# thoughts on green economy (how to get there)



## stoveguy2esw (Jul 3, 2010)

was an ash can thread moved on advice from BeGreen with my agreement. be interested in comments on it



wanna bring about change? get off the oil? great, who doesnt? problem is nobody has a workable realistic plan. one side is ‘drill baby drill” and the other is stop drilling and wait for the windmills. actually both have merits.

face facts , we are in a down economy , i dont give a damn who is responsible (to be honest you and i are culpable as anyone) so jobs are scarce , revenues to the government are scarce, so its hard to get private industry to buy into jumping on the “green ” bandwagon when if it goes bust likeit did in the 70’s they would be left holding the bag.and we will need that bridge to get to where im going with this

here’s my plan (overly simplified but here are the basics)
1. start by drilling domestically with only US owned and based companies, and drill SAFELY but drill. reason is this , this economy is based on cheap oil, as it sits now it needs it to prosper, drilling domestically with american companies doing it keeps money here and pays american workers. now before you get on your high horse and go partisan leftys, listen (or read it all) first. regulate the drill sites heavily with an eye toward environmental safety, put every means available into ensuring accidents are less likely to happen (i didnt say not happen because nobody can plan for every contingency) we only need 15 to 18 years of peak production so open all the available avenues , anwar , north slope, etc. driving down the cost of oil domestically will not only force out foriegn competition but provide jobs as well as kick start the economy here generating revenue to power this plan
2. mandate all car companies which sell in the US come up with standards for universal battery powered vehicles both in power regeneration or battery changeout compatability. which must be fully in place in the next 8 years, meaning by year 9 no civilian internal combustion powered automobiles will be sold in the US (production of military vehicles would be exempt for obvious reasons) now a mandate by itself isnt enough im sure some grants , low interest loans and tax exemptions will be needed as well but the mandate must be there just to let the private sector know its for real this time.infrastructure will also need to be in place during this time, that means fast charge or battery swap “stations” (same as gas stations we have now) will need to crop up face it the people here spoiled as we are are not going to be happy with waiting 4 hundred miles 2 hours for a recharge, its got to be relatively fast or “john q.” aint going for it. hence my demand for compatability among all brands , if its a quick change battery station then its a short wait pop in and get a coke or coffee while the battery is changed then charge based on KW difference between the new and old batteries. the spent batteries can be hooked to a recharger in a rack.to be charged and installed later on a different vehicle

3. all public wheeled transportation must move to non-internal combustion systems in the next 10 years (there is a head start already in place for this but its not electric. i believe electric busses would be designed and built in the decade. allow credits for this with a “credit for clunkers” deal for local governments to help defray costs along with a slightly boosted “per use” cost to help pay for it as well. i think its a pipe dream to have the nation wide public transportation that is enjoyed by europe today the country is simply not laid out right as a whole for this to work effectively. do it in urban areas where you can but with almost 90% of the country being “rural” its just not feasible to have that type of system.
4. start building nuke plants as well as nuclear recycling plants (yes spent nuclear fuel can be safely recycled if not into usable fuel into somthing that can be sequestered safely, its expensive now but only because its “exotic”) along with tidal, geothermal, and wind powered grid generation nuclear is the ONLY way to get out of fossil fuel.

the “green revolution” could happen , it will take “manhatten project” if not apollo project” resources and at least a decade maybe two to do it but its feasible. it will take a national will. it will take a shitload of money, and it will take a healthy economy. none of which we have right now. personally , i’d like to see us make the attempt at it but it will only happen with the ENTIRE will of the people, a lot of give and take from the left and right, and patience as this aint happening overnight. and it will atke some sides biting their lip for a bit while things they didnt want to see are carried out (both sides) the pure left isnt gonna like all the new holes in the ground , and the pure right isnt gonna like spending all this dough on stuff that aint gonna show immediate results. but give it 5-7 years if we adapt this course and it could be special.


----------



## webbie (Jul 3, 2010)

I honestly don't think people have the will for it. It would take a lot of education to show people how this benefits all of us. 
Heck, over 1/4 of Americans...this July 4th...do not know what country we won our independence from!
http://maristpoll.marist.edu/72-donâ€™t-know-much-about-history/

So, being realistic, we'd have to have a strong majority of Americans both educated in the subject AND willing to change. Not to be pessimistic, but lots of Americans - even if educated in that facts - would choose "freedom" over group action. I use freedom in quotes, because it would mean their freedom to, for instance, hire a Boeing 767 to take them to work if they could afford it (and if they could write it off, especially).

This is not like Manhattan or Apollo - because it involved every person, family, house, business, transportation method, manufacturing method, etc. - it is vastly more complicated.

The good news, IMHO, is that I think it will happen. But it will happen slowly, and is likely to only happen in many places when forced to by costs or government regulation. 

As I mentioned before, many states have embarked upon programs to cut down their energy use significantly. As is typical with these things, some of the efforts are BS...but many of them will bear fruit. In Ma. we are already close to the Europeans in terms of less energy use per capita, and we expect it to head down much further. This involves ZERO lifestyle choices (for now) - it is more systems based. There is a lot of low hanging fruit on the conservation end.

Although electric cars and all that stuff sounds good, I think that the first large part of the effort will be simply common sense and boring stuff - insulation, new heating systems, better CAFE standards, etc.

Once people understand that this will work, they are then likely to accept the next phases. The quest for energy and energy efficiency will never end, so there is nowhere we have to get to! We just have to use our heads for continual improvement with our eye toward sustainability.


----------



## btuser (Jul 3, 2010)

There's a big tizzy right now with plug-in cars because how do you pay for the roads when everyone is filling up at home.  I could live pretty easy with a car that had only 100 mile radius, and that is true for 80% of the drivers on the road.  So, if 70% of our petroleum diet goes for transportation and 80% of that is electric we've suddenly cut our oil need by 50%.   Its that easy.    But stand back and get ready to watch massive loss of jobs.   For the most part a lack of consumption puts people out of work.


----------



## Dune (Jul 3, 2010)

The idea of battery swapping, while being popularly promoted is intensely impractical. Kind of like musical chairs, who ends up responsible for the worn out battery pack? 
Additionaly, it is un-needed. The Chevy Volt has a forty mile range on pure electric, with a total range of 300 plus miles. Since the average person drives under forty miles per day, no need to swap batteries. For those who drive farther, the Nissan Leaf has an all electric range of 100 miles per day. The Tessla Roadster an all electric range of 300 miles.  And that is just the beginning.
   The lies about lack of battery technology are over. All we need now is the will to change.


----------



## Dune (Jul 3, 2010)

btuser said:
			
		

> There's a big tizzy right now with plug-in cars because how do you pay for the roads when everyone is filling up at home.  I could live pretty easy with a car that had only 100 mile radius, and that is true for 80% of the drivers on the road.  So, if 70% of our petroleum diet goes for transportation and 80% of that is electric we've suddenly cut our oil need by 50%.   Its that easy.    But stand back and get ready to watch massive loss of jobs.   For the most part a lack of consumption puts people out of work.



Um, yeah. Somebody has to process the lithium, manufacture the batteries, build the electric cars, as well as the greatly increased demand for solar electric, once people realize they can create their own automobile fuel. Additionaly, the money saved from petro-purchases may well go into the general consumerism fund.


----------



## begreen (Jul 3, 2010)

Dune said:
			
		

> The idea of battery swapping, while being popularly promoted is intensely impractical. Kind of like musical chairs, who ends up responsible for the worn out battery pack?



The manufacturer. The idea is to support cradle-to-grave responsibility for what we make. That encourages the manufacture of components that can be refitted and have recycleable parts. The idea of a company taking resources from the earth, making something for profit and then dumping them in landfills (a tax payer expense) has to end. Lead acid batteries have been this way for a long time. 

http://www.batteryrecycling.com/Battery+Recycling+Process


----------



## begreen (Jul 3, 2010)

Item #1 is already taking shape in Israel with Nissan/Renault as partners. It's called the Better Place project. http://www.betterplace.com/ However, the head of Nissan doesn't think it will work in the US for the same reason trans-national high speed rail won't work. The country is too big.

http://gas2.org/2009/11/17/nissan-global-ev-chief-battery-swapping-likely-wont-work-in-us/

An Apollo moon level project would be to develop practical anti-gravity. Eliminate tires and you eliminate rolling resistance and a ton of oil that goes into tires. It sounds a little crazy, but we are getting closer to this becoming possible. 

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rocketscience-02t.html


----------



## stoveguy2esw (Jul 3, 2010)

web,

the idea is to make it maybe not a manhattan  but actually more likie apollo, the nation was behind the government in that project we (as a people) wanted it. the trick is to want it as a people. thats obama's job , get us to believe and want. its a tough job to do and not one i would want to drop on someone lightly. if obama has one gift (and he does) its the ability to rally people. IMHO as a statesman he's a total failure but as an orator he is the best ive seen in my lifetime and he has the full weight and power of the united states in his pocket if he asks for it properly (he doesnt know or believe this but its true)

rahm emmanuel made the biggest mistake of the 21st century recently not by his idiology , but simply by his thinking too small, the gulf oil disaster has opened a lot of eyes, mine included. but the message we are getting is the wrong one , instead of blame and finger pointing , this disaster (which he himself professes 'shouldnt be wasted" ) is being wasted. america needs a positive message, we need "we should be looking to do this" instead of 'blame bush" or the reply of "whatever" im not gonna waste time thinking about that( i ask that you dont either). 

think outside the box for a bit...

imagine what we could do with a non-fossil fueled economy, what it would do for the planet, you yourself have quoted how much petroleum we use versus what we've produced, lamented on what coal has done to this country (and you personally) well here's yoru chance, for millenia men dreamed of walking on the moon , we did it in a decade with far less technical ability than we have now. is it so hard to imagine we couldnt do this? ive spent hours on end thinking about this (yes republican though i am , ive done so, is it hard to believe that?)

accept with conditions, we as a country need to number one , get on our feet, when we get there (as well as we struggle to get there) we need to keep the goal in sight. not blame the other side for holding us back. its gonna take both sides to make this work anyway.

just imagine what it could be if america (all of america) got behind a non-fossil movement in the way we got behind apollo, the way we mobilized in 1941, the stolid resolve shown on 9/12/01. not the politics but the people, "John Q". our friend john q is why we should argue about politics, not rush, or maddow or oreilly or hannity, but john q. "we" are "john Q" we pay taxes, we make things, we buy gas at the pump(and lament it when its a nickle cheaper the next day, admit it , ya gotta, (happened to me today i bought gas at 2.59 yesterday evening and it was 2.49 today at the same station) holiday weekend for pete's sake ,it always goes up right?)


web , what im saying is this , look to the future not to the past. im willing if you are. i respect you that much, we disagree, but i think we agree at the same time.can the pessimism embrace optimism if everyone wer to do so we could get behind this thing as a nation, and maybe , just maybe we could get it done this time.


----------



## Dune (Jul 3, 2010)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> Item #1 is already taking shape in Israel with Nissan/Renault as partners. It's called the Better Place project. http://www.betterplace.com/ However, the head of Nissan doesn't think it will work in the US for the same reason trans-national high speed rail won't work. The country is too big.
> 
> http://gas2.org/2009/11/17/nissan-global-ev-chief-battery-swapping-likely-wont-work-in-us/
> 
> ...



Heres some info from some folks who disagree with A Better Place: http://www.hybridcars.com/news/skeptics-question-electric-car-battery-swapping-25627.html


----------



## begreen (Jul 3, 2010)

> web , what im saying is this , look to the future not to the past. im willing if you are. i respect you that much, we disagree, but i think we agree at the same time.can the pessimism embrace optimism if everyone wer to do so we could get behind this thing as a nation, and maybe , just maybe we could get it done this time.



I appreciate your thoughts and enthusiasm Mike. I have been thinking on this subject since the seventies and contributing where I can. I think we can all agree on this - we need to provide a better future for our families, children, our planet. The earth is finite and we are starting to see humankind pushing it to the limits. 

The gulf tragedy is having an effect. It enabled Obama to get the G20 to agree to change the language in the climate pact from voluntary oil subsidy cuts to mandatory:
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/27/news/sc-dc-global-finance-20100628


----------



## stoveguy2esw (Jul 3, 2010)

Dune said:
			
		

> The idea of battery swapping, while being popularly promoted is intensely impractical. Kind of like musical chairs, who ends up responsible for the worn out battery pack?
> Additionaly, it is un-needed. The Chevy Volt has a forty mile range on pure electric, with a total range of 300 plus miles. Since the average person drives under forty miles per day, no need to swap batteries. For those who drive farther, the Nissan Leaf has an all electric range of 100 miles per day. The Tessla Roadster an all electric range of 300 miles.  And that is just the beginning.
> The lies about lack of battery technology are over. *All we need now is the will to change*.



very , very good dune! especially what i highlighted

at 300 miles a "quick swap" battery (recyclable, as most batteries are now at least rechargable ones) would be feasible (need one to get one , like a core charge. batteries do wear but are recylable or disposable in proper facilities make them available for the "stations" which would be stuck with the bulk of them. it could well be an industry by itself, the idea is that people could plg their car in at night to travel locally only needing battery swap or "remote recharge" when travelling , or if they screw up and leave it unplugged. the electrical industry would play a part in this by subsidizing battery recycling or disposal , and pass teh cost along to the public (after all plugging your car in at night and paying for it on your electric bill could very well be cheaper than buying a hundred bucks a week worth of gas)looking at that alone means the money is out there. im looking at the travelling public when i look at fast change batteries, if ya go to the beach you aint getiung there without at least 1 fillup on the way , and the way back, "john q" aint gonna want to way a couple hours for a charge, a 15 minute batery change would be easier to accept as the norm so work for that instead of the "carging station" angle. when at home , theres no need for swapping like i said , plug it in and go to work ,plug it in when you get home


----------



## Dune (Jul 3, 2010)

Hey Mike, Glad you are onboard. I guess there is little point arguing about whether to swap batteries or not. What matters is that we are headed in the right direction. For some time now, here on this forum, if I wanted to get something going, I just had to mention electric cars. To see such a turnaround is inspiring to say the least. Of course T hasn't checked in yet.


----------



## stoveguy2esw (Jul 3, 2010)

Dune said:
			
		

> btuser said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



also right on the money (holy chit , me and dune agreeing twice on the same thread?????!!)  if that can happen anything can (never doubted your intelligence bro, just dont agree with your politics)

im thinking rotating lithium anode but its not my field, im sure someone else who is vastly smarter on this than i am would come up with the battery configuration.

BTW doesnt afghanistan have a crapload of lithium deposits on hand , just dig it up , they could be the 21st century saudi's if they were smart about it. maybe a friendly reminder to them of what tehy are sitting on followed by our getting the heck out (providing they as a country get their chit together, was there in 87 wasnt pretty then , aint pretty now) would be a good deal for all involved as well


----------



## stoveguy2esw (Jul 3, 2010)

Dune said:
			
		

> BeGreen said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



good point but the data was based by mercedes on 40 year old technology, i think we could do better than the old "lead acid" batteries of that time. BG the fact that the country is so big is the reason for swappable batteries the arguement defeats itself in this case.


----------



## Dune (Jul 3, 2010)

BLIMP said:
			
		

> why bother with censorship ?



What the heck are you talking about?


----------



## stoveguy2esw (Jul 3, 2010)

Dune said:
			
		

> Hey Mike, Glad you are onboard. I guess there is little point arguing about whether to swap batteries or not. What matters is that we are headed in the right direction. For some time now, here on this forum, if I wanted to get something going, I just had to mention electric cars. To see such a turnaround is inspiring to say the least. Of course T hasn't checked in yet.



hell dune, ive 'been onboard " with this for a while now , just didnt know it was lively in here, in the ash can its too partisan to even bring it up til i got upset enough to do so. i fully believe that electric is the only plausible way to go in as far as transportation , untilities wise we may butt heads im strong on nukes with suppliments with wind solatr etc...

be advised its not a turnaround on my part , i have my feelings on how to get there (which IMHO is the big battle) but , its a lot nicer to acknowledge  that we both have a common cause even though you and i will undoubtably butt heads on how it gets implemented. i meant what i said about "o" he has his strengths and weaknesses, hopefully he will use his strengths to this purpose if so i will (gawd!!) have to forgive his weaknesses. so write who you can (as i have)


----------



## Dune (Jul 3, 2010)

Who I can what?


----------



## stoveguy2esw (Jul 4, 2010)

Dune said:
			
		

> Who I can what?




write to , AKA congresscritters senators etc...

the more folks who show interest in somthing the more it catches hold (think tea party as much as it pains you) the idea is to get more for what you pay in, at least my read is thus (i dont participate but i can understand their ideals) 

put it this way , if as many people were to publically push (and do this without demonizing anyone which draws the negative to the negative) for an ideal such as this (while actively bugging the HELL out of your elected representatives (heck request an audience at least you get to talk to a staffer, beat up on him , bring as many voters as you can) my local member of the house Bob Goodlatte's staffers probably know me by my first name , i write all the time, does it help , who knows , but im getting my moneys worth outa my vote and if i dont im voting for the next guy , thats democracy. thing is , if you do not participate , the elected do not know you nor do they know *your ideas, or your ideals* so they must assume that yours and theirs are the same.

BTW im extremely happy with Bob's job in representing me and my fellow Virginians


----------



## Dune (Jul 4, 2010)

Yeah, Dude. I guess my point is that I came to this site to promote alternative energy, found some like minds, learned way more than I've passed on, but also from the beginning found a lot of resistence to forms of alternative energy other than wood, mostly along partisan lines. It seems like things might be loosening up a bit, but then maybe I am just being silly.


----------



## begreen (Jul 4, 2010)

> Here's some info from some folks who disagree with A Better Place: http://www.hybridcars.com/news/skeptics-question-electric-car-battery-swapping-25627.html





> good point but the data was based by mercedes on 40 year old technology, i think we could do better than the old "lead acid" batteries of that time. BG the fact that the country is so big is the reason for swappable batteries the argument defeats itself in this case.



Battery swap stations make sense in densely populated areas where daily distance traveled is under say 60 miles. But they don't make sense when it would take a 30 mile drive to reach the station and 30 miles to get back like it would in some rural areas. The transportation nut is going to have to be cracked from multiple directions. In some areas fuel cells running on locally generated hydrogen might make more sense. In in some limited areas fossil fuel may still be the best for the foreseeable future. Trucking is a whole nuther problem that is going to take revising. Eventually all of us are going to have to get used to more local sources of what we eat and use. Strawberries in December is a bit over the top for fuel consumption. I'm glad local wineries and breweries are ramping up and making some good stuff.


----------



## stoveguy2esw (Jul 4, 2010)

alternative minds are out there , most of which hiding under the guise of "realist" i can understand that , weaning america off oil is a quantum leap, kinda like if american had to pay big bucks to use the internet , wouldnt have been the boom it was. 


essentially , america is a petulant child, it has to find "veggies" tasty before it will indulge. the trick is in the cooking (my daughter never had a problem with veggie but i tend to "cook" not "heat up" this is the dillemma, we have to "cook" not just heat up (thats what carter did in the 70's and what obama unfortunatly seems to be doing now (not necessarily a dig on him as most havent even turned the stove on) but , he isnt hammering the green agenda very much at all (not even the "gore" vision of cap and get rich, he easily could be dumping on us, for that i give him credit albeit critisism as well , cause it shows he isnt doing anything) he needs to wake up and look at this for the mess (and oddly enough blessing) it is. then he needs to work on public support as well as look to find ways that are fiscally responsable while socially necessary to convince congress to quit playing "all the credit none of the blame" and start serving OUR interests.


----------



## Dune (Jul 4, 2010)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> > Here's some info from some folks who disagree with A Better Place: http://www.hybridcars.com/news/skeptics-question-electric-car-battery-swapping-25627.html
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Right. I wonder if battery swaps would be pretty suitable for the big rigs, at existing truck stops.  Big rigs could sacrifice a bit of cargo capacity in exchange for extra range. The savings in fuel cost would more than offset the lost revenue.


----------



## stoveguy2esw (Jul 4, 2010)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> > Here's some info from some folks who disagree with A Better Place: http://www.hybridcars.com/news/skeptics-question-electric-car-battery-swapping-25627.html
> 
> 
> 
> ...



actually battery swap staions make more sense n rural ,or interstate corridor sectors bacause in urban areas cars will be "plugged in" to load batteries whaile you sleep and give all te power needed to make local stops under 'hotel " load essentially if you use your car as i do , back and forth to work (a couple miles one way in my case) i could go months or years without needing a new battery as i would simply plug in my car at home each night to "top off", travel is different, truckers will need stations, vacationers would need stations. but locals , naaah they are their own station. actually , fuel cells make more sense for truckers but less for "john q" and his "runabout"


as for strawberries in december, WHY??? , do we REALLY need strawberries in december??? or are we spoiled by the availability of them?


----------



## Dune (Jul 4, 2010)

stoveguy2esw said:
			
		

> alternative minds are out there , most of which hiding under the guise of "realist" i can understand that , weaning america off oil is a quantum leap, kinda like if american had to pay big bucks to use the internet , wouldnt have been the boom it was.
> 
> 
> essentially , america is a petulant child, it has to find "veggies" tasty before it will indulge. the trick is in the cooking (my daughter never had a problem with veggie but i tend to "cook" not "heat up" this is the dillemma, we have to "cook" not just heat up (thats what carter did in the 70's and what obama unfortunatly seems to be doing now (not necessarily a dig on him as most havent even turned the stove on) but , he isnt hammering the green agenda very much at all (not even the "gore" vision of cap and get rich, he easily could be dumping on us, for that i give him credit albeit critisism as well , cause it shows he isnt doing anything) he needs to wake up and look at this for the mess (and oddly enough blessing) it is. then he needs to work on public support as well as look to find ways that are fiscally responsable while socially necessary to convince congress to quit playing "all the credit none of the blame" and start serving OUR interests.



Yeah, I don't think the power of any president would be able to overcome the influence of well funded lobbyists.


----------



## stoveguy2esw (Jul 4, 2010)

Dune said:
			
		

> stoveguy2esw said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



if thats the case , we have nobody to blame but ourselves, after all , this is supposed to be a government of the people,by the people, for the people. im as guilty as you and everyone else.


"where have all the soldiers gone..."


----------



## begreen (Jul 4, 2010)

Then start demanding lobbying, campaign and voting reform. That is where I am focused right now. If the foundation is crooked, everything that's built on it has to be constantly adjusted.


----------



## webbie (Jul 4, 2010)

Two billion just went to some decent solar projects - and these are not "make work" pie-in-the-sky.
One is thermal solar, which is the most efficient currently and the other is manufacturing of American thin-film, a new technology.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/article_39bc08d6-289f-58f1-ba6e-3364f7dd14c1.html

A lot is happening behind the scenes. Many may not agree with the participation of government (taxpayers) in the funding, but as per Mike...when your parents want you to eat healthy they have to buy the veggies and organic food until the children develop the "taste" for same. It's really not too hard to do, although it will take awhile.

I am pleased that the 2 billion is not going toward solar electric in Maine and other projects I consider "make work" as opposed to actual steps forward. At least it assures me that someone in the administration knows what they are doing...


----------



## Dune (Jul 4, 2010)

stoveguy2esw said:
			
		

> Dune said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Well, I am glad you are feeling so culpable, but it doesn't feel like a fair fight to me. If Exxon-Mobile alone has 15 billion every 3 months to throw at legislators and my budget for lobbying is about 3 dollars and 75 cents a year, They are going to win every time.


----------



## stoveguy2esw (Jul 4, 2010)

Dune said:
			
		

> stoveguy2esw said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



i was watching a show a couple days back on MSNBC (yeah i do watch some of their shows, along with certain fox or CNN shows generally based on how reasonable the "talking heads" are on it) anyway the guy on this show (and its killing me his name escapes me right now but has "the fix" segment in the end of his show if that clues you in) was advocating for complete transparency in campaign financing as well as severe penalties for " conflict of interest"  i just remembered guys name is "ratigan" (dunno if i spelled right) anyway i liked his approach. truth is if most folks were able to actually see the billions and where they come from in relation to legislation voted on by their lapdogs (in both parties) they would be much more likely to vote elsewhere come election time. (one of the reasons we are seeing the "anti encumbant" movement so strongly in this cycle) it would become even more poignant were these contributions mated with voting records were collated and made public.


truth is (as bad as it sounds) a fair percentage of people vote party line (on both sides) doesnt as much seem to matter who the candidate is as long as the "r" or "d" follws their name. these folks generally arent the deciders there simply arent enough of them in most cases, its the independants who really decide elections, and they would be the ones who would be most swayed by this information.


----------



## begreen (Jul 4, 2010)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> Two billion just went to some decent solar projects - and these are not "make work" pie-in-the-sky.
> One is thermal solar, which is the most efficient currently and the other is manufacturing of American thin-film, a new technology.
> http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/article_39bc08d6-289f-58f1-ba6e-3364f7dd14c1.html



Glad you mentioned these projects. It takes years to ramp up factories and infrastructure. It's not flashy and headline grabbing, but the payoff in jobs and energy security is real. That seems to be part of the problem. Folks are looking for instant solutions and soundbites instead of appreciating long-term plans like those instituted in Scandinavia or Brazil. I see the Obama administration steadily chipping away at these issues and really appreciate that there is finally some progress.



> truth is (as bad as it sounds) a fair percentage of people vote party line (on both sides) doesnt as much seem to matter who the candidate is as long as the “r” or “d” follws their name. these folks generally arent the deciders there simply arent enough of them in most cases, its the independants who really decide elections, and they would be the ones who would be most swayed by this information.



Recent elections in Georgia would seem to indicate that is not always the case. Sometimes it appears that people en masse are voting out the incumbent by picking the first name showing up on the ballot. I would hope for an informed public, but when it comes to electing visionaries that actually understand our energy needs, the issue usually takes a back seat to talking points. It's up to us to bring that dialog back on topic. In an election, forget ab0rtion rights, environmental causes or immigration temporarily until real lobbying, voting and campaign reform become the core issues. End the revolving door option once and for all.


----------



## rowerwet (Jul 4, 2010)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> Two billion just went to some decent solar projects - and these are not "make work" pie-in-the-sky.
> One is thermal solar, which is the most efficient currently and the other is manufacturing of American thin-film, a new technology.
> http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/article_39bc08d6-289f-58f1-ba6e-3364f7dd14c1.html
> 
> ...



and two billion (which we borrowed 60% of to give) just went to brazil to drill in their ocean for a project that a big friend of the pres. is involved with, and China is contracted to buy all the oil they can pump, so much for gov. hypocrisy on "clean energy", it is all about who your friends are and who can lobby harder. 
The real answer is what can you do on your own either out of saving energy or saving the resources we have, I still say the answer to the oil "problem" (go see what life was like with coal as THE fuel of the world, we are cleaner now than ever) is going to be the "death by a thousand cuts" approach and we have the biggest part to play with our own choices. Insulation, alternative heat, and pressure for clean tech that won't skyrocket cost (check out how much cape wind will cost the rate payers in southern MA), right now nuke energy with fuel reprocessing (something france and other countries do with out major problems, we banned it to make the nuke industry hurt, france vitrifies the waste from reprocessing into "marbles" and stores them in abandoned salt mines) is the answer. Check out how solar and wind are not getting the return on the investment for spain that was thought...


----------



## begreen (Jul 4, 2010)

Bring up the Spain issue in another thread maybe? I have some thoughts on it, but this is not the appropriate thread. It's a good topic, but a separate one.

On another note, I see I am getting pulled into the politics of this topic. Can we take the politics to the ash can? I'd hate to close this thread due to an eventual degradation into the same old drivel that is getting us nowhere. Mike has brought up a good thread and it would be great to focus it on solutions instead of the problems of politics.


----------



## begreen (Jul 4, 2010)

rowerwet said:
			
		

> and two billion (which we borrowed 60% of to give) just went to brazil to drill in their ocean for a project that a big friend of the pres. is involved with, and China is contracted to buy all the oil they can pump, so much for gov. hypocrisy on "clean energy", it is all about who your friends are and who can lobby harder.
> The real answer is what can you do on your own either out of saving energy or saving the resources we have, I still say the answer to the oil "problem" (go see what life was like with coal as THE fuel of the world, we are cleaner now than ever) is going to be the "death by a thousand cuts" approach and we have the biggest part to play with our own choices. Insulation, alternative heat, and pressure for clean tech that won't skyrocket cost (check out how much cape wind will cost the rate payers in southern MA), right now nuke energy with fuel reprocessing (something france and other countries do with out major problems, we banned it to make the nuke industry hurt, france vitrifies the waste from reprocessing into "marbles" and stores them in abandoned salt mines) is the answer. Check out how solar and wind are not getting the return on the investment for spain that was thought...



I agree completely that weaning our country from oil is going to take a long time and multifaceted approach. That is a good reason to distribute the best solutions based on regional appropriateness. 

Note, France is not having a cakewalk with its nuclear waste. Quite the contrary, it is a big issue. The 40-50yr cooling ponds, required before vitrification are not holding up well in some areas. They have similar problems to what we have seen here in our state at Hanford. Heavy metals are leaching into aquifers like they are leaking into the Columbia. This is not a clean technology. In certain areas it may be our best temporary solution, but it is only temporary and with some very high downstream costs which governments end up paying.


----------



## rowerwet (Jul 4, 2010)

the next big thing in nuke energy will be fusion, and according to what I have read waste from our current reactors will make an excellent fuel, right now they are talking another 25 yrs or so to have usable fusion reactor. intelligent conservation is the best answer, also using other sources that we have in place would help, why are we dumping money into hydrogen tech., when there are no hydrogen wells or major sources unless we learn how to mine the sun, while almost every city has a natural gas system installed and there are NG pipelines all across the country, all of which would power cars without too much infrastructure investment or modification to the cars. NG cleans up much of the air that will be polluted by the coal powered plants making electricity for all those electric and plug-in hybrid cars. I found a web site before that sold a kit to convert my car to NG for about 4k, if NG was sold locally I would consider it if they could compete in price (just paid 3.70/gal for propain).


----------



## begreen (Jul 4, 2010)

Yes, in the short and long term, nothing beats conservation for results. It is our least expensive and fastest way out of our dependency on fossil fuels.


----------



## rowerwet (Jul 4, 2010)

I don't think we will ever get away from oil, it may end up like coal, everywhere but not as in demand, it will still be needed for medicine, paints, food, clothes, houses, etc. even if we crack the cold fusion puzzle and can power our lives with Mr Fusions.


----------



## begreen (Jul 4, 2010)

Yeah, we just need to be much smarter when and where we use it.


----------



## Dune (Jul 5, 2010)

rowerwet said:
			
		

> I don't think we will ever get away from oil, it may end up like coal, everywhere but not as in demand, it will still be needed for medicine, paints, food, clothes, houses, etc. even if we crack the cold fusion puzzle and can power our lives with Mr Fusions.



Bingo!  We NEED oil for the things you mentioned and plastics. Burning fossils instead of using them as miraculous building blocks is a dire abomination which has to stop. Using oil and coal to make plastic is planned recycling with a 95% retention of mass, ensuring manufacturing stock for future generations. Burning can claim no such legacy save millions of tons of particulate poisons falling to the earth or already there.

Consider that 1000 watts per square meter is the average solar input for the planet. Utilizing it and every other source of available alternative energy, we could be comepletely off fossil fuels by 2030. ( Scientific American).

Doesn't matter how we get there, let's just get going.


----------



## jharkin (Jul 5, 2010)

Interesting thread.  In the wake of the oil spill these topics are coming up on all kinds of forums - some that have nothing to do with energy.  In fact I got into a huge debate on one of my RC airplane sites about these issues.

In the last couple months I stumbled across the oil drum (http://www.theoildrum.com/)  - sure many of you have probably heard of it - but if not take a look.  they discuss all these issues and there are some pretty knowledgeable folks on their including some oil/gas industry types who explain a lot of the technical junk.  Be careful though - that site is also full of doomer types who think this problem is unsolvable and humanity is doomed, thus some of the comment threads thus get really depressing.

Sifting through the opinion extremes  the middle of the road thinking over  there seems to be:
- The peak and decline in world oil production is real, the only difference of opinion is over when - optimists say 2020, pessimist say it already happened and is an underlying factor in the recession.
- No single renewable alternative will be enough - we need a plan that involves all of them (wind, solar, nuclear + careful use of coal/NG) to get through this
- All of the alternatives have limits as well (even nuclear will hit a limit of mine-able uranium in the next 20 years) 
- All these alternatives need to be pursued long before oil declines so bad that we don't have the spare energy to build them out.
- We are at 6+ billion people now, but without oil, farming all the worlds land organically could only support 2 billion. Alternative energy plans have to account alternatives to the oil based fertilizers and infrastructure our food supply uses.

Big questions they keep discussing:
- How do you maintain economic growth when the energy supply is declining? Our basic economic theory might have to be rewritten.
- Tackling population growth -  Nobody knows how we are going to feed the predicted 9-10 billion population peak in 2050.
- How do you keep up the energy supply from fossils long enough to build renewables without destroying the environment in the process? 
- If fossils start running low before enough renewables are online, how do you find energy to build renewables? i.e. if there is an oil shortage and you have to choose between running farms or building windmills while people starve - what do you do?
- How do we create the societal will to stop thinking of just today and making the big sacrifices needed to save tomorrow?

These are very tough questions, and that fact that when this comes up in discussion, most of my friends and family respond with either boredom, or an assumption that the magical "they" (govt/big business/Santa Claus...)  will solve it for us doesn't give me a lot of confidence. 

Nice to see that a lot of people are waking up to these challenges. I do think it will take a modern day Manhattan project. We all need to spread the owrd and get people out pushing for that.


-Jeremy


----------



## begreen (Jul 5, 2010)

> These are very tough questions, and that fact that when this comes up in discussion, most of my friends and family respond with either boredom, or an assumption that the magical “they” (govt/big business/Santa Claus…)  will solve it for us doesn’t give me a lot of confidence.



Nice post Jeremy. Some of us here follow the oil drum. It offers a good perspective on the status of current world oil supplies, the problems we face and the real numbers that have to change. 

As a first step - we need to realize that the "they" is us. There are many ways an individual can make a difference. When you have these discussions with friends get proactive and offer simple steps that they can take now to help conserve energy. With a car, it is just common sense ideas like: consolidate trips, don't leave the car idling, drive a bit slower, etc. If we all collectively stopped using the drive thru lanes at fast food places the savings would be greater than the flow rate of the runaway well in the gulf. If we add to that all the other places that cars sit idling, this can become a very large number. 

Conservation is the first step we can all do now.


----------



## stoveguy2esw (Jul 6, 2010)

anyone seen the "sunchips" commercial where they talk about the biodegradable bag they are using?

all things considered WHAT A GREAT IDEA WHY ARENT MORE COMPANIES DOING THAT????  caps meant!! sorry


----------



## begreen (Jul 6, 2010)

I so wish they would do that with pellet fuel. There was no local place to recycle the bags for us. The nearest spot was like 90 miles away!


----------



## btuser (Jul 6, 2010)

Anyone here have bulk pellet delivery?  It would seem to me they'd get mushy if not in the bags.  Are the bags good at keeping moisture in the air out?


----------



## stoveguy2esw (Jul 6, 2010)

the bags do a fair job but humidity isnt the big killer as much as actual water such as rain the bags if you look closely are actually perforated in most cases otherwise when stacked by the ton they could burst. over time most pellets will get "stale" usually clinkering becomes heavier when this occurs but ive burned 2 year old pellets that have done fine other than having to flip a clinker out every day or so


----------



## jharkin (Jul 6, 2010)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> As a first step - we need to realize that the "they" is us.



I know. But its tough convince others of that. Most people have no foresight. Talk about peak oil and you get "I dunno, gas was down 10 cents yesterday. seems fine to me". Mention AGW and you get "We had a lot of snow this year". 

Few people today seem to have enough knowledge of basic science to understand the scale of our dependency, or how a 1-2 degree temperature change leads to ivolent weather extremes. And even those who do get it often have the "why bother - nobody else cares so my actions wont make a difference" attitude.  I always respond to that - we'll if EVERYONE says that nothing will ever happen, but if EVERYONE did something just imagine what we could do?

And in truth I could do a lot more myself, but its hard to break old habits. I've got the CFLs and the woodstove. I live in a fairly samll, old construction house.  I've NEVER irrigated my lawn. We drive 2 small 30mpg cars. We don't buy bottled water, period. I put out almost as much recycling each week as trash...

  But I know all that's only a drop in the bucket compared to the reductions we are giong to have to make eventually even if the best case projections of renewabes works out.


-Jeremy


----------



## begreen (Jul 7, 2010)

That's a great start Jeremy. Keep on pushing for others to adopt the same simple practices. This is not about a hair shirt (yet). It is about simple daily awareness that add up to significant differences on a large scale. If you multiply a quart of oil saved per day, times 300 million people, you get a big number - 75 million gallons/day.


----------



## GunSeth (Jul 7, 2010)

stoveguy2esw said:
			
		

> anyone seen the "sunchips" commercial where they talk about the biodegradable bag they are using?
> 
> all things considered WHAT A GREAT IDEA WHY ARENT MORE COMPANIES DOING THAT????  caps meant!! sorry



Those bags are loud as hell when you crinkle them.  My coworkers all know I compost so I'm always bringing home these loud bags to throw into the pile.


----------



## Delta-T (Jul 7, 2010)

I believe that transport is the #1 obstacle to the entire green economy. I think its relatively easy to imagine homes being heated with solar or geothermal, or wood, cuz these things aren't really that new. Wind power was a dominating force in water movement for the southwest until steam and later electricity became available and were "on demand" so to speak. I haven't been able to figure out anything that seems all that feasible to change OTR trucking. The energy density of gasoline/diesel is so fantastic, and so predictable that I'm not sure what we can do. To my knowledge, at present, no major manufacturer of rigs makes a diesel hybrid engine, or markets an engine that can run consistently on bio fuels. What kind of "Tom Foolery" is this? Who is the joker suppressing this technology? We've seen electric cars that work just fine, maybe cost prohibitive right now, but its real, working stuff. We see little things happening everyday in our neighborhoods that are indicators that the individuals are taking steps (be it from necessity, like switching to wood burning for heat cuz LP is too $$$, or optional) to cut cost, which in turn cuts energy demand. Its all good and dandy to onnly need your car to go 30 miles, but them there trucks need to go farther, longer, and with a high degree of reliability. Trucks also account for most of the degradation of the road surface. Maybe we need smaller trucks? I don't think we'll ever get better rails because of all the land BS that would have to occur. I've seen dreams of dirigibles, and jet packs,and teleportation devices, but since the "World of Tomorrow" that was advertised in 1950 didn't really materialize the way they thought, I'm not putting much stake in those other seemingly "fantastic" things to come. I don't think the battery thing will actually be a big problem with electric cars. Right now there are limits on discharge and recharge rates, but I think a shift toward capacitors to manage energy input to motors will reduce the need for a whole new generation of batteries with off the chart abilities. There are lots of small things out there just looking for a symbiote technology to latch onto. This is almost always the case with software technology leaps (someone has a small idea, that they combine with another small idea that suddenly turns into an Iphone app that makes a lightsaber when yo shake it). Globally, nevermind domestically, the race for resources is on, and hte sooner everyne (in the USA)figures that out, the better (for the USA). Its been obvious to the ones with no resources (ie any coutry investing hardcore in nuclear,solar, hydro). We're just a wee bit slow on the uptake. Hopefully we still have a descent chance to stay ahead of the curve and actually develope the tech of tomorrow, or else we'll be the ones paying dearly to those that do.

BeGreen- I have not seen a hair shirt before, but I have seen a hair bikini at the Ripley's Museum in LA, and it did not look comfy. Hopefully you and I will never find ourselves standing next to each other at the store trying to figure out if we like the "polo" or the "Henly" and whether it should be blonde or brunette. Now I feel itchy.


----------



## Jags (Jul 7, 2010)

Battery swap idea: make the battery cells uniform (think large D cell batteries).  Little car takes 4 - family go getter takes 6 - heavy pickup takes 8 kind of thing.  Kinda like a 2 cell flash light or a 4 cell flash light.

On OTR trucks - we have combustion over electric autos, we have combustion over electric trains, combustion over electric for OTR is not that much of a stretch.


----------



## Delta-T (Jul 7, 2010)

thats the aggravating thing Jags, its not such a stretch, it just isn't here.


----------



## begreen (Jul 7, 2010)

The next time you see a local farm being paved over for a warehouse or Walmart, ask yourself where the goods are coming from that are going into that space. Trucking long distance is way overrated. Freight should be by train. Buy local, even your wines. The amount of energy consumed to deliver a foreign product to our shores is ridiculous. Buy local when possible and you will be part of the solution.


----------



## Jags (Jul 7, 2010)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> The next time you see a local farm being paved over for a warehouse or Walmart, ask yourself where the goods are coming from that are going into that space. Trucking long distance is way overrated. Freight should be by train. Buy local, even your wines. The amount of energy consumed to deliver a foreign product to our shores is ridiculous. Buy local when possible and you will be part of the solution.



I agree completely, but not everything can be purchased local.  Its real hard to find a good Extra V olive oil made in Northern Illinois.  Or pineapple for that matter.  Some shipping will still need to happen, hopefully we can find better ways to make it happen.


----------



## benjamin (Jul 7, 2010)

Jags said:
			
		

> On OTR trucks - we have combustion over electric autos, we have combustion over electric trains, combustion over electric for OTR is not that much of a stretch.



What advantage would combustion over electric have? I thought the gears that truckers have were adequate to maximize the efficiency of the diesels.  

There may not be much that can make transportation more efficient, certainly not publicly funded mass transit over most of the country (too spread out to be profitable, and people too spoiled to want to use it).  But it is extremely easy to cut down on the use of transportation.  Back around the end of the boom there was a story about China's oil consumption dropping off precipitously, slightly lower demand meant there was slightly less rush to get orders out, so cheaper shipping options were chosen, plants needed fewer generators, etc.  

We don't need to all buy Priuses to cut oil consumption.  The argument has been made that the H3 consumes fewer resources than a Prius, and I won't stand by THAT argument except to say that consumption is not a solution to consumption.


----------



## Delta-T (Jul 7, 2010)

electric has the advantage of being able to access the full torque at just about any RPM.


----------



## Jags (Jul 7, 2010)

benjamin said:
			
		

> What advantage would combustion over electric have? I thought the gears that truckers have were adequate to maximize the efficiency of the diesels.



The multiple gears of large trucks are designed to allow the operator of the vehicle to maintain the proper engine speed to maximize the torque of the engine in relationship to environment (i.e. leaving a stop sign, climbing a hill, etc.).  The reality is that many times the engines have more torque available than needed for average 60 mph road travel.  Trains are in the same boat.  Takes a bunch to get them rolling or for climbing hills but not so much on flat runs.

On trains, the engine can be run at the most EFFICIENT rpm and the output transferred to electric drive motors to compensate for HP or speed or whatever the environment is calling for.

Or yeah, what DeltaT said.


----------



## Delta-T (Jul 7, 2010)

Jags version sounds so much more "scientific". Go with what he said. Electric motors also make ozone which smells nice...to me.


----------



## Jags (Jul 7, 2010)

Delta-T said:
			
		

> Jags version sounds so much more "scientific". Go with what he said. Electric motors also make ozone which smells nice...to me.



Till ya let the magic smoke out.  Once that escapes they aren't worth a darn.


----------



## jharkin (Jul 7, 2010)

On diesels, electrics and gear ratios....

Diesel engines typically make power over a much narrower range of usable RPM than a gasoline engine.  The big straight-6 on a semi might have an idle rpm of 300-400 and redline under 2000.  vs your typical car that ranges from say 700 to 6000 or more. Also diesels tend to have their tourqe peak very low in the band and run out of steam at their max rpm, as opposed to most (non-boosted) gasoline engines which have flatter torque curves and thus hit max rpm close to redline. The result is a very narrow useful power band - so to match that range to the same vehicle speed  range you need more gear ratios on the diesel.

(BTW big diesels on locomotives and such run even slower - 600-800 rpm. The REALLY big 2 stroke marine diesels on container ships can run as slow as 150rpm)

Electric motors don't  maintain the same torque over the powerband, actually its starts at max torque at zero RPM and decreases linearly to zero torque at the max no-load RPM based on the input voltage. This property of max torque at a dead stop is VERY useful and results is a power curve that looks like a parabola from zero to the max rpm with peak hp exactly in the middle. If you run high voltages and a motor capable of very high RPM its possible to get away with very few gear ratios - in fact the Tesla roadster uses a fixed ratio.


----------



## rowerwet (Jul 7, 2010)

something we all could do: I run synthetic oil in my cars, the brand is Amsoil, the big reason I do is the oil only requires a one year or 25,000 mile oil change. If you are following the recomended oil change in your car you are generating a gallon or so of motor oil (that comes from crude oil) every 3-5,000 miles or three months. Even if you recycle it, it requires much more energy to take care of than my gallon each year per car. A side benefit that they don't advertise is I saw a 2-3 mpg rise in my gas mileage when I switched to amsoil, without any changes in my driving. there are many other companies that make synthetic oil, but I don't know of any that offer the extended drain. so far I have run amsoil in my three vehicles for almost 10 years with no problems and the two oldest are high mileage 150k and 120k miles.

oil will continue to fuel transportation unless something like cold fusion comes out, aircraft require the high energy per pound of kerosene, any decrease in energy of the fuel (biofuels) and you increase the amount burned on the same trip, and decrease the usefull load (passengers or cargo) by how much more weight was needed for fuel. 
Europe has a much smarter approach to emissions than we do, they count the ppm per mile not per gallon of fuel, a much more usefull approach allowing them to have much higher mileage from their cars than we get over here ( if the trip still needs to be made, making you burn 10% ethanol and reducing your mpg by 4 (random number, I know it does reduce it though) just means you burned more fuel, which doesn't help with the whole energy problem, it makes it worse). 
OTR trucks fall into the same issue as aircraft, they are limited to how much weight they can have per tire on the road, a bank of batteries is heavy and the energy per pound of batteries is bad compared to diesel, not to mention the time it would take to change batteries every hour or two, drivers only get to drive for so many hours a day. Batteries are just a fuel tank anyway, where are you going to get the power to charge them, coal fired plants are the biggest answer right now. Nuke plants are the most reliable, safe answer, we haven't built any in a long time.
 Trains could more easily use batteries to power them but how many cars of batteries would you need to replace the energy of 1,000-5,000 gallons of diesel in the tank of each locomotive? stopping the train to replace batteries ruins the efficiency of rail transport as most of the energy would be wasted stopping and starting. (remember Newtons laws about motion)


----------



## rowerwet (Jul 7, 2010)

a possible future answer to the battery
http://www.gizmag.com/high-pressure...aign=d54fc4a2a2-UA-2235360-4&utm_medium=email


----------



## jharkin (Jul 7, 2010)

benjamin said:
			
		

> Jags said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



When you say "combustion over electric" are you referring to the way diesel electric trains (and submarines) run? Using an engine just to generate electricity for the motors?


This type of arrangement (which is getting the first introduction to cars I'm aware of in the upcoming Chevy Volt) has a HUGE efficiency advantage over pure combustion and over parallel hybrids. 

The reason is simple. Any combustion engine - but even more so gasoline (due to pumping losses, etc) - is its most efficent when running close to its max power.  In your typical car, the 200hp engine loafs along outputting maybe 30hp at low RPM when you cruise on the highway.  At this cruising power the engine is also burning up significant excess fuel to overcome the frictional losses and pumping losses. At low power output these losses are a greater fraction of the total and thus you burn more gas than if you fit a small 30hp engine and had to put the pedal to the floor to reach highway speed.

So in comes the gas-electric. Here, rather than a 200hp gas engine we fit a 200hp electric motor, and pair it up with a battery and a small gas engine - say 50hp - running a generator.  

Whenever the battery runs down the engine runs to recharge, then shuts off. When its running the engine is always wide open throttle, running its most efficient. If we use a turbo-diesel in place of gasoline the benefits are even bigger.

This way we can use a much smaller gas engine that's no more powerful than the HP needed for whatever max continuous speed we design for (say 80mph), but the battery and electric motor gives us occasional short bursts of high power for acceleration.


----------



## jharkin (Jul 8, 2010)

I see two big limiting factors that we are giong to have to save oil for - The aforementioned aviation, and all the products that we derive from oil.

Looking at the various sectors I predict:

Cars -Trend to electric, but maybe also biofuels.  We know that corn ethanol is energy negative, but I remember reading some research that cellulosic or algae derived ethanol may eventually be net energy positive.  The only restriction then becomes space to grow the feedstocks.

Trucking - I think we have to move as much shipping as possible to rail.Then what trucking is left maybe run on biodiesel? Less trucks also helps with traffic and road wear&tear;.

Rail - Electirc. And a LOT more of it.

Aviation - Has to keep relying on oil, or expensive synthetics made via Fischer Tropp. We really need to stretch oil out to keep this sector alive.

Home heating - getting everybody on wood would be nice but then we will run out of trees  So the trend will eventually go electric there too.

Electric supply - Here is the million dollar question! 
  hydo is aobut maxed out.
  Wind and solar are good options but we have to:
       1 - prove the lifespan is long enough that they produce more energy than used in build out
       2 - find economical ways to store the power produced. You cant match generation instantaneously to demand like with fossils. (ie. how do you get electricity at night from a soalr cell?)
  Nuclear fission is going to have to get ramped up big time but again you face the problems of:
       1 - long lead time to build new reactors
       2 - what to do with waste?
       3 - If you built enough nuclear to power the whole planet we might run out of uranium.  Nobody wants to do the alternative and build breeder reactors that make weaponizable plutonium....

  A breakthrough in nuclear fusion would save the day but that has been 50 years away for 50 years now.


And then all the other products that are made from oil and natural gas - fertilizers, pesticides, ashphalt, plastics, etc.
  I know there are bio-plastics, but I'm not to familiar with alternatives for all the other oil based products.  The best bet might be to eliminate oil from energy uses early and save it for these uses.

-Jeremy


----------



## stoveguy2esw (Jul 8, 2010)

jharkin said:
			
		

> I see two big limiting factors that we are giong to have to save oil for - The aforementioned aviation, and all the products that we derive from oil.
> 
> Looking at the various sectors I predict:
> 
> ...




good post!


aviation has to stay with fossil fr now , no other way unless someone can make a dirigable do 600MPH. electric is IMHO the best way to go for commuter transportation and customers if provided with a feasible option to gas they could plug in and run off "house power' commuting would accept a higher electric bill when they didnt have to buy gas(would likely save them money) long haul should revert to more rail running "biodiesel/electric which would be the easiest changeover in all of bulk transport. 

all industries which can be provided for electrical power should be on the front burner now (should have been there in the 70's but that as political and im not going there) ethanol is as best a "stretch what we have" scenario, fuel cells are also carrying baggage transportation needs to be heavily relegated to rail with biodiesel/electric (which would be the easiest conversion  as they are diesel / electric now)

PET products willnever go away unless cellulosic replacements are found (like sunchips bag im getting used to them now , just because the bags are compostable) this means everything from car parts to kids toys to medical needs. 

in the mean time we have a huge battle ahead, IMHO we need to religate our economy to using only domestic oil, drill here, refine here and use it for a bridge to the fuels of the future. to get this done , we have to wean ourselves off oil (thatds the hard part, because if allowed the public (we spoiled brats that we are) will demand SUV's the size of houses and drive them fast and hard while alone in the vehicle. this is political as well, so , DEMAND it from your rep and senators, pay attention to who gives money to what candidate. vote for the future. look less at party affiliation and more at what they actually think about this, i know i will be.


----------



## Dune (Jul 8, 2010)

I submitted a long detailed reply to the two posts above but it is gone. Did I get moderated or did it just never show up?


----------



## stoveguy2esw (Jul 8, 2010)

Dune said:
			
		

> I submitted a long detailed reply to the two posts above but it is gone. Did I get moderated or did it just never show up?



dunno dune, i didnt see it, its happened to me before though not lately


----------



## Dune (Jul 8, 2010)

jharkin said:
			
		

> I see two big limiting factors that we are giong to have to save oil for - The aforementioned aviation, and all the products that we derive from oil.
> 
> Looking at the various sectors I predict:
> 
> ...



Part of the reason corn is negative is because just the kernals are used. If the whole plant were utilised, the result might be better. Not that I am in favor of this though.  Millions of acres of former paper company wood lots are unused at this moment. The reason bio works for brazil is that the entire cane is used.

90 years ago, 1/3 of trucks were electric. Hybird electric with battery swap stations in all truck stops could work for certain routes, especialy with lithium (the lightest of all metals) having twenty times the energy density of lead (the heaviest metal).

Aviation; already proven to work on biofuel (Branson), this is the ONE place where biofuels are needed, however, more and more air traffic must be replaced by high speed rail. 

Home heating, passive solar, combined with better insulation, wood as back up only and or Combined Heat and Power (CHP) also known as Co-Gen.

Electric, hydro is not maxed out. Also, don't forget tidal and current flow.
  Solar, not even close. Build out payback today is 1.5-3 years, with a lifespan of 30 years.
 Solar will always produce the most power when the demand is highest. Regardless, it clearly needs to be coupled with baseload producers.
 Solar thermal plants are now being built with built in storage, molten salt is now even being used as THE heat transfer medium, since thermal oils are limited to about 750F, and the plants easily reach 1000F. The higher the temp, the more efficiency. Off grid homes with storage batteries have existed for many decades. In fact, if your driveway is long enough, it is already cheaper to set up off grid than to pay the electric company to install more than a few poles.

 By the way, the smoke belching fossil burning electric plant, which sits at the Cape Cod Canal, is run in idle mode, most of the time, so it can be ramped up as needed, which is seldom. Meanwhile, it continues to eat fuel and spread polution and cost the ratepayers money.  This is because you can't match demand with generation, with fossils, either, unless the steam is already up, and the turbines are warm and ready. Far, far from economical. Only engine driven generators can produce electricity from a dead stop, and the vast majority of generators worldwide are steam turbine, whatever the fuel source.

As far as saving oil for manufacturing, I couldn't agree more. I can just imagine conversations, hundreds of years from now; Daddy, tell me why they burned all the oil again, I just don't understand.


----------



## jharkin (Jul 8, 2010)

Great points Dune.

I didn't realize how far solar has come.  Almost makes me want to look into getting some.  Wonder if they can make those solar shingles in a brownish color to match my roof?

On the batteries - yeah lithiums are great. One of my other  big interests is RC planes and the lithium batteries have absolutely transformed that hobby to the point where electric is now power competitive with gas and alcohol power. Price and flight duration is still an issue but they get cheaper by the day. lithium polymer is the standard now and the last few years in really big applications we have been using lithium-iron-phosphate (LiFePO4 from A123 systems, etc).  The iron phosphate batteries are great- not quite the energy density of polymer but then can take 4-5C (10-15 minute) charging and 30-60C discharging bursts. And no matter what kind of abuse you put them through they wont catch fire and explode like LiPo's can.  

There is a home-builder that flew  a small airplane ( a Van's RV-4) on a brushless AC motor and lithium batteries. It was demoed as oshkosh a couple years ago.

Still a ways to go before its got the kind of energy density to use in aviation though. Energy densities according to wikipedia (in MJ/kg):

Lead Acid 0.14
NiCD 0.14
NiMH (Toyota Prius): 0.4
LiIon (Tesla Roadster): 0.7

Gasoline  46.4
Jet-A 42.8


-Jeremy

BTW - I know that idled plant on the cape very well. I can see the stack from the back yard of my mother's place in Sandwich....


----------



## rowerwet (Jul 8, 2010)

Aviation; already proven to work on biofuel (Branson), this is the ONE place where biofuels are needed, however, more and more air traffic must be replaced by high speed rail. 

Branson did pull of that publicity stunt, the US Military did a fighter flight with biofuel recently also, one problem with both of them is that the fuel is not as dense so more needs to be burned and carried reducing usefull load, the BIG problem is that biofuel reduces the life of the engines, the cleaner the fuel is the less coke builds up on the turbine blades inside the engine, JET-A is highly refined kerosene, held up to the light in it will look very clear and yellow, much clearer than kerosene or diesel. I am a 18+ year aircraft mechanic and an engine trade publication did a whole issue on "green" aviation recently, biofuels like branson used would reduce the engine time between overhauls by almost half due to coke build up in the engine based on testing. 

I personally think oil is not dino-juice anyway, most likely the waste product of little critters that live of the heat inside the earths crust, otherwise how did it last for so long without all the little critters in nature that love to eat it already having gobbled it up?


----------



## begreen (Jul 9, 2010)

jharkin said:
			
		

> Great points Dune.
> 
> I didn't realize how far solar has come.  Almost makes me want to look into getting some.  Wonder if they can make those solar shingles in a brownish color to match my roof?



Check out Energen roofing by Certainteed. It is just coming on the market now.


----------



## Dune (Jul 10, 2010)

Found this just now. This is what I am talking about.
http://www.motherearthnews.com/Renewable-Energy/Concentrated-Solar-Thermal-Power.aspx


----------



## vvvv (Jul 10, 2010)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> jharkin said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"competitive with current systems" aint cheap + look @ the chimlis on that ghetto!
http://www.jetsongreen.com/2010/01/energen-certainteed-solar-roofing-panel.html


----------



## Dune (Jul 11, 2010)

BLIMP said:
			
		

> BeGreen said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You are correct that it "aint cheap". You get what you pay for. How cheap is giving a substantial portion of your income to National Grid every year, now till forever, compared to a paid off system?


----------



## begreen (Jul 11, 2010)

Can we get more specific than "ain't cheap". Does anyone have actual pricing? A slate roof isn't cheap either, but it lasts. I would expect solar roofing to also have a very long lifespan. Considering it is doing double-duty as roofing and a power generator, it could be a bargain.


----------



## benjamin (Jul 11, 2010)

jharkin said:
			
		

> On diesels, electrics and gear ratios....
> 
> Diesel engines typically make power over a much narrower range of usable RPM than a gasoline engine.
> 
> ...



Yeah, I understand how to drive a stick shift, but where is the advantage of an electric "transmission"? We're talking about a percent or two max, in most cases, kinda like inflating your tires, for those people driving around on 20 psi it's a good idea, but makes no difference if you're not low. 

I was under the assumption that most big trucks had the gears to match the speed, unlike the typical small car with a manual transmission where "they" put a higher (numerical) ratio in a manual than in the same car with an automatic, often negating the fuel economy of a manual transmission.  

I assume you're talking about DC motors with that generalization, or maybe some more specialized multi phase? My understanding of the advanced dc electric vehicles is they convert the dc to high frequency ac and then convert the ac back to dc for the motor, pretty cool and maybe simpler than a transmission? We'll see how well Tesla's fixed ratio stands the test of time- remember that's just one half of the "hybrid drive transmission", it would be pretty ridiculous to connect an ICE to an electric drive system that then connects to a transmission, but it wouldn't be the first time I've been dumbfounded. I think Chevy put two speed transmissions into trucks into the 70's but we don't do that no more. 

Take my skepticism with a grain of salt, one great grandfather (a roundhouse boilermaker) swore "diesels will never pull the freight" long after they had taken over, another great-great grandfather bet his buggy company would outlast the Studebaker brothers buggy company because those "horseless carriages will never take off".


----------



## Jags (Jul 12, 2010)

benjamin said:
			
		

> I was under the assumption that most big trucks had the gears to match the speed....



They do, but with every lift and push of the accelerator you have LOST quite a bit of efficiency.  Instead of running a constant velocity engine at its most optimum output (freight train), the truck is revving PAST optimum and then drops the rpm below optimum with every shift.

With the design of trains, the operator has essentially an infinitely adjustable "dial" to max the efficiency of the pull.  And with those big boys, even a 1 or 2% improvement = big bucks.  So I guess my point is that with heavy haul stuff, it is proven tech that has never been adopted for the road (until recently with some smaller cars).


----------



## begreen (Jul 12, 2010)

If I understand the design correctly, this is how the new Chevy (excuse me - Chevrolet) Volt will work. The car will always be propelled via electric motors with a small genset charging the batteries if/as necessary. I'm wondering if they are considering a small diesel for the generator in the future?


----------



## Jags (Jul 12, 2010)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> If I understand the design correctly, this is how the new Chevy (excuse me - Chevrolet) Volt will work. The car will always be propelled via electric motors with a small genset charging the batteries if/as necessary. I'm wondering if they are considering a small diesel for the generator in the future?



I believe you are correct, but I don't think they have a diesel slated for this yet.  

Just another argument on why our standards of measure for pollution are flawed.  Rating it by gallon instead of Mileage is kinda silly.

You can have a hummer that barely passes emission standards burn a gallon every 10 miles, but a tiny diesel that barely fails yet gets 60 mpg can't be run.  Thats stupid, the basic math shows that the diesel would have to run 6 times more dirty than that big gas hog to belch the same pollutants.  Yet they have many diesels much cleaner than that.


----------



## benjamin (Jul 12, 2010)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> If I understand the design correctly, this is how the new Chevy (excuse me - Chevrolet) Volt will work. The car will always be propelled via electric motors with a small genset charging the batteries if/as necessary. I'm wondering if they are considering a small diesel for the generator in the future?



I think I saw something recently (nova?)  where the diesel electric hybrid was the strategy back when the detroit three were collaborating on the "80 mpg" sedan, remember that?  Makes a lot more sense than gas electric, but hey when did making sense have anything to do with anything.  

I remember the adds in an old National Geographic describing the diesel electric mine haul trucks.  The economics has a lot to do with utilization, trucks typically run less than 10 hours a day, trains and mine trucks probably more, priuses spend more time in the garage and therefore make very little sense economically.


----------



## renewablejohn (Jul 23, 2010)

In Europe natural gas has been established as an alternative to petrol or diesel with Natural gas pumps at a lot of filling stations. The natural progression of this technology is the use of methane gas created from  garbage and methane from sewage waste to be piped into these filling stations as an alternative to NG. Many areas of the world run garbage trucks and buses on methane gas so the technology is well understood. As for electric generation methane can easily be extracted by gasification of wood providing the waste heat is used efficiently in a CHP plant.


----------



## begreen (Jul 23, 2010)

In Dehli India they passed a law that all the 3 wheel tuk tuks had to run on CNG. There are a ton of these vehicles running around the city. They're used for trucks, taxis, and family transport. It used to be they were all 2 strokes or diesel and man did they smoke. Delhi's air pollution makes LA seem like an oxygen tent, so I can hardly imagine what it was like before they passed this ruling.


----------



## mikeyny (Jul 25, 2010)

Why dont we all just buy big oversized cars, suv's and big trucks that we dont really need and use up all that oil as fast as we can  ohh, yeah, we are already doin that. Duhh. Great topic, I just had to add a little humor to it.        
                                                                                            Mike


----------



## stoveguy2esw (Jul 31, 2010)

interesting article on electric cars, i found out a couple things is didnt know.    http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/24/think-city-batteries-technology-breakthroughs-electric-car.html


----------



## BrotherBart (Jul 31, 2010)

What do electric cars do for a heater? Looks like an electric heater in them would use up a lot of valuable electricity.


----------



## Delta-T (Jul 31, 2010)

BrotherBart said:
			
		

> What do electric cars do for a heater? Looks like an electric heater in them would use up a lot of valuable electricity.



all the seats in electric cars come with a built in Snuggie.


----------



## begreen (Jul 31, 2010)

BrotherBart said:
			
		

> What do electric cars do for a heater? Looks like an electric heater in them would use up a lot of valuable electricity.



That's correct. The mileage range is based on no accessories running. In an electric car everything is running off the battery, so if you crank up the heat/AC and stereo, your range is going to decrease. That isn't as bad as it sounds though. For example, the Nissan Leaf will have a range of say 100 miles. Most people drive less than 25 miles a day, so for average use the electric will be more than adequate. 

Electric cars aren't for everyone. It would be a hard sell to the Kansas farmer that has to drive 25 miles just to get into town. For rural areas a hybrid makes more sense. The Chevy Volt is targeted at this market and if they do a good job on the car, it stands a good chance. But for a lot of the population living close to or in urban centers, electric makes a lot of sense. 

Here's a prediction... Compact gensets like the 1KW Honda are going to sell well as folks figure out how to shoehorn them into their all electric cars. And I think you are going to see a new market open up. Someone is going to start selling compact little genset trailers for these vehicles.


----------



## begreen (Jul 31, 2010)

Mike and all, I would strongly recommend getting a copy of the Aug 2nd issue of 'The Nation' or read it online. This is a double-issue titled "Freedom From Oil". Most of the Aug 2/9, 2010 issue is devoted to articles on how to switch to a green economy. I'm about 1/3 through it. There are some very thoughtful proposals here. It's a worthy read.

http://www.thenation.com/issue/august-2-2010


----------



## vvvv (Jul 31, 2010)

BrotherBart said:
			
		

> What do electric cars do for a heater? Looks like an electric heater in them would use up a lot of valuable electricity.


im guessing an addon ventless propane gas burner?


----------



## stoveguy2esw (Aug 1, 2010)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> Mike and all, I would strongly recommend getting a copy of the Aug 2nd issue of 'The Nation' or read it online. This is a double-issue titled "Freedom From Oil". Most of the Aug 2/9, 2010 issue is devoted to articles on how to switch to a green economy. I'm about 1/3 through it. There are some very thoughtful proposals here. It's a worthy read.
> 
> http://www.thenation.com/issue/august-2-2010



thanks BG, i'l take a look at it


----------



## pyper (Aug 2, 2010)

Until I can drive 40 miles each way (to and from work) with the windshield wipers, headlights, and heated AC (aka defroster) running, an electric car does me no good. If there was a mandate to produce only electric vehicles come 10 year's time, I'd plan on buying a new gasoline car in the 9th year, which I'd be able to drive for a long time.

Here's a prediction: Electric cars will become common in Germany at least 20 years before they are common here.

Why Germany? Well, first, it's small. Germany is about the size of California, but more compact. There are some 85 million people -- roughly 1/3 the population of the USA. So the population density is pretty high. More importantly, it's very urban. They don't have suburbs, let alone exurbs.

But this part is really critical to my logic: Germany has no oil fields. One of the contributing causes to Germany losing WW2 was lack of oil to make the war machines go. None of the world's major oil companies are German. In other words, they have no "big oil" industry to mess in their politics, and they have a national security incentive to minimize oil consumption (their fuel tax is something like $6/gallon).

And Germany has automotive expertise -- Porsche/VW/Audi, Mercedes, BMW. With that $6 tax you know there would be a might good market for highly fuel efficient vehicles. That's why I don't buy any of the conspiracy theories on why cars don't get better fuel economy.

Looking at 2008 Census data, I see that of 138 million people who work outside the home, 124 million travel by automobile, and 25 million of them (about 20%) had commutes of 35 minutes or more. 70 minutes of daily travel doesn't tell us how many miles they go, but it tell us how long the headlights, wipers, and AC/heater have to operate. Electric cars probably make sense for a lot of people, and they could work really well in some parts of the country, but they don't make sense for everyone.


----------



## BrotherBart (Aug 2, 2010)

The electric infrastructure here can barely handle the load as it is. Just think what would happen if a bazillion cars were plugged into it.


----------



## stoveguy2esw (Aug 2, 2010)

anyone ever been close to an electric motor after its been under a load for a few minutes, were it me designing the thing i'd be looking at a way to capture the heat off the motor directly for heat, an electric heating element would be too wasteful but capturing heat from the motor is much more efficient as  a small fan will use far less power than a heating element. as for "ac" thats a bigger challenge , other than "255" aka windows down.


----------



## vvvv (Aug 2, 2010)

The waste heat generated by an ICE is frequently put to beneficial use by heating the vehicle interior. Electric vehicles generate very little waste heat and resistance electric heat may have to be used to heat the interior of the vehicle if heat generated from battery charging/discharging can not be used to heat the interior. Electric vehicles used in cold weather will show increased energy consumption and reduced battery capacity and so decreased range on a single charge, for example the Mini E's range dropped by 30% in cold weather..............wikipedia


----------



## Dune (Aug 2, 2010)

pyper said:
			
		

> Until I can drive 40 miles each way (to and from work) with the windshield wipers, headlights, and heated AC (aka defroster) running, an electric car does me no good. If there was a mandate to produce only electric vehicles come 10 year's time, I'd plan on buying a new gasoline car in the 9th year, which I'd be able to drive for a long time.
> 
> Here's a prediction: Electric cars will become common in Germany at least 20 years before they are common here.
> 
> ...



Both the Nissan Leaf and the Tessla will meet your requirements and then some. The Volt will also work, but you would use a very small amount of gas.


----------



## Dune (Aug 2, 2010)

BrotherBart said:
			
		

> The electric infrastructure here can barely handle the load as it is. Just think what would happen if a bazillion cars were plugged into it.



The main loads on the grid are during the day. The main charging period for electric cars would be overnight, nicely meshing  the utilitie's needs to sell more power, with a much more balanced demand.


----------



## stoveguy2esw (Aug 2, 2010)

BLIMP said:
			
		

> The waste heat generated by an ICE is frequently put to beneficial use by heating the vehicle interior. Electric vehicles generate very little waste heat and resistance electric heat may have to be used to heat the interior of the vehicle if heat generated from battery charging/discharging can not be used to heat the interior. Electric vehicles used in cold weather will show increased energy consumption and reduced battery capacity and so decreased range on a single charge, for example the Mini E's range dropped by 30% in cold weather..............wikipedia



the waste heat is more easily available in an ICE but electric motors do run fairly hot as well, also an onboard heating element which can "prewarm" the vehicle when connected to house power could go a long way towards helping with the heating chore , bear in mind you arent driving cross country in this thing. remember maintaining heat takes much less energy than bringing temps up form a cold car. another nice benny would be a defrosted windshield and windows when you walked out through the snow to your car.


----------



## stoveguy2esw (Aug 3, 2010)

also , a lot of work is being done to enhance battery life, rotating lithium anode batteries are about the best we have now that could be mass marketed, though they are still expensive.

remember the idea is to seek a way to transition , not to snap our fingers and be done. a cohesive plan to field non ICE transportation phasing it in as we go is the only way to really get off the gas. thinking we will not have gas powered cars 10 years from now aint happening , realistically 30 years would be an admirable goal IMHO, potentially could take even longer, but spinning our wheels (pardon the pun)wishing for it doesnt get us anywhere. i want a cohesive plan spelled out to me, wanna "be green" (not referring to my friend but the ideal of living green) tell me (and the rest of us) just how to do it in a "nuts and bolts" fashion. im not an engineer, im a mechanic, theory isnt going to make me happy , paying lip service (which is what we have gotten for decades from the govt.) is a waste of time. 

bear in mind that research in this field can and would dovetail into progress in power generation and distribution. for instance , look how much power we waste in the electrical grid just distributing it. a ton of gain could be made there. once again , im not the engineer, but someone out there could come up with somthing if the drive to do so is present.

another thing im suprised about is the apparant tapering off of the "smart car" those little bitty runabouts ive seen a few of them but im not seeing any more of them as time goes on like a fad that died as it was born. seems to me a small lightweight car of that type would be a more viable platform for first generation electric, would be less work for the motor to drive it meaning less power per mile and a longer range, couple that with a better price than the current cars available (41K for the volt?) im not spending 41 K for a car with a 100 mile range. for it to catch on  the cost has to be signifigantly lower.


----------



## begreen (Aug 3, 2010)

The Nissan Leaf is significantly lower, 32K before rebates. The Volt has unlimited range as long as there is gas in the tank. And there will be many more choices coming on line after that, especially hybrids. 

I agree about the smart car. Why cram when you can have a roomy 5 passenger car that gets equivalent mileage? However, they are popular in Europe because there are many old towns and cities where large cars don't fit and parking space is at a high premium. Here there are many towns that grew up after the auto had arrived so they made everything big and sprawling to accommodate big vehicles from the get go.


----------



## begreen (Aug 3, 2010)

stoveguy2esw said:
			
		

> BLIMP said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I definitely agree that aux car heat, on a timer, when it is plugged in, is a good idea. One reason that electric motor heat hasn't been scavenged a lot is that on some of these cars, there is no central motor. Instead there is one outboard at each wheel. 

However, it would be more efficient to have a heat pump considering it's all electric and only kick in the resistance heater when needed. One plus of resistance heat, no waiting for the car to warm up. When it's on, it's on.

In cold climates I suppose one could always have an Espar, Webasto or Eberspacher fueled heater. I had one in my 69 VW Fastback. Turn it on and you would be cooking in a few minutes.


----------



## pyper (Aug 3, 2010)

Both the Nissan Leaf and the Tessla will meet your requirements and then some. The Volt will also work, but you would use a very small amount of gas.[/quote]

Do you have a source?

According to Nissan's website, the Leaf will go "up to" 100 miles based on EPA's _city_ test.

The city test includes some A/C, but it also involves a lot of time moving less than 35 mph, which takes less power.

But "up to" kind of implies it doesn't cover my worst case situation, which is an early winter morning. It's raining (so I need to run the wipers). It's dark (so I need the headlights). For whatever reason, the only way I can keep the windshield clear is to run the AC, but it's pretty cold, so I have to turn the heat up all the way.

According to Nissan's website, the 100 miles is also based on a new battery. If the AC, the heat, the wipers, and the lights add less than 20% to the load, then I can probably get home. On a new battery...

But wait. I'm not in city traffic -- I'm driving on the highway. Nissan's website is ominously silent on how far the car will go at highway speeds. They also point out it will go less if you run the AC _or_ the heat (let alone both at once to keep the windshield clear). They ominously don't mention how much. They do point out you can pre-cool the car, but around here that's not going to help much. I'm remembering when that Dodge car with the "cab forward" design came out and they said the A/C was powerful enough to cool a house. I'm sure that was BS, because there isn't enough room in a car to put a condenser that big, but it doesn't make me think that running an A/C is going to be good for the range.

Someone mentioned not using the A/C, and that's an option for some people some time, but if you have the kind of job that you're expected to not show up drenched in sweat, then it's really not an option. You can't commute to an office job in Atlanta or Miami or Dallas without A/C and expect to win promotions and avoid lay offs.

I'm just saying.


----------



## begreen (Aug 3, 2010)

Your points are well taken pyper, but the Volt is a hybrid and should handle your climate. The tesla has much greater battery capacity but will be more expensive.

But instead of just saying, how does it benefit me, take a look at the larger picture that still needs to be solved. Cheap oil supplies are decreasing. Carbon emissions are accumulating. So what is the best solution in your region to help the country transition and how can you contribute. That is the bottom line question. If we all ignore it, showing up sweaty at a meeting will be the least of our problems a decade or two from now.


----------



## Delta-T (Aug 3, 2010)

all electric cars come standard with 2-60 or 4-40 AC (2 windows at 60 mph, 4 windows at 40mph)


----------



## pyper (Aug 3, 2010)

Delta-T said:
			
		

> all electric cars come standard with 2-60 or 4-40 AC (2 windows at 60 mph, 4 windows at 40mph)



How well does that work when your stuck in rush hour traffic, not moving at all, and it's over 100F outside and the pavement is hot enough to raise blisters?


----------



## Delta-T (Aug 3, 2010)

pyper said:
			
		

> Delta-T said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



not very well at all, but there's always dry ice.


----------



## pyper (Aug 3, 2010)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> Your points are well taken pyper, but the Volt is a hybrid and should handle your climate. The tesla has much greater battery capacity but will be more expensive.
> 
> But instead of just saying, how does it benefit me, take a look at the larger picture that still needs to be solved. Cheap oil supplies are decreasing. Carbon emissions are accumulating. So what is the best solution in your region to help the country transition and how can you contribute. That is the bottom line question. If we all ignore it, showing up sweaty at a meeting will be the least of our problems a decade or two from now.



Yeah, sure, but in the real world most people need to make decisions based on what's best for them. Cars with limited range are fine for a lot of people, and if they're better for the environment, then we should encourage people to buy them. I'm just saying that they really aren't going to work for some people for a long time to come.

The Volt *might* be a viable alternative for my situation, but there's little solid info out there right now. After I use up the initial charge what kind of fuel economy does it provide? Charging it sound pretty cheap, but it's not carbon free -- how much carbon does a coal plant put into the air to charge a Volt, and is that more or less than running a similar sized car on diesel? And how much carbon does it take to produce a Volt, and how does that compare to me continuing to drive the car I already have? How many times can the batteries be charged, and what happens to them then?

When cheap oil supplies go away there will be more expensive oil. People will use less as a result. I'm actually more concerned about water supplies than oil, but that's another thread ;-).

Buying more local food (and in season!) is a good way to reduce carbon. Producing some of your own food is even better. Eating fewer large animals is good for the environment too. I bet most people don't know that nearly all roses sold in the USA are imported from Columbia. On 747's!! Plant a rose bush.

From a long term perspective, we need to be thinking of ways to encourage smart urban development. We need a national plan for how to reduce suburbs, exurbs, and rural living. I live in the country, and I kind of like it. Maybe I shouldn't have bought a house so far from everything, but now that I have, what are we going to do about it. My neighbors and I need cars that can take us to work and to go shopping. I could sell my house, but whoever bought it would be in the same situation, so there would be no improvement to the environment. The only real solution that I see would be for the government to start buying up rural land and clearing it. Of course, eventually urban living might be so attractive that people with rural properties abandon them. But I don't see that anytime soon.

Also, we need to take advantage of the _fact_ that steel wheels on steel rails is by far the most efficient way to move things. They keep taking about a light rail corridor between Charlotte and Atlanta. I think that would be great. I'd love to be able to hop on a train and ride to Atlanta. The trouble is getting around once I'm there.

Oh, and about that Tesla Model S -- sweet! But $50+ is a lot for a car. My last three haven't cost that much added together.


----------



## Jags (Aug 3, 2010)

Hmmm...Pyper, it sounds like your S.O.L. :lol: 

Keep in mind that it will not be ONE silver bullet that gets us to a green economy.  It will be multi-faceted.  So the volt may/may not work for you, but maybe a little 60mpg diesel will...., maybe you grow a big garden or you preserve foods to reduce your trips to the store. etc. 

Its gonna take the masses moving in the right direction, even taking baby steps at first, to get this ball rolling.


----------



## begreen (Aug 3, 2010)

pyper, prolly best to bicycle too, but maybe that's not always practical. If we can extrapolate the mileage of a Prius with an extra battery pack for a mileage example, one can expect over 100mpg average from the Volt. The car shouldn't let you take the battery to exhaustion and it will be recharging when braking and when the on board generator is running. We'll have to wait for some actual tests to see it's actual mileage, but I suspect it will be good. For you it may not be the perfect fit, but it is a good first step for GM IMO.

PS: I'm curious what are you currently driving?


----------



## pyper (Aug 3, 2010)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> PS: I'm curious what are you currently driving?



'99 VW passat wagon with a 1.8 litre turbo. It's got about 205,000 miles. I also have an '02 Ford Ranger that I use for towing and hauling that has 125,000 miles. We'll probably sell the VW soon, and then the truck will be a daily driver.

I'm not ruling out the Volt as an option, but right now I don't have enough information to make an informed decision.

I'm not convinced that cars like these are really more efficient for highway commuters. If you driving is primarily highway, then there is no converting the braking energy. That means you're hauling around a lot of extra weight and it takes energy to move that weight.

According to a test by a German firm (summarized in English, below), the Prius, at 60 mph actually gets about 36 mpg, while a 300 horsepower BMW 535d touring gets about 30. The VW Golf 2.0 TDI gets consistently better mileage than the Prius. Given a choice between a Golf and a Prius I know which one I'd rather drive through a switchback ;-)

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/05/fuel_consumptio.html

So anyway, if a Prius _really_ gets mid 30's for fuel economy do you think the Volt will get more? It appears to be a larger car, and wind resistance is the biggest factor in making a car go at highway speed. Actually when you think about it, if you don't spend a lot of time stuck in traffic, then a Prius isn't as fuel efficient as a Corola (same platform, BTW), but it costs 50% more. Now if you live someplace where you are stuck in stop and go traffic for 45 minutes every day, then either a hybrid or an electric would be a perfect choice.

I really do like bicycles. I have one, but the tires are dry-rotted. I'd fix it, but they're metric tires, and the last time I put new ones on it was really expensive. Anyway, the trouble with bicycles where I live is rednecks. A lot of them don't share the road. If I put saddle bags on my bicycle I could ride it to the store and back in under an hour, but it would be dangerous.


----------



## begreen (Aug 3, 2010)

Nice car. We considered a Passat TDI. Interesting article. It sounds like Atlanta driving is not fun. 

Instead we have a Prius and don't get the low mileage in that article, even in winter. Right now we are averaging 50mpg and that is with the worst driving possible, short trips, up and down hills. Our mileage goes up to about 57 when driving at or below 65mph. If I start pushing it to 70+ mileage will drop to about 53mpg. This is a stock 2006 Prius. Most of our freeways locally restrict one to 55 or 60 mph due to the proximity of urban centers. So for us to get 55mpg on a trip to Olympia (~30 miles) is pretty normal. 

However, one thing we noticed with the Prius is that it has a longer breakin period. When the car was new, we did touch 36mpg with winter short trip driving. But now that the car has >10K miles on it, we would have to work very hard to get that low mileage. Normal winter driving for us now is about 42mpg. I suspect that many reviewers are testing with new cars and might have a bit of a lead foot when they report low mpg. 

We are trying to decide whether we are going to keep the Prius for a decade or not. If we do, I may invest in an aux. lithium battery pack + plugin conversion. I have been in touch with local owners that have done this. They say that getting 80-100mpg with freeway commuting is not uncommon for them. But their commute is about 20-40 miles round trip. For us, it would mean that the majority of our use, except for trips, would be mostly electric. Still considering, it does qualify for an energy credit. The downside is that the aux. battery is only charged by plugging it in. This is where an integral system like on the Volt is superior. How well they do it will still need to be determined. I had read a while back that Volvo was working on a hybrid with a similar configuration. But now that the sale has gone through to Geely, I'm not sure about future plans. 

http://www.a123systems.com/hymotion/products/N5_range_extender
http://www.squidoo.com/hymotion


----------



## pyper (Aug 3, 2010)

I think the Passat in general is a nice car, but mine was nothing but trouble for the first 150,000 miles. I guess all the shoddy parts have failed now...

Anyway, regarding your Prius milage, is that a calculated rolling average that you're doing? That is, are you tabulating how much gasoline you are buying and dividing the number of aggregate miles by it? I've read a lot of reports that the car's computer is overly optimistic when it calculates the mileage.

It's important to track fuel usage over a number of fillings, because otherwise there is too much error attributable to different fill levels (squeezing a bit more into the tank, etc) and also driving conditions. I got about 35 mpg in the Passat once at 80 MPH. It was driving from Atlanta to Savannah. It's a flat, downhill run. I probably had a tail-wind too :lol:. 

Between my wife and I we drive about 30,000 miles a year. It's expensive. 

I'm actually thinking of a Dodge Sprinter to replace the Ranger. My friend gets 25 mpg towing a work trailer with his Sprinter going to and from job sites.


----------



## btuser (Aug 3, 2010)

What's with the need for unlimited mileage?  100 miles/day is pretty good, and would serve about 80% of the market 90% of the time.   How many KW are we talking about to charge for 100 miles?


----------



## pyper (Aug 4, 2010)

btuser said:
			
		

> What's with the need for unlimited mileage?  100 miles/day is pretty good, and would serve about 80% of the market 90% of the time.   How many KW are we talking about to charge for 100 miles?



But if you can only afford one car, then what do you do the other 10% of the time?

We also need better standards for how to measure range. They need to be publishing wost case ranges, not "up to" ranges.

As far as kWh, the Chevy website says it's got a 27 kWh battery to make it go "up to" 40 miles. At my electric rates (10.64 per kWh), that's about $3 to go "up to" 40 miles, whereas with $4 gas it's more like $5. For the $10,000 premium in car price (30,000 after tax for a volt, compared to $20,000 for some other car) you can buy 2500 gallons of $4 gas, which is enough to drive 75,000 miles at 30 mpg.


----------



## begreen (Aug 4, 2010)

Actually it might be more like $2 recharge cost. You can't deplete the battery 100%. I haven't driven a Volt yet, but if it works like Toyota hybrids, in that 40+mi. the generator may have already kicked in at times when needed like heavy acceleration, going up a mountain, low battery, etc. So maybe more like $2 worth of electric and .50 of gas. We'll have to see. But there are other savings not being accounted for. Because of regenerative braking, brakes can last 2-3x as long as regular ICE cars. There are no belts to replace. The whole system should be lower maintenance cost over its lifetime. Then there is the cost to the environment. If the Volt is cleaner than the current generation of hybrids like the Prius, the total emissions over the life of the vehicle should be significantly lower, perhaps by order of a magnitude. 

As for the pure electric vehicles, this too will develop as infrastructure gets standardized and built. The Leaf is just the first of many. In some countries they are trying out a fast exchange battery pack to extend range. You pull into a station stall, kind of like a car wash, it drops out the battery pack and replaces it with a fresh one in about 5 minutes. In the west they are installing charging stations along the I5 corridor. There is a cool company that has developed a super-capacitor to work in conjunction with the battery pack. The capacitor provides extra punch and distance and charges very quickly.

But ideally, you will not need the long distance car very frequently. A car sharing system was developed out here and now is all across the country that allow flexible usage of a car. You show up at a pickup point, use the car and only pay for the hours needed, not for the hours it sits in a parking lot. http://www.zipcar.com/


----------



## pyper (Aug 4, 2010)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> But there are other savings not being accounted for.



There are other costs, too. How many charges will the battery take, and how much does a new one cost?

I like the ZipCar idea, especially for people in urban cores. It's another thing that, like electric cars, might work well for a lot of people. At the moment, I'd need to drive 180 miles to get to a zip car location, which kind of defeats the purpose ;-) But I could see how in ten to 20 years there might be one within 40 miles.

I really don't think there's going to be any single, unified, solution. There's going to be a lot of little ideas and a few medium ones, each of which contributes.


----------



## begreen (Aug 4, 2010)

So far there have not been a lot of battery replacements on the Prius until they get into some high miles (over 150K miles). I am told the cost is about $2.5K by the dealer minus $200 for exchange of the old one. By then you are going to have to do a couple timing belt replacements, several brake jobs and full tuneups on a regular car. Both the Prius and Volt offer an 8yr/100K warranty on the battery. Considering the higher resale value of a good hybrid, I think it balances out pretty well. As far as emissions go, it's a no brainer. 

Agreed, there is no one shoe fits all solution. That's the same reason we have a truck. There's no way I am doing dump and wood hauling runs in the Prius. But if there was a local coop where I could use a truck several times a year like with the zip car, I might forgo ownership.


----------



## pyper (Aug 5, 2010)

I go camping three times a year and I'd love to be able to rent a truck to pull the camper!

As things stand, I'm probably looking at replacing the Ranger with either an Explorer or a Honda Pilot, because the Ranger really isn't made for pulling a 3000# camper.

I'm not looking forward to burning the gas though. 

I've looked at the idea of having both a truck for towing and a fuel efficient car for commuting, but between the insurance and the registration it's cheaper to put gas in a truck than to have two cars.

My wife points out it would be even cheaper to sell the camper and just drive a small car, which is true, as far as it goes, but I look forward to my camping trips. She's driving a CRV right now. It's not particularly fuel efficient. She was initially interested in a Prius, but after she sat in it she decided it wasn't comfortable enough.

For a while I was thinking about the idea of riding a bicycle to work. It's 35 miles, which is kind of far. It would only be possible in the summer because it would be too dangerous where I live to ride a bike after dark. The problem I can't get past though, is the weather -- too many thunderstorms.


----------



## begreen (Aug 7, 2010)

It looks like Dupont has come up with a way to significantly improve lithium battery output and reliability. This technology should start showing up in 2011, they're building the first plant now. 

http://tinyurl.com/24rplj8


----------



## northwinds (Aug 7, 2010)

That golf TDI can tow 1000 lbs.  I haul a little less than a face cord with mine frequently, and it doesn't strain a bit.  It is my small car and truck.


----------

