http://www.yahoo.com/s/905391
So, let me get this straight. We're going to use ANOTHER fossil fuel as an oil substitute???
I'm not sure how much coal we have in the US, but it seems like a step in the wrong direction. Oh and you think "Big Oil" won't have their hand in it somehow, raping us yet again?
Oy vey!
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3287/2319058555_eb9707f862.jpg?v=0)
Don't we already use coal indirectly to fuel are vehicles ???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_plant
Starting tomorrow I am biking to work.
I will be moon lighting between a motorcycle for long distances and short trips using the Bicycle.
Well I'm just going to use my Green Electric Car. If I can't see the power plant it doesn't count against my carbon footprint right? [roll]
Quote from: Dana on June 23, 2008, 10:48:33 PM
Oh and you think "Big Oil" won't have their hand in it somehow, raping us yet again?
"Big Oil" does not set the price for crude oil, the Consumer DOES.
If world wide consumtion was 50% of supply the price of crude would drop like a rock, can you say $5.00 a barrel.
When demand is 101% of supply the price goes up.
If you want cheap crude oil cut your usage by 50%. If enough people do this the price will drop.
Look around your average mall parking lot. How many thousands of pounds of vehicle do I need to haul my fat arse and a couple of sacks of groceries home ??
Really? Then how come the "oil execs" are telling us that oil is expensive because of increasing cost of production?
11.7 Billion Profit a Quarter ???
I want to be a Ceo in that company ;D
http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/01/news/companies/exxon_earnings/
Quote from: ROBsS4R on June 23, 2008, 11:39:34 PM
11.7 Billion Profit a Quarter ???
I want to be a Ceo in that company ;D
http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/01/news/companies/exxon_earnings/
No no no, but they "re-invest" that money into newer technologies and other shit like that [roll]
Quote from: NAKID on June 23, 2008, 11:30:45 PM
Really? Then how come the "oil execs" are telling us that oil is expensive because of increasing cost of production?
There is also a world wide shortage of steel.
Quess what drill stem is made from??
In fact anything oilfield related is on a multi-year waiting list.
I'm going to bed been up since 4:30 am.
We'll pick this up in the morning.
Night...
Quote from: sno_duc on June 23, 2008, 11:19:39 PM
"Big Oil" does not set the price for crude oil, the Consumer DOES.
If world wide consumtion was 50% of supply the price of crude would drop like a rock, can you say $5.00 a barrel.
When demand is 101% of supply the price goes up.
If you want cheap crude oil cut your usage by 50%. If enough people do this the price will drop.
Look around your average mall parking lot. How many thousands of pounds of vehicle do I need to haul my fat arse and a couple of sacks of groceries home ??
Yes, simple supply and demand but you forget that Oil is a very non-elastic good. Unless we can "sustainably" find an alternative to cut down 50% of our oil usuage, then the price of oil will go down, consumption of it will go right back up because it is cheaper and our demand for it never really changed, thus the price will go back up.
Its like saying " lets drink 50% less beer so we can crash the price of beer so that we can buy more of it cheaper later". Unless you can really REALLY just all of a sudden drop your desirablility for beer by 50% and keep it that way FOREVER, (and i argue that you most likely can not) than the price drop is temporary.
I won't argue that most DMFers like their beer [drink], we do. But we don't waste it.
I drive a VW NB 1.9 TDI most fillups the mileage comes in at the mid 40s mpg, if I'm really mellow I get low 50s mpg. ( I have a heavy right foot [evil])
When I look around I see a lot of big SUV's hauling loads that would easily fit in my bug.
We will never cut our consumption 50%, but if enough of us choose to drive smaller vehicles and live in smaller houses we can get the supply demand curve to flatten out.
The 'Pogo' quote about who the enemy is comes to mind.
Quote from: Ducatiloo on June 23, 2008, 11:00:59 PM
Well I'm just going to use my Green Electric Car. If I can't see the power plant it doesn't count against my carbon footprint right? [roll]
[laugh] exactly! Out of site, out of mind. With all these concepts for "clean fuel" for cars it's funny how most don't concern themselves with where that new alternative fuel comes from and the pollution from making it. In the US we make a considerable amount of electricity from coal.
About a third of my electric company's power comes from non-fossil fuel sources.
When they put up some of the windfarms people pregnant doged though, I think they look awesome.
There is a shitload of coal in this country. I think that's one of the main reasons our powerplants are so high in emissions. Nuclear power all the way imo [popcorn]
coal = pennsylvania's no.1 source of energy.
pittsburgh = recently surpassed L.A. as the most polluted (air quality, anyway) city in the U.S.
Quote from: lethe on June 24, 2008, 08:47:46 AM
About a third of my electric company's power comes from non-fossil fuel sources.
When they put up some of the windfarms people pregnant doged though, I think they look awesome.
Yea too bad about the birds that get chopped up in those windmills :P
Quote from: Pakhan on June 24, 2008, 09:01:46 AM
Yea too bad about the birds that get chopped up in those windmills :P
There's a downside to everything.
Green renewable energy NOW!
Carbon heavy fossil fuel OUT!*
Can't wait to see what electric vehicles roll out the next couple of years. Here's one that is available now, well not really immediately available since there is a one year waiting list and it costs 6 figures. But, technology always finds a way to make products cheaper, faster, and more easily attainable.
Check it. Jay Leno digs it.
http://www.teslamotors.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOl_1S10jTk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdNCQZQLhvA3
*this excludes any use intended for the use of motorbiking. ;D
Quote from: chill on June 24, 2008, 09:10:35 AM
Green renewable energy NOW!
Carbon heavy fossil fuel OUT!*
Can't wait to see what electric vehicles roll out the next couple of years. Here's one that is available now, well not really immediately available since there is a one year waiting list and it costs 6 figures. But, technology always finds a way to make products cheaper, faster, and more easily attainable.
Cant wait either good luck finding a 100% renewable outlet to plug it into, but I guess out of sight out of mind right?
Quote from: Ducatiloo on June 24, 2008, 10:27:52 AM
Cant wait either good luck finding a 100% renewable outlet to plug it into, but I guess out of sight out of mind right?
In the next decade or so true alternative energy sources will arrive. Solar, hydroelectric, wind and wave power will all deliver a clean-energy future. I live in Texas and as it is this is the state that has the largest wind energy program than any other state in the U.S. Along the coast of TX there is also talk of implementing technology that will harness energy from waves.
The future of a clean renewable energy source is not that far away. Some people are actually able to see a little further down the road than most. ;)
Quote from: Ducatiloo on June 24, 2008, 10:27:52 AM
Cant wait either good luck finding a 100% renewable outlet to plug it into, but I guess out of sight out of mind right?
While I agree that an electric vehicle isn't 100% green, this attitude doesn't make sense to me, and seems to lack thought. It is better to have a few large point sources of pollution, as opposed to thousands of small ones. This is because emmissions from the large sources can be controlled far easier through the use of scrubbers and other technology.
Also, not all electricity is produced from burning coal. We also have nuclear, wind, solar, natural gas, hydro, etc. For instance, power supplied by Seattle City Light is 100% hydro, so an electric car here would be a pretty good deal environmentally (there's always the batteries...but there's always going to be something). Obviously hydro power isn't the answer everywhere, but you get the idea.
Quote from: lethe on June 24, 2008, 09:08:08 AM
There's a downside to everything.
+1 for ALL types of power generation we have. Hydro, Wind, Solar, Wave, Nuke, CNG. Some definitely less than others, but all of these have a noticable environmental impact.
Quote from: sno_duc on June 24, 2008, 07:41:29 AM
I won't argue that most DMFers like their beer [drink], we do. But we don't waste it.
I drive a VW NB 1.9 TDI most fillups the mileage comes in at the mid 40s mpg, if I'm really mellow I get low 50s mpg. ( I have a heavy right foot [evil])
When I look around I see a lot of big SUV's hauling loads that would easily fit in my bug.
We will never cut our consumption 50%, but if enough of us choose to drive smaller vehicles and live in smaller houses we can get the supply demand curve to flatten out.
The 'Pogo' quote about who the enemy is comes to mind.
Yeah, my remark was not necessarily pointed at anyone; it was more along the line to support your claim. I just felt that you needed to stress that a real decrees of demand is needed.
Quote from: chill on June 24, 2008, 10:38:35 AM
In the next decade or so true alternative energy sources will arrive. Solar, hydroelectric, wind and wave power will all deliver a clean-energy future. I live in Texas and as it is this is the state that has the largest wind energy program than any other state in the U.S. Along the coast of TX there is also talk of implementing technology that will harness energy from waves.
The future of a clean renewable energy source is not that far away. Some people are actually able to see a little further down the road than most. ;)
My point was that people that do not know where there power is coming from typically think they are helping but many times are not.
I'm all for green power, I just get fed up with the enviro wackos driving their little battery powered cars around in Madison with their "I'm better than you grins", then go home and plug in their "zero emissions" car into one of our many coal power plants. IMHO it helps to centralize where we get out power for our cars, homes etc because it is easier to solve one issue vs. millions of issues driving around. But in no way is a electric car "zero emissions" in Wisconsin unless the owner has his own windmill or solar cells.
But we really need to focus on homes and businesses, which use the majority of energy in the US.
And Kudos to Texas for putting the extra effort in clean renewable energy, I can see it coming. I'm just looking at the growning pains that the US will face before the mojority of people will think about more than the cost of gas.
Ok I'm off my soap box. Thanks for listening.
Quote from: Triple J on June 24, 2008, 10:58:44 AM
While I agree that an electric vehicle isn't 100% green, this attitude doesn't make sense to me, and seems to lack thought. It is better to have a few large point sources of pollution, as opposed to thousands of small ones. This is because emmissions from the large sources can be controlled far easier through the use of scrubbers and other technology.
Also, not all electricity is produced from burning coal. We also have nuclear, wind, solar, natural gas, hydro, etc. For instance, power supplied by Seattle City Light is 100% hydro, so an electric car here would be a pretty good deal environmentally (there's always the batteries...but there's always going to be something). Obviously hydro power isn't the answer everywhere, but you get the idea.
Good point, nice example of a city thinking green.
Now what about the car? That Tesla is freakin' COOL!! [thumbsup]
Besides nuclear energy, all "renewable" energy is solar energy. Wind= solar energy because movement of air that is heated by the sun. Wave energy=maybe thats a solar and lunar energy thing as the gravitational pull of both causes the tides and stuff. Hydro= the water cycle due to the sun drying up waters from the oceans and water raining down on the earth to fill the rivers and lakes that are blocked by dams. Most obvious is Solar energy from solar panels as solar energy.
Lets just hope nothing happens to our sun.
Quote from: chill on June 24, 2008, 12:20:14 PM
Good point, nice example of a city thinking green.
Now what about the car? That Tesla is freakin' COOL!! [thumbsup]
They didn't do it to be green though. It was done way back when during the US dam buidling era. The downside is the Salmon runs here have been severely impacted, so a few species are now on the endangered species list. :-\
There's always a downside.
An electric car still causes pollution at some point down the road (batteries, power from powergrid, etc...), but it's use of energy is much more efficient than the internal combustion engine, thus causing less green house gases in the long run.
I'd dig up numbers, but I'm at work...
Quote from: Triple J on June 24, 2008, 12:49:55 PM
They didn't do it to be green though.
Yeah, I'm not sure you could get permitted to build the dams above Newhalem, these days.
I drive a green Subaru.
Quote from: spolic on June 24, 2008, 03:01:15 PM
I drive a green Subaru.
(http://[https://a248.e.akamai.net/7/248/13614/1/www.palmcoastd.com/ows-img/glennbeck/products/ecolarge.jpg)
Mine is blue with an open exhaust, flowers wilt as I pass [evil]
Quote from: Pakhan on June 24, 2008, 03:03:33 PM
Mine is blue with an open exhaust, flowers wilt as I pass [evil]
Natural selection at it's finest, the strong plants will survive your onslaught and thrive.
Quote from: Le Pirate on June 24, 2008, 01:01:37 PM
An electric car still causes pollution at some point down the road (batteries, power from powergrid, etc...), but it's use of energy is much more efficient than the internal combustion engine, thus causing less green house gases in the long run.
I'd dig up numbers, but I'm at work...
The batteries I'll give you, but in AZ, there are quite a few houses that are almost completely self sufficient due to solar panels. The local power companies will even subsedize the installation if you have it installed to feed excess power into the power grid. But, a system with a battery storage system could store that power for when the panels aren't producing power (i.e. nighttime). Plugging an electric car into a system like this would be as close to zero emmissions as possible.
A 3kW system here costs about $15000 with another $500-$750 for the battery storage system...
Quote from: NAKID on June 24, 2008, 05:15:25 PM
The batteries I'll give you, but in AZ, there are quite a few houses that are almost completely self sufficient due to solar panels. The local power companies will even subsedize the installation if you have it installed to feed excess power into the power grid. But, a system with a battery storage system could store that power for when the panels aren't producing power (i.e. nighttime). Plugging an electric car into a system like this would be as close to zero emmissions as possible.
A 3kW system here costs about $15000 with another $500-$750 for the battery storage system...
I'll agree with you there.
The point I was trying to make is that while yes, even if your electricity is coming from fossil fuels, an electric car is still more "carbon footprint" efficient than the ICE.
btw---I hate all this carbon footprint crap I've started hearing all the time..."lets give it a buzzword! do de do de do [roll]"....but it was the best way to describe what i'm talking about.
How far is your job commute? How far to a grocery store? drug store? dry cleaners? movie theater? favorite restaurant? doctors/dentist office?
There still seems to be as many vehicles on the road nowadays with gas prices where they are at. :-\
Quote from: Le Pirate on June 24, 2008, 07:41:39 PM
btw---I hate all this carbon footprint crap I've started hearing all the time..."lets give it a buzzword! do de do de do [roll]"....but it was the best way to describe what i'm talking about.
I hate that, as well as the "going green"...
put this on your car
https://a248.e.akamai.net/7/248/13614/1/www.palmcoastd.com/ows-img/glennbeck/products/ecolarge.jpg (https://a248.e.akamai.net/7/248/13614/1/www.palmcoastd.com/ows-img/glennbeck/products/ecolarge.jpg)
Quote from: Randimus Maximus on June 24, 2008, 09:07:07 PM
There still seems to be as many vehicles on the road nowadays with gas prices where they are at. :-\
Really? Traffic has gotten lighter on the commute. It's great. It improves the mileage of my Silverado.
The batteries used on hybrids create about 1,000,000 btu's to create. A gallon of gas creates about 1,000 btu's. This means that a hybrid car has to travel about 100,000 miles before reaching the starting point of non-hybrid vehicles. Buy a used tercel that gets 35 mi/ga and flick off that hybrid owner. You'll show them who's really thinking green! ;D
BTW, I'm not really that smart, I read the above info on WIRED magazine.
Quote from: chill on June 25, 2008, 01:05:08 PM
The batteries used on hybrids create about 1,000,000 btu's to create. A gallon of gas creates about 1,000 btu's. This means that a hybrid car has to travel about 100,000 miles before reaching the starting point of non-hybrid vehicles. Buy a used tercel that gets 35 mi/ga and flick off that hybrid owner. You'll show them who's really thinking green! ;D
[clap] GREAT POST [clap]
Quote from: chill on June 25, 2008, 01:05:08 PM
The batteries used on hybrids create about 1,000,000 btu's to create. A gallon of gas creates about 1,000 btu's. This means that a hybrid car has to travel about 100,000 miles before reaching the starting point of non-hybrid vehicles. Buy a used tercel that gets 35 mi/ga and flick off that hybrid owner. You'll show them who's really thinking green! ;D
BTW, I'm not really that smart, I read the above info on WIRED magazine.
Your math appears to be a wee bit off.
What your saying is that 1,000 gallons of gas can be created with the energy needed to make a hybrid car battery (1,000,000/1,000 = 1,000)
Asuming the average American car gets 20 mpg, it could go 20,000 miles on that 1,000 gallons. Therefore the hybrid would only have to drive that distance to reach the starting point.
35,000 miles if it's being compared to a "35mpg Tercel".
Still a valid point, but a bit overstated.See below :P
But vs a Geo Metro that gets the same MPG if would never catch up.
Both are good points though and helps us realize that no solution is perfect.
I may have oversimplified it. Lets see...equal starting points:
1) Car (20mpg) with 1,000 gallons gas
2) Hybrid (40 mpg) with no gas
Car can go 20,000 miles on gas. Hybrid needs 500 gallons to keep up.
Add that 500 (10,000 miles) gallons to the Car's original total, and you get 30,000 miles to break even (not 20,000 like I said before).
Keep doing that process until it equalizes and you get...bah, whatever! 100,000 seems high. ;D
edit...see below again. ;D
FROM WIRED ie I am not going to do the math myself
Making a Prius uses 113 Million btus
One Gallon of gas contaions 113,000 btus
That would mean that the Prius used 1,000 galons of gas before it leaves the factory IE Carbon Debt
If the prius was compaired to used Tercel at 35 mpg, which in this math problem does not count it's Carbon Debt since it counted against the first buyer.
The Prius would have to drive 100,000 miles to catch up to the Toyota Tercel.
So I actually ran the spreadsheet cause I'm a nerd. :P
Assuming the hybrid gets 40mpg. To work off the "fuel debt" would require:
40,000 miles in comparison to a 20 mpg car
120,000 miles in comparison to a 30 mpg car :o
280,000 miles in comparison to a 35 mpg car :o :o
Interesting! It all hinges on the Hybrid's fuel economy, but more than I thought for sure.
***By the way...I'm not a hybrid proponent. I just thought the number looked high at first glance. I stand corrected!
If the hybrid gets 50 mpg:
33,000 miles compared to 20 mpg car
75,000 miles compared to 30 mpg car
117,000 miles compared to 35 mpg car
So wired numbers were low! :o
So by the time it equals out, you need to shell out big cash for a new battery pack and the vicious cycle begins anew.
Quote from: lethe on June 25, 2008, 04:44:05 PM
So by the time it equals out, you need to shell out big cash for a new battery pack and the vicious cycle begins anew.
[laugh] The whole car would probably fall apart by then! ;D
BUUUUUTTTTTT.....
what if the BTU's used to make the battery came from renewable energy (wind, solar, etc). say the hybrid was assembled at a plant with wind generators and solar panels on the roof? wouldn't it's carbon footprint be considerably less right from the begining.
assume both cars were made at the same plant...using renewable energy. In this case, the hybrid would be the better choice.
Quote from: Triple J on June 25, 2008, 04:34:48 PM
So I actually ran the spreadsheet cause I'm a nerd. :P
Assuming the hybrid gets 40mpg. To work off the "fuel debt" would require:
40,000 miles in comparison to a 20 mpg car
120,000 miles in comparison to a 30 mpg car :o
280,000 miles in comparison to a 35 mpg car :o :o
Interesting! It all hinges on the Hybrid's fuel economy, but more than I thought for sure.
***By the way...I'm not a hybrid proponent. I just thought the number looked high at first glance. I stand corrected!
If the hybrid gets 50 mpg:
33,000 miles compared to 20 mpg car
75,000 miles compared to 30 mpg car
117,000 miles compared to 35 mpg car
Try your spead-sheet with a TDI.
My last tank was 41.9 mpg, I'm running 225/45/17 potenza's and I drive it like a four wheeled Monster [evil]
If I put skinny low rolling resistance tires on and babied it [bang] [puke] I would be getting mid to high 50's mpg.
Of course with my driving style tires wouldn't last 5k, so the money I save in diesel I'd be spending on tires. ;D
Look at car sales in europe ( you know the place with NO speed limit and lots of twisty mountain roads ) diesels are 50% of cars sold, hydrids 1-2%.
Quote from: Triple J on June 25, 2008, 04:34:48 PM
So I actually ran the spreadsheet cause I'm a nerd. :P
Assuming the hybrid gets 40mpg. To work off the "fuel debt" would require:
40,000 miles in comparison to a 20 mpg car
120,000 miles in comparison to a 30 mpg car :o
280,000 miles in comparison to a 35 mpg car :o :o
Interesting! It all hinges on the Hybrid's fuel economy, but more than I thought for sure.
***By the way...I'm not a hybrid proponent. I just thought the number looked high at first glance. I stand corrected!
If the hybrid gets 50 mpg:
33,000 miles compared to 20 mpg car
75,000 miles compared to 30 mpg car
117,000 miles compared to 35 mpg car
That's all fine and well, if you assume that the car you are comparing it to used ZERO BTU's to create....
Quote from: NAKID on June 25, 2008, 09:52:07 PM
That's all fine and well, if you assume that the car you are comparing it to used ZERO BTU's to create....
Not really. You assume the base car and the hybris took the same btu's to create. Both have all the basic car parts, and both have an engine. The only difference is the hybrid has a large bank of batteries which the regular car doesn't, which is where the added btu's come from.
That said, it is of course a simplistic model. I also didn't research the 1,000,000 btu to make a battery claim. I just like spreadsheets! ;D
What about this car ???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrxfMz2eDME (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrxfMz2eDME)
Quote from: Ducatiloo on June 25, 2008, 04:28:01 PM
FROM WIRED ie I am not going to do the math myself
Making a Prius uses 113 Million btus
One Gallon of gas contaions 113,000 btus
That would mean that the Prius used 1,000 galons of gas before it leaves the factory IE Carbon Debt
If the prius was compaired to used Tercel at 35 mpg, which in this math problem does not count it's Carbon Debt since it counted against the first buyer.
The Prius would have to drive 100,000 miles to catch up to the Toyota Tercel.
Thanks for correcting my original post. Yeah my math seemed way OFF when I originally posted but I thought, "what the heck, it get's the point across." I was trying to remember exactly what I read and didn't have the magazine handy to use as a reference.
Quote from: Le Pirate on June 25, 2008, 06:29:54 PM
BUUUUUTTTTTT.....
what if the BTU's used to make the battery came from renewable energy (wind, solar, etc). say the hybrid was assembled at a plant with wind generators and solar panels on the roof? wouldn't it's carbon footprint be considerably less right from the begining.
assume both cars were made at the same plant...using renewable energy. In this case, the hybrid would be the better choice.
Nah, way off too. It takes large amounts of energy to create these "renewable" energy sources, so that counts against it. I won't try to quote WIRED again 'cause I was way off the last time I tried but anyone interested should really check out that issue. I'm sure if you google it you can turn the issue up online.
The issue covers a great range of factors. It's interestingly thorough and covers areas I never would have thought to be as polluters.
Quote from: chill on June 26, 2008, 07:08:25 PM
Nah, way off too. It takes large amounts of energy to create these "renewable" energy sources, so that counts against it. I won't try to quote WIRED again 'cause I was way off the last time I tried but anyone interested should really check out that issue. I'm sure if you google it you can turn the issue up online.
How does it take a large amount of energy to create wind and solar energy? All you need for wind is a turbine and for solar you need the photovoltaic panels which are relatively inexpensive to make....
Quote from: NAKID on June 26, 2008, 09:39:09 PM
How does it take a large amount of energy to create wind and solar energy? All you need for wind is a turbine and for solar you need the photovoltaic panels which are relatively inexpensive to make....
130 ft turbine blades & 300 ft steel tower use some type of energy to create, transport, erect, etc.
But not compared to what they produce. Also, I though we were talking about residential applications. This all started when we brought up the Tesla Roadster and how to get the electricity to charge it.
Link to Residential Wind and Solar energy (http://www.power-savetv.com/index.html)
I don't know that gov't subsidies help the cause by masking the true cost.
Quote from: ROBsS4R on June 26, 2008, 02:22:14 PM
What about this car ???
I found a little more info - wonder what this 'process' is, I thought that the car might require a battery to extract the H from the H2O, but that isn't the case.
We've seen plenty of promises about water-powered cars (among other things), but it looks like Japan's Genepax has now made some real progress on that front, with it recently taking the wraps off its Water Energy System fuel cell prototype. The key to that system, it seems, is its membrane electrode assembly (or MEA), which contains a material that's capable of breaking down water into hydrogen and oxygen through a chemical reaction. Not surprisingly, the company isn't getting much more specific than that, with it only saying that it's adopted a "well-known process to produce hydrogen from water to the MEA." Currently, that system costs on the order of ¥2,000,000 (or about $18,700 -- not including the car), but company says that if it can get it into mass production that could be cut to ¥500,000 or less (or just under $5,000). Head on past the break for a video of car in action courtesy of Reuters.