 The PigBazinaPremium
join:2009-09-11 | reply to DrModem
Re: Dollar to be dropped as the oil currency by 2018 I know everyone believes in what the media (government controled) says about the U.S. needing Arab oil, but that is one of the biggest lies around.
There are billions and billions of barrels of oil all across the U.S. (and don't leave out natural gas too) but we won't touch it until the price hits well over $300 a barrel if not even higher.
Solar power will not work (no sun no power), electric cars will not work (it would cost a few of hundred trillion dollars to wire up every street in every city), wind power will also fail (no wind no power).
--
»www.ip-adress.com/ip_tracer/ |
|
 badtripI heart the East BayPremium
join:2004-03-20
Albany, CA | said by The Pig:Solar power will not work (no sun no power), electric cars will not work (it would cost a few of hundred trillion dollars to wire up every street in every city), wind power will also fail (no wind no power). It looks like you don't understand how solar energy and wind is used to store energy.
It also looks like you don't understand how electric cars work; they are not like electric buses or electric rail cars -- electric cars don't need a 3rd rail or a electric cable suspended above the street to draw power.
In both case, rechargeable batteries are used. |
|
 IIIBradIIIComm M-E-L Instr
join:2000-09-28
Greer, SC
 ·T-Mobile US
| said by badtrip:In both case, rechargeable batteries are used. Yes, but they are the weak link in the chain. Until someone comes up with (and is allowed to bring to market affordably) a capacitor/battery an order of magnitude better than our current choices, electricity will never be our energy of choice for personal transportation. |
|
|
|
badtripI heart the East BayPremium
join:2004-03-20
Albany, CA | said by IIIBradIII:said by badtrip:In both case, rechargeable batteries are used. Yes, but they are the weak link in the chain. Until someone comes up with (and is allowed to bring to market affordably) a capacitor/battery an order of magnitude better than our current choices, electricity will never be our energy of choice for personal transportation. And I agree with you 100%. |
|
The PigBazinaPremium
join:2009-09-11
1 edit | reply to badtrip
To go totally electric on cars you'd need a generator the size of a mac truck to run it without the help of OIL.
The generator in your car now only keeps your tiny battery charged because the battery doesn't use that much electric.
Do you really believe you can drive cross country or even a few hundred miles without a recharge from an outside source?
Solar power stores power in batteries that can and will break down one way or another, any idea on how long it would take to find a bunch of dead ones amoung a few million of them? How many solar panels/batteries do you think a state like New York or California would need to supply everyone with power and how much will something like that cost? now mulitipy that by 49.
And what happens when it's cloudy for weeks on end? And/or the wind doesn't blow?
You really think it's a wise idea to depend on Mother Nature for power?
--
»www.ip-adress.com/ip_tracer/ |
|
badtripI heart the East BayPremium
join:2004-03-20
Albany, CA | Where I live there are many, many people who use electric vehicles as their primary transportation. There are distance limits and the technology isn't quite there yet for the mainstream but I'll bet that unless something catastrophic happens in the US, vehicles that are primarily electric powered will be mainstream within 20 years (and probably less).
Oil, of course will be around for a long long time. I won't argue against that.
said by The Pig:You really think it's a wise idea to depend on Mother Nature for power? I think that is the WISEST idea. Hell, it's good enough for every other living being on the planet, it's good enough for us.
You do realize you completely depend on "Mother Nature" to power your body, do you not? |
|
| reply to The Pig
said by The Pig:To go totally electric on cars you'd need a generator the size of a mac truck to run it without the help of OIL. What do you imagine to be the fuel for the generator if not gasoline or diesel? The generator in a Prius is much smaller than a Mac truck although it runs off of gasoline. Ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen, ammonia and natural gas are other possible fuels, none of which require oversized generators.
Take a look at plug-in series hybrid vehicles (PHEV) in which a battery is recharged by plugging it into the wall. Initially the vehicle runs off of the battery for several miles. The GM Volt's battery range will be 40 miles. The battery can also be recharged partially by regenerative braking. When the battery discharges to a predetermined point, a liquid fueled generator turns on to provide the average amount of electricity needed to propel the car. If the driver floors the accelerator, some electricity will come from the generator and some from the battery to give him the needed power. Electric cars are 3 to 5 times more energy efficient than gasoline powered ICE ones. This method provides an extended range of hundreds of miles while greatly reducing liquid fuel consumption (~75%) because the majority of local travel uses electricity from the grid. The liquid fuel consumption is reduced enough that perhaps biofuels can provide enough liquid fuel for long range travel. It is also easy to modify a PHEV to use different types of liquid fuels because the worst case would require replacing the generator and fuel tank as opposed to removing the ICE and fuel tank of a conventional car.
said by The Pig:Solar power stores power in batteries that can and will break down one way or another... There are several ways to store electrical energy besides using batteries. One that is already practical is pumped hydroelectricity.
One portion of your argument seems to assume that all of our electricity might be provided by photovoltaic arrays. Consider the situation in which we use several different methods of generating electricity: photovoltaic, solar thermal, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal and nuclear fusion. Photovoltaic systems without storage are good for providing peak power demands during the sunny summer when air conditioners are running during the day. Solar thermal systems are easy to build with storage tanks for overnight or cloudy days. Pumped hydroelectric can be combined with wind and solar to increase the amount of continuous electricity. Wind turbines can be interconnected across long distances. If you have a high voltage power line over a long distance rail line that extends 3,000 miles from east to west across the U.S., the odds are really high that at any given moment the wind will be blowing somewhere along the transmission line providing a certain minimum amount of continuous power.
said by The Pig:... any idea on how long it would take to find a bunch of dead ones amoung a few million of them? A battery array that huge would be built fault tolerant allowing a bad cell to be automatically isolated from the array. The Li-ion battery used in the Tesla Roadster is designed in this fashion.
said by The Pig:How many solar panels/batteries do you think a state like New York or California would need to supply everyone with power and how much will something like that cost? There is enough roof area on U.S. houses for photovoltaic and solar hot water systems to provide all the electricity and hot water that those houses consume. There is not enough roof area on apartments, high rise buildings and industrial buildings for their consumption. Again there is no requirement that solar panels mounted on roofs provide all of the power by themselves.
said by The Pig:And what happens when it's cloudy for weeks on end? I have had an off-grid photovoltaic system for more than 18 years, and have never run out of electricity. On cloudy days the PV panels output about 20% to 25% of the power on sunny days. If one sizes the system appropriately or reduces power consumption on cloudy days, there is no problem. It is a matter of cost and preference.
said by The Pig:You really think it's a wise idea to depend on Mother Nature for power? All of our power sources come from Mother Nature, even crude oil which was originally solar power. Do you think it is a wise idea to depend on finite, depleting and polluting fossil fuels for power until the last drop or your last breath? |
|
 pogPremium
join:2004-06-03
Kihei, HI
 ·Hawaiian Telcom
| reply to IIIBradIII
said by IIIBradIII:said by badtrip:In both case, rechargeable batteries are used. Yes, but they are the weak link in the chain. Until someone comes up with (and is allowed to bring to market affordably) a capacitor/battery an order of magnitude better than our current choices, electricity will never be our energy of choice for personal transportation. While we're waiting for that, it might be a good idea for gas stations to figure out how to morph their business model into something that will keep them alive. Other than the obvious quick charging services there are other ideas...
For eg, if a limited number of battery sizes/specs were used across the board, gas stations could start a battery swap program... you need a recharge? Pull up, swap out batteries and go your way. Have a larger vehicle? Maybe that requires two batteries. The station just needs to keep a supply of charged batteries on hand... Ok... lots of details to work out... 
--
My Site |
|
1 edit | said by pog:... lots of details to work out... Some obvious ones:
1. automobile manufactures need to make the battery easily accessible.
2. The electric service at the gasoline station will only be able to charge a few battery each day. The station owner will have to install a higher powered electric service requiring an expensive upgrade.
3. Customers might not want to swap a new battery for an old used one with unknown remaining life. Some have suggested that automobile manufacturers lease the batteries to avoid this problem. However, I have not forget what happened last time when General Motors leased the EV-1: GM revoked the lease, confiscated the vehicles from willing owners and crushed them. I would not want to be stuck owning an electric car without a battery.
4. PHEV's avoid all of these problems. If the battery is discharged and the driver does not have time to recharge it, he can just use the liquid fuel. The stations can continue selling gasoline, diesel, ethanol and biodiesel without expensive alterations.
For divers who do not have garages, such as at apartment buildings, they may have to use charging stations, rent a garage with an electrical outlet or use public transportation. An electric bicycle could be walked into the apartment. |
|
| reply to The Pig
said by The Pig:I know everyone believes in what the media (government controled) says about the U.S. needing Arab oil, but that is one of the biggest lies around. There are billions and billions of barrels of oil all across the U.S. (and don't leave out natural gas too) but we won't touch it until the price hits well over $300 a barrel if not even higher. You're right theres plenty of oil around but it costs too much to extract at the current time. But if you think we don't need the cheap oil from the middle east, you're sadly mistaken. Without cheap oil supplies the US is in trouble. Considering how reliant we are on the personal automobile and people who travel everyday to work 50+ miles one way. Suburbs don't work without cheap oil. |
|
 MrMoodyFree range slavePremium
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC | reply to IIIBradIII
said by IIIBradIII:said by badtrip:In both case, rechargeable batteries are used. Yes, but they are the weak link in the chain. Until someone comes up with (and is allowed to bring to market affordably) a capacitor/battery an order of magnitude better than our current choices, electricity will never be our energy of choice for personal transportation. Here's what's really stupid. Using batteries to store energy in cars and dragging all that weight around. Want to know the most efficient way of storing energy? It's much more efficient than any battery. Here it is ... Liquid fuel.
There is nothing stopping us from making synthetic gasoline/diesel fuel using electricity. In fact, converting natural gas to gasoline is relatively trivial. Bonus: you don't have to try to force everyone to replace their cars. The idea behind hydrogen is the same, but hydrogen is harder to store and handle.
--
CO2 is not a pollutant. It feeds the starving. |
|
IIIBradIIIComm M-E-L Instr
join:2000-09-28
Greer, SC Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
| said by MrMoody:said by IIIBradIII:said by badtrip:In both case, rechargeable batteries are used. Yes, but they are the weak link in the chain. Until someone comes up with (and is allowed to bring to market affordably) a capacitor/battery an order of magnitude better than our current choices, electricity will never be our energy of choice for personal transportation. Here's what's really stupid. Using batteries to store energy in cars and dragging all that weight around. Want to know the most efficient way of storing energy? It's much more efficient than any battery. Here it is ... Liquid fuel. There is nothing stopping us from making synthetic gasoline/diesel fuel using electricity. In fact, converting natural gas to gasoline is relatively trivial. Bonus: you don't have to try to force everyone to replace their cars. The idea behind hydrogen is the same, but hydrogen is harder to store and handle. Works for me - where do I sign up!
--
»www.FlightSimWorld.com
Remember, there are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots.
Flight Simulator |
|
| reply to MrMoody
said by MrMoody:... converting natural gas to gasoline is relatively trivial. Doubling the demand for natural gas would send the cost of heating, cooking, plastics, electricity and fertalizer rocketing toward the moon and the economy into the toilet. We would trade dependence on one depleting fossil fuel for another. In less than 20 years the U.S. would be dependent on foreign sources of expensive liquefied natural gas to satisfy the demand meaning we would fail to achieve energy independence. Russia would be able to push the U.S. around like it did Ukraine last year. And then we get to experience global peak natural gas a few decades earlier. Business-as-usual is a death trap. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | reply to The Pig
said by The Pig:I know everyone believes in what the media (government controled) says about the U.S. needing Arab oil, but that is one of the biggest lies around. There are billions and billions of barrels of oil all across the U.S. (and don't leave out natural gas too) but we won't touch it until the price hits well over $300 a barrel if not even higher. Suddenly Nuclear looks too cheap to meter lol
Solar power will not work (no sun no power), electric cars will not work (it would cost a few of hundred trillion dollars to wire up every street in every city), wind power will also fail (no wind no power).
Pumped storage »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped_storage . Wind power is very destabilizing when added to a power grid without pumped storage. Thermal Solar also can use molten sodium »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_st···chnology . Photovoltaic Solar power is a joke by the renewable anti-energy crowd. They never talk about the manufacturing byproducts, or all the chemicals and expensive materials needed for PV solar.
Electric cars take no more power when charging than a central AC, or electric clothes dryer running. I think the last mile can easily handle it. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1
1 edit | reply to Spice300
said by Spice300:said by MrMoody:... converting natural gas to gasoline is relatively trivial. In less than 20 years the U.S. would be dependent on foreign sources of expensive liquefied natural gas to satisfy the demand meaning we would fail to achieve energy independence. Russia would be able to push the U.S. around like it did Ukraine last year. And then we get to experience global peak natural gas a few decades earlier. Business-as-usual is a death trap. Can't we reconquer Iraq with lots of civilian casulties and make it under administration of the USA and ship all of its oil to the USA? Wasn't that the plan in 2003? </sarcasm> |
|
| said by patcat88:Can't we reconquer Iraq with lots of civilian casulties and make it under administration of the USA and ship all of its oil to the USA? Wasn't that the plan in 2003? </sarcasm> Because Iraq's current production is 2.4 Mb/d and its maximum was about 3.5 Mb/d when it was stable, it would not be enough by itself. The U.S. would have to invade another country, such as an uppity Saudi Arabia, and make it our patriotic duty to conserve fuel for the war effort. |
|
1 edit | reply to patcat88
said by patcat88:Photovoltaic Solar power is a joke by the renewable anti-energy crowd. They never talk about the manufacturing byproducts, or all the chemicals and expensive materials needed for PV solar. It is a matter of magnitude and resilience (less dependent on the system to make fuel): Dark Side of Solar Cells Brightens, Scientific American, Feb. 21, 2008. It is also easier to contain pollution when it is produced centrally by a manufacturer then when it is emitted by the end user. |
|
| reply to Spice300
said by Spice300:said by pog:... lots of details to work out... Some obvious ones: . . 3. Customers might not want to swap a new battery for an old used one with unknown remaining life. Some have suggested that automobile manufacturers lease the batteries to avoid this problem. However, I have not forget what happened last time when General Motors leased the EV-1: GM revoked the lease, confiscated the vehicles from willing owners and crushed them. I would not want to be stuck owning an electric car without a battery. hmm - afaik the manufacturers toying with this route would be likely to lease the cars too rather than sell them - or be leasing out the batteries themselves, whilst third parties buy the cars and lease them on to the public... {it is, of course, far more tax efficient to do so, since the lessor can depreciate* the vehicle (and battery) unlike private individuals who must buy a car from post-tax income....}
*US tax law allows a "lifetime" of 5 years for automobiles.....separating out the battery as a separate lease would take it out of the limitations the US places on how much can be depreciated on automobiles {$7660 (maximum) the first tax year, $4900 the second, $2950 the third year, and $1775 per year in subsequent years. - i.e $19060 only in the first 5 years...} so it's much better taxwise to lease a $20k car plus a separate $30k battery than a $50k car+battery combo 
said by Spice300:An electric bicycle could be walked into the apartment. or more easily the (valuable) battery can be removed and walked into the apartment (or workplace...)..... commercialy available current models are already geared up to this this side of the pond - idk about the US where the limits on allowable power are less stringent (in the EU only 250w max is allowed, unless one is looking at needing a motorcycle licence, licence plates, compulsory insurance etc.  ), and vary by State iiuc....
{cars, of course, use batteries too large for this to be viable at present...} |
|
| After GM revoked the leases on EV-1's from willing owners so they could crush the vehicles, I would not lease a PHEV nor buy one with a leased battery. Leases only save money if the drivers travel excessively, such as 20,000 miles / years. Leasing makes no financial sense to those of us who drive about 2,000 miles per year.
Bicycle theft is common in America. I have had two stolen during my life. Apartment dwellers must park their bicycles in their rooms to prevent theft. Even motorcycles are easy targets when parked and chained in a community garage. |
|
| said by Spice300:Leasing makes no financial sense to those of us who drive about 2,000 miles per year. hmm - new(ish) car "ownership" of (almost*) any kind is unlikely to make financial sense to anyone doing 2k miles/year - the depreciation due to increasing age of the car will give rise to an enormous cost per mile even before you put anything in the tank, register/insure it etc. - much cheaper to rent a car on the odd occasions* you need one, (or run an old vehicle that has little remaining value to lose)
{it is also likely to make zero sense in energy use terms, since the energy consumed in making the new car (let alone anything with a battery in) for you to drive 2k miles/year in will never be recouped in reduced gas useage over an old car of similar size: even a Smartfortwo (2 seats and negligible luggage space, and the most fuel efficient non-hybrid available in the US at 36mpg "combined" (33 city, 41 highway)) consumes the energy equivalent to 500 gallons of gas in it's manufacture - a more realistically sized vehicle significantly more ..... so even if the 2k/year was all "highway" then even compared with an 10mpg "highway" clunker you'd "save" just over 151 gallons per year, i.e you only get ahead in year 4....
but compare it with say a ten year old honda civic (29 mpg highway, and 4 doors and a trunk etc....)
»www.fueleconomy.gov/FEG/noframes/14872.shtml
and you only "save" 20 gallons per year i.e you don't cover the manufacturing energy until 25 years down the line (if your smart is still driveable....) older cars are even more alarming since a 1989 civic (smaller than the 1999 but still much roomier than the smart) got 50mpg highway.....
»www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/5263.shtml
*the only exceptions i can think of is buying/owning the kind of scarce and desirable cars that increase in value rather than fall, perhaps due to long waiting lists that would-be owners will pay a premium to jump.... but that's a high risk strategy since one generally has to commit to the purchase some time in advance and may find that one's expectations of a healthy premium on a "nearly new" car are not fulfilled....
**or if that's say 250 days at 8 miles per day on average, cycle.... or even walk.
said by Spice300:Bicycle theft is common in America. I have had two stolen during my life. Apartment dwellers must park their bicycles in their rooms to prevent theft. Even motorcycles are easy targets when parked and chained in a community garage. here too, sadly..... in fact afaik the UK has far more bike thefts per head than the US - circa 440k bike thefts are reported here per year, in about 60m pop
»news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6596559.stm
vs about 231k in the FBI's UCR for the same year
»www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_07.html
of course some of that may be down to much higher bike ownership/use, increased liklihood of it being covered by their household insurance leading to increased reporting rates etc.... |
|
