Re: [Vo]:Obama puts Schwarzenegger in charge of energy policy
Kyle Mcallister wrote: 1. Applying emissions restrictions to new vehicles is not that big of a deal, as far as I am concerned . . . I have never heard of retrofitting older vehicles with emission controls. In any case, the main concern is for CO2 and this cannot be reduced in an older car by any means. B. Does not significantly impact the price of the vehicle, read, burden on the buyer. Reducing fuel consumption reduces the overall cost of the vehicle, although it may raise the purchase price. By the same token, adding safety features may raise the purchase price somewhat but it really reduces the cost of insurance and the overall cost of owning the vehicle because most of the money paid in insurance claims go for bodily injury rather than automobile repair. 2. If these restrictions are to be gran'daddied onto older cars . . . That is physically impossible, as I said. 4. You want a cheap electric car. Fine. You want it to plug in and shift the carbon upchuck somewhere else . . . This is incorrect. You cannot move carbon emissions. Carbon goes everywhere instantaneously. Electric cars do not move carbon emissions; they reduce them by half or more. Electric cars are cheaper than gasoline cars because they save money on fuel. (Bear in mind that the cost of gasoline is far greater than the purchase price at the pump. You have to add several dollars to pay for wars, terrorism, global warming and so on.) But we don't have the electric infrastructure to handle the load in many places, like L.A., as mentioned. Again You misunderstand. Los Angeles could easily accommodate vast numbers of electric cars. I do not know the exact numbers but I expect half of the cars there could be electrically powered with no change to the infrastructure. By the time all of the cars there are electrically powered, the infrastructure could easily be upgraded. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Obama puts Schwarzenegger in charge of energy policy
--- Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Kyle Mcallister wrote: I have never heard of retrofitting older vehicles with emission controls. In any case, the main concern is for CO2 and this cannot be reduced in an older car by any means. No, they just want to boot them off the road. No thought is given to extending the useful life of a vehicle, re: expending much more energy and/or producing more waste (some very harmful) to make a new one. Throw-away is not always the right way. Reducing fuel consumption reduces the overall cost of the vehicle, although it may raise the purchase price. By the same token, adding safety features may raise the purchase price somewhat but it really reduces the cost of insurance and the overall cost of owning the vehicle because most of the money paid in insurance claims go for bodily injury rather than automobile repair. I'd like to see insurance prices actually reduced. So far, despite what the lizard says, I see them only go up. Not counting on this incentive. Second, if you want to dictate how to build cars, the burden is on you to figure out how to make them cheap, but cheerful at the same time. Bipartisan does not mean (and bipartisan is applied here loosely, not just to the ancient Reps/vs./Dems thing) YOU get to dictate how everyone manufactures and does everything. It means we meet in the middle somewhere. Environmentalists should learn this. 2. If these restrictions are to be gran'daddied onto older cars . . . That is physically impossible, as I said. You are no mechanic. If you reduce the amount of fuel used to go a given distance at a given speed and/or a given acceleration, you automatically reduce the amount of CO2 produced. If you think it is physically impossible to do this to older cars, I invite you up here to Buffalo, to actually learn about it. You love your Prius, with it's bells and whistles. Can you fix it when it breaks? You also go on about your old 1.0L 3-cyl Geo Metro. You say it can't go more than 55 or 60 unless going downhill. What's wrong with it? I've done 80 in them. My boss had one, a beat to shit '94 with rust holes all over it, and we got it up to 80 on level pavement. Maybe the added speed was due to so much sheet metal having fallen off previously, though. One gets the impression you really don't know a lot about how cars work. This is a real problem, when people that don't know much about the thing they are bitching about start trying to decide what is and is not legal. 4. You want a cheap electric car. Fine. You want it to plug in and shift the carbon upchuck somewhere else . . . This is incorrect. You cannot move carbon emissions. Carbon goes everywhere instantaneously. I didn't know carbon had anything to do with Bell's Inequalities or the EPR effect. What is your problem with what I said? If the electric car is not producing carbon dioxide... ...but the power plant 75 miles away is... ...the emission is 75 miles away. You are still emitting (an admittedly smaller amount, due to efficiency gains) of CO2. But you have physically moved the point of emission. Electric cars do not move carbon emissions; they reduce them by half or more. Yes, while moving the emissions. Which is neither bad, nor good. I'm simply pointing out to the dull witted (not calling you this, don't take it personal like last time) that electric cars are not emissionless /with current centralized energy production facilities that emit./ Hopefully this will change later as we invent better things, and hopefully grow the balls to railroad the greenieweenies standing in the way of nuclear plants. Electric cars are cheaper than gasoline cars because they save money on fuel. My '86 Monte Carlo got 28mpg, and cost me $400. How would buying an overly complicated (a hybrid can be far simpler) Prius compete with that? There were also no toxic batteries to have a Superfund team scrambling over, well, besides perhaps the standard 550CCA lead-acid Neverstart. (Bear in mind that the cost of gasoline is far greater than the purchase price at the pump. You have to add several dollars to pay for wars, terrorism, global warming and so on.) And to pay for welfare, and to pay for free birth control, (I am not opposed to birth control) and to pay for blah blah blah. If taxed as much as you like, someone, probably a liberal, would find a way to spend it on something stupid. For the record, I wouldn't trust a republican with the tax revenue either. I know, someone is going to say, oh the taxes aren't to spend to SOLVE the problem, they are to cause people to drive less. If you feel this way, you are NOT solving the bigger picture, you are impeding it with an ohms rating so big that you cannot put enough zeros behind it. If it is guaranteed (how?) that the tax is spent on building infrastructure to let people live their current or better quality of life, while not harming the environment, I don't have a
Re: [Vo]:Obama puts Schwarzenegger in charge of energy policy
Maybe, but, for as long as I can remember (which depends on the weather =), standards have always been different for California. Indeed, certain items are different for Calcars and must be so maintained, eg the Toyota Echo required iridium tipped spark plugs to meet CA standards. These cost $15 each. Standard $3 plugs were fine elsewhere. The car makers will only make two cars: Calcars and everywhere else, assuming CA has the most restrictive standards. Terry On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 11:23 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Obama today announced that individual states will be allowed to impose their own MPG standards and other environmental standards. The Bush administration opposed this for many years. Automobile companies objected because they say they cannot afford to make different kinds of cars for different states. Obviously they cannot, therefore they will have to make all cars to meet the state with the highest standard, which happens to be California, which is also the largest state with the biggest car market. What this means, in effect, is that automobile gas mileage standards will now be decided in Sacremento by a Republican governor. Schwarzenegger strongly favors higher MPG standards, as well as plug-in hybrids and other new technology. His term ends in 2011, giving him plenty of time to implement new standards in the present climate of accelerated political change and rapid decision making. This will take the heat off of Obama and leave the Repubicans little to complain about. It is increasingly clear to Obama is a skilled politician. Instead of picking a fight over this issue, he made it the responsibility of a leading Republican. What's more, Schwarzenegger may gain national stature and credit, but he cannot run for president, so he is no rival to Obama. California may be in a position to set other efficiency standards, even for devices that could be manufactured differently for different states, such as ceiling fans. California is such a large market that every manufacturer has to sell to it, and once you go to the trouble to develop a high performance ceiling fan, you might as well sell it everywhere. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Obama puts Schwarzenegger in charge of energy policy
Terry Blanton wrote: Maybe, but, for as long as I can remember (which depends on the weather =), standards have always been different for California. Indeed, certain items are different for Calcars and must be so maintained, eg the Toyota Echo required iridium tipped spark plugs to meet CA standards. These cost $15 each. Standard $3 plugs were fine elsewhere. That is a small difference. Expensive, effective, but small from the engineering point of view. The car makers will only make two cars: Calcars and everywhere else, assuming CA has the most restrictive standards. No doubt this is true. For that matter there are regional variations in cars such as the type of fuel allowed (more or less polluting) and customer requirements for things like road salt sealants under the body in northern states. But in the broader view the California standards will push the auto industry in the direction Obama wants it to go, and he will not have to pay all of the political price. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Obama puts Schwarzenegger in charge of energy policy
Terry Blanton wrote: The car makers will only make two cars: Calcars and everywhere else, assuming CA has the most restrictive standards. Consider that a divorce [said to Sharon Stone in Total Recall ;-)
Re: [Vo]:Obama puts Schwarzenegger in charge of energy policy
I wrote: No doubt this is true. For that matter there are regional variations in cars such as the type of fuel allowed (more or less polluting) and customer requirements for things like road salt sealants . . . What I am trying to say is that manufacturers can support small regional variations, but they cannot manufacture radically different vehicles for California versus the rest of the country. To take an extreme example that isn't going to happen: suppose California were to mandate that half the cars sold in 5 years must be plug in hybrids. The manufacturers would have to spend billions gearing up to meet this mandate. They would then go ahead and sell the plug in hybrids in other states as well. They would have to, in order to survive. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Obama puts Schwarzenegger in charge of energy policy
No problemo Harry, Just do what the latinos do, steal your pick of cars or trucks in Texas, slip across the border past Pancho Villa land and into sunny californio. Ah! californio, use your fake Mexico liscense plate,no drivers liscense, no inspection sticker and stolen credit card. No insurance and no liability.The law won't stop you cuz the jails are already full. LaRaza rules. Richard Maybe, but, for as long as I can remember (which depends on the weather =), standards have always been different for California. Indeed, certain items are different for Calcars and must be so maintained, eg the Toyota Echo required iridium tipped spark plugs to meet CA standards. These cost $15 each. Standard $3 plugs were fine elsewhere. The car makers will only make two cars: Calcars and everywhere else, assuming CA has the most restrictive standards. Terry On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 11:23 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Obama today announced that individual states will be allowed to impose their own MPG standards and other environmental standards. The Bush administration opposed this for many years. Automobile companies objected because they say they cannot afford to make different kinds of cars for different states. Obviously they cannot, therefore they will have to make all cars to meet the state with the highest standard, which happens to be California, which is also the largest state with the biggest car market. What this means, in effect, is that automobile gas mileage standards will now be decided in Sacremento by a Republican governor. Schwarzenegger strongly favors higher MPG standards, as well as plug-in hybrids and other new technology. His term ends in 2011, giving him plenty of time to implement new standards in the present climate of accelerated political change and rapid decision making. This will take the heat off of Obama and leave the Repubicans little to complain about. It is increasingly clear to Obama is a skilled politician. Instead of picking a fight over this issue, he made it the responsibility of a leading Republican. What's more, Schwarzenegger may gain national stature and credit, but he cannot run for president, so he is no rival to Obama. California may be in a position to set other efficiency standards, even for devices that could be manufactured differently for different states, such as ceiling fans. California is such a large market that every manufacturer has to sell to it, and once you go to the trouble to develop a high performance ceiling fan, you might as well sell it everywhere. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Obama puts Schwarzenegger in charge of energy policy
Jed Rothwell wrote: I wrote: No doubt this is true. For that matter there are regional variations in cars such as the type of fuel allowed (more or less polluting) and customer requirements for things like road salt sealants . . . What I am trying to say is that manufacturers can support small regional variations, but they cannot manufacture radically different vehicles for California versus the rest of the country. To take an extreme example that isn't going to happen: suppose California were to mandate that half the cars sold in 5 years must be plug in hybrids. The manufacturers would have to spend billions gearing up to meet this mandate. They would then go ahead and sell the plug in hybrids in other states as well. They would have to, in order to survive. Last time that sort of thing happened, California mandated that part of the fleet be electric cars. But it didn't work out the way you're suggesting. What the manufacturers actually did was market the cars *only* in California, lease them but not sell them, and then go full-bore working to get the California law changed. When the California law was finally changed, they recalled all their electric cars (which had only been leased, not sold) and destroyed them. Never say they would have to with regard to some strategy which is supposed to force the car manufacturers to do what you want. They are cleverer and more devious than you think. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Obama puts Schwarzenegger in charge of energy policy
I think they also marketed those vehicles in Arizona. Terry On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: Jed Rothwell wrote: I wrote: No doubt this is true. For that matter there are regional variations in cars such as the type of fuel allowed (more or less polluting) and customer requirements for things like road salt sealants . . . What I am trying to say is that manufacturers can support small regional variations, but they cannot manufacture radically different vehicles for California versus the rest of the country. To take an extreme example that isn't going to happen: suppose California were to mandate that half the cars sold in 5 years must be plug in hybrids. The manufacturers would have to spend billions gearing up to meet this mandate. They would then go ahead and sell the plug in hybrids in other states as well. They would have to, in order to survive. Last time that sort of thing happened, California mandated that part of the fleet be electric cars. But it didn't work out the way you're suggesting. What the manufacturers actually did was market the cars *only* in California, lease them but not sell them, and then go full-bore working to get the California law changed. When the California law was finally changed, they recalled all their electric cars (which had only been leased, not sold) and destroyed them. Never say they would have to with regard to some strategy which is supposed to force the car manufacturers to do what you want. They are cleverer and more devious than you think. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Obama puts Schwarzenegger in charge of energy policy
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Last time that sort of thing happened, California mandated that part of the fleet be electric cars. But it didn't work out the way you're suggesting. What the manufacturers actually did was market the cars *only* in California . . . I realize that is what happened. But perhaps history will not repeat. The automakers are in a far different situation than they have ever been before. I have heard that some managers at GM now think that destroying the electric car was one the biggest mistakes GM ever made. They no longer think that was a clever thing to do. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Obama puts Schwarzenegger in charge of energy policy
Unsurprising quote from today's Washington Post: California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) hailed Obama's decision on auto emissions. 'Allowing California and other states to aggressively reduce their own harmful vehicle tailpipe emissions would be a historic win for clean air and for millions of Americans who want more fuel-efficient, environmentally-friendly cars,' Schwarzenegger said in a statement. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Obama puts Schwarzenegger in charge of energy policy
Mike Carrell wrote: So long as hydrocarbons are the ultimate fuel, whether in an automobile or in a utility power plant, [weight x miles driven] will produce CO2 and other oxides. Yes, but much less fuel per passenger mile, and less CO2, because electric cars are much more efficient that gasoline-only cars, or hybrids. Utilities love electric cars because they utilize unused capacity at night, but they still burn fuel. Some do. Other fission uranium, or run water through turbines, or wind through wind turbines. Electricity comes from many sources other than burning hydrocarbons. Furthermore, it would be easier, faster and cheaper for us to build many more wind turbines and solar thermal generators than it would be to develop other sources of liquid fuel for cars, or cars that get 100 mpg from gasoline alone (not hybrids). Building more nukes would not be cheaper, but it is the only alternative for large parts of the country, such as Georgia. Of course we all recognize that BLP or cold fusion would be better by far than conventional alternatives such as wind or nukes. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Obama puts Schwarzenegger in charge of energy policy
- Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 7:29 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Obama puts Schwarzenegger in charge of energy policy Mike Carrell wrote: MC: So long as hydrocarbons are the ultimate fuel, whether in an automobile or in a utility power plant, [weight x miles driven] will produce CO2 and other oxides. JR: Yes, but much less fuel per passenger mile, and less CO2, because electric cars are much more efficient that gasoline-only cars, or hybrids. - There are hidden assumptions in this assertion. I don't kow if they are adequately analyzed. Well-designed electric drives are probably more efficient than ICEs during acceleration, and can recover part of the kinetic energy during braking. ICEs are not efficient under accleration. Typical driving involves lots of acclerations. It is assumed that a utility plant, running under continuous load and intelligent management, can burn fuel more efficiently than an accelerating auto engine. So far, so good. But there are losses in transmission to the user household, and in charging the battery -- as well as discharging it. Q1 Where are reasoned estimate of the total carbon footprint of Los Angeles with all eletric cars during a typical commuting day, including the carbon emission of the utilities during the night charging cycle? Q2 Also: is it true that the electric utilities supplying Los Angeles could support the charging load of all the cars for the next day's commute? Mike Carrell
Re: [Vo]:Obama puts Schwarzenegger in charge of energy policy
Mike Carrell wrote: JR: Yes, but much less fuel per passenger mile, and less CO2, because electric cars are much more efficient that gasoline-only cars, or hybrids. - There are hidden assumptions in this assertion. I don't kow if they are adequately analyzed. I think they have been, by EPRI, NREL and others. There are some recent studies that conclude that advanced hybrid cars might be roughly as good as ordinary coal plants, but no ICE comes close to an advanced gas-turbine generator. And of course you don't get any less carbon emmissions than wind or nuclear power! Well-designed electric drives are probably more efficient than ICEs during acceleration, and can recover part of the kinetic energy during braking. ICEs are not efficient under accleration. Typical driving involves lots of acclerations. Yes. Especially in urban driving. It is assumed that a utility plant, running under continuous load and intelligent management, can burn fuel more efficiently than an accelerating auto engine. So far, so good. But there are losses in transmission to the user household, and in charging the battery -- as well as discharging it. All of these things have been taken into account. A good short intro is here: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NRELenergyover.pdf It is dated, but good. Appendix C lists the studies it is based upon. Q1 Where are reasoned estimate of the total carbon footprint of Los Angeles with all eletric cars during a typical commuting day, including the carbon emission of the utilities during the night charging cycle? EPRI has done a lot of projections in California, since that is where they are based. Q2 Also: is it true that the electric utilities supplying Los Angeles could support the charging load of all the cars for the next day's commute? Maybe not at at present. I think I have seen studies that they would need another nuke or two in California for this. It won't happen overnight, so there will be plenty of time to build new nukes or what-have-you. However the key thing to remember is that transportation actually consumes moderate amounts of energy. See the graph from Lawrence Livermore on the last page of the document above. Transportation consumes 5.3 quads of actual useful energy (and wastes a great deal more). That's out the total U.S. energy budet of 98 quads. That's including air transport, railways and so on. I think cars and trucks are at ~4 quads. Electric power converts to vehicle propulsion (the last stage) very efficiently, despite battery losses and so on. The electric power distribution system presently distributes 12.3 quads, so it would have to be built up somewhat to supply the ~4 quads needed for road transportation, but not by a huge factor. Mainly it would consume more fuel; it would probably not need much more equipment. Especially not with intelligent metering and remote turning and and off by the power company. Total energy consumed by transportation is 26.6 quads. Only 5.3 make it to useful energy (vehicle propulsion in this case) which is appalling innefficiency. As you see in the graph, other sectors are much more efficient. One of the advantages of recharging cars is that the customer doesn't care when you do it, as long as it gets done by morning. Most other uses of electric power have to be done in real time. They have be done in a fraction of a second after the demand is made. When the power company cuts your airconditioner, dims your lights, or stops drying your clothes, that's disruptive, but you wouldn't care whether it recharges the car at 1:00 am or 3:00 am. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Obama puts Schwarzenegger in charge of energy policy
On Jan 26, 2009, at 4:56 PM, Mike Carrell wrote: It is assumed that a utility plant, running under continuous load and intelligent management, can burn fuel more efficiently than an accelerating auto engine. So far, so good. But there are losses in transmission to the user household, and in charging the battery -- as well as discharging it. Q1 Where are reasoned estimate of the total carbon footprint of Los Angeles with all eletric cars during a typical commuting day, including the carbon emission of the utilities during the night charging cycle? Q2 Also: is it true that the electric utilities supplying Los Angeles could support the charging load of all the cars for the next day's commute? Mike Carrell It should be noted that much of the energy is or will be coming coming from Mexico. That merely moves some of the carbon footprint, but, surprisingly, renewable energy is a big thing in Mexico right now. Google (Mexico renewable energy). You'll see that they are building quite a wind farm at La Ventosa, for example, and the US is involved with Mexico in renewable energy research. Much of the problem with getting the solar and wind energy to California cities lies in getting the transmission lines permitted. Nobody wants high tension lines in his back yard. I think some effort should be made to develop economically viable HVDC underground transmission. Also, existing high tension lines would carry more capacity if operated as HVDC, and probably would have less biological effects, if any. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Obama puts Schwarzenegger in charge of energy policy
On Jan 26, 2009, at 5:24 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: One of the advantages of recharging cars is that the customer doesn't care when you do it, as long as it gets done by morning. Most other uses of electric power have to be done in real time. They have be done in a fraction of a second after the demand is made. When the power company cuts your airconditioner, dims your lights, or stops drying your clothes, that's disruptive, but you wouldn't care whether it recharges the car at 1:00 am or 3:00 am. - Jed To take advantage of solar energy charging it needs to occur during the day. However, I think this can be accomplished at a fairly nominal long term cost (say 50 cents a day) per vehicle by providing metered charging plug-ins (not free energy) at shopping malls and places of employment, etc. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Obama puts Schwarzenegger in charge of energy policy
Okay, here's my input from a mechanic's standpoint. Guys like me keep you driving. Jed, this includes you, and I have worked on Prius' (Prius's? Priuses? What DOES that name mean?!?) before. 1. Applying emissions restrictions to new vehicles is not that big of a deal, as far as I am concerned, meaning, I am not really opposed to it. Call me indifferent on this matter. AS LONG AS: A. It is done smartly, not the bandaid on bandaid on bandaid etc ad tedium ad nauseam that is placed under the hoods of cars made now. The WORST for this are the imports. Asian and European manufacturers have no clue how to build an EGR system. They are lost. B. Does not significantly impact the price of the vehicle, read, burden on the buyer. You'll help the economy this way, by encouraging people to buy better, cheaper, cleaner cars. C. Obama should encourage GM and so on to do B. D. Liberal lawlovers stay out of putting more of their beloved garbage into the process. Leave it to the engineers, let them and us mechanics do our jobs. It CAN be done and SHOULD be done. 2. If these restrictions are to be gran'daddied onto older cars, I and others like me will beging immediately looking for ways to help the 'little guy' such as myself, who cannot afford a new car right now, to cheat the test and 'pass'. Dumping the right blend of denatured alcohol into the engine, replacing the spark plugs RIGHT BEFORE the test, and a few other tricks can accomplish this with pre-1996 vehicles. With later than 1995 cars, OBDII becomes an issue, but there may be ways around that which I don't know of. I'm not much of a computer guy, to be honest. There are also tricks to permanently reduce emissions of an OBDII vehicle, but it causes the computer to misunderstand what is happening, and fail the vehicle even though it is cleaner than before. This kind of blanket coverage has to stop, and now. 3. You want to make a Great Society: The Next Generation? Okay. We can do that, and I'll even help. But, Obama, Terminator, and all you bigshots out there: you must not be lazy about it. How do I mean lazy? A. Zero tolerance policies are for losers and lazy bastards. It just means you don't want to take the time to REALLY think things through and cover the situations that don't fit the cubby hole. Such as, OBDII failure, but with tailpipe emissions that make Emperor Penguins oh-so-happy. B. Liberal democrats should HATE zero tolerance policies. After all, they adore clogging the system with unneeded crap, tagging junk onto bills whenever possible, why wouldn't they love going through convoluted permutations? C. Conservative republicans do the same thing these days. See a pattern? 4. You want a cheap electric car. Fine. You want it to plug in and shift the carbon upchuck somewhere else, or if we use something else, not put out carbon at all. Fine again. But we don't have the electric infrastructure to handle the load in many places, like L.A., as mentioned. ... I really don't see the problem here. If we could put a man on the moon nearly 40 years ago, why are we arguing about this? Stringing some lines, adding transformers, building a few more power plants, that is no big deal compared to Apollo. Except liberal controlled organizations won't let us build nuclear plants, even though they have little to no carbon footprint. Now, if we are to believe that Obama is going to give us change we can believe in, let's see this: Mr. Obama, direct the U.S. to construct enough new, safe, nuclear power plants using modern designs, to both reduce carbon emissions, and to take the first step to electrifying our roads. While you're at it, tell the EPA and the greenieweenies to go screw, as there is a war on, the war on energy, you see. We don't have time for anything but the most cursory of 'impact statements.' Well? Change? We are waiting. --Kyle, who has more change in his sock drawer than you can shake a stick at.
