America Could Go Fully Electric Right Now

[Meredith Poor + 883]

5 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Meredith, you seem to know a lot about economics. What do you think about inflation in America. Some think that it is hidden by changes to the formulas, used by our government, to pay Social Security and quote inflation rates etc. I recently read an article stating that real inflation has been 10% a year. 

It seems to be that most of the inflation comes from government spending and consumers paying the taxes. I realize that the wealthy pay most of the taxes, at least by percentage rate, but the middle class often seems to pay for the government, at all levels, and for the poor. In many states this is all coming to a head with the cities and states not able to pay government employees retirements and medical benefits. Those are benefits that most private employees do not get in an equal amount or, in many cases, get nothing at all except for minimal  Social Security or welfare benefits.

The levels of government and taxes include Federal, state, county, city utilities taxes, property taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, schools and universities, and various community taxes. 

The US Federal Government situation is unique since it 'prints the money'. A lot of states and municipalities have woefully underfunded their pensions in order to keep taxpayers happy. This ends up at the doorstep of the Federal Government in various ways. Often the feds end up paying the pensions, although not directly. They simply fund other areas of local government operations so that those monies are freed up to pay pensions.

Government spending on higher education is inflationary. As long as the government guarantees loans, universities compete to get students, and therefore they bloat their campuses with fancy facilities. They also hire all kinds of staff to deal with 'special case' situations or students with various challenges.

A lot of other government spending is definitely not inflationary. A lot of their contracts are negotiated to be 'best prices possible', which on a volume buy is lower than typical wholesale costs. This is for the run of the mill stuff like cars, office buildings, etc.

Where it gets interesting is defense. The conventional wisdom is that the US military has to be 'prepared for any eventuality'. What is actually happening is that defense procurement 'is the war'. The US develops a program such as the F-35 or the USS Gerald Ford with rafts of fancy technology. These are so expensive that any other country that tries to match it will be bankrupted. Some of the more visible projects may well be designed to divert the resources of countries like China and Russia from 'real' improvements - if we have a carrier then they have to have a carrier, even if these are about as useful as battleships in WW II. This may result in a lot of money being spent, but the wages paid to workers may remain in line with wages paid by private enterprises.

[Meredith Poor + 883]

38 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

There is no "free" land in Alberta.  Available sure, but not cheap.

 

When I use the word 'free', I mean available to put to better use, not necessarily that someone can have it for nothing.

There are some towns that offer 'free' land in Canada, if you're willing to build a $250,000 house on it within three years.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

Just now, Meredith Poor said:

When I use the word 'free', I mean available to put to better use, not necessarily that someone can have it for nothing.

There are some towns that offer 'free' land in Canada, if you're willing to build a $250,000 house on it within three years.

Homesteading and reclamation of vacant property is a route to land ownership, but far from free.

[Meredith Poor + 883]

42 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

You would like the fools who think collecting no taxes will lead to prosperity. 

Uncontrolled deficits are not the route to prosperity.  You are correct that the average American lives a life beyond their means. It will come bite them in the ass yet again when the banks foreclose and the wealthy suck up properties for cheap.  Continual living beyond your means will further exacerbate wealth disparity.  The US does service it's debt and pays huge amount of interest.

Credit cards are not wealth.

 

"You are correct that the average American lives a life beyond their means." I never said that. You are interpreting something differently from what I said.

There are Americans that live beyond their means. However, the country as a whole is asset heavy. "A household in the U.S. has an average net worth of $692,100, according to the most recent data from the Federal Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finances."

A lot of dollars end up in 'black holes'. I make this point elsewhere, but I'll repeat it here. The Bank of China and Bank of Japan have $1 trillion each in US debt instruments. The only way we can 'pay them back' is to run a trade surplus of $1 trillion over some period of time, so we take in more dollars than we disburse. Doing so would cost Chinese (and Japanese) workers $1 trillion each in income, so running such a surplus is unlikely.

Similarly, Apple, Berkshire, and a number of other companies have huge cash piles from decades of profits. They have no idea how to spend those earnings, so they sit on them.

$1.5 trillion in $100 bills is 'unaccounted for' - the US Treasury has no idea where they are. It's likely they're in the hands of drug lords in various hideaways. This money will probably never circulate in the US economy again.

One 'solution' to this, to the extent that it's possible, is to tax 'excessive' wealth. What this means is cash piles that are over $1 billion and over 15 years old. This would reduce the 'deficit' by the taxed amount, and drain the global economy of cash hoardings. This would eventually cause interest rates to rise - at present there is so much cash 'sitting on the sidelines' that anything that makes money is instantly grabbed.

The US government may pay interest, but it isn't at a very high rate, and the rate is getting closer to zero all the time.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

4 minutes ago, Meredith Poor said:

$1.5 trillion in $100 bills is 'unaccounted for' - the US Treasury has no idea where they are. It's likely they're in the hands of drug lords in various hideaways. This money will probably never circulate in the US economy again.

Pablo Escobar apparently lost huge amounts of money due to rats eating his stockpiles of cash.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

30 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

Homesteading and reclamation of vacant property is a route to land ownership, but far from free.

You can buy a McMansion on a few acres around here for Decatur, IL for that. Watch out for the taxes though!

[Wombat + 1,028]

12 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

The 'average Joe' does not understand that trade deficits means that some foreign country busts their butt to make things and ship them overseas, while taking IOUs instead of buying imports for their immediate consumption. These IOUs (in the case of the US these are Treasury Bonds) pile up in foreign central banks 'forever'. Americans live in monster houses with two cars in the driveway, while a typical Japanese family lives in a house the size of a US two-car garage. They produce, we consume. We spend, they 'save'. However, there is no point in saving unless you are going to do something with it eventually - like take a vacation. If all anyone does is hoard their cash, they die with a pile of cash under their mattress. This happens a lot in countries that export to the US.

American unions complain that foreign countries 'export their unemployment', which is a correct assertion. The US, however, then uses that labor to build new industries that have no competition. We end up with higher value industries - $999 iPhones instead of $99 televisions.

With a mind-set like that, I see why u call yourself Meredith "POOR"!!!! You seem to have worked out half the problem with persistent large trade deficits, they EXPORT jobs (which undermines and eventually bankrupts a country), but don't seem to understand how a family or a nation builds WEALTH? I take it you are a millenial without children to worry about?

[Wombat + 1,028]

8 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

A 'few years' being from 1970 to 2020. Looks more like a lifetime or two.

Meredith, you need to look at both private and public debt from 1970 to 2020 to understand what myself and footeab are trying to teach you.

[Meredith Poor + 883]

10 hours ago, Wombat said:

they EXPORT jobs (which undermines and eventually bankrupts a country)

You didn't finish reading the post, evidently.

Foreign countries took low paying, low productivity jobs out of the US. The US was left with chip design, aircraft manufacturing, web hosting services, software development, financial services, various kinds of food production, and health care, all of which in one form or another is rocket science. These things earn far higher cash flows and profits. They also require highly educated workers and highly reliable infrastructure, such a power, water, telecommunications, etc. The US 'exported' work that made bad use of American workers. The reason other countries don't 'import' our high earning jobs is either that they aren't physically capable of delivering the goods, or they have cultural or legal restraints on producing what we produce.

[Meredith Poor + 883]

10 hours ago, Wombat said:

Meredith, you need to look at both private and public debt from 1970 to 2020 to understand what myself and footeab are trying to teach you.

What you're trying to teach me is wrong. A country's 'gold' is it's workforce, and what that workforce produces. When people are out of work they are wasting time and losing skills. The point of 'printing' fiat money is that it is issued by the government, circulates over time, and then eventually percolates 'underground' in various 'black holes' and disappears. The Treasury has it on its books as debt, but the money has been 'lost' either literally (from rats as mentioned above), or figuratively in that the people that own it will never spend or invest it.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

On 9/22/2020 at 10:59 AM, Wombat said:

You obviously have not seen this:

https://amp.ft.com/content/9cc1c714-8408-422c-9f4b-1f76f5622021?__twitter_impression=true

I've seen it and Ron even started a topic about it.  To which I just posted the following comment on it:

The aviation industry has fallen into the green trap on emissions and struggles every single day, and spends millions, to keep the crosshairs off of them.  This is no exception.  Airbus knows very well that nothing will come of this, but they also know very well that they can turn this game to their advantage to get otherwise unobtainable subsidies from EU member countries, especially Germany.

Airbus has made HUGE product offering mistakes in the past (A340 & A380) that they are still paying off, or would still be paying off if the government subsidies weren't permanent.  They've paid the fines, after losing lawsuits brought about by Boeing and the U.S. Government for those subsidies, but those fines didn't amount to the cost of 2 A380s, so it was a good trade-off to get the subsidies and pay the fines.

If the greenies are going to shoot for the stars with outlandish regulations, the industry has simply decided that they will also shoot for the stars with their claims of heading for zero emissions.  Take care when reading any headlines about aviation making substantial headway towards any of these green goals.  Carbon offset taxes were forced on airlines flying in/out of Europe some years back and, as many readers on this site already figured out, it turns out that paying those offsets have now become a permanent tax that is passed on to the consumers.  Also, surprise, surprise: the taxes didn't make the emissions go away.  Who knew?  

All you have to do is read between the lines, for example in the article linked in the OP:

(Quote) It cautions however that "this level of fuel production could only be achieved with extremely large capital investments in sustainable aviation fuel production infrastructure,T and substantial policy support."

Faury stressed on Monday that "decisive action from the entire aviation ecosystem" as well as "support from government and industrial partners" will be needed for the company to reach its 2035 target.

The EU aims to become the world's first carbon-neutral region by 2050 and has made hydrogen a cornerstone of its strategy.

Hydrogen is a gas that makes up 75 per cent of the universe and which does not emit any carbon dioxide when used but it is difficult to isolate. A new European Clean Hydrogen Alliance aims to invest €430 billion until 2030 to scale up the hydrogen value chain across the Old Continent.  (End quote)

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

On 9/22/2020 at 11:15 AM, Wombat said:

As I said, the average Joe does not understand the link between persistent trade deficits and countries that go bankrupt. All you need to know is that in order to consume more than you produce in a given year, you must either borrow the difference from foreigners, or sell assets to them. I hope you can figure out the rest

Another way is to get them to buy your debt.  

[ronwagn + 6,290]

43 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

I've seen it and Ron even started a topic about it.  To which I just posted the following comment on it:

The aviation industry has fallen into the green trap on emissions and struggles every single day, and spends millions, to keep the crosshairs off of them.  This is no exception.  Airbus knows very well that nothing will come of this, but they also know very well that they can turn this game to their advantage to get otherwise unobtainable subsidies from EU member countries, especially Germany.

Airbus has made HUGE product offering mistakes in the past (A340 & A380) that they are still paying off, or would still be paying off if the government subsidies weren't permanent.  They've paid the fines, after losing lawsuits brought about by Boeing and the U.S. Government for those subsidies, but those fines didn't amount to the cost of 2 A380s, so it was a good trade-off to get the subsidies and pay the fines.

If the greenies are going to shoot for the stars with outlandish regulations, the industry has simply decided that they will also shoot for the stars with their claims of heading for zero emissions.  Take care when reading any headlines about aviation making substantial headway towards any of these green goals.  Carbon offset taxes were forced on airlines flying in/out of Europe some years back and, as many readers on this site already figured out, it turns out that paying those offsets have now become a permanent tax that is passed on to the consumers.  Also, surprise, surprise: the taxes didn't make the emissions go away.  Who knew?  

All you have to do is read between the lines, for example in the article linked in the OP:

(Quote) It cautions however that "this level of fuel production could only be achieved with extremely large capital investments in sustainable aviation fuel production infrastructure,T and substantial policy support."

Faury stressed on Monday that "decisive action from the entire aviation ecosystem" as well as "support from government and industrial partners" will be needed for the company to reach its 2035 target.

The EU aims to become the world's first carbon-neutral region by 2050 and has made hydrogen a cornerstone of its strategy.

Hydrogen is a gas that makes up 75 per cent of the universe and which does not emit any carbon dioxide when used but it is difficult to isolate. A new European Clean Hydrogen Alliance aims to invest €430 billion until 2030 to scale up the hydrogen value chain across the Old Continent.  (End quote)

On your last paragraph, I would just say what a waste of money! Natural gas is clean enough. LNG is clean, CNG is clean, piped gas is clean! LNG is a nearly perfect fuel for a flying wing design. The airlines are already broke. We will pay the bill. 

l just read that Japan is planning on a hydrogen economy. Let them do it first. Don't get dragged along with stupid ideas or ideas that are not ready for prime time. Especially if your country is already broke. 

Elon Musk is planning a $25,000 car. He has a lot of great ideas and is learning a lot as he deals with the realities of manufacturing. I am now a fan, but wait for three years and see how he is doing and the competition will be following his lead. Do not underestimate the Japanese, South Koreans, Chinese, Europeans, and American competitors though. 

We need to make a greater amount of the content in "American" cars and assemble them here. Ideally make a 100% American car including some that run off of natural gas. Especially pickup trucks and semis. We already have some of the latter and many around the world including small cars. 

 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,132]

6 hours ago, ronwagn said:

On your last paragraph, I would just say what a waste of money! Natural gas is clean enough. LNG is clean, CNG is clean, piped gas is clean! LNG is a nearly perfect fuel for a flying wing design. The airlines are already broke. We will pay the bill.

Sorry, NO!  Emphatically NO!  Now if you wish to argue turning LNG into Kerosene, ok.  Nothing compressed will fly other than half distance of current aircraft.  Horrifically heavy due to tankage alone as it requires 2X the volume even before one talks requirements of the compressed volume stresses, and then you have the problem(overcomeable) of expanding gas at altitude in -80C conditions which must run continuously.  Talk about frost build up/cold soaking problems!  Woah!

EDIT: Fine: Liquefied H2 theoretically can fly as it has 3X the energy density of Kerosene but requires 4X the volume even when liquefied....  Let you find a material which can take the -270C continuous with wing flex, vibrations, for years upon years of reliable cycling.  Good luck

Edited September 24, 2020 by footeab@yahoo.com

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

2 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Sorry, NO!  Emphatically NO!  Now if you wish to argue turning LNG into Kerosene, ok.  Nothing compressed will fly other than half distance of current aircraft.  Horrifically heavy due to tankage alone as it requires 2X the volume even before one talks requirements of the compressed volume stresses, and then you have the problem(overcomeable) of expanding gas at altitude in -80C conditions which must run continuously.  Talk about frost build up/cold soaking problems!  Woah!

You're right.  The bottom line is the bottom line:  IF airlines could fly with cheaper fuel options, believe me they would do so.  If cheaper means simply a cheaper fuel source or technology, they would do it.  If cheaper means no carbon tax, they would do it.  I doubt any industry has studied alternate fuels as much as aviation, although I could be wrong.  Nobody would need to convince them, not governments or greenies, they would do it in the name of cold hard cash.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

16 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Sorry, NO!  Emphatically NO!  Now if you wish to argue turning LNG into Kerosene, ok.  Nothing compressed will fly other than half distance of current aircraft.  Horrifically heavy due to tankage alone as it requires 2X the volume even before one talks requirements of the compressed volume stresses, and then you have the problem(overcomeable) of expanding gas at altitude in -80C conditions which must run continuously.  Talk about frost build up/cold soaking problems!  Woah!

EDIT: Fine: Liquefied H2 theoretically can fly as it has 3X the energy density of Kerosene but requires 4X the volume even when liquefied....  Let you find a material which can take the -270C continuous with wing flex, vibrations, for years upon years of reliable cycling.  Good luck

 

16 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Sorry, NO!  Emphatically NO!  Now if you wish to argue turning LNG into Kerosene, ok.  Nothing compressed will fly other than half distance of current aircraft.  Horrifically heavy due to tankage alone as it requires 2X the volume even before one talks requirements of the compressed volume stresses, and then you have the problem(overcomeable) of expanding gas at altitude in -80C conditions which must run continuously.  Talk about frost build up/cold soaking problems!  Woah!

EDIT: Fine: Liquefied H2 theoretically can fly as it has 3X the energy density of Kerosene but requires 4X the volume even when liquefied....  Let you find a material which can take the -270C continuous with wing flex, vibrations, for years upon years of reliable cycling.  Good luck

Boeing and the Russians have already studied it. This is very workable. If you want kerosene that is fine too. I am only referring to LNG and am not advocating hydrogen. 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280925005_Liquefied_Natural_Gas_as_the_Next_Aviation_Fuel

Edited September 24, 2020 by ronwagn
reference

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

One such paper on LNG for use in aircraft engines:

LNG for Aircrafts

It looks like the fuel tanks would take up valuable cargo space, but otherwise could be done.  However, by the time all costs to convert the aircraft and engines, install the infrastructure and develop all ground support equipment. and carry out adequate flight testing are added in, this would be a tremendously expensive change.

Could be done though.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,132]

6 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Boeing and the Russians have already studied it. This is very workable. If you want kerosene that is fine too. I am only referring to LNG and am not advocating hydrogen. 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280925005_Liquefied_Natural_Gas_as_the_Next_Aviation_Fuel

Lowering the temperature of structures down to -160C... Holy criminies sake man... the cost will blow up through the moon in materials handling/machining tolerances as embrittlement becomes very problematic.  Imperfections/materials perfectly acceptable for standard -40C flight operations will crack at lower temperatures.  Most aircraft only have to briefly withstand these lower temperatures a few times in their life, but now you wish to say ALL the structure has to land/takeoff at these temperatures constantly?  All the associated systems must likewise operate at -160C?  Embrittlement of all wires/fasteners/sensors, yadda yadda yadda and then warm up to 50C... to Temperature swing is ~200C for elongation and different materials?  Double what is done today... YIKES!

Volume increased by 50%.  Half of their associated "potential" volume... aka efficiency savings are based on laser based "guns" throughput.  The only truly gain in efficiency is ability to preheat the gas 200C extra compared to Kerosene as self ignition temperature is higher.  So, lets call it 40% more volume required for same amount of energy irregardless of increased weight of structure, etc. 

Likewise when reading your link, they are talking about military tank weights.  On a civilian aircraft there is no tank weight as the wing skin IS the tank weight.  Not true on fighter aircraft(partially true) as they have self sealing fuel tanks, which is where most of that weight they stated comes from.  Civilian airliner has no such requirement and now cannot use the wing skin as a fuel tank... This will lose an amazing amount of volume. Unless going to hold the stressing wing skin at -160C with its massive weight penalty as strain allowed with stress factors, fatigue factors, corrosion factors for an airliner at -40C are not the same as -160C.  So here will be a giant increase in weight and manufacturing cost. 

I used 50% below to make life easier, but frankly it probably needs to be 2X this as I cannot see how they would make a -160C wet LNG wing capable of thousands of fatigue load life tests at anywhere same weight as today. Not to mention the gargantuan icing issues... Holy Hell, how would that even work?  Just sitting on the ground even in perfectly good weather, the wing would grow ice like it was going out of style and heaven help you if you made the mistake of landing in the humid tropics... I frankly do not see how an LNG wet wing would be possible at all.  So, this would relegate 100% of ALL fuel into the fuselage which means gargantuan weight penalties which would essentially cut range in half. 

Lets go for an example: Short range 737-800 holds just shy of 30,000L, mostly contained in the wing and there is no spare room.  So, another ~15,000L of volume is required.  = 15m^3.  Its cargo hold is ~50m^3, so 33% just disappeared.  And the wing etc must all be much heavier using MUCH more costly materials.   Actually, not as bad as I first thought.  😃  Notice I am using a wet wing here which I frankly do not see as possible due to icing issues.

Lets go for an example: Long range 777-300ER  180,000L with cargo volume of 200m^3  Required volume goes up by ~100m^3 and cargo gets cut in half. 

Lets go for an example: Long range 787-9 126,000L cargo volume 175m^3  Required volume goes up by 60m^3 and it still has 110m^3... Hrmm, no wonder airlines love teh 787-9.  Jeepers, makes the 777-300ER look really old and bad... 😃

Half the airlines out there make just as much money on cargo as they do passengers... hrmmm.

Then the $$$ and above all the icing issues?  This will not get off the ground anytime soon. 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

2 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Half the airlines out there make just as much money on cargo as they do passengers... hrmmm

I just wanted to mention that airlines make much more money on cargo.  You don't have to give cargo food and drinks and therefore also don't require flight attendants to coddle it.  And cargo does not need to be entertained, or seated comfortably (in fact you can stack it floor to ceiling), or need to have lavatories to go take a.....er, you know what I mean.  Properly priced passenger tickets makes that business more than worth it, but cargo is always better and the rates are based on weight and size/volume, giving the shippers a standard pricing scheme for calculating costs.  Imagine telling big Bob that his ticket price is based on his weight!  Big Bob would transition to lawsuit paradise.     Better go with cargo.

[NickW + 2,714]

18 hours ago, ronwagn said:

On your last paragraph, I would just say what a waste of money! Natural gas is clean enough. LNG is clean, CNG is clean, piped gas is clean! LNG is a nearly perfect fuel for a flying wing design. The airlines are already broke. We will pay the bill. 

l just read that Japan is planning on a hydrogen economy. Let them do it first. Don't get dragged along with stupid ideas or ideas that are not ready for prime time. Especially if your country is already broke. 

Elon Musk is planning a $25,000 car. He has a lot of great ideas and is learning a lot as he deals with the realities of manufacturing. I am now a fan, but wait for three years and see how he is doing and the competition will be following his lead. Do not underestimate the Japanese, South Koreans, Chinese, Europeans, and American competitors though. 

We need to make a greater amount of the content in "American" cars and assemble them here. Ideally make a 100% American car including some that run off of natural gas. Especially pickup trucks and semis. We already have some of the latter and many around the world including small cars. 

 

It makes sense countries like Japan do this first - they are almost entirely dependent on imported fuels so energy security is a significant issue that doesn't effect a country like America in the same way. 

As they have gone anti nuclear I assume their energy policy is based around solar and wind with some geothermal and Hydro thrown in. 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

5 minutes ago, NickW said:

It makes sense countries like Japan do this first - they are almost entirely dependent on imported fuels so energy security is a significant issue that doesn't effect a country like America in the same way. 

Sounds like a good reason to go to war!

[NickW + 2,714]

5 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Sounds like a good reason to go to war!

Yeah. Just think how the USA could have wasted >$1 Trillion as an alternative to invading Afghanistan and Iraq. 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

4 minutes ago, NickW said:

Yeah. Just think how the USA could have wasted >$1 Trillion as an alternative to invading Afghanistan and Iraq. 

I don't follow?

[NickW + 2,714]

3 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

I don't follow?

The real reason for the invasions (war) where based on a resource grab. Not literally taking it but giving US Corps first access to develop oil in Iraq and minerals in Afghanistan. 

I wonder how they feel now with Chinese and Russia firms undercutting them and getting all the best deals to the exclusion of corporate USA. 

Dunno what the UK piddled up the wall being Bush's lapdog but I have heard the sums would have been sufficient for the UK  to go entirely nuclear and renewable and electrify most of the rail network. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,132]

1 hour ago, NickW said:

The real reason for the invasions (war) where based on a resource grab. Not literally taking it but giving US Corps first access to develop oil in Iraq and minerals in Afghanistan. 

I wonder how they feel now with Chinese and Russia firms undercutting them and getting all the best deals to the exclusion of corporate USA. 

Dunno what the UK piddled up the wall being Bush's lapdog but I have heard the sums would have been sufficient for the UK  to go entirely nuclear and renewable and electrify most of the rail network. 

The oil in ME is for USA's allies, not itself so... And ultimately humans do not play utopian Kum-ba-ya.  All goes back to WTO if you asked me.  Letting all the dictators trade on equal terms with democracies(allies).  SOrry, that is utopian foolishness of the highest order and until this aspect of trade/world order is rectified: Greed/Dictators will win as those who want freedom, can't get it as those who have freedom have pissed away all their advantages for short term GREED.