great network of trains (many electric) and buses, but they were shut
down and the right-of-ways purchased to prevent their being reinstated
so that the population would buy cars, and then we subsidize public
roads to the tune of billions per year.

Your data about electric cars is just plain wrong, and you know it. The
turn of the century electric car, with lead acid batteries is not the
same technology. You are among those who wish to destroy the nation by
crippling us with pollution, paralyzingly high energy prices, and a
population of uneducated drones fit only to flip burgers and sew shoes
for off-shore companies. Why people like you want this future is beyond
me, perhaps you can explain it to us all.

--
For a $5 dollar donation today you get credit for $10 with HIM

On Feb 26, 4:59*pm, a friend
wrote:
On 2/26/2012 12:21 PM, Steve W. wrote:





Karl Townsend wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 08:07:22 -0800, "Bruce L. Bergman (munged human
readable)" wrote:

On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 19:18:48 +0700, John B.
wrote:

I got this in my e-mail today from one of the people I now who send
jokes rather then bothers to write.

I initially was going to delete it but after reading it I wondered.

Is there any accuracy in this ?
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/chevyvolt.asp

No, not hardly. It's not as economically efficient as a regular car
when you figure in the added purchase price, but only by a little.
It's the huge government subsidies that aren't figured into the
operating costs that make it a stupid move.

I'm generally not a fan of government subsidies, but this is an
exception. This technology won't get off the ground without it. If we
wait till fuel is $10 a gal to start, it will be too late.

The Volt needs more work before its ready. With just a bit more work,
there should be a commuter car that will take you on short trips twice
a day. That's a great potential to reduce our dependence on foreign
oil.

Karl

Why is it that even though this technology has been around LONGER than
gas engines and almost as long as cars have even been available that
"Electrics need just a bit more work"???? And that everyone should have
to pay for this work?
How about the fact that they are NOT a practical vehicle for more than a
VERY small segment of the population who in all likelihood don't even
own a car now and that for the few people who actually want them now are
buying NOT for any real reason other than "SEE WHAT I DO FOR THE
ENVIRONMENT", Ever notice what these folks usually do with these cars?
Take look at the ones who buy them, they take them out for special
events and demonstrations but the rest of the time they drive the good
old reliable gas burner.

A "commuter car for short trips" Just going back and forth to work for
many is a 30 or more mile one way drive. What do you use while the
electric car is charging? How about when a big storm hits and knocks out
all the power for miles around? How do you charge up then?

"The technology just isn't there yet" Seems to be the constant cry of
the folks who think that Solar/Wind/electric/hybrid items are the best
way to go. Amazing when you look at how much money has been put into all
of them over the years and how many outright failures there have been.
You would think that after 100 plus years of research and money they
would have things up and running without needing to steal money from
other people to keep going.

Same thing with passenger rail. The current mantra is to build MORE high
speed rail, this in areas where passenger rail was removed over the past
30-40 years because it wasn't used enough to keep it operating. Sounds
just like the thing to do..

How about these companies go to the public and ask for the money instead
of grants through the government. If the products look to be truly
viable they will get funding. If they are a joke then they don't.

perhaps you have never been to Europe or Asia where they actually have
had subsidized transit for decades, and they have mass transit and
electric cars and they work. *It is only because our government has,
through the complicity of fools like the above poster, subsidized the
automotive industry and systematically destroyed passenger rail in many
locations that we have the absolute mess we are in now. *Places like
Boston and Wash DC have trains that actually carry people around and
these people don't use cars - places like Los Angeles used to have a
great network of trains (many electric) and buses, but they were shut
down and the right-of-ways purchased to prevent their being reinstated
so that the population would buy cars, and then we subsidize public
roads to the tune of billions per year.

Your data about electric cars is just plain wrong, and you know it. *The
turn of the century electric car, with lead acid batteries is not the
same technology. *You are among those who wish to destroy the nation by
crippling us with pollution, paralyzingly high energy prices, and a
population of uneducated drones fit only to flip burgers and sew shoes
for off-shore companies. *Why people like you want this future is beyond
me, perhaps you can explain it to us all.

--
For a $5 dollar donation today you get credit for $10 with HIM- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Jealousy.

Conservative never want anyone to better themselves beyond the
failures they have become.

TMT

On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 14:59:49 -0800, a friend
wrote:

perhaps you have never been to Europe or Asia where they actually have
had subsidized transit for decades, and they have mass transit and
electric cars and they work. It is only because our government has,
through the complicity of fools like the above poster, subsidized the
automotive industry and systematically destroyed passenger rail in many
locations that we have the absolute mess we are in now.

So we have no light rail in urban areas here in the US?

Or do you consider commuter trains to be cost effective west of the
Mississippi River? Say...Lander Wyoming to humm...Portland Or?

The Greens want California to spend 250 BILLION dollars for a high speed
rail between Bakersfield and Corcorun.

Bakersfield is the county seat for a county with 800,000 people and
Corcorun has the prison where Charlie Manson is incarcerated.

Sweet eh?


--
One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

On Feb 26, 2:21*pm, "Steve W." wrote:
Karl Townsend wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 08:07:22 -0800, "Bruce L. Bergman (munged human
readable)" wrote:

On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 19:18:48 +0700, John B.
wrote:

I got this in my e-mail today from one of the people I now who send
jokes rather then bothers to write.

I initially was going to delete it but after reading it I wondered.

Is there any accuracy in this ?
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/chevyvolt.asp

No, not hardly. *It's not as economically efficient as a regular car
when you figure in the added purchase price, but only by a little.
It's the huge government subsidies that aren't figured into the
operating costs that make it a stupid move.

I'm generally not a fan of government subsidies, but this is an
exception. This technology won't get off the ground without it. If we
wait till fuel is $10 a gal to start, it will be too late.

The Volt needs more work before its ready. With just a bit more work,
there should be a commuter car that will take you on short trips twice
a day. That's a great potential to reduce our dependence on foreign
oil.

Karl

Why is it that even though this technology has been around LONGER than
gas engines and almost as long as cars have even been available that
"Electrics need just a bit more work"???? And that everyone should have
to pay for this work?
* How about the fact that they are NOT a practical vehicle for more than
a VERY small segment of the population who in all likelihood don't even
own a car now and that for the few people who actually want them now are
buying NOT for any real reason other than "SEE WHAT I DO FOR THE
ENVIRONMENT", Ever notice what these folks usually do with these cars?
Take look at the ones who buy them, they take them out for special
events and demonstrations but the rest of the time they drive the good
old reliable gas burner.

A "commuter car for short trips" Just going back and forth to work for
many is a 30 or more mile one way drive. What do you use while the
electric car is charging? How about when a big storm hits and knocks out
all the power for miles around? How do you charge up then?

"The technology just isn't there yet" Seems to be the constant cry of
the folks who think that Solar/Wind/electric/hybrid items are the best
way to go. Amazing when you look at how much money has been put into all
of them over the years and how many outright failures there have been.
You would think that after 100 plus years of research and money they
would have things up and running without needing *to steal money from
other people to keep going.

Same thing with passenger rail. The current mantra is to build MORE high
speed rail, this in areas where passenger rail was removed over the past
30-40 years because it wasn't used enough to keep it operating. Sounds
just like the thing to do..

How about these companies go to the public and ask for the money instead
of grants through the government. If the products look to be truly
viable they will get funding. If they are a joke then they don't.

--
Steve W.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Another conservative who should think before he rants.

The problem with electric versus gas is energy density.

And FWIW...an electric would work great for most Americans...because
of the short trips they make.

Now go do your homework and come back later to say thank you to a
liberal who showed you The Way.

TMT

1) If it were feasable, it would already be in the works
2) We reduce dependance on foreign oil with domestic drilling and building
more refineries. ANWR, Gulf of Mexico, etc.
3) So, where do you think we get the fuel to make the electricity to power
the car? Probably from electric plants that burn foreign oil. d'uh.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Karl Townsend" wrote in message
...

I'm generally not a fan of government subsidies, but this is an
exception. This technology won't get off the ground without it. If we
wait till fuel is $10 a gal to start, it will be too late.

The Volt needs more work before its ready. With just a bit more work,
there should be a commuter car that will take you on short trips twice
a day. That's a great potential to reduce our dependence on foreign
oil.

Karl

On 2/26/2012 2:48 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
1) If it were feasable, it would already be in the works
2) We reduce dependance on foreign oil with domestic drilling and building
more refineries. ANWR, Gulf of Mexico, etc.
3) So, where do you think we get the fuel to make the electricity to power
the car? Probably from electric plants that burn foreign oil. d'uh.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org


have you actually lost the ability to use that wonderful brain that god
gave all of us? did you even read your words? "If it were feasible it
would already be in the works" - in 1950, was your laptop "in the
works"??? it was feasible, its existence proves its feasible, but it
wasn't known until the technology matured.

if you drill domestically we will just ship our oil overseas - are you
actually unaware that today the US is a net exporter of gasoline?

Fuel to make electricity for domestic electric cars comes predominantly
from domestically produced natural gas.

Get your facts straight before you make wild claims.


--
For a $5 dollar donation today you get credit for $10 with HIM

On Feb 26, 5:03*pm, a friend
wrote:
On 2/26/2012 2:48 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:

1) If it were feasable, it would already be in the works
2) We reduce dependance on foreign oil with domestic drilling and building
more refineries. ANWR, Gulf of Mexico, etc.
3) So, where do you think we get the fuel to make the electricity to power
the car? Probably from electric plants that *burn foreign oil. d'uh.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
* *www.lds.org

have you actually lost the ability to use that wonderful brain that god
gave all of us? *did you even read your words? *"If it were feasible it
would already be in the works" - in 1950, was your laptop "in the
works"??? it was feasible, its existence proves its feasible, but it
wasn't known until the technology matured.

if you drill domestically we will just ship our oil overseas - are you
actually unaware that today the US is a net exporter of gasoline?

Fuel to make electricity for domestic electric cars comes predominantly
from domestically produced natural gas.

Get your facts straight before you make wild claims.

--
For a $5 dollar donation today you get credit for $10 with HIM

It was announced recently that the oil companies are EXPORTING
AMERICAN OIL because they can make more money on it.

TMT

On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 17:48:08 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

1) If it were feasable, it would already be in the works
2) We reduce dependance on foreign oil with domestic drilling and building
more refineries. ANWR, Gulf of Mexico, etc.
3) So, where do you think we get the fuel to make the electricity to power
the car? Probably from electric plants that burn foreign oil. d'uh.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org

Chris, you are getting downright loony. Roughly 1% of the electricity
in the US is generated from oil, whether foreign or domestic:

http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/i..._united_states

Man, if you're going to be lazy and ignorant, you should at least
learn to keep your mouth shut until you wise up and stop looking like
a fool. You've become ridiculous.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 17:48:08 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

1) If it were feasable, it would already be in the works
2) We reduce dependance on foreign oil with domestic drilling and building
more refineries. ANWR, Gulf of Mexico, etc.
3) So, where do you think we get the fuel to make the electricity to power
the car? Probably from electric plants that burn foreign oil. d'uh.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org

Chris, you are getting downright loony. Roughly 1% of the electricity
in the US is generated from oil, whether foreign or domestic:

http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/i..._united_states

Man, if you're going to be lazy and ignorant, you should at least
learn to keep your mouth shut until you wise up and stop looking like
a fool. You've become ridiculous.

Not that I have any irresistible urge to defend our resident mormon, but
dayum, I don't think too many people knew that oil was just 1% of
electricity generation -- less than renewables, according to that site. Dat
was quite the eye-opener!
Renewables are presumably wind, pv's, and hydro-electric. I'da thought
hydro-electric would have been more.
T Boone Pickens was trying to corner the market on nat gas, iirc.
--
EA


--
Ed Huntress

On 2012-02-26, Stormin Mormon wrote:
1) If it were feasable, it would already be in the works
2) We reduce dependance on foreign oil with domestic drilling and building
more refineries. ANWR, Gulf of Mexico, etc.
3) So, where do you think we get the fuel to make the electricity to power
the car? Probably from electric plants that burn foreign oil. d'uh.

Electric plants do not burn "foreign oil".

If battery technology was sufficiently good, almost no one would be
driving fuel powered cars. All that is needed is improve storage
density and to speed up the charging process.

i

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"Karl Townsend" wrote in message
...

I'm generally not a fan of government subsidies, but this is an
exception. This technology won't get off the ground without it. If we
wait till fuel is $10 a gal to start, it will be too late.

The Volt needs more work before its ready. With just a bit more work,
there should be a commuter car that will take you on short trips twice
a day. That's a great potential to reduce our dependence on foreign
oil.

Karl