Electric Car?

[GG]

GG manages to represent a unique combination of arrogance, complacency, and intellectual shallowness all his own. His sole contribution to these discussion boards was to ask--repeatedly--how one would go about selecting contestants for "America's Stupidest Woman." The joke wasn't funny the first ten times he said it.

 

You'll be sorry when it's the hottest show on television. Of course I can't get any producers interested since you haven't told me how we should line up contestants.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Yes, I know what energy density is. Obviously, the energy density of wood or leaves or such is lower than that of coal. So these power plants would have to be smaller and more dispersed than today's coal plants.

 

If cars and trucks are electric, the transportation of this fuel would create no carbon footprint beyond the needed electricity. And if electricity's generated without fossil fuels, there's no carbon footprint for the entire system. Except for installing it in the first place. But given the nature of our present infrastructure, installing anything in the first place will create some kind of carbon footprint.

 

You also mention the carbon footprint involved in farming. But that's with us already. I simply want to burn existing sources of plant waste, and use the ash as fertilizer. (Ash makes excellent fertilizer by the way.)

 

You, take it outside! And do me a favor...PLEASE don't respond to my posts again.

 

Thanks.

[Orton's Arm]

You, take it outside! And do me a favor...PLEASE don't respond to my posts again.

 

Thanks.

Ah yes, blame me for the fact that Bungee Jumper, his wife, and his puppy will disagree, on principle, with everything I write.

[DC Tom]

Yes, I know what energy density is. Obviously, the energy density of wood or leaves or such is lower than that of coal. So these power plants would have to be smaller and more dispersed than today's coal plants.

 

 

Yeah...because when you've got lower efficiency, the first thing you want to do is abandon economies of scale.

 

Shut up, retard.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Ah yes, blame me for the fact that Bungee Jumper, his wife, and his puppy will disagree, on principle, with everything I write.

 

All I know is, when you enter a thread, spam follows.

[DC Tom]

All I know is, when you enter a thread, spam follows.

 

 

Lovely spam, wonderful spam...

 

 

Maybe we should go for a spam-based energy infrastructure. Anyone know the carbon footprint of spam?

[Fan in Chicago]

1. The movie "Who Killed the Electric Car?" described an electric car GM had been manufacturing. The battery for that car had a longer-than-usual endurance. They're no longer making that car, and the company that owns the patents to the battery has since been purchased by an oil company.

3. My point in classifying most energy forms as "solar" was to underscore the fact that most energy sources involve some mechanism for converting sunlight into something we can use. Whether it's a photovoltaic cell, or photosynthesis, or some other process, we're still using the sun's energy. I agree that this (broader) definition of "solar" can be confusing if used in a shorthand way, which is why I normally only apply the word "solar" to electricity harvested directly from sunlight.

4. If you're taking carbon out of the ground and putting it in the air, you're doing something that makes the CO2 situation worse. That's what we're doing whenever we burn coal, oil, or even natural gas. Fossil fuels are not CO2 neutral: they make the carbon situation worse. In contrast, say you plant something, wait for it to grow, and then burn it. The plant took carbon out of the air when it grew, and put that carbon right back into the air when it was burned. The acres of land you're using for this aren't helping the carbon situation any, but neither are they harming it.

 

If we switched from fossil fuels to plant/grow/burn, the amount of carbon in the earth's atmosphere would begin to slowly decline. This is because we'd no longer be taking carbon out of the ground, anywhere. But there would be the occasional forest where old trees or other plant matter would gradually get buried, and thereby put new carbon into the ground.

1. I don't know about that movie. But it jsut does not make sense that if this mythical battery was cost-effective, that any company would have junked its idea. GM would have had a big competitive advantage and milked it dry. You probably also heard a story about this carburetor which allowed cars to get 80 miles/gal of gasoline (or 200 mpg for a Pogue carburetor). The story goes that someone bought and killed this idea. The follow-up is that these carburetors would either have to be as big as a barn or could accelerate a car from 0 to 35 mph in 10 minutes. So take such stories with a fistful of salt.

3. The term solar energy is used very widely and you cannot go about reinventing the meaning of that term.

4. Again the problem is time related. The time to grow a tree and then burn it is too long to make it an effective long term solution. As it is, the world has trouble maintaining its greenery (rain forest depletion etc.). Depending on an idea like this is totally impractical. Even if we go with the idea - it will take say 10 years to grow a large tree over which time it is consuming CO2. And, say, you burn it within one day - putting CO2 equivalent into the atmosphere at 365*10 = 3650 times as fast. This is ofcourse a stupid calc but illustrates the point.

Face it guys - we don't have the land or excess crop to solve an energy shortage.

[DC Tom]

3. The term solar energy is used very widely and you cannot go about reinventing the meaning of that term.

 

Clearly you're not familiar with his thought processes. Ask him about "error" and "variance".

 

4. Again the problem is time related. The time to grow a tree and then burn it is too long to make it an effective long term solution. As it is, the world has trouble maintaining its greenery (rain forest depletion etc.). Depending on an idea like this is totally impractical. Even if we go with the idea - it will take say 10 years to grow a large tree over which time it is consuming CO2. And, say, you burn it within one day - putting CO2 equivalent into the atmosphere at 365*10 = 3650 times as fast. This is ofcourse a stupid calc but illustrates the point.

 

Same calculation holds true for oil, just on a longer time scale. If you choose your time scale correctly, ANY fuel is effectively "carbon neutral".

 

But then, we probably shouldn't expect HA to realize that different time scales are not, in fact, the same.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Lovely spam, wonderful spam...

Maybe we should go for a spam-based energy infrastructure. Anyone know the carbon footprint of spam?

 

*kicks down door, SAW in hand*

 

*opens fire*

 

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH!

[DC Tom]

*kicks down door, SAW in hand*

 

*opens fire*

 

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH!

 

Unfortunately, the heritability of the speed of the bullets from the SAW increases to 1.0 at the end of their flight, causing them to regress to a mean of 3.5, which proves that corn stalks have a smaller carbon footprint than Big Macs...

 

 

...or something.

[Ramius]

Face it guys - we don't have the land or excess crop to solve an energy shortage.

 

read up on some of holcombs arm earlier posts. When you need more energy, you just run more power lines.

[Orton's Arm]

 

Yeah...because when you've got lower efficiency, the first thing you want to do is abandon economies of scale.

 

Shut up, retard.

Here's a novel idea for you: think before you post. Or would that be asking too much?

 

The lower the quantity of energy (either on a per-pound or per cubic-foot basis), the more transportation costs will run you per unit of energy produced. The optimal transportation distance therefore declines.

[Orton's Arm]

All I know is, when you enter a thread, spam follows.

Blame the spammers, not me.

[DC Tom]

Here's a novel idea for you: think before you post. Or would that be asking too much?

 

The lower the quantity of energy (either on a per-pound or per cubic-foot basis), the more transportation costs will run you per unit of energy produced. The optimal transportation distance therefore declines.

 

No, the lower your energy density, the fewer transportation nodes you want in the system. Shipping large amounts to a centralized place is more efficient than shipping small amounts all over the country. Is there anything you won't get backwards?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Blame the spammers, not me.

 

Simple cause and effect, Arm.

 

You Reply,

They Spam.

 

Ergo, if you don't reply, THEY WON'T SPAM.

 

I don't care if you reply elsewhere, just keep it out of my threads, damn you!

[DC Tom]

Simple cause and effect, Arm.

 

You Reply,

They Spam.

 

Ergo, if you don't reply, THEY WON'T SPAM.

 

I don't care if you reply elsewhere, just keep it out of my threads, damn you!

 

Gee, sorry to ruin your "ElEcTrIc CaRs ArE KEWL!" thread.

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Gee, sorry to ruin your "ElEcTrIc CaRs ArE KEWL!" thread.

 

 

*flying spent casings clink off the floor, gunsmoke fills the air*

 

*manaical laughter*

 

YAHA! AHAHA! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

[DC Tom]

*flying spent casings clink off the floor, gunsmoke fills the air*

 

*manaical laughter*

 

YAHA! AHAHA! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

 

Fortunately, I'm fine. Your dad was a lousy shot, and it's 100% heritable.

[Orton's Arm]

1. I don't know about that movie. But it jsut does not make sense that if this mythical battery was cost-effective, that any company would have junked its idea. GM would have had a big competitive advantage and milked it dry. You probably also heard a story about this carburetor which allowed cars to get 80 miles/gal of gasoline (or 200 mpg for a Pogue carburetor). The story goes that someone bought and killed this idea. The follow-up is that these carburetors would either have to be as big as a barn or could accelerate a car from 0 to 35 mph in 10 minutes. So take such stories with a fistful of salt.

3. The term solar energy is used very widely and you cannot go about reinventing the meaning of that term.

4. Again the problem is time related. The time to grow a tree and then burn it is too long to make it an effective long term solution. As it is, the world has trouble maintaining its greenery (rain forest depletion etc.). Depending on an idea like this is totally impractical. Even if we go with the idea - it will take say 10 years to grow a large tree over which time it is consuming CO2. And, say, you burn it within one day - putting CO2 equivalent into the atmosphere at 365*10 = 3650 times as fast. This is ofcourse a stupid calc but illustrates the point.

Face it guys - we don't have the land or excess crop to solve an energy shortage.

1. The electric cars were expensive to produce. Those who made the movie felt costs could come down as a result of economies of scale. Instead, the project was abandoned. The movie was made in part by the former GM employees who were responsible for the electric car project. It also included testimonials from electric car customers; some of whom were famous celebrities. GM has issued a public explanation for why it abandoned its electric car project. This isn't some old wives' tale.

 

The electric car was killed for the following reasons (among others)

• California had passed a law requiring a certain percentage of all vehicles to be zero emissions by a specific date. GM wanted to derail that law, believing it wouldn't be able to meet its requirements. Without functional zero emissions vehicles, it's a lot easier to say the law's requirements are impossible to meet.
  
• The electric car was too expensive to produce.
  
• Some law would have required GM to stock replacement parts for electric cars in all GM dealerships. It wanted to avoid this burden.
  
• GM had elected to pursue a more SUV-intensive strategy with the acquisition of Hummer. It no longer felt it needed the electric car.
  

3. I wasn't trying to reinvent the term "solar," merely making the observation that most energy ultimately comes from the sun. Again, if you see me using the term "solar," it will be in the traditionally accepted meaning of the term.

4. My point was that a lot of plant waste is simply left to rot. If we burned it in power plants, we could turn that potential energy into electricity. What percentage of our power needs could be met through that mechanism? I don't know, but it's well worth doing. I'm not advocating chopping down Yellowstone for this purpose; but I do have my eye on people's yard waste, on corn stalks, on forests which naturally burn down anyway, etc. If something's burning, it may as well be producing electricity.

[DC Tom]

4. My point was that a lot of plant waste is simply left to rot.

 

Unfortunately, a small portion of it becomes animated and posts on the internet pretending to understand statistics and biology...