Electric cars are a pipe dream

I will admit. There may be alteratives. But I don't belive they will ever lead to a cheaper futer. Because there will b larger v's that we reli upon that the alterative electric or other ideas haven't been explored yet. But I do believe that that we need a military that first runs on alternative like resorses first

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Pardon my bAd spelling

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Natural gas seems profitable

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Check out this (interesting)
lternativecarfuels.org thx nathalle17 but can u see that used militarily? Me NO

 

Check out this .
(Interesting) lternativecarfuels.org thx nathalle17 but can u see that used militarily? Me NO

 

Saddam was never a threat to US or EU. In fact his Iraq was the only country in the Mid East where al quada was totally absent.
(Not only them but any other group with a political adgenda was driven out or killed.)

He, and his sons, enriched themselves, many palaces etc. where sons often took attractive women to rape, etc. He brutally killed many who did not agree with his absolute rule (especially the Kurds who wanted to form Kurdistan and the Shiites who wanted closer ties with Iran) but was far from the worst dictator in the world. At least a dozen others in Africa and half a dozen in the far East were much worse, but they were fortunate that their countries did not have cheap to produce oil, so US was not concerned with their much greater abuses of their populations. (Whole villages systematically rapped by the government´s soldiers or tens of thousands of children with at least one hand cut off or forced into the army at age 8, etc.)

For most Iraqis, who kept their mouth shut, Saddam was no danger. In fact only in Iraq did women have essentially the same rights as men, could dress in western style clothes, drive cars, own property, go out at night without male relative escort* etc. I.e. except for political supression of all (Al quada included) Saddam´s Iraq was ZERO THREAT to the US & EU.

Most of his hostility to Iran was some what justified as Iranian forces did invade Iraq near the border, briefly captured and held some producing oil wells. The border its self had been in dispute for at least 100 years, but these captured wells were in Iraq, all agreed. The 1200 year old Suni/Shiite dispute was also part of the basis for friction between Iraq & Iran, especially as even in Iraq, the Shiite majority was ruled by Saddam´s Suni minority, although Saddam was not much concerned with the religious aspects of this dispute - only when it became a political challenge based on that religious conflict.

SUMMARY: The US would be significantly more secure, with less expense for that, If Saddam were still in power, selling his oil to western companies, instead of China, suppressing Al Quada, and keeping Iran´s military concerned with its Iraq border defenses. The main winner of the Iraq war was Iran and to a lesser extent China. The first President Bush had the good sense to leave Saddam in power, but his stupid son, did EVERYTHING wrong and greatly damaged the US - so much so, that I could predict, while he still had two years as POTUS, a depression was inevitable and would begin with a run on the dollar. Initially that prediction had a 6 year wide window, but now it states "on or before Halloween 2014."

*But not a wise idea if very pretty and one of Saddam´s sons saw her.

 

If true, (and I say that because I've seen so many of these announcements not pan out commercially) that they can make cell energy of 400 watt-hours per kilogram at a cost of $150 per kilowatt-hour, this would lead to a significant improvement in range at the same cost, or the same range at a much lower cost.

The Leaf's battery is only 80 watt hours per kg (~300 kg) and the cost is just under $400 per kWh.

So if you kept the cost the same, the range would improve to ~200 miles and yet the battery would only weigh ~150 kg, which is also a decent weight saving.

If you kept the range the same, the cost would drop by over $5,000 and the weight savings would be ~240 kg, which is really significant.

Still, a Leaf, with a 73 mile range that only costs $30,000 is still far more expensive than a comparable quality IC car, so while this would certainly help sales, I don't think it is quite enough (without huge Govt subsidies) to encourage that many more buyers (particularly until the charging infrastructure improves significantly) to switch to an EV.

 

Here is an update:

"... costs $2,900 (Not $2000 now). The average salary of an Indian worker, adjusted for GDP divided by PPP (purchasing power parity, a schedule of international cost comparison issued by the IMF and World Bank), is $3,408. In short, this means that the Economical Wonder costs less than a year’s salary for the overwhelming majority of Indians. When viewed in those terms, it could be argued that American cars are more expensive for most Americans. ...
{Nano} has four doors, a 2-cylinder 33-hp engine and a 4-speed synchromesh transmission with overdrive. It can carry four people, plus a bag of groceries in what just might be the world’s smallest trunk.

Cost-saving features include a single wing mirror, single windshield wiper, three lug nuts per wheel and no power steering (which isn’t needed, anyway, for a car so light).

It doesn’t have airbags, but it has been thoroughly safety-tested and is head and shoulders above the unsafe, patched-together used cars of similar price that clog the roads of India.

The color options are bright and creative, and will surely cement this car’s place as a collectible, joining the cult clubs of the Model T and Beetle. ..."

From:http://www.globalinvestmentstrategi...gx=d.kac,stid.19011,sid.250664,lid.4,mid.8984

Also told there is fact Nano production is now 1 million units per year and factory is expanding to 2.5 million units per year. Still only first sales in India, but in 2013 will market in a few neghbors and possibly later in China.

Billy T comment: If all continues to go well, the Nano may become the world´s first 5 million units per year car (I think). Even with only 33HP, that is a huge new gasoline demand.

 

And if they do become the world's first 5 million units per year car, NOT ONE of them will run on CNG.

LOL

 

Because the irony of his post made me laugh out loud.

I'm not allowed to indicate that I find a post funny James?

Are you now the emoticon police as well?

I ask because I see this :roflmao: in threads all the time but I have never once seen you make even a little peep about it.

 

Electric cars running into problems, even with Govt backing.

http://www.autoobserver.com/2011/06/electric-car-maker-think-files-for-bankruptcy.html

Followed by:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...y-protection/2012/01/26/gIQAA5T3TQ_story.html

 

Here is up date confirming my guess about China´s NG:

"... The U.S. Energy Information Administration last year said that China has an estimated 1,275 trillion cubic feet of technically recoverable shale gas reserves, which would make it the largest repository of shale gas in the world. ..." From: http://news.morningstar.com/all/Vie...J/201203160203DOWJONESDJONLINE000253_univ.xml

Article also states:
"... China's annual output of shale gas is expected to skyrocket from virtually zero now to 6.5 billion cubic meters in 2015, and to at least 10 times that amount just five years later, helping the country reduce its reliance on dirtier coal and cut its carbon emissions, the government said in a shale gas development plan released Friday. ..."

China´s trucks will probably soon be switching to NG as those in the US are, if China does not set artificially high price on NG as truck fuel. - It may to send all available to replace coal fired electric power generation.

Unfortuantely all governments distort the "free market" to force what big brother thinks is best but at least the 45cent per gallon of corn based alcohol added to make gasahol has ended and the $7,500 grant per EV will soon too.

 

Just a little explanation.

The first bit from the EPA discusses "Technically recoverable resource", but that is the volume of gas which is recoverable using current exploration and production technology but without regard to cost.

It's an interesting number, but not very useful.

The second bit, is NOT from the EPA, but is from China's 5 year plan document.

The likelihood of them making that huge growth, from nearly zero now to 6.5 billion M^3 from shale deposits by 2015 remains uncertain.

BUT

It helps to keep in mind that that even if they do, that would just be 6% of China’s current total gas production, so these numbers which Billy has tossed out as if they are huge, are actually pretty meaningless in comparison to their normal NG production already.

So no, getting an additional 6% from Shale will not transform China's transportation energy supply.

 

Yes it is only the technically recoveralble resource in the report, but China has only explored a tiny fraction of its land mass:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

from the US gov. EIA, study report

Here is greatly thinned to remove most countries "table 1 of the EIA report:
Estimated shale gas technically recoverable resources for select basins in 32 countries, compared to existing reported reserves, production (tillion cubic feet, dry basis) and consumption (trillion cubic feet) during 2009
...
Production Consumption .... Imports (Exports) And last column is technically recoverable resources (I.e. China has 1,275 & US has 862)
Europe
France 0.03 1.73 98% 0.2 180
Germany 0.51 3.27 84% 6.2 8
Netherlands 2.79 1.72 (62%) 49.0 17
Norway 3.65 0.16 (2,156%) 72.0 83 Note Norway is a huge exporter (2,156%) times it own use I think that is & US exports none.
U.K. 2.09 3.11 33% 9.0 20
skip some
North America
United States(4) 20.6 22.8 10% 272.5 862
Canada 5.63 3.01 (87%) 62.0 388
Mexico 1.77 2.15 18% 12.0 681
Asia
China 2.93 3.08 5% 107.0 1,275
India 1.43 1.87 24% 37.9 63
Pakistan 1.36 1.36 - 29.7 51
Australia 1.67 1.09 (52%) 110.0 396

Go here for full report and better layout of table:
http://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/worldshalegas/?cigx=d.kac,stid.19372,sid.250664,lid.11,mid.9371

Note also China is just starting to explore - only permitting testing in 19 districts in red on above map.

 

I.e. Morningstar, from which I quoted, China´s own estimates, ChinaDaily etc. are all just quoting from the US Gov EIA study report, as I stated, which has Release date: April 5, 2011.

Perhaps, just to break some very thin ice with no pain, you could, for the first time admite, your error?

 

No Billy, you are wrong ONCE AGAIN.

As I said the first set, of data is from the EPA.

The second bit, about the shale gas development plan and output by 2015 is from China's 5 year plan, not from the EPA.

The NEA is the Chinese Energy administration, which is why the third line says "In the plan, the government urges Chinese companies to "

The EPA is NOT urging Chinese companies to do anything Billy.

Finally, no one pays much attention to the number you are pushing: The "Technically recoverable estimate" is 3 times higher in the US and 10 times higher in China than the Proved reserves, but that's because the amount of gas is assessed without regard to the cost to recover it. Proved Reserves is the rational number to discuss, because that takes into account that the cost to recover it has to make the recovery profitable.

 

I agree with last sentence from your post above, but note that the Chinese have very little direct knowledge of the size of their resources - They are just in last year learning from the western oil companies they have hired how to explore for shale oil/gas resources in their land. First suscessful well was drilled in Dec 2011 by Shell. The Chineses NEA is NOT the true source of information/ data on potentials - EIA and really western oil companies are.

They totally lack all fracking technology but have bought two western (both US based, I think, and recall one has Chesapeake in its name) to get this technology. Having no data of their own, they incorporate in their just started 5 year plan the latest available, (but more than year old), data of the 5 April 2011 released EIA study (The EIA, also has no data of its own but based the study on western oil company data the EIA had access to).

SUMMARY: China´s plan is based on western data, and they want to get more western technology and help in exploration:

"... In the plan, the government urges Chinese companies to work with foreign companies and research institutes with expertise in exploring for and exploiting unconventional natural gas resources.

It also stressed the environmental benefits of exploiting such resources. Using just 6.5 billion cubic meters of gas to generate electricity instead of the coal needed to generate an equivalent amount would cut annual emissions of carbon dioxide by 14 million metric tons, sulfur dioxide by 115,000 tons and nitrogen oxides by 43,000 tons.

China is pushing hard to increase its use of natural gas and reduce its dependency on coal, which it currently uses to generate around 70% of its electricity. But large-scale exploitation of shale gas reserves has yet to begin.

China has an estimated 25.08 trillion cubic meters of potentially recoverable shale gas reserves, domestic media reported this month, citing the Ministry of Land and Resources.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration last year said that China has an estimated 1,275 trillion cubic feet of technically recoverable shale gas reserves, which would make it the largest repository of shale gas in the world.

Domestic and foreign energy majors working in China hope to replicate the huge increase in shale gas output seen in the U.S. over the past decade. U.S. companies pioneered the technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," enabling them to extract previously inaccessible gas from rock formations. The result was a massive increase in recoverable natural gas reserves, sharply higher output and tumbling gas prices.

PetroChina Co. (PTR) and Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RDSB) said in December that they had found gas after drilling their first shale gas evaluation well at a block in Sichuan province. Other companies, including Total SA (TOT) and Chevron Corp. (CVX), are also seeking shale gas reserves in China.

Norway's state-owned Statoil ASA (STO) is in initial talks with Chinese company Shenhua Geological Exploration about jointly developing shale gas projects in China, industry news portal Upstream reported Friday. ..."

I own stock in Statoil (and Total too, but my facts come from STO). I.e. I got my facts from STO press release but this public source, I quoted above, at:
http://www.4-traders.com/STATOIL-AS...Billion-Cubic-Meters-A-Year-By-2015-14221151/
tells the same thing. I.e. China´s plan is based on EIA and western oil company data exploration and technology - Not Chinese. They incorporated it in the only month old new 5-year plan.

PS Because Norway granted the Peace Prise to some one in Chinese prison, China is going slow with letting Statoil be active there. All western companies (not just oil industry) must have a chinese partner to do business in China - How China quickly gains Western technology. Japan´s Hatitchi is thinking of moving it world leading rare earth magnet techonology and production to China as China is making it tough to get the Rare Earths they need. China plays "hard ball" better than most capitalistic countries do, using both the carrot & the stick.

 

Trying to once again move the goalposts Billy?

Sorry, but you are still wrong.

You claimed I was wrong and specifically said that China was QUOTING FROM the US EIA study report:

But that 5 year plan is China's and is not a quote from any EIA study.

So either admit you were wrong or put a link to the EIA report that contains these QUOTES:

I won't hold my breadth.

 

Yes and I still say that for simple reason that China has no data on shale resrves of their own.

Anything they put in their 5 year plan on this is SECONDARY information, mainly from the 5 April 2011 EIA report or some now prehaps from the partnership with the western oil companies who (and only who) Have the technical knowledge required to base prodictions and expectaions you find in the one month old Chinese 5-year plan.

I spoke of the PRIMARY SOURCE, NOT THE COPIES AND INTERPRETATIONS OF THAT INFORMATION IN SECONDARY SOURCES.