$1b electric car infrastructure deal

[Eeyore]

Eeyore wrote

Come on, have you even done a rough calculations of what kind of load we
are talking about? I like to see you do some back of the envelop
calculations. Firstly, how much energy are we talking about?

Irrelevant. Electricity doesn't ACTUALLY get cheaper at night by some
macick.

Without any calculations, how do you know what sort of load are we
talking about? As you say if you have to keep the baseload stations
running why not put them to good use?

They're just ticking over. Demand a serious load and they'll use MORE FUEL.

You have a basic problem with thermodynamics I see and conservation of
energy. I guess SCIENCE wasn't your strong suit ?

Apart from heating people's hot water over-
night and street lighting, what else would you be using them for?


That's right they are talking about building the infrastructure to
support it. What's the difference between that any heaps of suburban
petrol stations across the cities? Batteries and solar cell technologies
are getting better. Finally when you say taking a long time to recharge,
what sort of time are you talking about? How about some calculations to
show that it is not feasible?

One more thing, if nothing else, we will have much cleaner air, at least
in the bigger cities. That has to be a good thing for people with
breathing difficulties.

Existing cars with catalysts do fine. Even in 1993 the Saab 9000 was
promoted as an 'air cleaner' in congested cities. The emissions from its
tail pipe were less than in the surrounding air. Guess my car.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Yes , it doesnt work in liqufied form.
Its only used that way for export.
Large ships with special insulated cryo tanks carry the stuff around
the world.

I was only joking ! Honest ! I've seen what LN2 does to rubber. ;~)

The local busses here run on CNG but its simply compressed as a gas
into hi pressure cylinders which are located on the roof of the bus.
There are some cars running around powered by CNG and there is one CNG
filling station near where I live.
Just looks like a normal petrol station with slightly differant
looking pumps.
CNG is a bit of a dilemma for Govts in how do they tax it.
Gasoline and LPG are taxed, but CNG isnt, or not yet anyway.
If you tax it , then the tax will have to apply to all CNG uses, as
you wont be able to stop people filling their cars at home of the gas
pipe.

I fail to see why CNG should be treated differently from any other hydrocarbon fuel.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Lol, doesn't even cover what is spent each year on maintenance.

Not true in the UK. Our roads are falling apart whilst taxes, fines and
penalties are all up.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Geeze, I'll be sure to be more exact in my wording next time

You should be. I take a lot of care over this matter.

Surprised that NZ uses such a high proportion of renewable *electrial*
energy? Amazing isn't it?

Not amazing when you have the right geography like Norway too.

Graham

 

[David L. Jones]

According to this article <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5960905>, it
uses 800 watts.

"The unit is built by Toronto-based FuelMaker Corp., which says Phill
is quieter than the average clothes' dryer and uses just 800 watts of
electricity."

800W for 6 hours!
My clothes dryer is quite load.

Dave.

 

[Eeyore]

Heres an interesting question to ponder.
What gives the greatest improvement in CO2 reduction per dollar spent.
Solar Panels or Electric cars.

Fibreglass and Rockwool.

Graham

 

[Mr.T]

CNG is a bit of a dilemma for Govts in how do they tax it.
Gasoline and LPG are taxed, but CNG isnt, or not yet anyway.
If you tax it , then the tax will have to apply to all CNG uses, as
you wont be able to stop people filling their cars at home of the gas
pipe.

Not much of a dilemma really, since LPG attracts very little tax (people
also use it for heating, hot water etc.) and yet they ENCOURAGE people to
use it in cars by giving a $2000 taxpayer funded subsidy for conversion.
When petrol/diesel users are in the minority, that will definitely change of
course!

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

Lol, doesn't even cover what is spent each year on maintenance.

LOL, you sure like to argue from a position of ignorance, and don't care who
knows it.

That is the point, motorists ARE NOT TAXED for other purposes,
but are grossly subsidised out of general revenue by EVERYONE,
including non-motorists.

LMAO, I sure won't hold my breathe waiting for you to prove that, since all
government figures are to the contrary. Even THEY don't make such a
ridiculous claim.

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

800W for 6 hours!

So, less than a dollar atm seems OK.

My clothes dryer is quite load.

Most clothes driers are noisy when loaded, loud even

MrT.

 

[David L. Jones]

**I sort of agree with this. It would be a true user pays system. However,
there are a couple of sticking points:

In more than 35 years of driving, I've never caused the injury of another,
pedestrian driver, passenger, nor myself, nor a passenger in my car/s. Yet,
my CTP insurance STILL rises each and every year. There needs to be a fairer
way for those drivers who don't hurt other road users.

I think there has been talk about possibly linking your CTP/rego with
your driving history (i.e. points).

The same can be said of medicare as well. I take care of myself long-
term by eating organic food and keep in peak fitness, and have only
been the doctor maybe a couple of times in my entire life. Yet I pay
the same medicare levy as a chronically overweight chain smoker who
visits the doctor once a week.

Then we have these
morons who collect their children from school in Landcruisers (and the
like). These monsters are over-represented in the death and injury stats of
other road users. Perhaps a tax based on the 'agressivity' and road damage
of the vehicle is required.

That makes some sense.

Dave.

 

[terryc]

LOL, you sure like to argue from a position of ignorance, and don't care
who knows it.


LMAO, I sure won't hold my breathe waiting for you to prove that,

You made the first claim. Back it up.
Hint, the roads you are talking about are maybe 5-10% of all roads.

 

[David L. Jones]

You should be. I take a lot of care over this matter.

I was taking the piss, it's what we do here in Oz.
If you are serious, you should get out more, or at least learn how not to
take everything literally without thought.

Dave.

 

[Eeyore]

in message

I was taking the piss, it's what we do here in Oz.
If you are serious, you should get out more, or at least learn how not to
take everything literally without thought.

Not a very convincing excuse !

Graham

 

[Trevor Wilson]

LOL, you sure like to argue from a position of ignorance, and don't care
who
knows it.


LMAO, I sure won't hold my breathe waiting for you to prove that, since
all
government figures are to the contrary. Even THEY don't make such a
ridiculous claim.

**Here is what ONE Sydney council spent:

http://www.hurstville.nsw.gov.au/_upload/files/Breakdown of Infrastucture Plus Charts.pdf

Here's more information:

http://www.hurstville.nsw.gov.au/PageZone_AboutCouncil.asp?z=2&c=466&p=1141

All of these funds were sourced from ratepayers (regardless of their car
ownership status).

Here is a list of local governments in NSW:

http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/dlg_LocalGovDirectory.asp?index=1

You can research how much each spent on roadworks if you like. I don't have
the time.

 

[Eeyore]

All of these funds were sourced from ratepayers

EXACTLY ! MORE TAXES.

Graham

 

[Trevor Wilson]

EXACTLY ! MORE TAXES.

**Just to fill you in on the precise nature of the discussion, we're talking
about how the general population contributes to the cost of roads.

 

[terryc]

EXACTLY ! MORE TAXES.

Lol, they generall claim it is a fee for services provided, like
rubbish collection,
that road to your door/driveway,
rain water drainage,
stray dog control,
etc, etc, etc

 

[Mr.T]

You made the first claim. Back it up.

Nope, I responded to a post which may or may not have been yours. I'm sure
not expecting you to back up your claim because it's impossible, however I
don't care what you choose to believe either, so I'm not wasting my time
just to prove how full of shit you are. It's obvious to everyone else
already.

*IF* I thought proving the facts could actually change anything, I would do
it without hesitation. But unfortunately it won't.

Hint, the roads you are talking about are maybe 5-10% of all roads.

If you're talking about toll roads, I think they are probably far less than
5% (and obviously depends on whether you are talking about kms of road, or
cost of construction) but are obnoxiously unfair for those who use them
while paying for other peoples freeways as well. Whether you get a freeway
or tollway atm, (or ANY public transport) is just luck of the draw, or your
ability to change address.

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

**Here is what ONE Sydney council spent:

http://www.hurstville.nsw.gov.au/_upload/files/Breakdown of Infrastuctur
e%20Plus%20Charts.pdf

Here's more information:

http://www.hurstville.nsw.gov.au/PageZone_AboutCouncil.asp?z=2&c=466&p=1141

All of these funds were sourced from ratepayers (regardless of their car
ownership status).

So you DELIBERATELY ignore what I posted two or three times already :
"Make sure you include all motoring related taxes, levies, duties, excises,
fines, etc, federal, state and local." just to make an incorrect assumption?

You also ignore the fact that non-motorists also use the roads and footpaths
for public transport, push bikes, walking, and especially for road transport
of all their consumer goods and most other services as well. Why I wonder?
I would love to know just who in Australia can manage without reliance on
the road network one way or another, in the last century?

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

**Just to fill you in on the precise nature of the discussion, we're talking
about how the general population contributes to the cost of roads.

And how motorists contribute to general taxation.

MrT.