Pretty sure no such thing has been proposed, or enacted in the US. What has been done, is to say a vaccinated kid can't participate in publicly funded schools, or other government sponsored day care... It is the correct thing, if your not doing whats in the best interest of society don't shove a needle in your arm, but you should be paying part of the cost.
> in the production of gasoline, almost as much energy is consumed to produce a gallon of gasoline as is made available from the refined gasoline itself.
I highly doubt that, Refining+distribution of gas = 17% of the total cost From what I see Electric transmission distribution costs to a home is at least $.13/kwhr (based on electric production cost of $.03 to $10, and avg home cost $.20+ local line cost $.03.) While Fuel distribution cost to a gas station is $.25 per gallon [ca.gov] (1 gallon = 33 kwhr.) so gasoline costs $.0075/kwhr to distribute. If used for charging a electric car vs hybrid, add in the weight savings of gasoline over electric (more tire wear, more road wear/maintenance), storage costs, charger costs. The reduced transportation cost of fuel could easily pay off, even if efficiency at the car is 35% (especially if it is cold out, and you have a need for some of that combustion waste heat for warmth.)
>electricity generating facility has likely been used to produce the energy you are using in your automobile anyway And what about ignoring the amount of fossil fuels used in mining, refining materials for building and maintaining power lines, building plants, transporting coal, etc, etc. If we start using electric for our cars, the electric infrastructure will likely have to be doubled or tripled, putting a big hit on fossil fuel used to get to that point.
Losses is only a small part of cost. From what I see Electric transmission distribution costs to a home is at least $.13/kwhr (based on electric production cost of $.03 to $10, and avg home cost $.20+ local line cost $.03.) While Fuel distribution cost to a gas station is $.25 per gallon (1 gallon = 33 kwhr.) so gasoline costs $.0075/kwhr to distribute. If used for charging a electric car vs hybrid, add in the weight savings of gasoline over electric, storage costs, charger costs. The reduced transportation cost of fuel could easily pay off, even if efficiency at the car is 35% (especially if it is cold out, and you have a need for some of that combustion waste heat for warmth.)
>(fingerprints) are retained in order to identify suspects of future crimes.
I don't think that would have survived a constitutional challenge. They must be taken primarily to either verify identity, or towards evidence of a current crime with probable cause. The fact they were then allowed to be retained and searched later is allowed, but I don't think as the primary purpose, they would not be allowed to be gathered without other primary cause.
Also fingerprints were ruled as something, that was exposed to general society on a regular basis, and thus not have the same level of expectation of privacy similar to photos, voice data. I don't think the extension of this towards searching and indexing fingerprint data via modern super computers has been challenged to the court. New things that DNA adds to the equation like heredity (parents, brother, uncles...) that is not normally exposed to society; As well as the need to obtain it through a mouth swab (hair doesn't provide DNA, unless some scalp is attached, skin cells can, but are not reliable sources...) So DNA should be more akin to blood, which cannot be obtained without a warrant, and that warrant needs a current case with probable cause that blood would be relevant to proving that case.
The 2 issues, is that this is done prior to any conviction. The second is this is gathering of evidence for a crime that has 1) has not occurred 2) is requiring people to provide evidence against themselves solely on the assumption of a probable cause of nonviolent criminals may become a violent criminal. While I think a case could be made that taking your DNA may not in it's self be a violation, but taking it with the expressed reason of using it to be searched for every crime they investigate where DNA is found, then to be used against you in a court. This seams like a violation. While a photo is commonly used to ID, it is more of a probable cause search each time. IE they are not showing every mug shot... they are narrowing the search to similar crimes, and people in a narrow location. While the DNA database appears to be planned as a, Computer, go search them all, since it is probable a human was involved, search them all.
I can't stand people who oversimplify shit like that. It's not my/your job, so let the situation get much worse, have the kid locked up, because them be the rules... It is also not my job to put out that fire in the waste basket either, but if a throw my water on it now, problem is solved. If I call the fire department and leave, the whole place burns to the ground before they get there. Punishing people for seeing a problem they can solve and solving it; simply because it wasn't their job is Bull. Also, I highly doubt that a typical police officer is as well qualified to deal with students as your typical teacher is anyway.
>no person is at fault for deaths as a result of earthquakes, hurricanes, avalanches, tornadoes, etc. I agreed with you up to that point, Certainly no one should be charged with manslaughter, for not predicting a less than a once in a 100 years event like this. But I do think it is the responsibility of a government to set building codes, and emergency services to a reasonable expectation of natural disasters in the area. And it is the responsibility of those to have solid engineering principals behind them. Also I do think if a contractor cut corners, and produced something not up to those designs, I would see them being held to manslaughter charges. Also if they cut corners based on some scientist or engineers advice (that was wrong) again, a charge of manslaughter would then be fair for those professionals even for deaths caused by (more reasonable) natural disasters.
I didn't really separate that out, I was more referring to the DEA practice of using IR cameras at one point to find and bust grow houses. IE once they found a pattern, then that was enough cause to force you to defend yourself from being arrested, (not the blackmailed later part.) The supreme court eventually ruled against this, because IR cameras were not a normal consumer item. So if the DEA found some other pattern from more consumer items, like a sony camera with IR, they might be allowed to use it again.
true, there was IMHO, but the supreme court has degraded it to the point where we don't anymore. IE gathering evidence of a crime was once considered a "search" and as such required a warrant, or at least probable cause. IE the police could only initiate evidence gathering after a crime had occurred, then it was expanded to if evidence of another crime was detected while investigating another crime, and continually degraded to the point of, if was ever seen, it can be recoded and used.
>There simply is no right to not be observe red or filmed when outside.
It really isn't a issue of don't observe me, it is more of a issue as to what you are allowed to do with that data. As computers get faster, storage cheaper, if they are allowed to log store and process it. It is really the best to say as a government you can't do this to the citizens. The reason is simple, you can't prove a negative. When we have these hit pieces on politicians, advocates, etc. It is ripe for blackmail, for example should your every action taken today be recoverable if you ever become a outspoken critic of someone in power. They will be able to pull up statistics that will prove something embarrassing, a affair, a link to a criminal (maybe one you didn't know was a criminal) or maybe even links to something not so wrong (like you gave a neighbor a ride downtown, where she got a abortion, it is implied you knew, and thus your the most likely father...) Or even simple, like your light/power use matches the light/power use of a pot house, so now we have proof, prove your innocence... It really is best to be able to say, yes you can blackmail someone with that, but not without admitting the data you have is illegal in it's self.
your talking about different things, your talking about sex acts, and assuming many additional factors on age of participants... What that subredit was, is 99%+ clothed pictures of boys/girls that age. Granted the popular ones were very suggestive, but most were dressed how you could find them dressed at malls... And many are disgusted by it then as well, but don't do anything to stop it in our malls, but are stopping it online.
Better than I thought, straight up @ 400yards gravity would have taken 360 ft lbs of energy away ie that's the height the v-max would reach at 0 velocity. Impressive!
I was wondering that as well, so it appears https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights#United_States that if it is below 500 feet, and were not near a airport, I am thinking we have a small legal foot hold. My next question is what can I use to bring it down? My guess would be A shotgun would work up to a max of 50', a high power rifle might give a chance up to maybe 250'. So if you own enough land, that you can allow the lead to flood the sky, and not violate your neighbors air space coming back down, and you can reach it with small arms. Perhaps a kite that will keep air burst grenades at altitude, constantly, then a proximity sensor to ignite so for a few hundred dollars (how to identify a UAV over a bird, when the UAV metal content is low?)
Also you left out the first paragraph of Aricle 8, The Congress shall have Power To IE it is part of the powers granted to the Congress, it was not a requirement of congress to do anything. hence the term given is the "Enumerated_powers" Similar is true of the 1st amendment, it tells us that the US government, and by the 10th amendment the states, are not allowed to infringe on the right of speech, or pass laws that do. They are not required to protect the free speech of citizens, except from that of government bodies. IE, if I don't care for what you have to say, I can walk away, or kick you off my personal property, the government is not required to protect your free speech on private property from private citizens.
Sure, but the pay-off vs the speed it will be patched would eliminate the likelihood of this. Ie if you can pull this off you leave a trail of evidence, while the same ability would allow you to increase traffic to legit businesses with longer term profit possibly without detection.
Simple chemistry, the amount of carbon in the world is fixed, it is either in elemental form (a solid), or bound to other elements. The carbon in oil is buried in the ground having been absorbed by plants thousands of years ago. Other carbon is bound to oxygen and floating in the air, the worst of this environmentally is methane; carbon bound to hydrogen. Like all plants, sea-weed takes in C02 lets off the oxygen, and uses photosynthesis to bind the carbon to grow into a plant. If we just let the sea-weed die, it will then rot and release that carbon into methane and co2 released into the air. If we instead convert it to ethanol, that carbon is then only released as co2 on burning in the car instead of while the plant was rotting in the ocean (although some could still stay with some plants and could someday be captured into oil, through a not well understood process.) So the oil/coal we burn is releasing carbon, as co2 that would have otherwise stayed in the ground. The ethanol we burn is releasing c02 that would otherwise have been released as the much worse (ozone wise) methane, had we not intervened. (and a amount of c02 equal to that release will be consumed by seaweed that will restart the cycle.)
currently I am taking a LS1 engine from a wrecked 2001 truck and putting it in a 1970 truck, their are plenty of open source projects allowing me to replace the timing/injector controller on the engine, and I only do manual transmissions, so it is fairly simple to replace one component and update whatever you want with gasoline motors. If this was a DC drive vehicle, you would be correct, you could do the updates you suggest, it is not, you will not be successful. It is possible to measure all the characteristics of the Tesla motors, and build a new design for it, and only for it. You will not be able to buy a battery that will work in the Tesla and the Volt, or even adapt one from the other without software changes, or replacing the entire control system. If your friends buying a Tesla, and you trust them to be a viable company in 5 years, they better buy that battery update, because their is no chance of having a better cheaper battery than the deal Tesla offers at purchase. Unless you are in the industry, and have a insider connection, their is 0 chance that even if their is a breakthrough in 5 years in batteries, that you as a consumer would be able to buy a pack, except through purchasing a entire new car, within 5 years of it being "discovered."
for me, no it makes no sense to consider a closed electric car platform like any of the commercial electric cars. Although I have worked on hybrid electric vehicles for the last 15 years I couldn't replace the battery in one of these, if a new battery tech comes GM/Tesla/Nissan are not likely to give the support on the existing, risk of fires... unless thoroughly tested... they will put all effort into new cars mostly (and if tesla disappears, good luck getting the ability to tweak their system for different charge/discharge characteristics of new batteries.) Also I drive 9000 miles a year, 300 gallons of fuel a year, even at $5 a gallon the $1500/ year and my electric cost of $.15/kwhr (since I will not be driving the under 55 MPH that tesla adverts that range for) wouldn't cut that price more than in half, so would likely take 15 years to pay off the $10k+ premium these cars cost. Not to mention living in the south, the range wouldn't work at all, for me personally. Also since my dad owns a corn farm, I know how to procure, and produce my own E85 (that I can burn now) cheaper than that $5 if it happens to go higher. (3 acres of corn, every other year, yeast, a heat source is all thats needed) So for me personally it would have to be a open platform to consider a electric, solar needs to be affordable to charge without that expensive undersized grid we have, and gasoline has to more than double in price. All will happen some day. But for now that's just too far out to do little more than drool over. But sure if I could stand being a city rat, and didn't have the fear of spending $35k on something that will likely be so obsolete as to be a throw away in 10 years, nah.
sorry, your number is correct, I didn't calculate for $3 per gallon so it should be around that $.25kwhr electric rate to generate from a $3 gallon of gas (which is about the current price if you take out the road tax that should be charged equally to electric from the pump price.)
>Even with that,.33 KWH is still less than $3/gal gas. And I doubt that we will see 3/gal gas.
no it's not. MotorWeek tested the Nissan leaf vs Chevy Volt, with $3.25 gasoline according to the Volts's computer it produced electricity at $.10/kwHr. My work is Diesiel generator only, they are averaging (with a widely varying load) $.22/kwHr from $3.50 diesel, so I doubt the Leafs computer, but it is within belief. Also If you look at Tesla's numbers, they claim 120MPG equivalent of $3 gasoline using $.05 / kwhr, take that to $.33 you have 20mpg equivalent.
Actually it is mostly the fact that the yeast in alcohol is limited to producing 10% alcohol before the yeast starts to die. So unless this yeast can get past 10% it will likely take the same energy to get to finished product as corn ethanol. Fyi it takes 15700 BTU of fuel per gallon of ethanol to grow and transport the corn required. Ethanol has 114000 BTU per gallon a 8* payoff. 90% of the remaining energy used in producing ethanol is electric and still has a payoff. If you stop with hydrous ethanol (can be burned as e85, cannot be mixed with gasoline) the payoff is 2-3*. While anhydrous ethanol is more like 1.6* source: http://www.anl.gov/PCS/acsfuel/preprint%20archive/Files/21_2_NEW%20YORK_04-76_0029.pdf
If grown it is a closed carbon cycle, the algae consumes the same amount of carbon as the car emmits. However local pollutants like carbon monoxide and sulfar are still the same.
But they replaced the metal detectors with the body scanners, now the guns get past due to the agents having to see them, and are instead focused on finding fingernail clippers, liquids, and similar and are no longer detecting the guns. Also it appears more often than not a gun in a carry-on will not be detected either, for the same reasons, the human mind gets focused on finding what it normally finds, not the exceptions...
> to have large scale generation and pump it out Currently electric costs $.02 to $.08 to generate in the USA, yet the charges to the household average $.12 add in meter charges... mine goes from this $.12 to $.14. Not to mention the thousands of birds, hundreds of car wrecks that are made deadly by power poles... Per. BTU it costs more to deiliver electric than natural gas costs total at my house.
Slashdot Mirror
Pretty sure no such thing has been proposed, or enacted in the US. What has been done, is to say a vaccinated kid can't participate in publicly funded schools, or other government sponsored day care... It is the correct thing, if your not doing whats in the best interest of society don't shove a needle in your arm, but you should be paying part of the cost.
> in the production of gasoline, almost as much energy is consumed to produce a gallon of gasoline as is made available from the refined gasoline itself.
I highly doubt that, Refining+distribution of gas = 17% of the total cost From what I see Electric transmission distribution costs to a home is at least $.13 /kwhr (based on electric production cost of $.03 to $10, and avg home cost $.20+ local line cost $.03.) While Fuel distribution cost to a gas station is $.25 per gallon [ca.gov] (1 gallon = 33 kwhr.) so gasoline costs $.0075 /kwhr to distribute.
If used for charging a electric car vs hybrid, add in the weight savings of gasoline over electric (more tire wear, more road wear/maintenance), storage costs, charger costs. The reduced transportation cost of fuel could easily pay off, even if efficiency at the car is 35% (especially if it is cold out, and you have a need for some of that combustion waste heat for warmth.)
>electricity generating facility has likely been used to produce the energy you are using in your automobile anyway
And what about ignoring the amount of fossil fuels used in mining, refining materials for building and maintaining power lines, building plants, transporting coal, etc, etc. If we start using electric for our cars, the electric infrastructure will likely have to be doubled or tripled, putting a big hit on fossil fuel used to get to that point.
Losses is only a small part of cost. From what I see Electric transmission distribution costs to a home is at least $.13 /kwhr (based on electric production cost of $.03 to $10, and avg home cost $.20+ local line cost $.03.) While Fuel distribution cost to a gas station is $.25 per gallon (1 gallon = 33 kwhr.) so gasoline costs $.0075 /kwhr to distribute.
If used for charging a electric car vs hybrid, add in the weight savings of gasoline over electric, storage costs, charger costs. The reduced transportation cost of fuel could easily pay off, even if efficiency at the car is 35% (especially if it is cold out, and you have a need for some of that combustion waste heat for warmth.)
>(fingerprints) are retained in order to identify suspects of future crimes.
I don't think that would have survived a constitutional challenge. They must be taken primarily to either verify identity, or towards evidence of a current crime with probable cause. The fact they were then allowed to be retained and searched later is allowed, but I don't think as the primary purpose, they would not be allowed to be gathered without other primary cause.
Also fingerprints were ruled as something, that was exposed to general society on a regular basis, and thus not have the same level of expectation of privacy similar to photos, voice data. I don't think the extension of this towards searching and indexing fingerprint data via modern super computers has been challenged to the court. New things that DNA adds to the equation like heredity (parents, brother, uncles...) that is not normally exposed to society; As well as the need to obtain it through a mouth swab (hair doesn't provide DNA, unless some scalp is attached, skin cells can, but are not reliable sources...) So DNA should be more akin to blood, which cannot be obtained without a warrant, and that warrant needs a current case with probable cause that blood would be relevant to proving that case.
The 2 issues, is that this is done prior to any conviction. The second is this is gathering of evidence for a crime that has 1) has not occurred 2) is requiring people to provide evidence against themselves solely on the assumption of a probable cause of nonviolent criminals may become a violent criminal.
While I think a case could be made that taking your DNA may not in it's self be a violation, but taking it with the expressed reason of using it to be searched for every crime they investigate where DNA is found, then to be used against you in a court. This seams like a violation. While a photo is commonly used to ID, it is more of a probable cause search each time. IE they are not showing every mug shot... they are narrowing the search to similar crimes, and people in a narrow location. While the DNA database appears to be planned as a, Computer, go search them all, since it is probable a human was involved, search them all.
I can't stand people who oversimplify shit like that. It's not my/your job, so let the situation get much worse, have the kid locked up, because them be the rules... It is also not my job to put out that fire in the waste basket either, but if a throw my water on it now, problem is solved. If I call the fire department and leave, the whole place burns to the ground before they get there. Punishing people for seeing a problem they can solve and solving it; simply because it wasn't their job is Bull. Also, I highly doubt that a typical police officer is as well qualified to deal with students as your typical teacher is anyway.
>no person is at fault for deaths as a result of earthquakes, hurricanes, avalanches, tornadoes, etc.
I agreed with you up to that point, Certainly no one should be charged with manslaughter, for not predicting a less than a once in a 100 years event like this. But I do think it is the responsibility of a government to set building codes, and emergency services to a reasonable expectation of natural disasters in the area. And it is the responsibility of those to have solid engineering principals behind them. Also I do think if a contractor cut corners, and produced something not up to those designs, I would see them being held to manslaughter charges. Also if they cut corners based on some scientist or engineers advice (that was wrong) again, a charge of manslaughter would then be fair for those professionals even for deaths caused by (more reasonable) natural disasters.
I didn't really separate that out, I was more referring to the DEA practice of using IR cameras at one point to find and bust grow houses. IE once they found a pattern, then that was enough cause to force you to defend yourself from being arrested, (not the blackmailed later part.) The supreme court eventually ruled against this, because IR cameras were not a normal consumer item. So if the DEA found some other pattern from more consumer items, like a sony camera with IR, they might be allowed to use it again.
true, there was IMHO, but the supreme court has degraded it to the point where we don't anymore. IE gathering evidence of a crime was once considered a "search" and as such required a warrant, or at least probable cause. IE the police could only initiate evidence gathering after a crime had occurred, then it was expanded to if evidence of another crime was detected while investigating another crime, and continually degraded to the point of, if was ever seen, it can be recoded and used.
>There simply is no right to not be observe red or filmed when outside.
It really isn't a issue of don't observe me, it is more of a issue as to what you are allowed to do with that data. As computers get faster, storage cheaper, if they are allowed to log store and process it. It is really the best to say as a government you can't do this to the citizens. The reason is simple, you can't prove a negative. When we have these hit pieces on politicians, advocates, etc. It is ripe for blackmail, for example should your every action taken today be recoverable if you ever become a outspoken critic of someone in power. They will be able to pull up statistics that will prove something embarrassing, a affair, a link to a criminal (maybe one you didn't know was a criminal) or maybe even links to something not so wrong (like you gave a neighbor a ride downtown, where she got a abortion, it is implied you knew, and thus your the most likely father...) Or even simple, like your light/power use matches the light/power use of a pot house, so now we have proof, prove your innocence...
It really is best to be able to say, yes you can blackmail someone with that, but not without admitting the data you have is illegal in it's self.
your talking about different things, your talking about sex acts, and assuming many additional factors on age of participants... What that subredit was, is 99%+ clothed pictures of boys/girls that age. Granted the popular ones were very suggestive, but most were dressed how you could find them dressed at malls... And many are disgusted by it then as well, but don't do anything to stop it in our malls, but are stopping it online.
Better than I thought, straight up @ 400yards gravity would have taken 360 ft lbs of energy away ie that's the height the v-max would reach at 0 velocity. Impressive!
I was wondering that as well, so it appears https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights#United_States that if it is below 500 feet, and were not near a airport, I am thinking we have a small legal foot hold. My next question is what can I use to bring it down? My guess would be A shotgun would work up to a max of 50', a high power rifle might give a chance up to maybe 250'. So if you own enough land, that you can allow the lead to flood the sky, and not violate your neighbors air space coming back down, and you can reach it with small arms. Perhaps a kite that will keep air burst grenades at altitude, constantly, then a proximity sensor to ignite so for a few hundred dollars (how to identify a UAV over a bird, when the UAV metal content is low?)
Also you left out the first paragraph of Aricle 8,
The Congress shall have Power To
IE it is part of the powers granted to the Congress, it was not a requirement of congress to do anything. hence the term given is the "Enumerated_powers"
Similar is true of the 1st amendment, it tells us that the US government, and by the 10th amendment the states, are not allowed to infringe on the right of speech, or pass laws that do. They are not required to protect the free speech of citizens, except from that of government bodies. IE, if I don't care for what you have to say, I can walk away, or kick you off my personal property, the government is not required to protect your free speech on private property from private citizens.
Sure, but the pay-off vs the speed it will be patched would eliminate the likelihood of this. Ie if you can pull this off you leave a trail of evidence, while the same ability would allow you to increase traffic to legit businesses with longer term profit possibly without detection.
Simple chemistry, the amount of carbon in the world is fixed, it is either in elemental form (a solid), or bound to other elements. The carbon in oil is buried in the ground having been absorbed by plants thousands of years ago. Other carbon is bound to oxygen and floating in the air, the worst of this environmentally is methane; carbon bound to hydrogen. Like all plants, sea-weed takes in C02 lets off the oxygen, and uses photosynthesis to bind the carbon to grow into a plant. If we just let the sea-weed die, it will then rot and release that carbon into methane and co2 released into the air. If we instead convert it to ethanol, that carbon is then only released as co2 on burning in the car instead of while the plant was rotting in the ocean (although some could still stay with some plants and could someday be captured into oil, through a not well understood process.)
So the oil/coal we burn is releasing carbon, as co2 that would have otherwise stayed in the ground. The ethanol we burn is releasing c02 that would otherwise have been released as the much worse (ozone wise) methane, had we not intervened. (and a amount of c02 equal to that release will be consumed by seaweed that will restart the cycle.)
currently I am taking a LS1 engine from a wrecked 2001 truck and putting it in a 1970 truck, their are plenty of open source projects allowing me to replace the timing/injector controller on the engine, and I only do manual transmissions, so it is fairly simple to replace one component and update whatever you want with gasoline motors. If this was a DC drive vehicle, you would be correct, you could do the updates you suggest, it is not, you will not be successful. It is possible to measure all the characteristics of the Tesla motors, and build a new design for it, and only for it. You will not be able to buy a battery that will work in the Tesla and the Volt, or even adapt one from the other without software changes, or replacing the entire control system. If your friends buying a Tesla, and you trust them to be a viable company in 5 years, they better buy that battery update, because their is no chance of having a better cheaper battery than the deal Tesla offers at purchase. Unless you are in the industry, and have a insider connection, their is 0 chance that even if their is a breakthrough in 5 years in batteries, that you as a consumer would be able to buy a pack, except through purchasing a entire new car, within 5 years of it being "discovered."
for me, no it makes no sense to consider a closed electric car platform like any of the commercial electric cars. Although I have worked on hybrid electric vehicles for the last 15 years I couldn't replace the battery in one of these, if a new battery tech comes GM/Tesla/Nissan are not likely to give the support on the existing, risk of fires... unless thoroughly tested... they will put all effort into new cars mostly (and if tesla disappears, good luck getting the ability to tweak their system for different charge/discharge characteristics of new batteries.) Also I drive 9000 miles a year, 300 gallons of fuel a year, even at $5 a gallon the $1500/ year and my electric cost of $.15/kwhr (since I will not be driving the under 55 MPH that tesla adverts that range for) wouldn't cut that price more than in half, so would likely take 15 years to pay off the $10k+ premium these cars cost. Not to mention living in the south, the range wouldn't work at all, for me personally.
Also since my dad owns a corn farm, I know how to procure, and produce my own E85 (that I can burn now) cheaper than that $5 if it happens to go higher. (3 acres of corn, every other year, yeast, a heat source is all thats needed) So for me personally it would have to be a open platform to consider a electric, solar needs to be affordable to charge without that expensive undersized grid we have, and gasoline has to more than double in price. All will happen some day. But for now that's just too far out to do little more than drool over.
But sure if I could stand being a city rat, and didn't have the fear of spending $35k on something that will likely be so obsolete as to be a throw away in 10 years, nah.
sorry, your number is correct, I didn't calculate for $3 per gallon so it should be around that $.25kwhr electric rate to generate from a $3 gallon of gas (which is about the current price if you take out the road tax that should be charged equally to electric from the pump price.)
what gasoline are you using? gasoline has 33.41 kWh/Gal so it is only claiming a 30% conversion ratio, very possible.
>Even with that, .33 KWH is still less than $3/gal gas. And I doubt that we will see 3/gal gas.
no it's not. MotorWeek tested the Nissan leaf vs Chevy Volt, with $3.25 gasoline according to the Volts's computer it produced electricity at $.10/kwHr. My work is Diesiel generator only, they are averaging (with a widely varying load) $.22/kwHr from $3.50 diesel, so I doubt the Leafs computer, but it is within belief.
Also If you look at Tesla's numbers, they claim 120MPG equivalent of $3 gasoline using $.05 / kwhr, take that to $.33 you have 20mpg equivalent.
Actually it is mostly the fact that the yeast in alcohol is limited to producing 10% alcohol before the yeast starts to die. So unless this yeast can get past 10% it will likely take the same energy to get to finished product as corn ethanol.
Fyi it takes 15700 BTU of fuel per gallon of ethanol to grow and transport the corn required. Ethanol has 114000 BTU per gallon a 8* payoff. 90% of the remaining energy used in producing ethanol is electric and still has a payoff. If you stop with hydrous ethanol (can be burned as e85, cannot be mixed with gasoline) the payoff is 2-3*. While anhydrous ethanol is more like 1.6* source: http://www.anl.gov/PCS/acsfuel/preprint%20archive/Files/21_2_NEW%20YORK_04-76_0029.pdf
If grown it is a closed carbon cycle, the algae consumes the same amount of carbon as the car emmits. However local pollutants like carbon monoxide and sulfar are still the same.
But they replaced the metal detectors with the body scanners, now the guns get past due to the agents having to see them, and are instead focused on finding fingernail clippers, liquids, and similar and are no longer detecting the guns.
Also it appears more often than not a gun in a carry-on will not be detected either, for the same reasons, the human mind gets focused on finding what it normally finds, not the exceptions...
> to have large scale generation and pump it out
Currently electric costs $.02 to $.08 to generate in the USA, yet the charges to the household average $.12 add in meter charges... mine goes from this $.12 to $.14. Not to mention the thousands of birds, hundreds of car wrecks that are made deadly by power poles...
Per. BTU it costs more to deiliver electric than natural gas costs total at my house.