| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Bret Cahill" |
| Date: |
20 Dec 2006 06:47:04 PM |
| Object: |
Tort Caps On Renewable Tech Tragedies |
I'm generally opposed to "tort reform" for a lot of reasons but one
exception needs to be carved out for humanity to survive:
If someone's supercap or Li ion battery explodes, trial lawyers will
never see more than $100K per head.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Sometimes You Get Yourself Into A Situation . . . |
22 Dec 2006 08:16:17 PM |
|
|
.. . . and you have no choice but to tie down the relief valve on the
steam boat boiler. That's your only hope.
We are in just such a situation.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Herman Family" |
|
| Title: Re: Sometimes You Get Yourself Into A Situation . . . |
22 Dec 2006 09:06:49 PM |
|
|
"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1166840177.758887.120710@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
. . . and you have no choice but to tie down the relief valve on the
steam boat boiler. That's your only hope.
We are in just such a situation.
Bret Cahill
Don't do that. The relief valve is there for a reason. The secondary
relief may be the boiler wall.
Michael
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Sometimes You Get Yourself Into A Situation . . . |
23 Dec 2006 10:53:09 AM |
|
|
Herman Family wrote:
"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1166840177.758887.120710@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
. . . and you have no choice but to tie down the relief valve on the
steam boat boiler. That's your only hope.
We are in just such a situation.
Bret Cahill
Don't do that. The relief valve is there for a reason. The secondary
relief may be the boiler wall.
Both are impossible,
Since the only thing the idiot chip industry
is more igorant of than how boliers work
is how cruise missiles find boliers,
Michael
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Sometimes You Get Yourself Into A Situation . . . |
23 Dec 2006 01:07:29 AM |
|
|
"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message =
news:1166840177.758887.120710@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
|. . . and you have no choice but to tie down the relief valve on the
| steam boat boiler. That's your only hope.
|=20
| We are in just such a situation.
|=20
|=20
| Bret Cahill
The operation was a success but the patient died.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Romain" |
|
| Title: Re: Sometimes You Get Yourself Into A Situation . . . |
23 Dec 2006 09:23:39 AM |
|
|
Have someone let us know when to post your name up on the Darwin Awards
page...
Mike
Bret Cahill wrote:
. . . and you have no choice but to tie down the relief valve on the
steam boat boiler. That's your only hope.
We are in just such a situation.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: Sometimes You Get Yourself Into A Situation . . . |
23 Dec 2006 03:40:46 PM |
|
|
Have someone let us know when to post your name up on the Darwin Awards
page...
The "idiots deserve to die" mentality is generally _opposed_ to tort
litigation which tends to be paternalistic. Recently some idiots
climbed over a fence clearly marked "No Trespassing" and "High Voltage"
and got electrocuted in a substation. They sued and won. A lot of
people were outraged at the verdict.
I was indifferent.
Anyway, I never suggested I'd develop unsafe technology myself -- I
have no personal conflicts of interest on this issue -- just that it
was now necessary to cast a much larger net for tech breakthroughs for
humanity to survive.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Romain" |
|
| Title: Re: Sometimes You Get Yourself Into A Situation . . . |
23 Dec 2006 04:14:44 PM |
|
|
Bret Cahill wrote:
Have someone let us know when to post your name up on the Darwin Awards
page...
The "idiots deserve to die" mentality is generally _opposed_ to tort
litigation which tends to be paternalistic. Recently some idiots
climbed over a fence clearly marked "No Trespassing" and "High Voltage"
and got electrocuted in a substation. They sued and won. A lot of
people were outraged at the verdict.
I was indifferent.
Anyway, I never suggested I'd develop unsafe technology myself -- I
have no personal conflicts of interest on this issue -- just that it
was now necessary to cast a much larger net for tech breakthroughs for
humanity to survive.
Bret Cahill
My reader showed this post to be the start of a new thread because it
sorts by date.
I was not following any other, your point was missed.
Mike
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Bruder" |
|
| Title: Re: Sometimes You Get Yourself Into A Situation . . . |
23 Dec 2006 10:31:51 AM |
|
|
In article <458D49FB.D2BA3EAF@sympatico.ca>,
Mike Romain <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote:
Have someone let us know when to post your name up on the Darwin Awards
page...
Mike
Bret Cahill wrote:
. . . and you have no choice but to tie down the relief valve on the
steam boat boiler. That's your only hope.
We are in just such a situation.
Bret Cahill
I believe he's referring to his tort-reform concept (namely "cap all
claims") and how it's one of those "Yeah, it ain't the best solution,
but it's the only one that looks like it has even a slim chance".
Not literally sealing the relief valve of a real-world steamboat - More
along the lines of "OK, we're in the middle of nowhere, and we're going
to stay here 'cause that damned valve keeps popping - It may not be the
RIGHT way, but it's the only currently PRACTICAL way to get us home, so
nail that puppy shut".
And I have to agree with him - Unchecked lawsuits are killing this
country - the only "winners" are the lawyers. The rest of us are losing
our collective asses to the increased costs that we have to soak up for
every bajillion-dollar award that gets handed out. Almost always at the
instigation of some shyster lawyer - "Oh, you dumped hot coffee in your
lap and burned your little cooter? SUE SOMEBODY! Don't believe the
reality that you're a braindead fuckup that shouldn't be allowed to
breed - Look for whoever has the deepest pockets, and see how much you
can squeeze out of them for the misery you inflicted on yourself by
being a dumbass! And make sure to hand me a 40% cut of whatever you get!"
It's time to "seal the valve" by putting a cap on how much "pain and
suffering" is worth - In particular, how much it's worth to the lawyers.
--
Don Bruder - - If your "From:" address isn't on my whitelist,
or the subject of the message doesn't contain the exact text "PopperAndShadow"
somewhere, any message sent to this address will go in the garbage without my
ever knowing it arrived. Sorry... <http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd> for more info
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Penrose" |
|
| Title: Re: Tort Caps On Renewable Tech Tragedies |
20 Dec 2006 07:22:16 PM |
|
|
Bret Cahill wrote:
I'm generally opposed to "tort reform" for a lot of reasons but one
exception needs to be carved out for humanity to survive:
If someone's supercap or Li ion battery explodes, trial lawyers will
never see more than $100K per head.
When the law of the land is up for sale to the highest bidder, you have
to expect this.
People got what they voted for, and no new Congress will be able, or
have the will, to straighten it all out.
Is that $100k punitive or total award?
Sooner or later, two people will be listening to the same cell phone
when it blows up. What will the courts do with two plaintiffs.
Or better yet, if one cell phone battery explodes and brings down a
plane or burns a high-end private school, what then? Will the survivors
of all the little spawn of the elite have to split the $100K?
Dangerous Bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: Tort Caps On Renewable Tech Tragedies |
20 Dec 2006 10:09:34 PM |
|
|
I'm generally opposed to "tort reform" for a lot of reasons but one
exception needs to be carved out for humanity to survive:
If someone's supercap or Li ion battery explodes, trial lawyers will
never see more than $100K per head.
When the law of the land is up for sale to the highest bidder, you have
to expect this.
People got what they voted for, and no new Congress will be able, or
have the will, to straighten it all out.
Is that $100k punitive or total award?
That's the maximum the _lawyers_ can get.
If a jury wants to give the victims/survivors a billion dollars, then
they'll have to be persuaded by a more public spirited [less greedy]
lawyer than the Hammer.
Sooner or later, two people will be listening to the same cell phone
when it blows up. What will the courts do with two plaintiffs.
Or better yet, if one cell phone battery explodes and brings down a
plane or burns a high-end private school, what then? Will the survivors
of all the little spawn of the elite have to split the $100K?
The computer industry grew up in 30 years in part because the worst
calamity that could happen was someone blowing a chip. Torts weren't
an issue.
We have about the same amount of time to get almost entirely off oil.
Energy isn't like info processing, however. Blowing a 60 farad
capacitor is a bigger issue than blowing an 8080A.
The proper way to drain the nonsense out of tort awards is to level
wealth. Then the trial lawyers have no poor for juries and no deep
pockets to sue. Tort reform is then no longer necessary.
But we might not have time for that.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Tort Caps On Renewable Tech Tragedies |
23 Dec 2006 09:37:50 AM |
|
|
Bret Cahill wrote:
I'm generally opposed to "tort reform" for a lot of reasons but one
exception needs to be carved out for humanity to survive:
If someone's supercap or Li ion battery explodes, trial lawyers will
never see more than $100K per head.
When the law of the land is up for sale to the highest bidder, you have
to expect this.
People got what they voted for, and no new Congress will be able, or
have the will, to straighten it all out.
Is that $100k punitive or total award?
That's the maximum the _lawyers_ can get.
If a jury wants to give the victims/survivors a billion dollars, then
they'll have to be persuaded by a more public spirited [less greedy]
lawyer than the Hammer.
Sooner or later, two people will be listening to the same cell phone
when it blows up. What will the courts do with two plaintiffs.
Or better yet, if one cell phone battery explodes and brings down a
plane or burns a high-end private school, what then? Will the survivors
of all the little spawn of the elite have to split the $100K?
The computer industry grew up in 30 years in part because the worst
calamity that could happen was someone blowing a chip. Torts weren't
an issue.
We have about the same amount of time to get almost entirely off oil.
Energy isn't like info processing, however. Blowing a 60 farad
capacitor is a bigger issue than blowing an 8080A.
The proper way to drain the nonsense out of tort awards is to level
wealth. Then the trial lawyers have no poor for juries and no deep
pockets to sue. Tort reform is then no longer necessary.
But tort reform is moving ahead extremely rapidly
because of the idiot computer industry,
Since they're just i as greedy as
any other industry. And so the syncopated
legal cranks just had to invent DVD's. MP-3
and mini-cams to go along with the chips,
But we might not have time for that.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roger Blake" |
|
| Title: Re: Tort Caps On Renewable Tech Tragedies |
22 Dec 2006 11:25:46 PM |
|
|
In article <1166674174.031975.96460@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com>, Bret Cahill wrote:
We have about the same amount of time to get almost entirely off oil.
ROTFL! You must be extremely young and stoopid. I've been hearing
nonsense about "running out of oil in 20-30 years" for the last
50 years, at least.
--
Roger Blake
(Subtract 10 for email.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "hanson" |
|
| Title: Re: Tort Caps On Renewable Tech Tragedies |
23 Dec 2006 12:38:52 AM |
|
|
"Roger Blake" <rogblake10@iname10.com> wrote in message
news:slrneopffe.dhc.rogblake10@moog.netaxs.com...
Bret Cahill wrote in
<1166674174.031975.96460@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com>, :
We have about the same amount of time to get almost entirely off oil.
[Blake]
ROTFL! You must be extremely young and stoopid. I've been hearing
nonsense about "running out of oil in 20-30 years" for the last
50 years, at least.
Roger Blake
[hanson]
ahahaha.. yeah, you are right, Blake. The green shits have that
strange paranioa, especially the class 3 enviros who do the
bidding of the class 1 & 2 greenies AND HELP the oil boys
to raise the oil price... ahahaha... Little do these little green idiots
know that this oil game is going to be played for a very long time
to come. VERY LONG.... ahahaha... Even if the oil prices reach a
level where alternative green fuels become competetive the fossil
***oil boys will still be in control ***... ahahaha... See in here, how:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/2084d8f1e6393226
wherein chem 101 shows that "no EARLIER than in 150'000 years
from now will all the fossil carbon be burned off..... ahahaha.....
ahahaha...
But remember, the greenies operate according to the green bible
that says:
= "It doesn't matter what is true ... it only matters what people
= believe is true ... -- Paul Watson, Greenpeace, and ......
= "A lot of environmental [sci/soc/pol] messages are simply not
= accurate. We use hype." -- Jerry Franklin, Ecologist, UoW, and...
= "We make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little
= mention of any doubts we may have [about] being honest."
= -- Stephen Schneider (Stanford prof. who first sought fame as
= a global cooler, but has now hit the big time as a global warmer)
---- & the Green Scam they sponge off/from as seen in -----
Modern, attributal definitions of enviro classifications:
========= enviro Class (1) --- the Green *****(s):
....are the ones who advocate, promote, support, legalize,
institute and extort the permit charges, the user fees, the
enviro surtaxes and the CO2/Carbon tax, all reflected in
HIGHER PRICES of goods and services!, ...and being
responsible for much of the OUT-SOURCING!
========= enviro Class (2) -- the Green turd(s):
.... are the ones who are recipients and beneficiaries from
the lootings of (1), directly or indirectly.
========= enviro Class (3) -- the Little green idiot(s):
... are the unpaid, well-meaning ones who think they do
something for the "environment", when in fact they are only
the enablers and facilitators for (2) who are harvesting the
green $$$ that (1) has extorted.
---------- Views after 40 years of green criminality --------
=1= In June 05 USDA/FDA aired/published that they will
no longer endorse green products that are labeled "organic"!
=2= The FBI and Homeland Security/DHS has declared
enviros to be the number one terrorist threat to the nation.
=3= Myriads of good, rational & HARD WORKING folks had
enough from environmentalism and began to raise their voices
as did E. Gisin in news:d8j4df01n0o@enews1.newsguy.com...
wherein it sounds like this: "Fucking greens should be shot...."
ahahahaha... BTW, do copy and use these above clarifications
often and profusely. There is no permit charge or user fee
associated with it. and nobody will accuse you of plagiarism.
It's a free public service announcement... Use it. Have fun!
....and as an encore do never forget that
= Pure politics is driving dozens of public health issues, notably
= global warming, green *****, tobacco & meds now. Great lies
= in service for/of a "noble cause" do trump now truth & fact.
=
= Enviros use the same great lies of yore. Only the color changed.
= (A) Environmentalism is Communism in Green...
= (B) Environmentalism is Nazism in Green...
= (C) Environmentalism makes the Poor poorer and the Rich richer.
Environmentalism is nothing but green pornography,
pimped by green orgs like NRDC, Sierra club, Green *****, etc.,
whored and hookered by green bureaucrats from EPA down,
johned, pole- and lapdanced by the hordes of little green idiots
and paid for by extorting the money from hardworking taxpayers.
Environmentalism is a malignant, parasitic socio-pathology,
promulgated by opportunistic ex-communists and misogynic,
unemployable perverts, who have succeeded in generating
enviro taxes, permit fees and user surcharges, from which these
useless, enviro-pushers and eco-fanatics draw their welfare checks
and demand grants to generate more enviro *****.
Now then, you green mooches, do you finally get it?
ahahahaha... ahahahanson
ref 32 gr lopez
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Tort Caps On Renewable Tech Tragedies |
23 Dec 2006 01:33:19 AM |
|
|
"Roger Blake" <rogblake10@iname10.com> wrote in message =
news:slrneopffe.dhc.rogblake10@moog.netaxs.com...
| In article <1166674174.031975.96460@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com>, Bret =
Cahill wrote:
| > We have about the same amount of time to get almost entirely off =
oil.
|=20
| ROTFL! You must be extremely young and stoopid. I've been hearing
| nonsense about "running out of oil in 20-30 years" for the last
| 50 years, at least.
|=20
| --=20
| Roger Blake
| (Subtract 10 for email.)
Hmm.... well, I certainly remember "coal gas" or "town gas"
and I'm hearing we are now running out of North Sea methane=20
which it was anticipated would last 12 years when it was introduced.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Tort Caps On Renewable Tech Tragedies |
21 Dec 2006 08:59:38 AM |
|
|
The lawyers typically try to work both sides of the streets, and I have
little respect for
them.
What happens if one of these batteries blows up in the cabin of a 747 over
the Atlantic,
or in baggage in the hold?
A billion dollars wont bring back a loved one any more that a hundred
thousand...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ted Mittelstaedt" |
|
| Title: Re: Tort Caps On Renewable Tech Tragedies |
22 Dec 2006 04:29:01 AM |
|
|
<HLS@nospam.nix> wrote in message
news:voxih.1367$x67.791@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net...
The lawyers typically try to work both sides of the streets, and I have
little respect for
them.
What happens if one of these batteries blows up in the cabin of a 747 over
the Atlantic,
or in baggage in the hold?
A billion dollars wont bring back a loved one any more that a hundred
thousand...
What the ***** are you dumb idiots talking about?
The only Li-Ion batteries that explode are the ones that use cobalt
oxide.
The new generation of Li-Ion batteries use Saphion and can't
explode. Those are the batteries used in the Segway, for example.
Ted
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: Tort Caps On Renewable Tech Tragedies |
22 Dec 2006 06:15:07 AM |
|
|
The new generation of Li-Ion batteries use Saphion and can't
explode. Those are the batteries used in the Segway, for example.
Over the life of the battery, they cost over 10 cents / mile in an EV
and that doesn't include the energy necessary to recharge the battery.
We can't afford that.
We need to do some cost-benefit risk analysis. The benefit of some
trial lawyers getting rich off of a few tragedies just isn't worth the
risk of losing humanity.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ted Mittelstaedt" |
|
| Title: Re: Tort Caps On Renewable Tech Tragedies |
24 Dec 2006 01:21:44 AM |
|
|
"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1166789707.568428.190830@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
The new generation of Li-Ion batteries use Saphion and can't
explode. Those are the batteries used in the Segway, for example.
Over the life of the battery, they cost over 10 cents / mile in an EV
and that doesn't include the energy necessary to recharge the battery.
We can't afford that.
Absolute rubbish.
Right now people's lifestyles in the United States are utterly dependent on
the availability of quick, inexpensive, vehicle travel.
A century ago when the country was run on horseback, it wasn't this
way. When the average person had to go out and unhitch the horse from
the plow so they could ride to town, their lifestyles were not dependent
on quick, inexpensive vehicle travel. They MIGHT HAVE been dependent
on some way on vehicle travel, but not to the extent they are today.
If the cost of vehicle travel increases greatly to that 10 cents a mile
level that you claim is unaffordable, then it will do it gradually. And
people's lifestyles will change, to adapt.
Fundamentally, the only difference between a vehicle power source and
a power source for a home or office is that a vehicle power source is
required to be mobile. We have lots of cheap ways of generating power,
like electrical generation, that pretty much depend on the generator and
the consumer being stationary. What we don't have are cheap ways of
storing power in a mobile form, of the energy density that liquid gasoline
has. We have expensive ways of doing it - alcohol, hydrogen, batteries,
etc. but not cheap ways.
So, in the next 20 or 50 or 100 years that we have the cheap mobile form
of power available - gasoline - we will all have lifestyles heavily
dependent
on cheap vehicle travel, and if we want to maintain that, we will have to
invent a cheap replacement. If we can't do it, then we will then have to
change our lifestyle to accomodate an expensive mobile form of power,
for vehicles, and we will indeed do that. It might be that we all end up
spending a lot more time a lot closer to home, and end up walking
all over the place or taking electric trolleys or some such, but people have
had 3-4 thousand years of experience living like this, and only about
a century of experience living with the high mobility that cheap gasoline
has brought.
Ted
PS Here's an example of how rediculous things are. 2 weeks ago I
accidentally got my car locked into a downtown parking garage at midnight.
I elected to simply walk the 50 blocks from downtown to my home on
the east side. It took an hour. When I got home my wife couldn't
understand why I hadn't called a cab. Why in the hell would I do that?
It was only an hour of walking!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: Tort Caps On Renewable Tech Tragedies |
25 Dec 2006 10:27:01 AM |
|
|
The new generation of Li-Ion batteries use Saphion and can't
explode. Those are the batteries used in the Segway, for example.
Over the life of the battery, they cost over 10 cents / mile in an EV
and that doesn't include the energy necessary to recharge the battery.
We can't afford that.
Absolute rubbish.
Nope. I just checked my wallet.
Right now people's lifestyles in the United States are utterly dependent on
the availability of quick, inexpensive, vehicle travel.
The entire infrastructure is based on cheap transportation.
A century ago when the country was run on horseback, it wasn't this
way. When the average person had to go out and unhitch the horse from
the plow so they could ride to town, their lifestyles were not dependent
on quick, inexpensive vehicle travel. They MIGHT HAVE been dependent
on some way on vehicle travel, but not to the extent they are today.
They didn't have 8 billion people on the planet back then.
If the cost of vehicle travel increases greatly to that 10 cents a mile
level that you claim is unaffordable, then it will do it gradually.
It will happen over the next decade or so, faster than the info age
revolution.
And
people's lifestyles will change, to adapt.
The political system cannot even adapt to the _beneficial_ changes of
_cheap_ information. The national Democratic Party, for example, still
behaves as though the _New York Times_ is still influential politically
when it won't even exist in 10 years.
What is expensive transportation going to do to the system? It's
_already_ got us into a geo quagmire. Supposing the next
administration is even crazier than Cheney/Bush and decides to steal
_Russia's_ oil?
Fundamentally, the only difference between a vehicle power source and
a power source for a home or office is that a vehicle power source is
required to be mobile.
That's a _big_ difference.
We have lots of cheap ways of generating power,
like electrical generation, that pretty much depend on the generator and
the consumer being stationary. What we don't have are cheap ways of
storing power in a mobile form, of the energy density that liquid gasoline
has. We have expensive ways of doing it - alcohol, hydrogen, batteries,
etc. but not cheap ways.
That's the problem. The solution is to cap tort awards in renewable
technology tragedies.
So, in the next 20 or 50 or 100 years that we have the cheap mobile form
of power available - gasoline -
There won't be a drop of oil left in 40 years. Long before then most
humans won't be able to afford it.
We need this situation addressed _yesterday_.
We really should have become frantic several decades ago.
we will all have lifestyles heavily
dependent
on cheap vehicle travel, and if we want to maintain that, we will have to
invent a cheap replacement.
We need to cast as large a net as possible for new technology.
If we can't do it, then we will then have to
change our lifestyle to accomodate an expensive mobile form of power,
for vehicles, and we will indeed do that.
You are looking at all kinds of opportunities demagogues, political
strife.
It might be that we all end up
spending a lot more time a lot closer to home,
You still need to get the produce and the people to the market.
and end up walking
all over the place
That takes up more fuel in the form of energy required to produce food
than driving a SUV.
Going back in time is _not_ fuel efficient. Boeing's Dreamliner will
get 125 passenger miles / gallon -- more than any moped, more than any
cyclist when you consider modern food production and distribution is
energy intensive.
or taking electric trolleys or some such,
Mass transportation is almost as inflexible as the American commuter.
but people have
had 3-4 thousand years of experience living like this,
To expect modern humans to be able to go back in time and live on
acorns and bark . . . that's Hollywood.
The countryside would be stripped bare in weeks, even assuming it was
politically acceptable.
and only about
a century of experience living with the high mobility that cheap gasoline
has brought.
We're oil leveraged out on Malthus' limb with no way back.
PS Here's an example of how rediculous things are. 2 weeks ago I
accidentally got my car locked into a downtown parking garage at midnight.
I elected to simply walk the 50 blocks from downtown to my home on
the east side. It took an hour. When I got home my wife couldn't
understand why I hadn't called a cab. Why in the hell would I do that?
It was only an hour of walking!
It would have been a smaller impact on the oil supply if you called a
cab.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eeyore" |
|
| Title: Re: Tort Caps On Renewable Tech Tragedies |
24 Dec 2006 04:28:08 AM |
|
|
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message
The new generation of Li-Ion batteries use Saphion and can't
explode. Those are the batteries used in the Segway, for example.
Over the life of the battery, they cost over 10 cents / mile in an EV
and that doesn't include the energy necessary to recharge the battery.
We can't afford that.
Absolute rubbish.
Actually 10c / mile sounds pretty good.
Graham
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nate Nagel" |
|
| Title: Re: Tort Caps On Renewable Tech Tragedies |
24 Dec 2006 02:59:06 AM |
|
|
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1166789707.568428.190830@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
The new generation of Li-Ion batteries use Saphion and can't
explode. Those are the batteries used in the Segway, for example.
Over the life of the battery, they cost over 10 cents / mile in an EV
and that doesn't include the energy necessary to recharge the battery.
We can't afford that.
Absolute rubbish.
Right now people's lifestyles in the United States are utterly dependent on
the availability of quick, inexpensive, vehicle travel.
A century ago when the country was run on horseback, it wasn't this
way. When the average person had to go out and unhitch the horse from
the plow so they could ride to town, their lifestyles were not dependent
on quick, inexpensive vehicle travel. They MIGHT HAVE been dependent
on some way on vehicle travel, but not to the extent they are today.
If the cost of vehicle travel increases greatly to that 10 cents a mile
level that you claim is unaffordable, then it will do it gradually. And
people's lifestyles will change, to adapt.
Fundamentally, the only difference between a vehicle power source and
a power source for a home or office is that a vehicle power source is
required to be mobile. We have lots of cheap ways of generating power,
like electrical generation, that pretty much depend on the generator and
the consumer being stationary. What we don't have are cheap ways of
storing power in a mobile form, of the energy density that liquid gasoline
has. We have expensive ways of doing it - alcohol, hydrogen, batteries,
etc. but not cheap ways.
So, in the next 20 or 50 or 100 years that we have the cheap mobile form
of power available - gasoline - we will all have lifestyles heavily
dependent
on cheap vehicle travel, and if we want to maintain that, we will have to
invent a cheap replacement. If we can't do it, then we will then have to
change our lifestyle to accomodate an expensive mobile form of power,
for vehicles, and we will indeed do that. It might be that we all end up
spending a lot more time a lot closer to home, and end up walking
all over the place or taking electric trolleys or some such, but people have
had 3-4 thousand years of experience living like this, and only about
a century of experience living with the high mobility that cheap gasoline
has brought.
Ted
PS Here's an example of how rediculous things are. 2 weeks ago I
accidentally got my car locked into a downtown parking garage at midnight.
I elected to simply walk the 50 blocks from downtown to my home on
the east side. It took an hour. When I got home my wife couldn't
understand why I hadn't called a cab. Why in the hell would I do that?
It was only an hour of walking!
Well, depending on where you are that could be 4-5 miles; a lot of
people simply aren't in shape to walk that far! (sad, but there you
have it.) But more importantly "the east side" of any city seems to be
the less desirable area, maybe your wife had some concern about you
walking through a "bad" neighborhood? I've done it before, but now that
I can afford to ride, I'd prefer not to have to walk through my local
open air crack market to get home :(
nate
--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ted Mittelstaedt" |
|
| Title: Re: Tort Caps On Renewable Tech Tragedies |
25 Dec 2006 01:29:06 AM |
|
|
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel@flycast.net> wrote in message
news:emlg1b02vm1@news2.newsguy.com...
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1166789707.568428.190830@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
The new generation of Li-Ion batteries use Saphion and can't
explode. Those are the batteries used in the Segway, for example.
Over the life of the battery, they cost over 10 cents / mile in an EV
and that doesn't include the energy necessary to recharge the battery.
We can't afford that.
Absolute rubbish.
Right now people's lifestyles in the United States are utterly dependent
on
the availability of quick, inexpensive, vehicle travel.
A century ago when the country was run on horseback, it wasn't this
way. When the average person had to go out and unhitch the horse from
the plow so they could ride to town, their lifestyles were not dependent
on quick, inexpensive vehicle travel. They MIGHT HAVE been dependent
on some way on vehicle travel, but not to the extent they are today.
If the cost of vehicle travel increases greatly to that 10 cents a mile
level that you claim is unaffordable, then it will do it gradually. And
people's lifestyles will change, to adapt.
Fundamentally, the only difference between a vehicle power source and
a power source for a home or office is that a vehicle power source is
required to be mobile. We have lots of cheap ways of generating power,
like electrical generation, that pretty much depend on the generator and
the consumer being stationary. What we don't have are cheap ways of
storing power in a mobile form, of the energy density that liquid
gasoline
has. We have expensive ways of doing it - alcohol, hydrogen, batteries,
etc. but not cheap ways.
So, in the next 20 or 50 or 100 years that we have the cheap mobile form
of power available - gasoline - we will all have lifestyles heavily
dependent
on cheap vehicle travel, and if we want to maintain that, we will have
to
invent a cheap replacement. If we can't do it, then we will then have
to
change our lifestyle to accomodate an expensive mobile form of power,
for vehicles, and we will indeed do that. It might be that we all end
up
spending a lot more time a lot closer to home, and end up walking
all over the place or taking electric trolleys or some such, but people
have
had 3-4 thousand years of experience living like this, and only about
a century of experience living with the high mobility that cheap
gasoline
has brought.
Ted
PS Here's an example of how rediculous things are. 2 weeks ago I
accidentally got my car locked into a downtown parking garage at
midnight.
I elected to simply walk the 50 blocks from downtown to my home on
the east side. It took an hour. When I got home my wife couldn't
understand why I hadn't called a cab. Why in the hell would I do that?
It was only an hour of walking!
Well, depending on where you are that could be 4-5 miles; a lot of
people simply aren't in shape to walk that far! (sad, but there you
have it.) But more importantly "the east side" of any city seems to be
the less desirable area, maybe your wife had some concern about you
walking through a "bad" neighborhood? I've done it before, but now that
I can afford to ride, I'd prefer not to have to walk through my local
open air crack market to get home :(
Well, I was wearing a black leather jacket at the time, that might have
helped.
I've walked through some bad areas before, never been bothered,
except by panhandlers asking for money (never say yes, of course).
Generally the trick is to keep your head up and don't make eye contact,
keep moving, and wear grey or black, preferably bulky garmets. A
leather jacket over a sweater works well, or a thick coat. That kind
of clothing can easily hide a weapon and the crooks generally don't want
to take a risk when there's easier targets available.
Being a women skimpily dressed, or a middle-aged male loitering
around in a suit with a bewildered axpression on his face is definitely
the wrong approach. And of course, say nothing to nobody. When
you start talking to the people loitering around these areas, some of
them may be dealers looking to sell drugs and if they get the idea
that your looking to buy, your going to be in trouble.
Ted
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Tort Caps On Renewable Tech Tragedies |
24 Dec 2006 08:06:50 AM |
|
|
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1166789707.568428.190830@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
The new generation of Li-Ion batteries use Saphion and can't
explode. Those are the batteries used in the Segway, for example.
Over the life of the battery, they cost over 10 cents / mile in an EV
and that doesn't include the energy necessary to recharge the battery.
We can't afford that.
Absolute rubbish.
Right now people's lifestyles in the United States are utterly dependent on
the availability of quick, inexpensive, vehicle travel.
A century ago when the country was run on horseback, it wasn't this
way. When the average person had to go out and unhitch the horse from
the plow so they could ride to town, their lifestyles were not dependent
on quick, inexpensive vehicle travel. They MIGHT HAVE been dependent
on some way on vehicle travel, but not to the extent they are today.
If the cost of vehicle travel increases greatly to that 10 cents a mile
level that you claim is unaffordable, then it will do it gradually. And
people's lifestyles will change, to adapt.
Fundamentally, the only difference between a vehicle power source and
a power source for a home or office is that a vehicle power source is
required to be mobile. We have lots of cheap ways of generating power,
like electrical generation, that pretty much depend on the generator and
the consumer being stationary. What we don't have are cheap ways of
storing power in a mobile form, of the energy density that liquid gasoline
has. We have expensive ways of doing it - alcohol, hydrogen, batteries,
etc. but not cheap ways.
So, in the next 20 or 50 or 100 years that we have the cheap mobile form
of power available - gasoline - we will all have lifestyles heavily
dependent
on cheap vehicle travel, and if we want to maintain that, we will have to
invent a cheap replacement. If we can't do it, then we will then have to
change our lifestyle to accomodate an expensive mobile form of power,
for vehicles, and we will indeed do that. It might be that we all end up
spending a lot more time a lot closer to home, and end up walking
all over the place or taking electric trolleys or some such, but people have
had 3-4 thousand years of experience living like this, and only about
a century of experience living with the high mobility that cheap gasoline
has brought.
Ted
PS Here's an example of how rediculous things are. 2 weeks ago I
accidentally got my car locked into a downtown parking garage at midnight.
I elected to simply walk the 50 blocks from downtown to my home on
the east side. It took an hour. When I got home my wife couldn't
understand why I hadn't called a cab. Why in the hell would I do that?
It was only an hour of walking!
Well, that's a problem with the Democrats, not cars,
Since we invented automatic transmissions for highways and
racetracks,
not downtown morgues,
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eeyore" |
|
| Title: Re: Tort Caps On Renewable Tech Tragedies |
22 Dec 2006 05:16:00 AM |
|
|
wrote:
The lawyers typically try to work both sides of the streets, and I have
little respect for them.
What happens if one of these batteries blows up in the cabin of a 747 over
the Atlantic, or in baggage in the hold?
It'll be blamed on Al Qaeda of course !
Heck, there's nothing better than setting up a fall guy to take the rap is there
?
Graham
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Tort Caps On Renewable Tech Tragedies |
22 Dec 2006 05:47:01 AM |
|
|
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:458BBE70.7E951A5B@hotmail.com...
HLS@nospam.nix wrote:
The lawyers typically try to work both sides of the streets, and I have
little respect for them.
What happens if one of these batteries blows up in the cabin of a 747
over
the Atlantic, or in baggage in the hold?
It'll be blamed on Al Qaeda of course !
Heck, there's nothing better than setting up a fall guy to take the rap is
there
I dont know if there is any risk or not, but have wondered about it. There
have been documented
cases of cell phone batteries bursting into flames, and there are lots of
cell phones on board
commercial aircraft.
Also this issue with the computer batteries that can fail catastrophically
have been of some
concern. I have a relatively new Dell that came with the batteries in
question.
What may not be an emergency in normal situations can become one on a
transcontinental flight.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Niggers, while aches hatefully cover desks, the caps often receive within the light floors, Mustached Pinhead.
kinda off topic, 450000 uF caps on e-bay
Why I don't like Niggers, a lot of worthwhile caps judge Perry, and they incredibly behave Gavin too, Detestable Bimbo.
Black African Niggaboos, it's very blunt today, I'll play gently or Stephanie will smell the caps, Horny Sloppy Punk.
E-MAIL DOMENICI RE RENEWABLE ENERGY
Renewable h2o2 + aluminum or + fossil/synfuel
Re: A Whole Bunch of Stuff on Renewable Energy
Renewable may not be a good idea.
| FUTURE OF RENEWABLE ENERGY IS NOW
26 vacancies in the renewable sector posted in the last 6 days.
Renewable energy wrecks environment
Renewable energy payback is better than interest fromha money in the banks
What about compressed air cylinders to store renewable energy ?
Mook's Skylon @125 meters, using his 100% renewable LH2/LOx
Most Renewable ICE Bang/kg, at the least CO2 and zero NOx
|
|
|
