GG Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Implying, of course, that our supply of fossil fuels will last through your respective lifetimes. I sense you're being overly optimistic about things staying the same (continued fossil fuel availability) and overly pessimistic about the possibility for change (the creation of a viable electric car). Is there anything that you are not wrong about? Even pessimistic scenarios have oil lasting at least 75 more years, because doomsday scenarios of Hubbert haven't been fully realized. My view is framed around what's viable to produce and consume, not dreamed up while flipping a quarter pounder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Actually, the Volt's not pure electric. It's pure electric drive...but it has a gas engine on board to act as a generator. The idea is, for short local trips you charge it off the grid and never use gas. For long trips, the gas engine trickle charges the batteries and powers the electric motor. The basic concept isn't unproven; US submarines and very late-war German subs in WWII ran basically the same way (all electric drive, powered by batteries or diesel engines), and had far better range - in both absolute and per ton of fuel terms - than any other submarine in the world. Engineering the same thing into a car isn't trivial...but the concept is basically sound. Willl they hold up in the harsh northern winters... Say snow and ice? If so, I am all for it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 In all practicality, isn't there a big drop off in performance with batteries?... Even if they are charged all the time... Didn't read the article... Some bateries get "memory"... This might not be the case with this concept though...??? I just know that our carts at work run like sh*t after a short while, even if we charge them all the time... The only thing that gives us a new life are new batteries... And even if we add acid/water and keep them up to snuff... Then there is the snow and ice... The drop off is even worse... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Just read it... I drive one way to work 18 miles... Will the Corps of Engineers/US gov't let me "plug in" when I get to work?... Can I do that on the fed's dime? If not? How is that to be managed when you times that by millions of workers? On another note... The Lith ion doesn't have a memory effect which is good... But, don't cell phone batteries go caput after a while and note my performance v. charging post above...??? I bet after a while with these "little darlings"... People will forgo the costly upkeep and will be puttering around on the gas engine constantly... (because the batteries will have crapped out after a few minutes... Hence the gas engine will have to constantly "kick in")... Hmmm... Sorry to be a killjoy... I work in all kinds of outside conditions (and boy they suck the minute I leave the nice paved esplanade!) and spend a lot of my working day riding in electric carts... And boy the gov't shells out a lot so I don't have to walk down the lockwall! They would spend less on the Illinois and MS rivers alone if they just converted all our lock transportation to gas ATV or something... You know how much a simple Cushman cart costs? Let alone the electric "tuggers" they use down river to handle the tow haulage cables around the lockwall... I'd tell... But, you'd be screaming federal gov't waste! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 My view is framed around what's viable to produce and consume, not dreamed up while flipping a quarter pounder. McDonald's laid you off? As for your comments about oil, know that production is already declining in many parts of the world. American oil production peaked in 1970 at over 4.0 gigabarrels per year, but has been gradually declining since. Today it's at about 1.8 billion gigabarrels per year. Oil production is such that a given nation's or region's reserves don't run dry all at once. Instead, production increases while reserves are located and drilled, then it peaks, then gradually falls. Production peaked in Canada in 1973, it peaked in Mexico in 1977, it peaked in Venezuala in 1970, and it peaked in Saudi Arabia in 2006. The larger OPEC countries' reserves are, the more their cartel allows them to produce. Hence, these countries have a strong incentive to exaggerate the size of their . . . reserves. Dr. Ali Samsam Bakhtiari, a former senior executive of the National Iranian Oil Company, has stated that Iran's oil reserves in particular, and OPEC's in general, are wildly exaggerated. He believes world oil production is at its peak, and will fall 32% by 2020. But I'm sure you know more about all that than he does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 8, 2007 Author Share Posted March 8, 2007 Get this sh-- out of my !@#$ing thread. I want to talk electric cars, you !@#$ing !@#$ity !@#$! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 McDonald's laid you off? As for your comments about oil, know that production is already declining in many parts of the world. American oil production peaked in 1970 at over 4.0 gigabarrels per year, but has been gradually declining since. Today it's at about 1.8 billion gigabarrels per year. Oil production is such that a given nation's or region's reserves don't run dry all at once. Instead, production increases while reserves are located and drilled, then it peaks, then gradually falls. Production peaked in Canada in 1973, it peaked in Mexico in 1977, it peaked in Venezuala in 1970, and it peaked in Saudi Arabia in 2006. The larger OPEC countries' reserves are, the more their cartel allows them to produce. Hence, these countries have a strong incentive to exaggerate the size of their . . . reserves. Dr. Ali Samsam Bakhtiari, a former senior executive of the National Iranian Oil Company, has stated that Iran's oil reserves in particular, and OPEC's in general, are wildly exaggerated. He believes world oil production is at its peak, and will fall 32% by 2020. But I'm sure you know more about all that than he does. Calling then "gigabarrels" doesn't make you sound any less stupid. Nor does misquoting US oil production. It never exceeded 3.5b barrels in any given year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Mr. Candidate, what is your energy program? Whew. Right now I am devoting a great deal of time and study to that problem and I expect to issue a position paper on that; a position that is at once simple yet complex, flexible, and above all else, fair to every American. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Calling then "gigabarrels" doesn't make you sound any less stupid. Nor does misquoting US oil production. It never exceeded 3.5b barrels in any given year. Great. Let's spend the next 50 pages debating how much oil we produced when we were at our peak. Just dandy. But the points I made in my post go far beyond the exact value of the U.S.'s peak oil production. But why would you bother commenting on the minor issue of long-term oil sustainability when you've got more important things to worry about--like calling me stupid? Your vendetta against me has long since passed mere crusade territory, and it's polluting a number of perfectly decent threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Get a pair of gerbils, a wheel and 625 lbs of Raisin Bran®. The energy problems are solved! (stolen from Bloom County) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Great. Let's spend the next 50 pages debating how much oil we produced when we were at our peak. Just dandy. Or you can look it up on the DOE web site like I did...but that probably conflicts with some wikipedia article you read, so I doubt DOE is credible. But the points I made in my post go far beyond the exact value of the U.S.'s peak oil production. But why would you bother commenting on the minor issue of long-term oil sustainability when you've got more important things to worry about--like calling me stupid? Your vendetta against me has long since passed mere crusade territory, and it's polluting a number of perfectly decent threads. The points you made weren't points, they were nothing more than your uninformed opinion backed up as usual by complete fabrications. And what do you know...while looking for Canada's actual oil production rates, I happen to stumble across the source of your numbers: Wikipedia. Complete with the contradictory statement that Canada's oil production peaked in 1973 but has been increasing ever since. And oh, gee, look...you actually cut-and-pasted Wikipedia's incorrect claim of US peak production of "4 gigabarrels". Tell me again how Wikipedia is an accurate source... But you can't claim to be making valid points when you're just making sh-- up. Valid points have to be based in fact of some kind. Or didn't Perfesser Hamburgler teach you that in school? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Get a pair of gerbils, a wheel and 625 lbs of Raisin Bran®. The energy problems are solved! (stolen from Bloom County) Two porcupines, not hamsters. And porcupines are allergic to raisins. Failure is hardly original, Mr. Jones... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Mr. Candidate, what is your energy program? Whew. Right now I am devoting a great deal of time and study to that problem and I expect to issue a position paper on that; a position that is at once simple yet complex, flexible, and above all else, fair to every American. It's a lot easier to just say "I have a plan." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Back to the electric cars... Thanks for the change of heart JSP! My points are with durabilty, performance, and maintenance... Until those major issues can be satisfactory resolved... I won't be sold... Like I said... We have a whole ton of issues with our finicky, very expensive electric carts at work... True maybe not in the same league as GM's volt... But, issues none the less... I remain open minded yet very skeptical of batteries and electric drive... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 9, 2007 Author Share Posted March 9, 2007 Rat Bastards! *grumbles something about Holcomb's Arm as the ultimate hijacker* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Two porcupines, not hamsters.And porcupines are allergic to raisins. Failure is hardly original, Mr. Jones... I'm hitting the big 5-0 in a few weeks, the memory is going. I couldn't remember what they were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 There are several inherent problems with the concept of electric plug-in cars. The stated goal is to reduce emissions. However, we need to not look simply at the car and its emissions but the entire energy chain by which a energy source is converted to electricity and used to power such cars. Electricity is generated primarily by either nuclear or hydrocarbon based fuels. US power plants, overall, have a thermal efficiency of 33% (that much of the sources' energy gets converted to usable energy). Then the electricity is transmitted via the power grid resulting in further losses (not sure of the exact % of losses but it is likely around 30%). So looking at it holistically, the percent of energy converted is very low compared to on-site power generation or the ICE. Secondly, it is debatable whether emissions are reduced or not for the planet. Coal and natural gas both pollute to varying degrees. Nuclear is clean and renewable energy sources are too expensive right now. We may find emissions lower on the road but concentrated at the power plants. Ultimately, I am not sure if the emissions per mile driven are better in plug-in cars. Lastly, the world is consuming electricity at a fast pace. New power plants, upgrading of existing power plants is required just to keep up with the demand growth. Any growth of such plug-in cars will directionally make matters worse. I realize that adoption rates will be too slow for such cars to make any measurable dent in the electricity demand - but directionally it is still not correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Or you can look it up on the DOE web site like I did...but that probably conflicts with some wikipedia article you read, so I doubt DOE is credible.The points you made weren't points, they were nothing more than your uninformed opinion backed up as usual by complete fabrications. And what do you know...while looking for Canada's actual oil production rates, I happen to stumble across the source of your numbers: Wikipedia. Complete with the contradictory statement that Canada's oil production peaked in 1973 but has been increasing ever since. And oh, gee, look...you actually cut-and-pasted Wikipedia's incorrect claim of US peak production of "4 gigabarrels". Tell me again how Wikipedia is an accurate source... But you can't claim to be making valid points when you're just making sh-- up. Valid points have to be based in fact of some kind. Or didn't Perfesser Hamburgler teach you that in school? As I said, I will not spend the next 50 pages debating the peak level of oil production with you. Do you, or do you not, have something useful to contribute to the discussion of how long global oil reserves are going to last? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 As I said, I will not spend the next 50 pages debating the peak level of oil production with you. Do you, or do you not, have something useful to contribute to the discussion of how long global oil reserves are going to last? As far as i know, frying oil reserves arent decreasing, so your job is safe for quite some time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 There are several inherent problems with the concept of electric plug-in cars. The stated goal is to reduce emissions. However, we need to not look simply at the car and its emissions but the entire energy chain by which a energy source is converted to electricity and used to power such cars.Electricity is generated primarily by either nuclear or hydrocarbon based fuels. US power plants, overall, have a thermal efficiency of 33% (that much of the sources' energy gets converted to usable energy). Then the electricity is transmitted via the power grid resulting in further losses (not sure of the exact % of losses but it is likely around 30%). So looking at it holistically, the percent of energy converted is very low compared to on-site power generation or the ICE. Secondly, it is debatable whether emissions are reduced or not for the planet. Coal and natural gas both pollute to varying degrees. Nuclear is clean and renewable energy sources are too expensive right now. We may find emissions lower on the road but concentrated at the power plants. Ultimately, I am not sure if the emissions per mile driven are better in plug-in cars. Lastly, the world is consuming electricity at a fast pace. New power plants, upgrading of existing power plants is required just to keep up with the demand growth. Any growth of such plug-in cars will directionally make matters worse. I realize that adoption rates will be too slow for such cars to make any measurable dent in the electricity demand - but directionally it is still not correct. From what I've read, electric cars do produce less emissions, even after taking into account the fact you'd burn coal or something to produce the needed electricity. A thought experiment should confirm this. Suppose everyone took their homes off the grid, and started using gasoline-powered engines/generators to provide electricity for their homes. What do you think this would do to the overall pollution situation? The advantage to power plants over engines is that it's a lot easier to control pollution from a small number of big sources than it is to control pollution from a very large number of small sources. Another advantage to coal over oil is that we don't have to import coal from the volatile Middle East. Besides that, if we managed to make the switch to electric cars, we'd be one step closer to weening ourselves from fossil fuels entirely. Future models could come equipped with solar panels, so that if they're parked in sun-soaked parking lots, or even stuck in traffic, they could be replenishing their batteries. They'd still need plug-in ability--especially in WNY--but the solar panels would make them even more eco-friendly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts