Calendar
Retailers
Stack & Reach
Custom Geometry Calculator (beta)
More To Come...
MAIN
INDEX
RULES &
LEGEND
LOG
IN
Search
this forum
this category
all forums
for
All words
Any words
Whole Phrase
(
options
)
Newsletter Signup
Slowtwitch Forums
:
Lavender Room
:
Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil
1
2
3
4
View All
Tri Forum
Classifieds
Lavender Room
Jobs
The Womens
Print Thread
MattinSF
Jul 2, 08 11:10
Post #51 of 77 (304 views)
Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [jryan]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
In Reply To
"but why hold this bill"
Because it will make for some good ads against Republican senators the next 4 months.
there's a very easy solution for those Republican Senators then isn't there.
This fight just highlights where their priorities are; tax breaks for hedgefund managers ahead of alternative energy, tax breaks for outsourcing corporations ahead of alternative energy, tax breaks for oil companies ahead of alternative energy.
Nobody is disputing that there are politics at play here, and I'm not happy that ther Democratic caucus is using this bill as a stick with which to beat their counterparts across the aisle, but the bottom line remains, the Dems voted for it and the Reps did not.
----------------------------------------------------------
HOPE is a plan that worked. CHANGE is a plan that worked. BELIEVE is a plan that worked.
MJuric
Jul 2, 08 12:15
Post #52 of 77 (281 views)
Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [Dapper Dan]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
I've seen this stated a many times and the more I look into it the more it seems incorrect to me.
Take a look at
THIS
page. This is one of the largest wind farms in the world. It appears to have a rated capacity of 735 MW's on 47000 acres. Assuming a typical 27.5% efficiency rating we're looking at around 202 MW's on 47000 acres. That's around 4.3 KW per acre. Assuming 24 hours a day that would be 103.2 kWh's per acre per day.
Now the US consumes around 20,687,000 barrels of oil a day. 69% of that is used for transportation. So we have 14,274,030 barrels a day used for transportation. Each barrel contains around 1700 kWh. Assuming a typical efficiency of an internal combustion engine of around 20% that's 340KWH per barrel or around 4,853,170,200 kWh per day used on the road.
Taking the two above 4,853,170,200 kWh per day divided by 103.2 kWh's per acre per day that would leave us with a needed 47,026,843 acres.
The total area of the US is around 9,826,630 sq KM. This is around 2,427,177,610 acres. So as far as I can tell covering only 1.9% or so of the US with wind mills would provide all the energy we needed to power all of our transportation.
First this is assuming I did all my conversions correctly...I'm especially fuzzy on the kW to kWh conversion :-).
Next there are several things left out. The efficiency of an electrically driven car, probably around 70-80% vs 20 for an internal combustion engine and the efficiency of the electrical distribution again probably in the 70-90% area. So working that into the equation you're looking at an efficiency of around 49 to 72% so mayby closer to 3-4%.
Anyway I look at it I just don't see the "All of the US" thingy. I've seen several sites that calculate area per acre based on recommended clearances for the but as far as I can tell all of the "Wind Farms" have a higher density than these. As usual I could be missing something.
~Matt
Gozerman
Jul 2, 08 14:17
Post #53 of 77 (259 views)
Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [MattinSF]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
You do realize that oil contributes a miniscule amount to our power generation in the US, don't you? The big scary oil companies really don't have much skin in the power generation game. Until you have an electric car that takes less than 6 hours to charge and will go more than 40 miles (like the Chevy Volt), big oil doesn't care much about alternative energy that generates electricity -- it's not their market.
Clown Fish
Jul 2, 08 14:26
Post #54 of 77 (252 views)
Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [MattinSF]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
http://youtube.com/watch?v=UOpcPfAarjY
3 ways to lower gas prices.
Mr. Tibbs
Jul 2, 08 15:44
Post #55 of 77 (240 views)
Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [MattinSF]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
"fiscally responsible Democrats"
HAHAHAHA!!! Great one Matt! Now show me the "fiscally responsible" Republicans.
MattinSF
Jul 2, 08 16:07
Post #56 of 77 (235 views)
Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [Gozerman]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
In Reply To
You do realize that oil contributes a miniscule amount to our power generation in the US, don't you? The big scary oil companies really don't have much skin in the power generation game. Until you have an electric car that takes less than 6 hours to charge and will go more than 40 miles (like the Chevy Volt), big oil doesn't care much about alternative energy that generates electricity -- it's not their market.
You could not be more wrong. If you have a solar panel on your roof and you plug your car in every night instead of going to a gas station you cease to become a customer of big oil and that is something they are very concerned about....which is why they do not want any advances in either fuel cell technology, hydrogen cell technology, solar technology...just drilling. Thats what this bill is all about. There are hydrogen and electric cars out there that can be fuelled cleanly and that can be marketable and that will go much further than 40 miles, but we are not investing in that technology. A guy in England built an electric car in his garage that can get 250 miles out of a charge...check out the Jester Lithium...if he can do that then MIT or Stanford or Lawrence Livermore Labs with proper funding can double that and half the charge time. With proper funding.
----------------------------------------------------------
HOPE is a plan that worked. CHANGE is a plan that worked. BELIEVE is a plan that worked.
(This post was
edited
by MattinSF on Jul 2, 08 17:03)
spot
Jul 2, 08 17:38
Post #57 of 77 (212 views)
Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [MattinSF]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
Go read "The End of Oil" and then tell me if you think a hydrogen car is marketeable. Fuel cells are insanely expensive, but the biggest issue by far is that there is zippo infrastructure to produce hydrogen, store hydrogen, or distribute, all of which would cost billions. Electric cars, maybe. Hydrogen cars are at least decades away.
Spot
Cervelo / Kuota Mafia Member
"Mine goes to 11...."
MJuric
Jul 2, 08 17:39
Post #58 of 77 (212 views)
Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [MattinSF]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
As has been stated before the cars already exist.
http://www.teslamotors.com/
as an example. The problem however is exactly how the previous poster stated it, recharge time. The car listed at Tesla gets 220 miles per charge, but takes 3.5hrs to recharge.
More than likely 220 miles and recharging every night will cover a majority of miles driven but does no good to anyone driving more than 220 miles a day, which is still a lot of people. The other issue is that most people at one time or another takes some trip that is more than 220 miles. I can see existing cars taking place of a persons "Daly driver" but it won't suffice as most peoples only car.
Hydrogen simply isn't feasible at this point due to the very poor efficient rating of converting electricity to hydrogen.
At best current electric cars are a stepping stone not a solution just as current hybrid cars are.
~Matt
MJuric
Jul 2, 08 17:41
Post #59 of 77 (211 views)
Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [spot]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
As I stated in my other post it's not really the distribution as much as the creation of hydrogen. Why take perfectly good electricity and turn it into hydrogen at a 50-70% loss, unless it offers some benefit above and beyond that of electricity. At present the only benefit is that of overcoming the long "Charge" time of a battery pack.
~Matt
TwinDad
Jul 2, 08 18:31
Post #60 of 77 (197 views)
Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [MJuric]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
How about something based on the "Blue Rhino" propane tank model?
Make the battery packs modular. You pull up to a "gas" station, swap out battery packs, and keep on driving. The station puts the pack on a rack, charges it, and gives it to somebody else the next day.
--------------------
Yes, I too now have a
Blog
. Don't laugh.
MJuric
Jul 2, 08 18:41
Post #61 of 77 (196 views)
Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [TwinDad]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
I've thought of that. However I'm thinking the size, complexity and "integration" of the pack into the car would make that prohibitive with current models. I'm guessing it would take a fork truck and a couple guys to do the job as well as probably an hour or so...all purely a guess.
I'm thinking with some battery improvements this may be more feasible but not with current technology.
This would get rid of the charge time though.
Another thought is "High power" charging. I may be mistaken but I think they do something like this in battery factories and even your typical battery charge has different voltages for slower and quicker charges. I have no idea how this works or if it's even feasible but seems to me it should be. Of course that means back to "Full service" filling station as I doubt you'd want "Everyday schmoe" messing with 10K volts :-)
~Matt
TwinDad
Jul 2, 08 19:58
Post #62 of 77 (189 views)
Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [MJuric]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
You've got a point, but that's largely because the packs (and the car) weren't designed with removability in mind. I realize that the packs are large and heavy, but I don't think it would take a technological leap to make them modular. Just a redesign with different thinking.
As for how to get the packs in/out, I'm just spitballing here, but if the packs locked into the back/bottom of the car (say, under the trunk), the car could be driven over a rack that would raise up, engage the packs, and pull them down out of the car. The packs are swapped on the rack (possibly by a robotic system, for automation and repeatability), and the rack raises back up and locks the pack into the car.
All very doable. It'll just take some work. By the time the infrastructure is in place to charge the cars, the system could be done.
--------------------
Yes, I too now have a
Blog
. Don't laugh.
lunchbox
Jul 2, 08 20:57
Post #63 of 77 (177 views)
Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [MJuric]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
I used to work in a couple of warehouses with electric rolling stock. Those batteries were monsters, on the order of 6,000-10,000 #, and lasted about a 10-hr shift. It took a large battery change station w/ hydraulics to swap. Likely not feasible for cars; just the weight at highway speeds would cause massive crashes when it did happen. I think the trick is in the weight and the charge time.
******************************
If I don't, who will?
MJuric
Jul 3, 08 7:20
Post #64 of 77 (153 views)
Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [TwinDad]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
I definitely think the "Battery swap" idea is feasible. The big hurdles as I see them are.
1) redesign vehicles to be able to swap them out.
2) Every vehicle will have to have the same battery pack. If you don't do this a "Station" would have to have a ton of different models and space would be limited.
3) possible space problem. A very busy station would have to have a TON of charging stations.
4) Of course the infrastructure to support such a station. Having 2 stations across the street from each other each with 300 charging stations...well that's gonna take A LOT of power in very concentrated area.
Again I'm certain it could be done but my gut tells me there's a better way.
Of course the "Demand" on the stations would be much lower if most people did the charging at home. I'd guess 80% of driving is done under a 200 mile a day scenario. As long as you fuel up at home every night the only time you'd need to swap out batteries would be on long trips.
I'd guess a good deal of these "Battery swap" stations would cater to the trucking industry and many of those stations are in the middle of nowhere. These could possible be "Locally" supported with local power generation as well as the pressure of space being minimal.
At the same time the truck industry is much less varied and could more easily be kept to a single battery type.
~Matt
FishyJoe
Jul 3, 08 7:28
Post #65 of 77 (151 views)
Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [MJuric]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
I think having a small fuel running engine to produce electricity is the way to go. A small constant speed engine can be made much more efficient than a motor that has to run at varying speeds. It can be pretty lightweight too. You might even be able to make it an optional module that can be removed and installed by the end user. The infrastructure needed for battery swapping just sounds way too complicated.
TwinDad
Jul 3, 08 7:50
Post #66 of 77 (144 views)
Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [MJuric]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
Yeah, I thought about those things too. I agree the swapping is best suited for long-haul runs... daily driving would have to be supported with plug-ins.
I wonder if the model variability could be handled by having the "gas station" actually be the dealership. Since you only need to do the swap during the long-haul drive, you could plan your trip (partly) around where the dealerships are. If you're driving a Ford, you swap out at the Ford dealer. Toyota = Toyota, etc. Once you're at your destination, you can plug in at the hotel.
Fleet cars (e.g. taxis) could be managed by their fleet center. The taxi station could have its own recharge/swap station for the cars it drives. For them, it might be easier to just have extra cars that are swapped out. At least for the ones that aren't owner-operated.
Another possibility... IIRC the vast bulk of the emissions and fuel use really comes from the trucking industry (and related folks). They would also be the easiest - as you point out - to manage a "standard battery" swap situation... perhaps we just use gasoline power for long personal trips? I could easily see myself owning an electric car for daily drives, and calling Hertz or Avis, or dipping into some sort of co-op deal to grab a gas powered car to drive to Grandma's or to Disney.
I think ultimately all of these problems are solvable, and fairly easily as well. What is needed is the impetus, and the investment, to make it actually happen.
--------------------
Yes, I too now have a
Blog
. Don't laugh.
mcdoublee
Jul 3, 08 9:08
Post #67 of 77 (135 views)
Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [MattinSF]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
In Reply To
And please don't try and tell me that the oil companies are investing in alternative energy...its sorta in the same vein as the tobacco companies doing cancer research.
Well, they are investing in alternative energy but I doubt it's even near the amount they are investing in marketing talking about investing in alternative energy.
Beyond Petroleum my ass!
------------------------------------
MC Double E
MattinSF
Jul 3, 08 9:08
Post #68 of 77 (135 views)
Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [spot]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
In Reply To
Go read "The End of Oil" and then tell me if you think a hydrogen car is marketeable. Fuel cells are insanely expensive, but the biggest issue by far is that there is zippo infrastructure to produce hydrogen, store hydrogen, or distribute, all of which would cost billions. Electric cars, maybe. Hydrogen cars are at least decades away.
Spot
Personal computers were insanely expensive 30 years ago, and huge, and slow, and the operating systems sucked and the internet didn;t exist. I now carry a PC in my pocket and can check e-mail, order dinner, and buy concert tickets while riding home on the train.
The development of PCs was an incremental process with no end goal in mind, just innovation. The race to an efficient electric or hydrogen car has clear objectives and with government funding we can get there a lot faster.
http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/bmw-hydrogen7.htm
California will have 200 hydrogen stations by the end of the decade.
----------------------------------------------------------
HOPE is a plan that worked. CHANGE is a plan that worked. BELIEVE is a plan that worked.
MJuric
Jul 3, 08 9:54
Post #69 of 77 (130 views)
Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [TwinDad]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
I think ultimately all of these problems are solvable, and fairly easily as well. What is needed is the impetus, and the investment, to make it actually happen.
Agreed. Really all I think it would take is a few "Plug and go" cars. Instead of the big companies looking at a "All around" vehicle someone needs to come out with a cheap "Plug and go" commuter.
If someone could pick up a cheap car, say for 10-15K, that has a radius single battery charge of 150-200 miles that's all you'd need.
Keep your gas powered vehicle for any long stuff or occasional second car driving and use the electric vehicle for everyday "Commuter" and errands.
I haven't looked into how much electricity costs versus gas right now. Off the top of my head I'd say that electric is probably still more expensive, but you have to start somewhere.
~Matt
MJuric
Jul 3, 08 9:59
Post #70 of 77 (127 views)
Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [FishyJoe]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
This is the approach of hybrid vehicles. For the most part I think this approach is a great stepping stone, but not a final solution.
The hybrids will allow greater research into battery technology and electric drive trains in general. Eventually the battery packs will shrink and the energy recovery will get better. This will allow better efficiency, designs and probably faster charge times. These coupled with, *Hopefully*, improved electric generation will eventually provide a full electric vehicle solution. Hydrogen may eventually creep in there as well as newer technology fins way to increase the efficiency of hydrogen production.
Of course all of this goes back to energy creation. If we can't start creating more energy with cleaner methods, makes no sense to go electric at all and staying hybrid would be better than going full electric.
~Matt
BarryP
Jul 3, 08 11:09
Post #71 of 77 (114 views)
Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [TwinDad]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
Quote
I could easily see myself owning an electric car for daily drives, and calling Hertz or Avis, or dipping into some sort of co-op deal to grab a gas powered car to drive to Grandma's or to Disney.
Yes! I was waiting for someone to say this. I forget where it is, but some places the mindset is that a car is something you borrow for a short period of time rather than own.
Americans seem to have the mindset that we need to "own" everything, even when rarely utilized. Some people will pay $500 a month plus rediculous amounts on gas to get to work each day so that they can fit 6 kids into the car for th eout of town soccer game 3 times a year.
Why drive a minivan to Florida when you can get there quicker, cheaper, and cleaner on a mag-lev train? Once you get there you rent your electric car, which you won't even need very often because trains,cabs, and electric busses will be running everywhere.
I honestly don't think I drive more than 200 miles in a day more than a few times a year. We have 2 cars. At *least* one of them should be electric if not both.
______________________________________________
-Barry Pollock (aka Baron Von Speedypants)
-Running Coach
RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
or you can search Runtraining## where ## is a number from 1-16.
BarryP
Jul 3, 08 11:12
Post #72 of 77 (112 views)
Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [MattinSF]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
Quote
...if he can do that then MIT or Stanford or Lawrence Livermore Labs with proper funding can double that and half the charge time. With proper funding.
Even in this political climate funding is a big joke. My in-laws both work for the department of energy. Only a couple percent of their budget is spent on researching alternative energy, and it drives them crazy!
We also just blew 7 years of inovation when the electric car was killed in California (guess what magic event happened 7 years ago).
______________________________________________
-Barry Pollock (aka Baron Von Speedypants)
-Running Coach
RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
or you can search Runtraining## where ## is a number from 1-16.
TwinDad
Jul 3, 08 11:25
Post #73 of 77 (107 views)
Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [BarryP]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
Barry,
You hit the nail on the head there. I fall squarely in this demographic. Married, two kids. We have two cars. I drive 10 miles round trip to work (when I'm not biking it). My wife runs errands. We could easily handle all of our local travel with a 200-250mile/day electric car or two. We used to have a minivan, thinking we needed the extra seats to haul friends-of-kids and other adults. Then we noticed that we had driven for nearly a year with the third row seat stored in the garage. We replaced the van with a sedan.
Same for the long distance travel. Anything over about 200 miles one way, and we seriously consider air (or, if it were more useful, rail). Even "driving tour" type trips could easily be segmented into 200-300 mile days between stops.
A tank of gas in any given car runs about 400-450 miles, tops, give or take. I think this is about the range point where electric cars will really tip the scales. That would give the user a typical (long) day with some headroom for contingencies.
An EV plus easy access to a rental for "exception" travel would make a *lot* of sense for us. And we live in a horribly, HORRIBLY car-centric town.
--------------------
Yes, I too now have a
Blog
. Don't laugh.
MattinSF
Jul 3, 08 11:29
Post #74 of 77 (105 views)
Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [TwinDad]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
www.zipcar.com
Carshare programs have about 20,000 members in San Francisco and there are laws in the works that would mandate that any new housing construction of 25 units or more provide one carshare parking spot.
We use it here at work. Instead of driving to the office if I have an offsite meeting I can still take the train and use the zipcar in the parking lot across the street.
----------------------------------------------------------
HOPE is a plan that worked. CHANGE is a plan that worked. BELIEVE is a plan that worked.
Tridiot
Jul 3, 08 11:54
Post #75 of 77 (92 views)
Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [MattinSF]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
Stupid f'ing zipcars with their f'ing reserved spots right in f'ing front of f'ing every f'ing building I ever try and go to making me f'ing think I found the greatest f'ing parking spot ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yeah, we got 'em in DC too......
1
2
3
4
View All
Print Thread
MAIN
RULES &
LOG
