If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Pete wrote: "Kenneth Chiu" wrote in message ... In article , Leslie Swartz wrote: Same for the "new" gas-electric hybrids. Yes, you get 60 miles to teh gallon as long as you don't count teh energy stream required to get the "top off" electricity to the vehicle You mean like the Toyota Prius? The mileage figures include the gas required to generate the electricity. The comparisons are even worse that that. The extra price with hybrids makes up for a LOT of gas. Using figures from edmunds.com: A Honda Hybrid retails for $20,650, a regular LX Sedan for $16,160 highway mileage: Hybrid = 47, Sedan = 38. At $1.60 for gas, that extra $4000+ buys 1/2 million miles of gas at the 9mpg difference. Even at $2.50/gal, it doesn't equal out til 300,000+ miles. Using City mileage figures, it evens out at 200,000 miles. Now...factor in the fuel and chemicals used to make that bigass battery pack. Now...factor in the maintenance and environmental price for the expected battery replacement/disposal at 100-150,000 miles. Is the Hybrid 'better'? Yes, if gas mileage is the only factor you're looking at. I'm only pointing out that _if_ the OP is talking about cars like the Prius, he is mistaken if he thinks the mileage figures do not include the gas to generate the electricity. |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Hey Kenneth:
That's a moot point. You only includes the gas burned by the *onboard* ICE. I specifically said "topoff electricity" which most certainly is NOT included in the mpg figure. The mpg figure is worthless anyhow, as others pointed out. The energy required to *make* the vehicle and vehicle systems above and beyond a comparable vehicle (delta energy, not net energy) makes the Prius a loser. OBTW, if you are comparing the price of the Prius to the LX sedan, try $37,000+ which is the true price of the Prius (before the jackbooted thugs et al subsidize the vehicle at someone else's expense). Steve Swartz "Kenneth Chiu" wrote in message ... In article , Pete wrote: "Kenneth Chiu" wrote in message ... In article , Leslie Swartz wrote: Same for the "new" gas-electric hybrids. Yes, you get 60 miles to teh gallon as long as you don't count teh energy stream required to get the "top off" electricity to the vehicle You mean like the Toyota Prius? The mileage figures include the gas required to generate the electricity. The comparisons are even worse that that. The extra price with hybrids makes up for a LOT of gas. Using figures from edmunds.com: A Honda Hybrid retails for $20,650, a regular LX Sedan for $16,160 highway mileage: Hybrid = 47, Sedan = 38. At $1.60 for gas, that extra $4000+ buys 1/2 million miles of gas at the 9mpg difference. Even at $2.50/gal, it doesn't equal out til 300,000+ miles. Using City mileage figures, it evens out at 200,000 miles. Now...factor in the fuel and chemicals used to make that bigass battery pack. Now...factor in the maintenance and environmental price for the expected battery replacement/disposal at 100-150,000 miles. Is the Hybrid 'better'? Yes, if gas mileage is the only factor you're looking at. I'm only pointing out that _if_ the OP is talking about cars like the Prius, he is mistaken if he thinks the mileage figures do not include the gas to generate the electricity. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Glad to see you gave up on characterizing the Moon as a "worthless" trip.
Now- would you be willing to let your tax dollars go to Big Oil to help payoff the startup costs of private-sector harvesting of lunar He3? How about tax dollars to develop the technology (not invent the process, but develop the existing technology) for He-3 fusion reactors here on earth? The alternative is to wait until this becomes economically feasible, and rely on the private sector 100% for start-up capital. Remember, that won't happen until the oil begins to run out . . . if you want to support the cleanest, most abundant source of energy for the future, you must either cough up the tax dollars or go buy the biggest SUV you can find. Steve Swartz "George Z. Bush" wrote in message ... "D. Strang" wrote in message news:MM7_b.9908$Ru5.9336@okepread03... "George Z. Bush" wrote ...and if the stuff is made of surplus corn not otherwise needed to nourish human beings, Whoa now! This isn't surplus corn. The corn is a contract to the government. The farmers sell it to the buyer, and the buyer sells it to the distiller. The buyer and the distiller are then subsidized by Congress. There is no Capitalism involved. Hold it just a minute, please. You lost me there. I know you'll straighten me out if I have it wrong, but I thought that the way it worked was that the government established a production level for corn and, for whatever amount above that level that was produced, the government bought it up at a set price in order to keep it off the market, thereby maintaining the price on corn at a level that would keep the farmers economically viable. I thought that the stuff the government bought and kept in silos against the day when the annual supply might drop below the level needed to satisfy demand without resulting in raised prices is what I called surplus. That corn was bought and paid for by the taxpayer and intentionally withhelf drom the market against the day when what was produced wouldn't be enough to satisfy public demand. I think one of us must have the process wrong. This may answer your other questions. The cost of manufacturing Ethanol is wired-in to the taxes you pay to the Revenue Service. The Revenue Service puts it in the general fund, and no accountant on Earth can decode it for at least 10 years, in which case a completely different administration is in power, and the previous ones are millionairs on retirement. Here, too, I think it works another way. I thought that the way it worked was that the government owned corn was sold to a distiller for a mutually agreed upon price and, from that point on, the corn was in the capitalist system pipeline. It belonged to the distiller, who processed it into ethanol, did his cost accounting to establish his costs, and distributed it into the gasoline distribution net to be retailed, presumably at a profit of some sort at every level where it was handled before it ended up in somebody's gas tank. Not so? Bottom line, oil is in depletion until alternatives (Capitalist ones) reach the break-even price, and then oil reserves (while still in depletion) will last for centuries longer. Conservation is one-half of the equation, if you want to play with that equation. Many of us want our Revenue spent on an alternative engine, or an alternative fuel, and not get Ethanol and a God Damned trip to Mars for no purpose. It may come as a shock to you, but here I agree with you, from top to bottom. There's a helluva lot more we can do with our money, much less than that we'd have to borrow from banks, than to pour it into a relatively useless trip to Mars at our expense while we have so many unfulfilled needs in our own country. First things ought to come first, and Mars will be near the bottom of the list, where it belongs. George Z. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
"George Z. Bush" wrote
Hold it just a minute, please. You lost me there. I know you'll straighten me out if I have it wrong, but I thought that the way it worked was that the government established a production level for corn... It's way more complicated than that, and not really worth the energy to type my reply. Here's a funnier scam: "Dealing with California's water shortage can be solved by growing more orange trees in the desert and then distilling the water out of the orange juice." First we need a tax incentive to the farmers, and then the middlemen, and then we will be water independent. We won't even need snow anymore... |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
"D. Strang" wrote in message news:BBe_b.9947$Ru5.7935@okepread03... "George Z. Bush" wrote Hold it just a minute, please. You lost me there. I know you'll straighten me out if I have it wrong, but I thought that the way it worked was that the government established a production level for corn... It's way more complicated than that, and not really worth the energy to type my reply. Here's a funnier scam: "Dealing with California's water shortage can be solved by growing more orange trees in the desert and then distilling the water out of the orange juice." First we need a tax incentive to the farmers, and then the middlemen, and then we will be water independent. We won't even need snow anymore... OK! OK! The horse is obviously dead, so we can stop kicking it. Thanks for your water shortage cure.....imaginative as well as amusing. (*-*))) George Z. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
One of the Wall Street Journa'ls pet peeves is corporate welfare for Archer Daniels Midland through the ethanol subsidies. That ought to tell you something. all the best -- Dan Ford email: (requires authentication) see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
First we need a tax incentive to the farmers, and then the middlemen, and then we will be water independent. We won't even need snow anymore... Unfortunately, you'll have to subsidize snowmaking for the ski resorts in that case. all the best -- Dan Ford email: (requires authentication) see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Same for the "new" gas-electric hybrids. Yes, you get 60 miles to teh gallon as long as you don't count teh energy stream required to get the "top off" electricity to the vehicle and the extra energy required to manufacture the hybrid side of the vehicle in the first place. Well, o.k., the newest hybrids are probably right at break even now. I understand that the battery bank in the gas-electrics like the Civic have to be replaced at five years, so that's a measure of what the hybrid side costs. (The car itself is really rather inexpensive.) Could it possibly be true that it's not worth doubling your gas mileage for five years at the expense of a battery bank? (Perhaps it is. Math was never my strong point.) all the best -- Dan Ford email: (requires authentication) see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Yes we had barely enough. And it taxed the manpower. Now we have that mission, Bosnia and Iraq. Plus a potential war with China in the near future for control of the far East. Well, we could shuck Bosnia any day. We don't have a dog in that fight. And we can't prepare for a war with China. We could not prevail in such a war. In this respect, it is the United States that is the second-rate nation. We must get along with China, and China to prosper must get along with the U.S. Fortunately both countries seem to understand that. all the best -- Dan Ford email: (requires authentication) see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
"Cub Driver" wrote in message ... Yes we had barely enough. And it taxed the manpower. Now we have that mission, Bosnia and Iraq. Plus a potential war with China in the near future for control of the far East. Well, we could shuck Bosnia any day. We don't have a dog in that fight. And we can't prepare for a war with China. We could not prevail in such a war. Really? While I agree the likelihood of such a conflict is not that great at present (provided the PRC does not go stupid over Taiwan), I don't really see how we "could not prevail" in a military conflict with the PRC. It is not as if prevailing requires us to to put boots-on-the-ground in Beijing. The PRC is quickly growing to rather like its foreign trade, and its people are becoming more and more enamored of materialistic possessions. Turning off their power grid, chunking up their communications systems, and denying them any viable foreign trade (i.e., naval blockade) would seem to offer a reasonable chance for us to "prevail" against them. I don't think the PRC cares to risk finding out the hard way. In this respect, it is the United States that is the second-rate nation. I don't think so. Remaining bound to the Lanchesterian attrition model is not a very good basis for assessing the capabilities of the modern US military. China's PLA indeed has oodles of men with rifles; unfortunately, it has yet to demonstrate a keen ability to operate as an effective joint combat force, their PLAAF (despite its gain of some Su-27 and Su-30 mounts) is nowhere near being able to confidently confront US airpower, they are newcomers to the field of using space operations as a source of leverage in military operations, and their PLAN would provide little more than target practice for the USN. We must get along with China, and China to prosper must get along with the U.S. Fortunately both countries seem to understand that. I like the view posited by some national security wonk a couple of years back: he described our strategy vis a vis the PRC as "congagement", with us both containing and engaging the PRC. Engagement generally seems to be working, but if the PRC *really* thought that the US could not confront them militarily all bets would be off and they'd be a lot more antagonistic to their neighbors. Brooks all the best -- Dan Ford |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Juan Jiminez is a liar and a fraud (was: Zoom fables on ANN | ChuckSlusarczyk | Home Built | 105 | October 8th 04 12:38 AM |
Bush's guard record | JDKAHN | Home Built | 13 | October 3rd 04 09:38 PM |
GWB and the Air Guard | JD | Military Aviation | 77 | March 17th 04 10:52 AM |
Colin Powell on National Guard | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 12 | February 23rd 04 01:26 AM |
bush rules! | Be Kind | Military Aviation | 53 | February 14th 04 04:26 PM |