On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:46:08 -0500, Jon Elson
wrote:

Tom Gardner wrote:


Eventually, fusion power will be the best solution until some new energy
source comes along, maybe antimatter. I wonder how the leftists will
take THAT! (If leftists still exist)

Har! Perhaps The Cull will have taken them by then.


Fusion turns out to be a LOT harder than anybody thought.

It's too bad that harmonics didn't play the part they did in the movie
"Chain Reaction". We'd be there by now.


Physicists have been saying it is 10 years away for 50+ years, now.
Tokamak looked promising until you understand the surface area to
volume relationship, then it becomes obvious you can't have a thread
of plasma many meters long at 10 megaKelvins, all the heat leaks away.

The only hope is a VERY compact plasma, and that is a hard state to
maintain. And, the implosion devices are most likely to self destruct
due to the massive thermal cycling. Not immediately, but it seems like
they would end up requiring huge amounts of maintenance.

From material degradation?


--
Always bear in mind that your own resolution to
succeed is more important than any one thing.
-- Abraham Lincoln

"J. Clarke" wrote in message

Antimatter's not going to be an energy source. It may be a dandy
storage method, but it's not going to be a source unless a large
naturally occurring nearby supply of antimatter is discovered.

That asteroid is coming closerrrr..................

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 19:04:49 -0500, Ignoramus28574
wrote:

On 2012-06-28, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:31:00 -0500, Jon Elson
wrote:

wrote:


And if the Japanese power company had built the plant 20 metres
higher above sea level the whole tragedy for the people would probably
not have happened.
Yup, this was a train wreck that anybody even remotely familiar with
the technology (and Japan, where they invented the word tsunami) had
40 YEARS to see coming! But, TEPCO wanted to finish out the life of the #1
plant without spending anything more on it.

It is totally amazing that nothing was done, even though they had
meetings on the risks and what could be done to mitigate them.

Jon
And the cooling water pumps run off the grid? instead of off the
reactor. And the backup generator was in the basement, where it
flooded even before the reactor gave any trouble. Pretty poor design,
when it comes to failsafe. But it was Japanese engineering, so of
course nothing would ever go wrong.

The reactor is American, I would call it American engineering.

Was the entire installation American engineering, or only the reactor
itself??

Now I've got nothing against Japanese products, but the japanese
industrial culture is not responsive to outside suggestion - I worked
for 10 years as service manager for a large Japanese industrial
concern.

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 20:39:07 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
..
What is the AVERAGE age of the north american automotive fleet?? As
of
June, 2012, the average age of an automobile is 11 years


I went out and reassured my cars that they are all above average.

jsw

mine are generally old enough to vote before they retire.

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 19:20:49 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 19:52:02 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:23:29 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:


In your analysis, you need to cover the full lifecycle cost, which
includes making the car in the first place. Cars only last on average
seven years, so making them is a major component of both cost and carbon
impact. Batteries in particular are expensive to make, don't have a
very large capacity compared to a gas tank, and don't last all that long.


What is the AVERAGE age of the north american automotive fleet?? As of
June, 2012, the average age of an automobile is 11 years

My daily driver was built in 2001
Thats 11 yrs old.

Few of my friends drive anything younger than 8 yrs old.

Just replaced my wife's 16 year old (1996) Mystique - daughter's
boyfriend is driving it while he waits for insurance settlement on his
stolen 2005 C300H. It was a replacement for her 22 year old (1988) New
Yorker.

On 6/27/2012 6:46 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
Tom Gardner wrote:


Eventually, fusion power will be the best solution until some new energy
source comes along, maybe antimatter. I wonder how the leftists will
take THAT! (If leftists still exist)
Fusion turns out to be a LOT harder than anybody thought.
Physicists have been saying it is 10 years away for 50+ years, now.
Tokamak looked promising until you understand the surface area to
volume relationship, then it becomes obvious you can't have a thread
of plasma many meters long at 10 megaKelvins, all the heat leaks away.

The only hope is a VERY compact plasma, and that is a hard state to
maintain. And, the implosion devices are most likely to self destruct
due to the massive thermal cycling. Not immediately, but it seems like
they would end up requiring huge amounts of maintenance.

Jon


It only 10 years away! (this time may be the charm)

On 6/27/2012 8:10 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article , Mars@Tacks
says...

On 6/26/2012 9:30 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:25:46 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:


"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message

And before anyone starts suggests that government ought to take
over, using taxpayer dollars, you need to realize that someone's
taxes would need to go up, and that government-control of energy
production is a textbook example of socialism.

The government has owned and controlled energy production since 1933:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Valley_Authority

"The Kentucky Sierra Club called the [2008 Kingston] disaster the
"worst environmental disaster since Chernobyl"."
"The disaster continues to poison lakes and stream as well as
potentially the drinking water of millions."

Who knew?

Coal plants emit radioactive materials into the air and store many
more in the ash. With the exception of Fukushima, nuke plants don't.

Wait until we get the Keystone pipeline from Canada to Texas. It'll
be spilling oil into the main rivers (and maybe seeping into the
Oglalla Aquifer) in no time.

And with all the fracking going on nowadays, half the aquifers in the
USA stand to be affected. How many different seven-to-twenty syllable
toxic chemicals would you like in your water today?

--
Always bear in mind that your own resolution to
succeed is more important than any one thing.
-- Abraham Lincoln


Eventually, fusion power will be the best solution until some new energy
source comes along, maybe antimatter. I wonder how the leftists will
take THAT! (If leftists still exist)

Antimatter's not going to be an energy source. It may be a dandy
storage method, but it's not going to be a source unless a large
naturally occurring nearby supply of antimatter is discovered.


Can anyone say "Dark Energy"?

On 6/27/2012 3:24 PM, Jon Elson wrote:

Take a look at the Honda Civic Hybrid. I get over 50 MPG in mixed
city/hwy driving. I just did an 1100 mile round trip to a conference,
with 600+ Lbs of junk in the car (plus me) and going 70 MPH on the highway
in beastly heat, I got 46 MPG. If I ran a bit slower with less weight,
I'd get 49 or so. The HCH is a LOT cheaper than the Volt.

Jon


And, I don't have to subsidize it!

In article ,
Ignoramus28574 wrote:

On 2012-06-27, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
Ignoramus25088 wrote:

On 2012-06-26, wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 20:52:01 -0700, a friend
wrote:

On 6/25/2012 8:26 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 22:08:16 -0500, Ignoramus6950
wrote:

I was thinking about electric cars today.

An internal combustion car, burns fuel inside cylinders and produces
energy according to Carnot cycle. Say, it makes 28% of energy from the
total BTU of fuel that it burns.

Compare it with an electric car. A coal electric power station
operates at efficiency of 33% (Wikipedia).

Then 10% of this is lost in power distribution.

More lost in stepping down line voltage to 220 volts.

Further, more is lost in a battery charger.

Then more is lost in the car battery.

Then more heat is lost in motor windings and power semiconductors.

This is probably by far less efficient than internal combustion an
distribution of gasoline!

And how is it going to reduce CO2 emissions, if more CO2 needs to be
burned as coal than would come from gasoline?

i
The only way it really "saves" anything is with hydro power, solar,
wind, or atomic. Possibly Natural gas.



the analysis above is flawed. First, if you use gasoline, energy is
lost in transporting it to the gas stations, pumping it, refining it,
etc. Second, energy efficiency is only part of the problem, the other
problem is emissions. even the cleanest car emits more pollutants per
unit of energy produced than a fixed plant. So, if you worry about
breathing, there is a second part of the story to consider.
Actually, todays cars burn cleaner than MOST coal fired power
plants.

And HYDROcarbons burn less carbon that pure carbons, a.k.a. coal.

That's because hydrocarbons also burn hydrogen.

So, what emits less carbon, a coal fires power station transmitting
power, used to charge batteries, or a hydrocarbon burning carm is not
obvious.

In your analysis, you need to cover the full lifecycle cost, which
includes making the car in the first place. Cars only last on average
seven years, so making them is a major component of both cost and carbon
impact. Batteries in particular are expensive to make, don't have a
very large capacity compared to a gas tank, and don't last all that long.

As others have pointed out, gasoline engines in cars are maybe 20%
efficient, whereas coal fired power plants are more like 40%, coalpile
to bussbar, but transmission and battery inefficiency eat much of that
advantage up. Batteries are not all that efficient at storing energy.

The basic advantage of a hybrid is that the battery handles the pulse
loads, like accelerating into traffic, so the gas engine can be sized
for cruise, and so can be smaller (about one half) and operates nearer
to its optimum rpm and load.

Joe Gwinn

I am a big believer in hybrids, as a matter of fact.

I am now seriously thinking about getting a small car, because I drive
around a lot in my surplus business, and I hate to pay for the gas
guzzling pickup truck when it is not necessary. A hybrid is definitely
a very prominent possibility for me.

If you are looking for a small car, I would consider a diesel Golf from
VW. A friend of mine has one, and is very happy with it. It gets 40 or
50 mpg (if memory serves), and he gets ~600 miles to a tank. And the
heating and air conditioner work. I bet it's a lot cheaper than a
hybrid as well.

Joe Gwinn

In article ,
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:23:29 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:


In your analysis, you need to cover the full lifecycle cost, which
includes making the car in the first place. Cars only last on average
seven years, so making them is a major component of both cost and carbon
impact. Batteries in particular are expensive to make, don't have a
very large capacity compared to a gas tank, and don't last all that long.


What is the AVERAGE age of the north american automotive fleet?? As of
June, 2012, the average age of an automobile is 11 years

The average age has varied, and tends to increase during recessions and
decrease when times are good. The 7 years is the amortization period
for cars used in business.

And I keep my cars for at least that long, usually longer. I buy them
new and start looking for the next car when they get to 100,000 miles,
because I don't want to deal with all the repairs that come as the car
starts to wear out. I used to keep them far longer, but it became too
much of a hassle.

Joe Gwinn

Gunner Asch on Wed, 27 Jun 2012 19:20:49 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 19:52:02 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:23:29 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:


In your analysis, you need to cover the full lifecycle cost, which
includes making the car in the first place. Cars only last on average
seven years, so making them is a major component of both cost and carbon
impact. Batteries in particular are expensive to make, don't have a
very large capacity compared to a gas tank, and don't last all that long.


What is the AVERAGE age of the north american automotive fleet?? As of
June, 2012, the average age of an automobile is 11 years

My daily driver was built in 2001
Thats 11 yrs old.

Few of my friends drive anything younger than 8 yrs old.

About twenty years ago, there was a referendum to make Washington
car tabs $30, instead of the formula based on an unrealistic
depreciation schedule. (Olympia figured that your car was worth MSR
for the firs three years.)
My observation was that this would make buying a new car "pencil"
out for a lot of people with three/four year old car. Which would be
in turn bought by folks selling their six to eight year old cars.
Which would in turn be bough by folks selling off their 10 year or
older cars - which is the price point I could afford.
Trickle down car sales. I can live with it.

tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr
Go not to the Net for answers, for it will tell you Yes and no. And
you are a bloody fool, only an ignorant cretin would even ask the
question, forty two, 47, the second door, and how many blonde lawyers
does it take to change a lightbulb.

Gunner Asch on Thu, 28 Jun 2012 01:48:26 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

Few of my friends drive anything younger than 8 yrs old.

Just replaced my wife's 16 year old (1996) Mystique - daughter's
boyfriend is driving it while he waits for insurance settlement on his
stolen 2005 C300H. It was a replacement for her 22 year old (1988) New
Yorker.

My ex drives a 97 Saturn. (15 yrs)

My first car was 15 years old when I bought it from Dad. (63
Fairlane) My second car was a year older - a 62 Falcon. Only it was
ten years later, so it was a "classic".
Then I got a 10 year old Toyota, which I drove for eleven years.

Sigh. I'll know when I get rich because I can afford Suggest
Retail Price.

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr
Go not to the Net for answers, for it will tell you Yes and no. And
you are a bloody fool, only an ignorant cretin would even ask the
question, forty two, 47, the second door, and how many blonde lawyers
does it take to change a lightbulb.

Gunner Asch on Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:11:49 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

I am a big believer in hybrids, as a matter of fact.

I am now seriously thinking about getting a small car, because I drive
around a lot in my surplus business, and I hate to pay for the gas
guzzling pickup truck when it is not necessary. A hybrid is definitely
a very prominent possibility for me.

If you are looking for a small car, I would consider a diesel Golf from
VW. A friend of mine has one, and is very happy with it. It gets 40 or
50 mpg (if memory serves), and he gets ~600 miles to a tank. And the
heating and air conditioner work. I bet it's a lot cheaper than a
hybrid as well.

Joe Gwinn

A number of my cronies drive these, several on home brew bio diesel and
all are very happy with them

Diesel hybrids?

I like the idea of a hybrid for those short, around town trips.
(Of course, I live where such trips are more possible.) Let the
electric motor handle the stop and go traffic, with the gas engine for
when you can get up to speed.
--
pyotr
Go not to the Net for answers, for it will tell you Yes and no. And
you are a bloody fool, only an ignorant cretin would even ask the
question, forty two, 47, the second door, and how many blonde lawyers
does it take to change a lightbulb.

Gunner Asch on Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:58:02 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

The average age has varied, and tends to increase during recessions and
decrease when times are good. The 7 years is the amortization period
for cars used in business.

And I keep my cars for at least that long, usually longer. I buy them
new and start looking for the next car when they get to 100,000 miles,
because I don't want to deal with all the repairs that come as the car
starts to wear out. I used to keep them far longer, but it became too
much of a hassle.

Joe Gwinn

You must be driving junk..or driving very little. I seldom EVER have any
issues of any note before 200,000 miles with any vehicle made after
1996.

Now if a person only drives 5000-8000 a year..vehicles do need a bit
more work, as the parts "age" and lose lubrication and seals simply
sitting there, or being run and never getting actually up to operating
temperature.

The classic "Little Old Lady who only drove it to Church." Unless
she went to a church fifteen miles away - so that the engine can get
up to temps.
Or the Salesman forgot to mention the car was formerly owned by a
Little old Lady from Pasadena. Who only drive it to the Church of
NASCAR, and races it. B-)
--
pyotr
Go not to the Net for answers, for it will tell you Yes and no. And
you are a bloody fool, only an ignorant cretin would even ask the
question, forty two, 47, the second door, and how many blonde lawyers
does it take to change a lightbulb.

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 09:45:44 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Gunner Asch on Thu, 28 Jun 2012 01:48:26 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

Few of my friends drive anything younger than 8 yrs old.

Just replaced my wife's 16 year old (1996) Mystique - daughter's
boyfriend is driving it while he waits for insurance settlement on his
stolen 2005 C300H. It was a replacement for her 22 year old (1988) New
Yorker.

My ex drives a 97 Saturn. (15 yrs)

My first car was 15 years old when I bought it from Dad. (63
Fairlane) My second car was a year older - a 62 Falcon. Only it was
ten years later, so it was a "classic".
Then I got a 10 year old Toyota, which I drove for eleven years.

Sigh. I'll know when I get rich because I can afford Suggest
Retail Price.

No, you'll know you're rich when you walk in to the Killing Room at
the local Car Stealership and say "See this wad of Green Folding Cash
I have here? I already have three other offers for identical
vehicles - Forget the Sticker, what's your REAL price?"

-- Bruce --

Larry Jaques wrote:


The Honda Civic Hybrids get good reviews: -very- good gas mileage and
don't feel like they're made of cardboard, unlike the leading hybrid
from my favorite company.
My daughter sheared off an 18" power pole with my last one and flipped it
onto the roof, but walked
away from it. It had a huge dent all the way to the engine block, but
the doors still opened and closed perfectly. I was VERY impressed.

Jon

whoyakidding wrote:


Plenty of shorter drives and charging at least partly from solar
panels I'll install.
This doesn't work. The Volt has an 18 KVA battery pack, I think.
To get 18 KVA from a set of solar cells, you'd need the roof space
of a good-sized commercial building. One face of a typical home
will get you a couple KW for a few hours a day, so MAYBE a halfway
charge overt a full day. A big enough solar cell array to perform a
full charge on one day might cost MORE than the car!

If so, the cost to operate it looks really good! If you
will be going more than 28 miles or so on a typical day's driving
before recharging, then it starts to look really bad, and many
cars on the road will actually do BETTER! It appears the Volt gets
about 26 MPG on gasoline.

CR got 37 combined if I remember right. I'm reading expect 35 and
sometimes get 40 on trips.
37, 35, 40? Are these numbers range on electric power or MPG?
The MPG numbers I've seen INLCUDE powering it electrically until the battery
is depleted, THEN switching to gasoline, and counting the wall-power as
free!


The Volt outweighs the Civic by about 30% but is quicker. Apples and
oranges. Anyway a large part of my theory here is that I don't want to
merely do what's cheapest for me.
Yep, those batteries are heavy. But, my HCH experience is from 50K +
miles in one. I'm certainly a satisfied customer.

Jon

wrote:

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:31:00 -0500, Jon Elson
wrote:

It is totally amazing that nothing was done, even though they had
meetings on the risks and what could be done to mitigate them.

Jon
And the cooling water pumps run off the grid? instead of off the
reactor.
The turbo-alternator exciter can become unstable under extremely light
loads,
like trying to self-power the plant. The Chernobyl disaster was caused
by trying to power the reactor off alternator inertia for a minute while the
Diesel generators came up to speed. A special exciter was installed to
operate at light load. The alternator slowed down, the line frequency
dropped, and the cooling pumps slowed down. Due to the insane design
of a VERY dangerous plutonium production reactor repurposed as a commercial
power plant, it has a positive void coefficient, ie. if the cooling water
boils, the reaction rate goes UP!

So, we use fast-start generators and UPS-like back up power for the cooling
pumps, plus huge amounts of water in the reactor and negative void
coefficients to guarantee thermal stability.

And the backup generator was in the basement, where it
flooded even before the reactor gave any trouble. Pretty poor design,
when it comes to failsafe. But it was Japanese engineering, so of
course nothing would ever go wrong.
Yes, so MANY poor decisions a disaster was inevitable. Even a major
water leak in the plant could have flooded critical safety systems.

Also, the tsunami knocked out the sea water pumps, and 5 of 6 emergency
Diesels were water-cooled.

Jon

Ignoramus28574 wrote:


The reactor is American, I would call it American engineering.
Yup, a 1960's US design. Only a couple of that vintage are still
running in the US, and not for much longer. I think those have been
upgraded a bit on their safety systems, while the Fukushima Dai-ichi
#1 had relatively few updates. That reactor had damn little provisions
for handling a station blackout condition. The others there had
pretty good systems (a steam-turbine operated cooler for removal of
residual heat) and all that needed to be provided was battery power to keep
the valves open. It would have been better design to have the valves stay
where they were set on loss of battery power, or have a little gas generator
to keep the battery bank charged. I mean, really, a $500 home power
generator could have kept units 2 and 3 from blowing up!

I think all US reactors are higher from the sea, lake or river than those
were. Putting the plant THAT close to the sea was just complete idiocy,
but once you've made such a huge mistake, it is real hard to change that.

Jon

wrote:


Was the entire installation American engineering, or only the reactor
itself??
This is not completely clear, but I think the latter. TEPCO handled all
the siting and architectural stuff, and GE provided the reactor system
pretty much as a one-price package. Some of the original documents
have a mish-mash of English and Japanese measures and labels.

Later plants were apparently done with much more design done
by the Japanese.

Jon

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:30:20 -0500, Jon Elson wrote:

(...)

I think all US reactors are higher from the sea, lake or river than
those were.

With exceptions.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ns/thumb/7/7d/
Aerial_San_Onofre_Generating_Station_May_2012.JPG/800px-
Aerial_San_Onofre_Generating_Station_May_2012.JPG

--Winston

On 6/28/2012 3:30 PM, Jon Elson wrote:


I think all US reactors are higher from the sea, lake or river than those
were. Putting the plant THAT close to the sea was just complete idiocy,
but once you've made such a huge mistake, it is real hard to change that.


Off the top of my head, of that vintage and type reactor, I can think of
Oyster Creek, on Oyster Creek (Barnegat Bay) at 43 ft ASL, and the
Brunswick plant on the Cape Fear river at 25 ft ASL. I am sure you can
find more.

Kevin Gallimore

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:30:20 -0500, Jon Elson
wrote:

Ignoramus28574 wrote:


The reactor is American, I would call it American engineering.
Yup, a 1960's US design. Only a couple of that vintage are still
running in the US, and not for much longer. I think those have been
upgraded a bit on their safety systems, while the Fukushima Dai-ichi
#1 had relatively few updates.

Just an translation errata: Dai-Ichi = Number One. (Know that much.)
Thank you.
The Department of Redundancy Department.

And yeah, their planning sucked. Now we know better...

But back then they were just thinking "Hey, why should we pump this
sea-water up any higher than we have to just to get it to the heat
exchangers? We'll save a lot of energy that way."

Now they would put the plant 1/4 mile onshore on top of a high bluff,
and/or have a huge series of energy-absorbing breakwater earthworks
between the plant and the shore - and a dike around the whole thing.

And the power utility trying to license the new reactor would STILL be
complaining about the costs of "unnecessary precautions" for events
that couldn't possibly play out that way.

-- Bruce --

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:15:42 -0500, Jon Elson
wrote:

whoyakidding wrote:


Plenty of shorter drives and charging at least partly from solar
panels I'll install.

This doesn't work.

Congratulations you are now qualified to work at the Chevy dealer I
visited.

The Volt has an 18 KVA battery pack, I think.
To get 18 KVA from a set of solar cells

Think energy instead of power. The Volt's useable capacity is about
10kwh ($1 at average utility rate). It takes about 12 hours to charge
from a standard 120V outlet or 3 hours from a standard 240V outlet.

, you'd need the roof space
of a good-sized commercial building.

Arf arf.

One face of a typical home
will get you a couple KW for a few hours a day,

1800 sq ft square single story = single wall face 43.5 ft X 8' = 349
sq ft = about 3.4kw actual X 4 hours average (location dependant) =
13.6kwh. Approximately enough to fully charge the car 7 days per week.
Less required if you don't drive every day or use the full battery
every day of driving. Example: if your commute is 20 miles round trip
then you might only charge 3 times per week and could either live in
Seattle or downsize the array to suit.

so MAYBE a halfway
charge overt a full day. A big enough solar cell array to perform a
full charge on one day might cost MORE than the car!

A full charge on a Volt requires about 13kwh. Note the hour part.
http://gm-volt.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-5610.html Some
approximate numbers off the top of my head: if one's daily mileage
averages half the cars battery range then the array could be about 10
of these or the equivalent plus the usual grid inverter etc.
http://www.sunelec.com/evergreen-sol...-b-p-1623.html
Adjust size to suit owner's miles and location. I'm considering
installing enough for the car and my home's use. PV is cheap right now
so I may go overboard and shoot for running a net surplus.

CR got 37 combined if I remember right. I'm reading expect 35 and
sometimes get 40 on trips.

37, 35, 40? Are these numbers range on electric power or MPG?

The numbers I used were the gas only numbers.

The MPG numbers I've seen INLCUDE powering it electrically until the battery
is depleted, THEN switching to gasoline, and counting the wall-power as
free!

Sample quote from one of the links I provided in the post you
responded to: "The EPA officially gave the Volt a 35 city/40 highway
mpg rating without using stored battery power, but in my experience
that charge-sustaining fuel economy on the highway was closer to 43
mpg (yes, that's calculated without any grid-filled battery input)"
This chart https://www.voltstats.net/ is also useful.

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 10:14:07 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:23:29 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:


In your analysis, you need to cover the full lifecycle cost, which
includes making the car in the first place. Cars only last on average
seven years, so making them is a major component of both cost and carbon
impact. Batteries in particular are expensive to make, don't have a
very large capacity compared to a gas tank, and don't last all that long.


What is the AVERAGE age of the north american automotive fleet?? As of
June, 2012, the average age of an automobile is 11 years

The average age has varied, and tends to increase during recessions and
decrease when times are good. The 7 years is the amortization period
for cars used in business.

And I keep my cars for at least that long, usually longer. I buy them
new and start looking for the next car when they get to 100,000 miles,
because I don't want to deal with all the repairs that come as the car
starts to wear out. I used to keep them far longer, but it became too
much of a hassle.

Joe Gwinn
I BUY mine with 100000km (60,000 miles) on them about 5 years old -
except for this last one that was 10 years old and had 30,000 miles on
it. 5-6 thousand bucks a crack - drive them for another 10 years or
untill the body falls off. The New Yorker had 240,000 km on it and a
solid body when I SOLD it - not scrapped it.

In article ,
Gunner Asch wrote:

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 10:14:07 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:23:29 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:


In your analysis, you need to cover the full lifecycle cost, which
includes making the car in the first place. Cars only last on average
seven years, so making them is a major component of both cost and carbon
impact. Batteries in particular are expensive to make, don't have a
very large capacity compared to a gas tank, and don't last all that long.


What is the AVERAGE age of the north american automotive fleet?? As of
June, 2012, the average age of an automobile is 11 years

The average age has varied, and tends to increase during recessions and
decrease when times are good. The 7 years is the amortization period
for cars used in business.

And I keep my cars for at least that long, usually longer. I buy them
new and start looking for the next car when they get to 100,000 miles,
because I don't want to deal with all the repairs that come as the car
starts to wear out. I used to keep them far longer, but it became too
much of a hassle.

Joe Gwinn

You must be driving junk..or driving very little. I seldom EVER have any
issues of any note before 200,000 miles with any vehicle made after
1996.

Now if a person only drives 5000-8000 a year..vehicles do need a bit
more work, as the parts "age" and lose lubrication and seals simply
sitting there, or being run and never getting actually up to operating
temperature.

I'm betting that you drive far more miles a year than I, because I'm not
running up and down California. I average 10,000 to 12,000 miles a year.

Joe Gwinn

On 28 Jun 2012 20:19:26 GMT, Winston wrote:

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:30:20 -0500, Jon Elson wrote:

(...)

I think all US reactors are higher from the sea, lake or river than
those were.

With exceptions.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ns/thumb/7/7d/
Aerial_San_Onofre_Generating_Station_May_2012.J PG/800px-
Aerial_San_Onofre_Generating_Station_May_2012.J PG

I thought SONGS was way the hell up the hill from the sea, Winnie. I
lived 16 miles kinda downwind of it for 36 years. But looking at the
pic, I see that they carved the cliffs down and set it closer to sea
level. It does look to be at risk, but a seawall would fix that in a
hurry for only a few dozen million ducats.

Anyway, those cliffs to the right are at least 80' tall, which is why
I thought SONGS was elevated. I only hiked 'em once (rt). OK, I see
that they're 30' up. http://tinyurl.com/4dkt8ek I think I'd feel
safer with an extra 20' seawall, anyway.

--
Always bear in mind that your own resolution to
succeed is more important than any one thing.
-- Abraham Lincoln

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:03:04 -0500, Jon Elson
wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:


The Honda Civic Hybrids get good reviews: -very- good gas mileage and
don't feel like they're made of cardboard, unlike the leading hybrid
from my favorite company.
My daughter sheared off an 18" power pole with my last one and flipped it
onto the roof, but walked
away from it. It had a huge dent all the way to the engine block, but
the doors still opened and closed perfectly. I was VERY impressed.

civic?

--
Always bear in mind that your own resolution to
succeed is more important than any one thing.
-- Abraham Lincoln

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:15:42 -0500, Jon Elson
wrote:

whoyakidding wrote:


Plenty of shorter drives and charging at least partly from solar
panels I'll install.
This doesn't work. The Volt has an 18 KVA battery pack, I think.
To get 18 KVA from a set of solar cells, you'd need the roof space
of a good-sized commercial building. One face of a typical home
will get you a couple KW for a few hours a day, so MAYBE a halfway
charge overt a full day. A big enough solar cell array to perform a
full charge on one day might cost MORE than the car!

If so, the cost to operate it looks really good! If you
will be going more than 28 miles or so on a typical day's driving
before recharging, then it starts to look really bad, and many
cars on the road will actually do BETTER! It appears the Volt gets
about 26 MPG on gasoline.

CR got 37 combined if I remember right. I'm reading expect 35 and
sometimes get 40 on trips.
37, 35, 40? Are these numbers range on electric power or MPG?
The MPG numbers I've seen INLCUDE powering it electrically until the battery
is depleted, THEN switching to gasoline, and counting the wall-power as
free!


The Volt outweighs the Civic by about 30% but is quicker. Apples and
oranges. Anyway a large part of my theory here is that I don't want to
merely do what's cheapest for me.
Yep, those batteries are heavy. But, my HCH experience is from 50K +
miles in one. I'm certainly a satisfied customer.

Jon

Jon, please include at least a sentence of the quoted text so we,
anyone, will know WTF you're talking about.

--
Always bear in mind that your own resolution to
succeed is more important than any one thing.
-- Abraham Lincoln

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 11:12:54 -0700, "Bruce L. Bergman (munged human
readable)" wrote:

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 09:45:44 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Gunner Asch on Thu, 28 Jun 2012 01:48:26 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

Few of my friends drive anything younger than 8 yrs old.

Just replaced my wife's 16 year old (1996) Mystique - daughter's
boyfriend is driving it while he waits for insurance settlement on his
stolen 2005 C300H. It was a replacement for her 22 year old (1988) New
Yorker.

My ex drives a 97 Saturn. (15 yrs)

My first car was 15 years old when I bought it from Dad. (63
Fairlane) My second car was a year older - a 62 Falcon. Only it was
ten years later, so it was a "classic".
Then I got a 10 year old Toyota, which I drove for eleven years.

Sigh. I'll know when I get rich because I can afford Suggest
Retail Price.

No, you'll know you're rich when you walk in to the Killing Room at
the local Car Stealership and say "See this wad of Green Folding Cash
I have here? I already have three other offers for identical
vehicles - Forget the Sticker, what's your REAL price?"

That's absolutely the way to do it, but you can fool the jerks with a
wad of mostly ones if you want to be dirty about it. g

--
Always bear in mind that your own resolution to
succeed is more important than any one thing.
-- Abraham Lincoln

Larry Jaques on Thu, 28 Jun 2012
20:39:41 -0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 11:12:54 -0700, "Bruce L. Bergman (munged human
readable)" wrote:

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 09:45:44 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Gunner Asch on Thu, 28 Jun 2012 01:48:26 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

Few of my friends drive anything younger than 8 yrs old.

Just replaced my wife's 16 year old (1996) Mystique - daughter's
boyfriend is driving it while he waits for insurance settlement on his
stolen 2005 C300H. It was a replacement for her 22 year old (1988) New
Yorker.

My ex drives a 97 Saturn. (15 yrs)

My first car was 15 years old when I bought it from Dad. (63
Fairlane) My second car was a year older - a 62 Falcon. Only it was
ten years later, so it was a "classic".
Then I got a 10 year old Toyota, which I drove for eleven years.

Sigh. I'll know when I get rich because I can afford Suggest
Retail Price.

No, you'll know you're rich when you walk in to the Killing Room at
the local Car Stealership and say "See this wad of Green Folding Cash
I have here? I already have three other offers for identical
vehicles - Forget the Sticker, what's your REAL price?"

That's absolutely the way to do it, but you can fool the jerks with a
wad of mostly ones if you want to be dirty about it. g

Not my desire. I want to be able to send my driver down to the
dealership with some petty cash, and have him pick out a new one. Only
this time, he gets to pick the color.

tschus
pyotr


--
pyotr
Go not to the Net for answers, for it will tell you Yes and no. And
you are a bloody fool, only an ignorant cretin would even ask the
question, forty two, 47, the second door, and how many blonde lawyers
does it take to change a lightbulb.

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 20:29:45 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:

On 28 Jun 2012 20:19:26 GMT, Winston wrote:

(...)

With exceptions.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ns/thumb/7/7d/
Aerial_San_Onofre_Generating_Station_May_2012.JP G/800px-
Aerial_San_Onofre_Generating_Station_May_2012.JP G

I thought SONGS was way the hell up the hill from the sea, Winnie. I
lived 16 miles kinda downwind of it for 36 years. But looking at the
pic, I see that they carved the cliffs down and set it closer to sea
level.

As the limerick goes:"Perhaps it's a trick of perspective..."

It sure looks to be only slightly ASL to me, though. (Shudder).

It does look to be at risk, but a seawall would fix that in a
hurry for only a few dozen million ducats.

Anyway, those cliffs to the right are at least 80' tall, which is why I
thought SONGS was elevated. I only hiked 'em once (rt). OK, I see that
they're 30' up. http://tinyurl.com/4dkt8ek I think I'd feel safer with
an extra 20' seawall, anyway.

Yes, that is taller than the 19 - footer at Fukushima....

--Winnie

On 29 Jun 2012 13:22:25 GMT, Winston wrote:

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 20:29:45 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:

On 28 Jun 2012 20:19:26 GMT, Winston wrote:

(...)

With exceptions.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ns/thumb/7/7d/
Aerial_San_Onofre_Generating_Station_May_2012.J PG/800px-
Aerial_San_Onofre_Generating_Station_May_2012.J PG

I thought SONGS was way the hell up the hill from the sea, Winnie. I
lived 16 miles kinda downwind of it for 36 years. But looking at the
pic, I see that they carved the cliffs down and set it closer to sea
level.

As the limerick goes:"Perhaps it's a trick of perspective..."

It sure looks to be only slightly ASL to me, though. (Shudder).

Yabbut, it's 30'.


It does look to be at risk, but a seawall would fix that in a
hurry for only a few dozen million ducats.

Anyway, those cliffs to the right are at least 80' tall, which is why I
thought SONGS was elevated. I only hiked 'em once (rt). OK, I see that
they're 30' up. http://tinyurl.com/4dkt8ek I think I'd feel safer with
an extra 20' seawall, anyway.

Yes, that is taller than the 19 - footer at Fukushima....

Not on the beach, silly, up around the buildings, totaling 50' ASL.

--
Always bear in mind that your own resolution to
succeed is more important than any one thing.
-- Abraham Lincoln

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 20:33:39 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:15:42 -0500, Jon Elson
wrote:

whoyakidding wrote:


Plenty of shorter drives and charging at least partly from solar
panels I'll install.
This doesn't work. The Volt has an 18 KVA battery pack, I think.
To get 18 KVA from a set of solar cells, you'd need the roof space
of a good-sized commercial building. One face of a typical home
will get you a couple KW for a few hours a day, so MAYBE a halfway
charge overt a full day. A big enough solar cell array to perform a
full charge on one day might cost MORE than the car!

If so, the cost to operate it looks really good! If you
will be going more than 28 miles or so on a typical day's driving
before recharging, then it starts to look really bad, and many
cars on the road will actually do BETTER! It appears the Volt gets
about 26 MPG on gasoline.

CR got 37 combined if I remember right. I'm reading expect 35 and
sometimes get 40 on trips.
37, 35, 40? Are these numbers range on electric power or MPG?
The MPG numbers I've seen INLCUDE powering it electrically until the battery
is depleted, THEN switching to gasoline, and counting the wall-power as
free!


The Volt outweighs the Civic by about 30% but is quicker. Apples and
oranges. Anyway a large part of my theory here is that I don't want to
merely do what's cheapest for me.
Yep, those batteries are heavy. But, my HCH experience is from 50K +
miles in one. I'm certainly a satisfied customer.

Jon

Jon, please include at least a sentence of the quoted text so we,
anyone, will know WTF you're talking about.

Please pardon me for the brain fart. I had accidentally turned off
quoted text and everyone's posts were showing up that way. First time
in over a decade, too.

--
Always bear in mind that your own resolution to
succeed is more important than any one thing.
-- Abraham Lincoln

On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 06:36:58 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:

On 29 Jun 2012 13:22:25 GMT, Winston wrote:

(...)

Yes, that is taller than the 19 - footer at Fukushima....

Not on the beach, silly, up around the buildings, totaling 50' ASL.

I'm not certain 50' is enough. Mother Nature is BIG.

http://geology.com/records/biggest-tsunami.shtml
"Midway between the head of the bay and Cenotaph Island the wave appeared
to be a straight wall of water possibly 100 feet high, extending from
shore to shore."

--Winston

Larry Jaques on Thu, 28 Jun 2012
20:39:41 -0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 11:12:54 -0700, "Bruce L. Bergman (munged human
readable)" wrote:

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 09:45:44 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Gunner Asch on Thu, 28 Jun 2012 01:48:26 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

Few of my friends drive anything younger than 8 yrs old.

Just replaced my wife's 16 year old (1996) Mystique - daughter's
boyfriend is driving it while he waits for insurance settlement on his
stolen 2005 C300H. It was a replacement for her 22 year old (1988) New
Yorker.

My ex drives a 97 Saturn. (15 yrs)

My first car was 15 years old when I bought it from Dad. (63
Fairlane) My second car was a year older - a 62 Falcon. Only it was
ten years later, so it was a "classic".
Then I got a 10 year old Toyota, which I drove for eleven years.

Sigh. I'll know when I get rich because I can afford Suggest
Retail Price.

No, you'll know you're rich when you walk in to the Killing Room at
the local Car Stealership and say "See this wad of Green Folding Cash
I have here? I already have three other offers for identical
vehicles - Forget the Sticker, what's your REAL price?"

That's absolutely the way to do it, but you can fool the jerks with a
wad of mostly ones if you want to be dirty about it. g

My German Teacher called what you describe as a "Feeby (FBI)
Bankroll." She then reverse the wad so the dollar bill was on the
outside "And this is a Scottish Bankroll".

--
pyotr
Go not to the Net for answers, for it will tell you Yes and no. And
you are a bloody fool, only an ignorant cretin would even ask the
question, forty two, 47, the second door, and how many blonde lawyers
does it take to change a lightbulb.

Gunner Asch wrote:

My daily driver was built in 2001
Thats 11 yrs old.


My Dakota is a '97 model.