These Gas Prices Are Killing Me

[checkymcfold 0]

Your misunderstanding what I was saying. Electricity comes from somewhere, it does not just magically appear in the batteries. For the most part it is created by burning coal. So until we get electricity generated more economically, then electric cars won't be economical, especially factoring in the batteries and the cost and energy to produce/maintain and replace.

i addressed this. the thermal efficiency of all but the oldest coal-fired plants far exceeds even the most efficient internal combustion engines. moreover, the gasoline doesn't just appear at the pump--it needs to be refined, which takes energy, and then transported, across oceans and then across countries by land. it's really not even close when you look at the final numbers. the only way that people can skew the data to make it look close is by ignoring the transportation and refining processes for gasoline engines while including analogous costs for renewable energy (energy loss in power lines, which is about 5% on average, production costs for materials, etc.). unfortunately, dishonest studies like this are published fairly often by people who are ideologically committed to casting nonexistent doubt on climate change-type issues.it also doesn't take a lot of energy to create a battery, especially from recycled material. you also have to compare the energy costs for creating an entirely electrical drive system to those of creating a combustion engine in order to stay properly rigorous. and that's damn near a wash in the end.

[checkymcfold 0]

That's like saying that in 1950 we should've started stockpiling vast warehouses alphabetic-and-function keys in anticipation of the internet revolution. Even if we could've been correct about such a thing doesn't mean it makes economic sense to do it 50 years before we are ready.

no, it's not at all. we have plenty of concrete evidence of numerous sustainable energy sources working just fine all over the world. germany already gets 25% of its electricity from wind and will get 40% by 2020, for instance.knocking windmills as much as you guys are is kind of ridiculous. they cost a lot to build, but so do power plants. power plants cost a ton to keep up, but windmills cost basically nothing. hell, i think even that much was indicated in the days of sim city 2000.

[hblask 1]

no, it's not at all. we have plenty of concrete evidence of numerous sustainable energy sources working just fine all over the world. germany already gets 25% of its electricity from wind and will get 40% by 2020, for instance.knocking windmills as much as you guys are is kind of ridiculous. they cost a lot to build, but so do power plants. power plants cost a ton to keep up, but windmills cost basically nothing. hell, i think even that much was indicated in the days of sim city 2000.

Don't get me wrong, I didn't say it's not possible, just that it's not a good economic choice. Again, watch the Lomborg TED talk. He's not saying climate change is not a problem, just that it diverts money from cheap, big-impact issues into expensive, small-impact issues. Letting people die in Africa, or driving up the cost of living for people who can't afford it in the US, just to get rid of some of that suburban middle class guilt is a terrible solution.And I'm not opposed to windmills. In fact, when I win the lottery, I will build a negative CO2 house -- one that creates more energy than it uses -- using a combination of solar, wind, and whatever else is available. The difference is that I don't want to force that expensive choice down the throats of people who can't afford any more expensive choices in their life.

[SCYUKON 0]

no, it's not at all. we have plenty of concrete evidence of numerous sustainable energy sources working just fine all over the world. germany already gets 25% of its electricity from wind and will get 40% by 2020, for instance.knocking windmills as much as you guys are is kind of ridiculous. they cost a lot to build, but so do power plants. power plants cost a ton to keep up, but windmills cost basically nothing. hell, i think even that much was indicated in the days of sim city 2000.

A colleague at an electrical conference made a very profound statement to me this past summer concerning the "true-cost" of wind energy. You see, when people flick the switch, the energy needs to be there right now. So if the wind is not blowing sufficiently, guess which generators gets called into action? Answer - the high cost Gas Generators, as the cheaper Coal Generators take too long to start up (the Gas fired Generators start up much quicker). So then the cost of juice goes way up, and stays up if these Gas Fired Generators need to keep spinning due to intermittent wind power.So when you say that Wind is the answer, there may be a bit more to the "true-cost" of this energy form than is apparent to the naked eye.I am not sure of the exact numbers right now, but at last look, I believe the stated cost (without the gas generator externalities I just mentioned) of Windmill Generation was in the mid teens in cents per kW.h. So why we are straying from plentiful coal (with or without carbon capture as the case may be, depending on the CC debate) is beyond me.Oh yeah, here is a good link for the earth is melting folks:http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/12/16/w...ther/index.htmlDon't think DN will be out golfing at Summerlin in this state...wonder if his hybrid has a plugin?

[checkymcfold 0]

Don't get me wrong, I didn't say it's not possible, just that it's not a good economic choice. Again, watch the Lomborg TED talk. He's not saying climate change is not a problem, just that it diverts money from cheap, big-impact issues into expensive, small-impact issues. Letting people die in Africa, or driving up the cost of living for people who can't afford it in the US, just to get rid of some of that suburban middle class guilt is a terrible solution.And I'm not opposed to windmills. In fact, when I win the lottery, I will build a negative CO2 house -- one that creates more energy than it uses -- using a combination of solar, wind, and whatever else is available. The difference is that I don't want to force that expensive choice down the throats of people who can't afford any more expensive choices in their life.

if i really thought that any western governments would do something meaningful about africa, i'd be all for taking care of that first. but in the meantime, while we're paying lip service to africa and have at least a rudimentary ability to multitask, we can funnel time and energy (ha) into the necessary research and planning for a new power grid. i'm not suggesting that we run out and build the whole thing in five years, but rather that we start paying really smart people to figure out how we can build it in 20 or 25.

A colleague at an electrical conference made a very profound statement to me this past summer concerning the "true-cost" of wind energy. You see, when people flick the switch, the energy needs to be there right now. So if the wind is not blowing sufficiently, guess which generators gets called into action? Answer - the high cost Gas Generators, as the cheaper Coal Generators take too long to start up (the Gas fired Generators start up much quicker). So then the cost of juice goes way up, and stays up if these Gas Fired Generators need to keep spinning due to intermittent wind power.So when you say that Wind is the answer, there may be a bit more to the "true-cost" of this energy form than it apparent to the naked eye.I am not sure of the exact numbers right now, but at last look, I believe the stated cost (without the gas generator externalities I just mentioned) of Windmill Generation was in the mid teens per kW.h. So why we are straying from plentiful coal (with or without carbon capture as the case may be, depending on the CC debate) is beyond me.Oh yeah, here is a good link for the earth is melting folks:http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/12/16/w...ther/index.htmlDon't think DN will be out golfing at Summerlin in this state...

does your colleague know how capacitors work and how they are integrated into electrical power systems? you're hyperbolizing the whole situation to suit your own ends and rendering yourself intellectually dishonest to a fairly ridiculous degree--no one thinks that wind on its own can provide 100% of the world's power. but to suggest that getting 15% or 25% of our power, even to just the midwest, from wind is somehow bad is an utterly ridiculous suggestion, whether by you or your unnamed colleague who attends unnamed "electrical conferences."

[hblask 1]

if i really thought that any western governments would do something meaningful about africa, i'd be all for taking care of that first. but in the meantime, while we're paying lip service to africa and have at least a rudimentary ability to multitask, we can funnel time and energy (ha) into the necessary research and planning for a new power grid. i'm not suggesting that we run out and build the whole thing in five years, but rather that we start paying really smart people to figure out how we can build it in 20 or 25.

This is sort of an interesting side discussion all by itself. A while ago I created a thread about the possibility of a US only Copehagen Consensus, to do for US problems what that did for world problems. I suggested that if all problems were prioritized like that, govt programs wouldn't be so objectionable. If you rank all the US problems on a cost-benefit basis, do you really think having bureaucrats trying to anticipate energy trends would finish anywhere in the top 10? The top 20?I think wasting money on bad programs is actually a *cause* of a lot of the sentiment against social and environmental programs by the US govt. We've been sold a bill of goods too many times, and people are not as stupid as politicians and liberals would like us to believe. When we start seeing 5 figure tax bills on April 15, and start seeing tens of billions of dollars spent on useless feel-good programs that are thinly-veiled corporate welfare, it harms the case for good interventions. We've had the federal government trying to intervene in energy markets for over 30 years now with NO gain -- we may as well have flushed that money down the toilet. Yet now, after all that, we're supposed to believe that bureaucrats are on the verge of picking a winner? It defies logic.

[SCYUKON 0]

Um yeah, the colleagues is in charge of the Provincial Energy Market, so I think he knows a thing or two about energy. LOL. Capacitors, nice try, talk about shooting your argument in the foot. Very inefficient storage, if at all. Keep trying though. Would be nice if we could actually find a useful efficient way to store electricity, like can do for gas.

[hblask 1]

Um yeah, the colleagues is in charge of the Provincial Energy Market, so I think he knows a thing or two about energy. LOL. Capacitors, nice try, talk about shooting your argument in the foot. Very inefficient storage, if at all. Keep trying though. Would be nice if we could actually find a useful efficient way to store electricity, like can do for gas.

One of the more promising technologies that I've read about, where progress is actually being made, is in flywheel technology. They could create fields of magnetically levitated flywheels to go with the fields of wind turbines. When it is windy, the flywheels spin up, and lose virtually none of their energy. When the wind stops, the electric company drains some of that energy, slowing them down. The only real hurdle to overcome is make the flywheels not break apart at high speeds, and that's just a materials issue that should be solved fairly quickly.There is no federal money going into this because it doesn't buy votes, and the flywheel lobby can outbid T Boone Pickens and Al Gore for attention. Market distortions, FTL.

[vbnautilus 48]

Necessity is the mother of invention. Currently gas works very well and is abundantly available and affordable. The condition that will produce the technological advances we need will be the scarcity of gasoline. Whether that scarcity is due to depletion or political/economic events remains to be seen.

[Don Giovanni 0]

Necessity is the mother of invention. Currently gas works very well and is abundantly available and affordable. The condition that will produce the technological advances we need will be the scarcity of gasoline. Whether that scarcity is due to depletion or political/economic events remains to be seen.

which brings me back to my first post here, and why it is so bad that oil prices are going down

[SCYUKON 0]

which brings me back to my first post here, and why it is so bad that oil prices are going down

Ok, we have come full circle then. You win.I capitulate - taking the bus to work tomorrow.

[El Guapo 8]

L O L - I love it. OPEC is getting what they have deserved for decades. The global economy has made them virtually irrelevant. They cut production by 2,200,000 barrels a day, and Oil prices still went down to $40.00 a barrel today.I still think we just need a giant field of pendulums to solve our energy needs, or nuclear power plants, one of the two.

[Don Giovanni 0]

I still think we just need a giant field of pendulums to solve our energy needs,

i had never thought of this. has anyone researched why this wouldn't work?

[El Guapo 8]

i had never thought of this. has anyone researched why this wouldn't work?

I am pretty sure it has. I think it had to do with the volume and the size of the pedulums.

[strategy 4]

L O L - I love it. OPEC is getting what they have deserved for decades. The global economy has made them virtually irrelevant. They cut production by 2,200,000 barrels a day, and Oil prices still went down to $40.00 a barrel today.I still think we just need a giant field of pendulums to solve our energy needs, or nuclear power plants, one of the two.

watch the links I gave you a while ago. saudi arabia will be keeping oil at a relatively low price level long-term, regardless of what opec, iran, et al would like. it's in their best interests, I don't see much wrong with it tbh.

[SCYUKON 0]

watch the links I gave you a while ago. saudi arabia will be keeping oil at a relatively low price level long-term, regardless of what opec, iran, et al would like. it's in their best interests, I don't see much wrong with it tbh.

Could you repost those please.Thanks

[strategy 4]

Could you repost those please.Thanks

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4653109nthe juicy stuff is in part two:http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4653129n

[hblask 1]

I am pretty sure it has. I think it had to do with the volume and the size of the pedulums.

And the fact that it would take energy to put them in motion, and that energy will necessarily be greater than the amount you can take from them. I could see potential as an energy storage device for variable sources such as wind and solar, but there seems to be better, more compact solutions.

[SCYUKON 0]

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4653109nthe juicy stuff is in part two:http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4653129n

Thanks :)Those were a couple of really good pieces. Those Saudi dudes seem to be pretty sharp businessmen.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

That's like saying that in 1950 we should've started stockpiling vast warehouses alphabetic-and-function keys in anticipation of the internet revolution. Even if we could've been correct about such a thing doesn't mean it makes economic sense to do it 50 years before we are ready.

It's more akin to saying that in the 1960's we should have been spending millions of dollars developing extremely inefficient and complicated systems to connect a few universities and labs to one another using a new form of communications. I agree. Doing so would have been a total waste. Clearly it wouldn't have been economically viable since there was no available infrastructure to make it widespread. It would have a small, inefficient, wasteful experiment that was way ahead of its time.Sometimes we need some initial investment to make great things happen. It's okay if that investment comes from the government, it's worked before and it'll work again.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

It's more akin to saying that in the 1960's we should have been spending millions of dollars developing extremely inefficient and complicated systems to connect a few universities and labs to one another using a new form of communications. I agree. Doing so would have been a total waste. Clearly it wouldn't have been economically viable since there was no available infrastructure to make it widespread. It would have a small, inefficient, wasteful experiment that was way ahead of its time.Sometimes we need some initial investment to make great things happen. It's okay if that investment comes from the government, it's worked before and it'll work again.

I thought that Ted Stevens invented the internet ?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s84CwjsSHhs

[hblask 1]

It's more akin to saying that in the 1960's we should have been spending millions of dollars developing extremely inefficient and complicated systems to connect a few universities and labs to one another using a new form of communications. I agree. Doing so would have been a total waste. Clearly it wouldn't have been economically viable since there was no available infrastructure to make it widespread. It would have a small, inefficient, wasteful experiment that was way ahead of its time.Sometimes we need some initial investment to make great things happen. It's okay if that investment comes from the government, it's worked before and it'll work again.

If we didn't have wise bureaucrats leading us out of the darkness, we'd still be sitting in caves pounding rocks together. Obviously, if it happened in the presence of government funding, that implies that there is no way it would've happened without govt funding.Oh, except for the fact that the internet was obscure and rarely used for over 30 years until it was turned over to the private sector, at which point it changed our lives permanently.Don't worry about that though.And don't worry about that fact that private companies were investing in that technology prior to any govt involvement, and that's where the bureaucrats got the idea. And just ignore the tens of thousands of errant investments through the years, because jumping onto the right bandwagon once in 100 years is a really good record.

[El Guapo 8]

I think there is some disconnect with what the majority of you are saying and with what Henry and I believe for the most part.We are not at all opposed to alternative energy or technology. But it cannot be forced with disregard to economics, like it has the last 20-30 years.

[phlegm 6]

Why do I have this recurring dream of Algore standing on the las vegas strip, hip deep in snow with a stop global warming sign?

[Don Giovanni 0]

Why do I have this recurring dream of Algore standing on the las vegas strip, hip deep in snow with a stop global warming sign?

yea cause one snow day means that global warming is fake... i could give you a million examples going the other way