Originally posted by whodeyBattery driven car technology has been around for decades. It hasn't caught on because of:
What I mean is that the battery driven car technology is still in its infancy. I am certain we could achieve battery driven technology in vehicles if felt forced to do so that are both affordable and functional in terms of their use.
1. The limitations I mentioned.
2. pressure from the oil companies and car companies (don't know why the car companies are against it but they are).
http://www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F
From Wikkipedia:
"The film details the California Air Resources Board's reversal of the mandate after suits from automobile manufacturers, the oil industry, and the George W. Bush administration. It points out that Bush's chief influences, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, and Andrew Card, are all former executives and board members of oil and auto companies."
Also see if you can get to watch:
"The 11th hour"
http://wip.warnerbros.com/11thhour/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11th_Hour_(documentary)
Originally posted by WajomaI think the goal for solar power should be to make it affordable for home owners and businesses to buy panels. Of course, it may not supply all thier energy needs, depending on availability of sunlight etc, but it should significanty decrease the general enregy expenditure as well as help stimulate their respective economies by having more money to spend due to their savings.
The entire solar power industry in the world to date generates as much electric as one decent coal fired plant, which china are building at a rate of two a week.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadNow I know its tempting to blame this all on Bush but lets be honest here for a second, he has only been president for about 8 years and this problem has been a growing one since the 1970's. I also heard Bush the other day endorse nuclear power, however, it is hard to tell if this is what he wants to do or whether it is what he wants us to believe. Of course, now that he is a lame Duck President with a Demorcratic Congress I don't think it much matters. In fact, I think that it is in the interest of the Democratic congress to keep things the way they are so at election time they can blame the President for all the trouble regarding energy prices as well as the economy in general. Unfortunatly people will not demand solutions so much as they will demand "change".
Battery driven car technology has been around for decades. It hasn't caught on because of:
1. The limitations I mentioned.
2. pressure from the oil companies and car companies (don't know why the car companies are against it but they are).
http://www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F
From Wik ttp://wip.warnerbros.com/11thhour/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11th_Hour_(documentary)
Originally posted by AThousandYoungOur public policy has forbidden offshore oil drilling, explains du Pont:
Can you give me specifics about what laws were passed?
* There is an estimated 85 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas (an 18-year supply) contained within the Outer Continental Shelf and another 10 billion barrels of oil in Alaska.
* Together they could replace America's imported oil for about 25 years, but the first President Bush issued a directive forbidding access to a significant portion of the Outer Continental Shelf.
* President Clinton extended the restriction through 2012 and vetoed legislation that would have allowed drilling in Alaska.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121105403544501297.html
5 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadUnfortunately the number one point will always be the answer. Its more comforting to think that an energy lobby undermines the efforts of government to launch alternatives, but when you work out the return on investment that non fossil fueled power brings, you work out why no-one is lining up to invest in it. Coal is king because the power stations that run on it are much easier to build and maintain than nuclear and renewables like solar, wind or wave power. The cyclical nature of renewables also means that if you want to provide energy to the grid, you probably have to build more capacity than you need. Then there's the problem of the natural conditions staying in place for the 30 years or so it usually takes for a large scale power generation facility to actually make a worthwhile return on investment. No one will commission a billion dollar project that needs a 30 year life span to recoup its costs when there are other investment vehicles out there with similar or better returns, but without the risks of power generation.
Although I do not have a lot against nuclear power, it is not the only option. There are plenty of other clean alternatives. Hydroelectic power, Solar power and wind power are very viable for a start. The main reasons why they have not been used extensively are:
1. Cost effectiveness compared to oil.
2. Government willingness (probably due to pressure from the oil corporations).
What happens when the sun doesnt quite shine for 300 out of every 365 days a year going into year 7? What if the non stop wind over the cape suddenly decides that it will el minko its way off to somewhere else? And then there are those places where that may not be a problem but you need to transmit your power over 400 miles to where its needed and you work out why coal will always be the backbone of the worlds power/energy/electricity market.
Whatever the environmental concerns, and yes they are very real, the truth is that the cost of running on coal has to double before any of the renewable s even vaguely get a look in, in terms of being profitable alternatives.
Next time you have google to guide you, find the biggest solar installation in the world, find out how much it cost, then consider its actual output to the grid, and then consider the cost of a coal powered plant, and the power it produces. While you are comparing the two, compare the relative size of each installation, and then also have a look at the number of days in a year that the two can reliably be depended to run on. You wont like what you find if you expect coal to disappear soon.
Nuclear may be 'cleaner' on site, but it costs a lot more to install and there is the complexity and safety issues, plus the disposal issues of its waste products that make it a mixed blessing.
Ultimately oil will take a long time to go out of fashion. Simple reality of thermodynamics and economics. You get more bang for your buck with oil and its the most potent portable energy source we can effectively harness in transport.
$200 a barrel will come and go and we will fondly tell out kids of the days when petrol cost us only ten bucks a gallon. When you work out how many resources you need and how difficult it is to send a car 600 miles using electric motors, then you should marvel how we take it for granted that a modern compact diesel like a VW or Peugot can do that distance on one tank of juice.
The price of oil is no longer simply a supply and demand problem. Its also a speculative futures problem, that by the time that bubble, if it ever bursts, will still see a rise, given an approaching peak oil threshold or a carbon tax that we will be paying sometime soon.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterSo why do you think it was restricted? Were the two respective presidents worried about environmental issues or are there other issues at work here?
Our public policy has forbidden offshore oil drilling, explains du Pont:
* There is an estimated 85 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas (an 18-year supply) contained within the Outer Continental Shelf and another 10 billion barrels of oil in Alaska.
* Together they could replace America's impo ...[text shortened]... d have allowed drilling in Alaska.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121105403544501297.html
1 edit
Originally posted by kmax87So what direction do you think the US should go in terms of energies for the future?
Unfortunately the number one point will always be the answer. Its more comforting to think that an energy lobby undermines the efforts of government to launch alternatives, but when you work out the return on investment that non fossil fueled power brings, you work out why no-one is lining up to invest in it. Coal is king because the power stations that run o given an approaching peak oil threshold or a carbon tax that we will be paying sometime soon.
Originally posted by kmax87That is simply not true. It is a fact that the sources of power chosen are different in different countries depending partly on government policy.
Unfortunately the number one point will always be the answer. Its more comforting to think that an energy lobby undermines the efforts of government to launch alternatives, but when you work out the return on investment that non fossil fueled power brings, you work out why no-one is lining up to invest in it.
No one will commission a billion dollar project that needs a 30 year life span to recoup its costs when there are other investment vehicles out there with similar or better returns, but without the risks of power generation.
And that is where public policy comes in. With government backing the equations can be changed.
Whatever the environmental concerns, and yes they are very real, the truth is that the cost of running on coal has to double before any of the renewable s even vaguely get a look in, in terms of being profitable alternatives.
Not true. Some alternatives are already being used profitably.
$200 a barrel will come and go and we will fondly tell out kids of the days when petrol cost us only ten bucks a gallon. When you work out how many resources you need and how difficult it is to send a car 600 miles using electric motors, then you should marvel how we take it for granted that a modern compact diesel like a VW or Peugot can do that distance on one tank of juice.
It is already possible to make an electric car that can go 600 miles on one charge.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadAnd that is where public policy comes in. With government backing the equations can be changed.
That is simply not true. It is a fact that the sources of power chosen are different in different countries depending partly on government policy.
Absolutely, and absolutely essential if we are to do something about our addiction for cheap power. The amount of pollutants that issue from coal usage are staggering to say the least, and if we wait for market forces alone to decide, we will be knee deep in mercury and soot before anything is done.
It is already possible to make an electric car that can go 600 miles on one charge.
I've done a very thorough though not exhaustive search, and the only battery vehicle that can do 600miles on one charge, looks like a mini airplane and is assisted by a small diesel motor.
[ Aptera Typ-1 ~ http://dvice.com/archives/2008/04/top_10_worldcha.php]
For the rest a more realistic ballpark seems 60 to 180 km or 37 to about 120 miles to be imperial about it.
Not true. Some alternatives are already being used profitably.
Yes of course you are correct, but what I was trying to say is that the scale of land use and resources required to replace a traditional Rankine cycle, coal fired, power plant, means that the ability to replace coal with renewables is limited.
Some facts: SES (Stirling Energy Systems) is currently developing two solar sites in California. Construction will commence following final commercial and regulatory approval. The two sites - Solar One and Solar Two - are significant first steps in deploying large-scale renewable solar technology as a commercial energy project. When fully completed both sites will have a combined generating capacity of 1,750 MW. http://stirlingenergy.com/projects/default.asp
Some statistics from Solar One might reveal some of my skepticism.
In its smallest configuration, Solar One will produce 500 MW of power (very respectable) but will require 20, 000 + dish array (each dish is 37 ft in diameter and capable of producing 25kW) and 4,500 acres of land to install it. Thats a seven square mile facility of highly polished reflective surfaces requiring an inordinate amount of control actuation to keep them tracking the Sun correctly as well as cleaning to keep the surfaces at their optimum output)
In contrast Plant Scherer The largest coal fired power plant in America sits on about 3,500 acres and produces above 3 GW of power. In other words more than 6 times the power output of Solar One on about 77% of the land Solar One uses.
If you look towards wind for your power the land/power equation gets a lot worse. Which also translates as added cost. You will find SES's website very coy about the money involved in building their facility.
Should we not try and do something? Of course not. The more people engage with this problem, the more and better solutions will be found.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeySomething like the FutureGen project, [http://www.futuregenalliance.org/alliance.stm]
So what direction do you think the US should go in terms of energies for the future?
which attempts to adapt the existing coal technologies with innovations to make it clean, as well as act as a producer of hydrogen which will hopefully add weight to the hydrogen/fuel cell economy, that will deliver alternative means of zero emissions transport.
Electrical transport in general should be the way to go. As has been suggested the using of off peak electricity to charge vehicles overnight such that they can do the next day's transport tasks, is definitely a great way to go forward. Much easier to modify a polluting energy source at one location, than trying to modify the emissions of millions of vehicles. There are problems with batteries and their life cycles ,which with current technology will mean having to replace them before the car has reached its end of cycle.
Personally I like the idea of creating a Hydrogen economy. The gas can power vehicles in two ways, either as the potential in a fuel cell, or as the fuel to power slightly modified internal combustion engines that will utilize hydrogen in the same way that cars running on lpg do. The biggest reason for this approach working, is that you can piggy back the existing infrastructure already in place, such that you could deliver the gas in a similar manner to which fuel or liquid natural or liquid petroleum gas is currently distributed to every service station.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterFrom that article:
Our public policy has forbidden offshore oil drilling, explains du Pont:
* There is an estimated 85 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas (an 18-year supply) contained within the Outer Continental Shelf and another 10 billion barrels of oil in Alaska.
* Together they could replace America's impo ...[text shortened]... d have allowed drilling in Alaska.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121105403544501297.html
Have they encouraged the building of nuclear power plants that would generate pollution-free energy? No.
Nuclear power plants are not pollution free. They just cause different kinds of pollution.
The article also ignores the possibility of ethanol from sugar cane.
I wonder why "the first President Bush issued a directive forbidding access to a significant portion of the Outer Continental Shelf [and] President Clinton extended the restriction through 2012 and vetoed legislation that would have allowed drilling in Alaska"?
Originally posted by WajomaWhere did you pull that particular statistic from?
The entire solar power industry in the world to date generates as much electric as one decent coal fired plant, which china are building at a rate of two a week.
Being entirely ignorant of the energy industry I'd imagine that it was from somewhere dark.
Or maybe, are you including all photosynthesis by plants across the world in your calculations? That might just work but until I can take a look at the references you used I just wont know.
hihi
I would like to stop there but what are you people thinking? Hydrogen is a good thing? How much hydrogen do you think is just lying around waiting to be sent to hydrogen stations (as and when they exist) across the country of your choise?
Generating hydrogen is a) not easy, b) not cheap and c) requires a source, usually a hydrocarbon. For those of you unfamiliar with what a hydrocarbon is then it's a fairly major constituent of oil, coal and gas. Why you'd want to burn hydrogen produced by burning coal/gas/oil is beyond me.
