less cars : roll on $2 per litre

On 2006-08-20, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
Spiny Norman wrote:
, "Theo Bekkers" wrote

Ten years? We're not talking car batteries here, you need deep
discharge batteries. Will last maybe 5 years in lead-acid, and cost
twice as much as a regular car battery.

My department at work has a Prius (sp?) and the batteries are supposed
to last 10 years. This is a hybrid car rather than an electric car.

I'd be very interested to know what the replacement cost would be and the
effect it has on overall economy. Say the cost of batteries divided by ten
added to the annual fuel cost, then calculated back to litres of fuel that
^------ (and the cost of the electricity)
could have been bought instead.

How much electricity would it require? Lets say it draws 10 amps for
a few hours each night after coming home. That's like running a stove
for a few hours. That's a dollar per 4 hours at current electricity
rates.

--
TimC
Dijkstra probably hates me
(Linus Torvalds, on gotos in kernel/sched.c)

On 2006-08-21, TimC wrote:
On 2006-08-20, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
[the Prius]
I'd be very interested to know what the replacement cost would be and the
effect it has on overall economy. Say the cost of batteries divided by ten
added to the annual fuel cost, then calculated back to litres of fuel that
^------ (and the cost of the electricity)
could have been bought instead.

How much electricity would it require? Lets say it draws 10 amps for
a few hours each night after coming home. That's like running a stove
for a few hours. That's a dollar per 4 hours at current electricity
rates.

No. You're confusing two ideas he the idea of an electric car, and
the idea of a hybrid.

An electric car does exactly what you've described: draws power from the
mains to charge up, then travels solely on that power from point A to
point B. A hybrid, on the other hand, is a different beast. Its fuel is
petrol, pure and simple (or diesel, or ethanol, take your pick.) The
electric part of a hybrid is there to improve its fuel efficiency:
regenerative braking, and using the power of the petrol engine at idle
to charge the batteries. It doesn't hook into the mains at all.

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".

Communism started out as a very scientific theory of economics. The
theory was that experts, armed with all the relevant data and imposing
"for the good of the society" ethical principles, would do a better
job
of setting prices than a completely uncontrolled economy where the
only
thing setting prices was the mutual agreement of a buyer and seller to
exchange goods at a price that both thought reasonable.

As we know, this turned out to be a disaster. It resulted in massive
misallocation of resources, lack of sufficient allowance for the needs
of individuals instead of society etc The whole thing collapsed.

The problem was that "experts" did an inferior job of allocating
resources than markets. The profit motive turns out to be a far more
subtle and effective way of adjusting production to meet demand and
incentivising innovation than anything else.

The free market and the profit motive is effective, only for the reason
that the true 'cost' of market activities is rarely factored into the
cost of a good or service. Many negative impacts are not costed into
the value of a product of or activity, thus skewing the true 'cost'. If
all features and effects were considered, much of the free markets
activities would need to be reconsideredl.

In fact, the fertility rate has dropped dramatically. Demographics
show that in many parts of the world there is actually negative growth
projected. It isn't necessarily going to be an economic disaster if
the population does decrease, but at the same time the balance of
risks
at the moment is not tilted toward overpopulation.

Some western nations are experiencing low or negative fertility growth
(not to be confused with population rates). In most other parts of the
world, population growth is significant. World wide, population growth
continues, and as India/China strive for western lifestyles in a
resource finite world, overpopulation is not just a risk, but a
problem


Pat


--
vaudegiant

"TimC" wrote
Theo Bekkerswrote

I'd be very interested to know what the replacement cost would be and the
effect it has on overall economy. Say the cost of batteries divided by
ten
added to the annual fuel cost, then calculated back to litres of fuel
that
^------ (and the cost of the electricity)
could have been bought instead.

The Prius has a petrol engine and charges it's own batteries.

How much electricity would it require? Lets say it draws 10 amps for
a few hours each night after coming home. That's like running a stove
for a few hours. That's a dollar per 4 hours at current electricity
rates.

10 amps = 2.5KWh. four hours would get you 10KWh, so you could presumably
draw 10Kw for an hour. How far will that get you?
10KWh will cost you only $1.70 in Perth. If you have a Smart meter and
charge your batteries overnight the same amount of electricity will only
cost you $0.50.

Theo

Travis Wrote:
You can't argue against
free markets by citing examples of non-free markets, just as you
can't
argue against globalisation (i.e. free trade across international
borders) by citing examples of tarrifs etc, like European farm
subsidies.

Windfarms use carbon fibre materials in rotor blades for the turbine
generators. Windfarms and the new Air buses are apparently the cause of
the world-wide CF shortage.

Therefore globalisation is *bad*.

Anyway, for some cyclists.


--
cfsmtb

Travis wrote:
wrote:

1. With the break down in trade barriers we now have the situation
where local producers have to conform to our laws regarding pay,
working conditions, use of pesticides etc while competitors in
other countries are not subject to these rules. This is referred to
as a "level playing field". Presumably we could fix this problem by
reducing government interference (ie no minimum pay, no minimum
working conditions, no restrictions on chemicals)

How would you have it?

The subject of tarrifs etc is another perpetual "debate" which
economists figured out long ago, but every generation screws up anew.

The Chinese (for example) are producing stuff for less than we can
produce it for. If we try to "protect" Australian industry then there
is some benefit to the local producer, but everyone else is worse off.

You are absolutely correct. In the face of competition from companies
that
operate in a manner that would be illegal here, we have two long term
options:

a) make these workplace conditions legal in Australia (ie reduced
safety,
lower pay, longer hours)

or b) get out of the industry.

We chose b). When was the last time you saw a shirt labelled "made in
Australia"? I guess we just need to be more agile, finding new
industries
and then dumping them once foreign industry start to push the price
down.
The problem does not just apply to manufacturing. A similar situation
exists with respect to food production, software engineering, call
centers
etc.

I don't know what the answer is. Just seems like a depressing outlook.

The notion that Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky intended to bring about an
egalitarian social change is 'interesting', given that it was probably
discredited by 1921 if it ever indeed existed. By this time the
dismantling of any directly democratic control of the economy was
almost finished. Most of Lenin's revolutionary rhetoric was stolen from
other groups in what was perhaps the best piece of spin doctoring of the
20th century, seeing as it was swallowed and continues to be swallowed
by people across the political spectrum. You could say that the troika
'wanted' democratic control of the economy almost as much as
capitalists 'want' competition, though that may be hard upon some small
and medium sized business owners.


--
deejbah

vaudegiant wrote:

The free market and the profit motive is effective, only for the reason
that the true 'cost' of market activities is rarely factored into the
cost of a good or service. Many negative impacts are not costed into
the value of a product of or activity, thus skewing the true 'cost'. If
all features and effects were considered, much of the free markets
activities would need to be reconsideredl.

Plus, there are very few, if any "free markets".

Travis wrote:
Terryc wrote:

Your might like to find that out yourself. Then you will appreciate the
information. Easy to find. Just broaden your reading.

Come on Terryc, that's a bloody poor effort and you know it.
Nope, it is simply a case of stating that if you really need this
pointed out to you, then it is a waste of my time to do so as by the
time you look at it through your rose coloured, blinkered glasses, you
still won't get it. There are bits in the newspaper occassionally, but
you really need to read other non-business "newspapers" and ask "why is
it so"

Its the easiest thing in the world to make a grand sweeping claim,
its much harder to prove it.

Gee, describes economist for decades.

For example:

"Scientists have known for decades that quantum mechanics is wrong.

lol, naaah, it meets the scientific criteria of testability, provided
you understand the boundary conditions, which is something economists dont.

Just do the math
yourself. I can't be bothered posting it for you right now though, if
you are smart enough you'll be able to prove it yourself."

I have done the maths {:-). It works.

"Aliens have been visiting Earth for many years,

Yep.

and there has been high level contact between
the US government and these aliens.

Lol, that is the funny bit. Wishful thinking. It would have to be stupid
aliens that did this.

So there are no examples of the most efficient producer of items that
the market most desires making the biggest profits? And in fact there
are many examples of highly inefficient producers of items nobody wants
to buy making huge money?

Lol, this is what I mean. There are none of the first and plenty of the
later because the "principles of economics" only work in very restricted
facits.. If you look at the overall picture, you can find as many
counter examples.


Name a few such companies.

Err, SMH, sat, business section. Read it. Of course, you will have to
know some of the history of certain companies.


So, they provided either free or cheap finance and other incentives to
companies to build chip factories.

Oooooh, so it wasn't free market then?

And the result of that is massive overcapacity around the world, with
chip manufacturing reduced to a low or negative profit margin basic
contract business.

Overcapacity is good, for consumers {:-)

Silicon has a little more glamour still than tin, because of the clean
rooms and white coats and everything, but the overcapacity brought
about by political forces has turned the economics of the industry into
a high tech version of the sort usually associated with making tin
cans.

Lol, I just love christians who think every religious argument can only
be undertaken by bible quotes. I noticed how you economist just love to
blame "political factors" when your companies fsck up.

Travis wrote:

How interesting that all of the examples you have cited of supposed
free market failure are examples of the use and abuse of government
regulations.

Lets face it, pushing the letter of the law to its limit is seen as good
business activity. There are no morals in economics.