13 Comments

1. Paul:

Too bad almost all our electricity is produced by burning fossil fuels. Then when you factor in the losses incurred in generation and transmission you actually wind up using more oil per mile than if you just put it in the gas tank in the first place. With enough nuclear or hydro electric power it starts to make some sense, but we’re a long way from that happening. Of course were enough people to use these cars our antiquated grids would be overwhelmed as they’re only barely adequate now. So it’s really just a feel good scam for gullible liberals of which, unlike oil, there does truly seem to be an inexhaustable supply.

Also we only get about 17% of our oil from the ME.

Jan 26, 2008 - 6:01 pm 2. JK Ribera:

The poster above sounds like he is competing for the most extreme right blowhard on the block. Do nothing. Sit on your ass. Say no. Everything he writes is a cliche we have heard a thousand times before.

Meanwhile, as everyone awake knows, as these technologies are used, the price comes down and the utility goes up. Will it be perfect the first time? Of course not. But only trying will make it better. Doing nothing, of course, won’t.

Jan 26, 2008 - 6:10 pm 3. Paul:

JK Ribera,

Perhaps a little knowledge of engineering and physics might come in handy. If you’re burning fossil fuels to generate the electricity used to propel a vehicle in order not to burn fossil fuels in the vehicle itself there’s this little “cliche” called the second law of thermodynamics that demonstrates that you will ultimately…burn more fossil fuels. I can figure that out and I’m just a guitar player.

It’s axiomatic that when one can’t argue persuasively with logic and facts one is reduced to ad hominem attacks and the appeal to authority. So come back with a real argument instead of childish insults after you’ve educated yourself a little.

Rather than sitting on ones ass and doing nothing or choosing foolish feel good “solutions” that only make the problem worse as you would do, the alternative is rational problem solving. To wit, building nuclear power plants and exploiting our vast oil reserves that have been locked up by the same liberal do gooders who are screaming the loudest, would be a logical start.

Logic. What a concept.

Jan 26, 2008 - 6:46 pm 4. Roger:

Hmmm…. Well, I’m just a writer… and yes, I certainly agree we should use more nuclear energy… but as for the question of how much oil we consume to make electric to power electric, I would imagine many of those heavily involved in this issue are studying that now. Like JK Ribera, I have seen the above argument many times, as have the people at all the companies dealing with producing better lithium batteries (like the group at Stanford that just may have had that amazing breakthrough using nanotechnology just a couple of weeks ago). So that didn’t seem such an ad hominem to me, if a bit rude. Science and technology are moving ahead. I’m ready to get behind them. So, interestingly, is Mitt Romney who has said on several recent occasions that he is for government finance of these programs. I imagine Paul… whoever he is… would be against that.

Jan 26, 2008 - 8:49 pm 5. zefal:

Best thing to do is get a fuel efficent car. The only thing an electric would be good for is to cut down on pollution in an urban area. Unless you would be charging your car off nuclear generated power when there is excess power being generated.

Jan 26, 2008 - 9:53 pm 6. Paul:

Roger,

You misunderstand me. I’m no right wing reactionary. I’m not a social conservative. I believe the most compassionate way to deal with my fellow man is to live and let live and I am a strong believer in individual liberty.

I’m absolutely pro technology, but I also know there’s plenty of money to be made with scams that appeal to “progressives” and their vanity. I’m not lumping you in with that group, however in your understandable zeal to wean America from it’s dependence on foreign oil I believe you are falling for a ruse.

As long as oil is the source of electrical energy it always more inefficient to convert it to electricity and then use it power a car that can burn the oil directly. It has nothing to do with the efficiency of the batteries. A more efficient battery is less wasteful, but the laws of physics dictates that the conversion of oil to electricity to mechanical power is less efficient than the direct conversion of oil to mechanical power.

There may be circumstances where the benefits of electric locomotion outweigh the drawbacks. We still use electric streetcars and buses. A city filled with electric cars would have cleaner air, though cars are much cleaner now than ever by far, but the pollution from the added electricity generated would move that pollution elsewhere.

Someone with more expertise can tell you if your additional electricity costs would be more or less than the equivalent spent on gasoline, so that may be a determining factor. But if the object is to burn less oil then it fails. That is, until we have a different source, such as nuclear power, to produce electricity.

As for whether or not the government should be involved in the research it is pretty obvious that the private sector does better in most, but not all, cases like this. I don’t know enough of the details to say about this particular instance, so I’m agnostic. Unlike reactionaries on the right or left I like to thoroughly study an issue before I form an opinion.

As to my anonymity I am a musician. I live in the Bay Area. The people I work with are almost all hard line leftists and my career would be absolutely jeopardized if my politics were known. You of all people should be able to understand this.

Jan 26, 2008 - 11:28 pm 7. photoncourier.blogspot.com:

paul–”when you factor in the losses incurred in generation and transmission you actually wind up using more oil per mile than if you just put it in the gas tank in the first place.”

Actually, very little oil is used for electrical generation. The primary sources are coal, natural gas (almost all domestically supplied), nuclear, and hydropower.

It is also not correct that it is always more wasteful to first turn a fuel to electricity rather than use the fuel directly at the point of need. Stationary power plants are not subject to the size and weight restrictions of car engines; also, they are typically located near bodies of water which can be used for cooling, which helps efficiency.

Jan 27, 2008 - 7:56 am 8. Paul:

photon,

Thank you for providing a calm and reasoned reponse. Very refreshing after the typical reaction I’ve been seeing from these “moderates”. I’ll try to look more deeply into this.

Jan 27, 2008 - 11:16 am 9. Stace:

My electricity comes from coal, natural gas, nuclear, and a little wind. If I had a plug-in hybrid, I could do all of my daily travel without burning any petroleum, except for that used to power the coal trains that feed each coal plant 2 x week.

You can see what your local plants are using here

http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/how-clean.html

Jan 27, 2008 - 1:20 pm 10. gumshoe:

Best thing to do is get a fuel efficient car. The only thing an electric would be good for is to cut down on pollution in an urban area. Unless you would be charging your car off nuclear generated power when there is excess power being generated.

Posted by: zefal [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 26, 2008 9:53 PM

_______________________________________

southwestern US location +
efficient solar cells +
output pumped back into the municipal grid
(possibly from the roof of your own home ..see CitizenRe.com business model) +
an adequate electric or hybrid car
is an attractive solution for a metropolis like PHX.

not every part of the US (or the globe)
gets as much sun daily.

Jan 28, 2008 - 7:41 am 11. Paul:

In certain circumstances it might make sense to have an ancilliary electric vehicle such as gumshoe’s scenario, and at a 40 mile range that’s all it can be. In terms of weaning us off Saudi oil, which was the primary motive mentioned, it’s an empty gesture of moral preening. Big surprise there! Only more domestic production can do that. We only get 17% of our oil from the Saudis and even if we didn’t need their oil Europe, Japan, and China still would and they are their biggest customers, so they’re not going out of business any time soon.

Oil is going to be the lifeblood of the worlds energy needs for a long time so get used to it. The best solution is to start tapping our own known resouces which include the vast (bigger than KSA’s reserves)oil sand and shale deposits in the USA and Canada.

Jan 28, 2008 - 8:30 am 12. Paul:

In certain circumstances it might make sense to have an ancilliary electric vehicle such as gumshoe’s scenario, and at a 40 mile range that’s all it can be. In terms of weaning us off Saudi oil, which was the primary motive mentioned, it’s an empty gesture of moral preening. Big surprise there! Only more domestic production can do that. We only get 17% of our oil from the Saudis and even if we didn’t need their oil Europe, Japan, and China still would and they are their biggest customers, so they’re not going out of business any time soon.

Oil is going to be the lifeblood of the worlds energy needs for a long time so get used to it. The best solution is to start tapping our own known resouces which include the vast (bigger than KSA’s reserves)oil sand and shale deposits in the USA and Canada.

Jan 28, 2008 - 8:31 am 13. photoncourier.blogspot.com:

Bear in mind that any technologies developed *here* to reduce oil consumption will also be made available in other countries. If GM has a big win with the Volt, for example, you can bet that they’re going to be aggressively selling the model (with whatever local variants) overseas.

The technology flow also runs the other direction. Coal-to-liquids technologies, developed in Nazi Germany and in apartheid-era South Africa, will likely be used in the U.S. on a significant scale. Solar energy may well be deployed on a large scale initially in countries lacking a serious grid infrastructure: technical improvements and manufacturing economies of scale will eventually make the technology more relevant to countries that *do* have grids in place.

Jan 28, 2008 - 8:58 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: