Electric cars are NOT a pipe dream. Fossil fuel cars are for greedy, selfish people.

[spidergoat]

"Has limited scale ability" doesn't make hydro not renewable.

Frankly, I think the problem is that hydro is too mainstream to be attractive to environmentalists who relish being fringe and don't like that renewable energy can happen without resorting to poor economics.

Anyway, solar won't scale well forever, but the math is not hard to calculate how long 1% takes to scale to 100% at 27% a year.

I know, hydro is renewable, but if it isn't scalable, then it's of limited use in the future. Dams also have considerable environmental impacts. Many places are removing them.

Solar is scalable, but requires a smart electric grid, which would be expensive and doesn't yet exist. It's use in the future may not correspond to a linear calculation, since it does require factories and shipping which still run on fossil fuels for the most part.

 

[spidergoat]

They are definitely scalable; you could easily scale up geothermal plants to nearly any size you like. They are just not practical in most locations due to the depth of the resource. Thus there will be areas where power is ultra cheap (i.e. Iceland) but until superconducting power networks become more commonplace the power will have to be used locally. Iceland exploits this by doing energy intensive processes (like aluminum smelting) there.

This supports my assertion that part of our contraction will include centering industry around energy and transportation centers, like waterways. By scalable I don't mean just making one plant bigger, I mean it can be scaled up to be used everywhere energy is needed. Superconducting power networks are a nice dream, but let's keep it real.

not cellulosic ethanol. And farmland for some fuel crops (like sugarcane) are not really suitable for other food crops, so it's not taking away farmland that is currently being used for food.

Perhaps.

And of course oil is parasitic on solar when you go back far enough. However, most of that "fuel from waste" generation is from sawmills, bagasse, manure, farms, brewing, food preparation etc, all of which would still exist without oil.

Could exist, but not at the same scale without oil.

Right. And like I was saying, if we keep scaling up at today's rates, within 35 years wind alone could provide all the world's energy. That would, of course, be a silly goal; we'll instead end up with a mix of energy from various sources, chosen from which one is cheaper/cleaner/most effective in that area.

You can't build windmills on solar or wind power alone, so oil is a factor in scaling those us. So is capital, which again, comes from oil. We will have a mix of alternatives in the future, I'm sure about that. However, the economy will contract to a degree will would not recognize today. The social changes that go along with that are unpredictable, it could go all sideways. Certainly a ton of rightwingers will lose their cool. And then there's climate change.

 

[billvon]

This supports my assertion that part of our contraction will include centering industry around energy and transportation centers, like waterways. By scalable I don't mean just making one plant bigger, I mean it can be scaled up to be used everywhere energy is needed. Superconducting power networks are a nice dream, but let's keep it real.

As you wish! From six years ago:
===================
Con Edison Launches “Project Hydra”
07/01/2007

Consolidated Edison Inc. has contracted American Superconductor Corp. to develop and deploy a new high temperature superconductor (HTS) power grid technology in Con Edison’s New York City power delivery network.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is expected to invest up to $25 million in the development of this technology to enable “secure super grids” in the United States. Secure super grids utilize customized HTS wires, HTS power cables and ancillary controls to deliver more power through the grid while also being able to suppress power surges that can disrupt service.

“The Department of Homeland Security is charged with protecting the infrastructure and systems that keep our nation and our economy running smoothly,” said Jay M. Cohen, DHS’ under secretary for science and technology. “The U.S. power grid is one of our most valuable assets, and we are taking the steps necessary-through the use of our most advanced technologies-to ensure its safety.

“We have asked AMSC and Consolidated Edison to demonstrate superconductor solutions in New York City that will serve to keep our centers of commerce on line under all conditions-including grid events related to severe weather, accidents or terrorist attacks.”
=======================

You can't build windmills on solar or wind power alone

Sure you could. There are solar factories that build solar panels and get all their energy via an attached solar facility. The only reason we don't do it now is there's no reason to.

However, the economy will contract to a degree will would not recognize today.

Or expand to a degree we would not recognize today. Historically the latter has been more accurate, even with people predicting the former every single time there was such a change (canals to rail, rail to roads, wood to coal, coal to oil etc.)

The social changes that go along with that are unpredictable, it could go all sideways. Certainly a ton of rightwingers will lose their cool. And then there's climate change.

Definitely agreed with both of those. The one thing that's certain is that it will be impossible to predict all the effects that switching energy sources will have on society.

 

[KitemanSA]

nuclear isn't renewable,

If nuclear is not "renewable", then neither are wind, solar, or hydro since they all rely on the limited nuclear fuel in the sun. And if you are going to argue that anything that lasts that long is as good as renewable, then so is nuclear. We have enough nuclear fuel on earth to last for ~0.5Billion years, and that is just using current mining techniques. If we assume D E E P shaft mining technology of 1000 years from now will allow us to go 8 times as deep, then we have enough to watch the sun become a giant and swallow earth... from the inside!

 

[KitemanSA]

The true energy source for the future is the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) or as I like to call them, LFT Recyclers, since they can be started using spent nuclear fuel (used Uranium and Reactor Grade Plutonium), and can be run on the waste product of windmill making (Thorium). Lean, clean, green energy for our children, our children's children and unto the 100millionth generation.

Of, and ammonia is a fairly efficient fuel if battery technology doesn't mature fast enough.

 

[Billy T]

" General Motors' (NYSE:GM) redesigned Chevrolet Volt model will get 53 miles of driving range on its battery pack before using any gasoline, a nearly 40% increase from the previous model's 38-mile range. ... The new Volt starts at $33,995, about $1,000 less than the current version.

Late Tuesday night, Tesla Motors TSLA +2.22% confirmed that a third-generation car called the Model III will be coming in 2017. The car will cost a mere $35,000, according to a report, half the price of the popular Model S. The pricing will position the vehicle to compete with the BMW 3-series.

The model III is actually the fourth and was until very recently called Model E.
The great price reduction is due in part to it being smaller than the Model S and assumes the GigaFactory batteries cost out as planned.

global cumulative sales totaled over 26,000 units through June 2015.[64] ... As of June 2015, the United States ranked as the i3 top selling market with 10,548 units sold, ...

Price, currently at about 47,000 dollars in US, may come down (with cheaper batteries and higher volume of production) Range is 80 to 100 miles. Lots of details at link and photos.

 

[danshawen]

Fuel cell technology is more practical and environmentally friendly than any existing means for renewable energy options for powering electric cars. It is also pretty hazardous and too cumbersome to refuel, and this kind of maintenance is well beyond the skill set of the typical consumer to handle safely. Think of what happened to Apollo 13 on the way to the moon, only without the support of Houston ground control.

The original Prius batteries were nickel cadmium, and more cadmium in the environment is about as great an idea as adding lead to fuel to increase octane.

Coal powered electric generating facilities still provide most residential and commercial service in the United States. It costs more to send this energy down the line to charge the batteries in electric cars than it would to burn coal to heat boilers ito drive the old Stanley Steamer cars. Convenience has a price tag. Not too practical or green an idea.

Keep working on improving the technology that fits best. Provide incentives for building them as well as buying them. In the mean time, folks driving Priuses should always yield to bicyclists and even motorcycles. They are greener than you are.

 

[Billy T]

Fuel cell technology is more practical and environmentally friendly than any existing means for renewable energy options for powering electric cars. ...

You seem to be referring to the H2 + O2 fuel cell, only. There are others, some well demonstrated by powering cars. For example the metal, aluminum Al + O2 fuel cell is quite safe, and quickly recharged by swapping out the Al plates. Earlier in the electric cars are a pipe dream thread there is more details and a photo of the car, as I recall.

If sugar cane based alcohol could be the fuel for practical fuel cell, the efficiency of that "very green" fuel which is easy to store and fill up tank more safely than with gasoline in same time, would double (escapes the Carnot limit on thermal conversions).

Also an Ammonia fuel cell would be very desirable as liquid H2 and NH3 both have about the same number of molecules in a fixed volume, thus the ammonia has 50% more hydrogen in that volume than liquid H2 does and can be stored at room temperature with very modest pressure - about the same as cars using natural gas as their fuel.

Also NH3 can be used as the fuel in an IC engine, like alcohol or gasoline is, but the carburation is tricky - not a wide range of mixtures of air and NH3 vapor works. Some farmers have run the cars (and pick-ups) on this fuel, free of large road taxes - they have large tanks of NH3 on the farm for legal use as fertilizer, but AFAIK only one in Canada admits to doing this.

I think modern sensors, computers and fuel injection technology could keep the NH3 fuel air mix within the spark ignition range. I suspect there are strong pressures from authorities blocking this. - They would lose road taxes.

 

[spidergoat]

Fuel cell technology is more practical and environmentally friendly than any existing means for renewable energy options for powering electric cars....

So what. You are still stuck on the personal car paradigm, which is inherently wasteful.

 

[danshawen]

So what. You are still stuck on the personal car paradigm, which is inherently wasteful.

The same paradigm (fuel cells on top of an electric bus) actually works even better with a public transportation model. Safer to use them there until or unless the bus rolls over.

Passenger-mile is very green indeed.

 

[billvon]

Fuel cell technology is more practical and environmentally friendly than any existing means for renewable energy options for powering electric cars. It is also pretty hazardous and too cumbersome to refuel, and this kind of maintenance is well beyond the skill set of the typical consumer to handle safely. Think of what happened to Apollo 13 on the way to the moon, only without the support of Houston ground control.

The Apollo 13 SM exploded because a stirrer in a liquid oxygen tank shorted out. Fuel cell cars will not use liquid oxygen; indeed, they will not carry any 0n-board oxygen at all. They will likely use compressed gases, most likely methane. Methane (natural gas) has been used to fuel buses and cars for years with no significant problems.

The original Prius batteries were nickel cadmium, and more cadmium in the environment is about as great an idea as adding lead to fuel to increase octane.

The original Prius used nickel metal hydride batteries. No cadmium.

Coal powered electric generating facilities still provide most residential and commercial service in the United States.

Coal generates only 39% of the US's electricity - far less than half.

It costs more to send this energy down the line to charge the batteries in electric cars than it would to burn coal to heat boilers ito drive the old Stanley Steamer cars.

Incorrect again; Stanley Steamers did not burn coal, they burned gasoline or kerosene. They got about 10 miles per gallon, giving them a 200 mile range from their 20 gallon tanks. (Note that you still had to stop for water every 50 miles.) Modern hybrids get 50mpg; modern electrics get 100mpg equivalent.

Perhaps you are thinking of the Curtis Steamer, which could go 30 miles at 25mph using 80 pounds of coal (10 gallons gas eqivalent.) That would mean it got 3 miles per gallon equivalent.

 

[danshawen]

The original Prius used nickel metal hydride batteries. No cadmium.

Yes, you are right. I remember, they had to ship the nickel overseas and back to have it processed into the necessary nickel mesh necessary to make the batteries. Someone calculated, it would take a very long service life for such exorbitant material shipping costs to be repaid in terms of environmental impact, because the cargo ships that were used to ship the nickel / nickel mesh ran on fossil fuels.

Thanks for the memory refresh.

And yes, I was thinking of the Curtis steamer, which used a coal fire for its power plant.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

The biggest problem with motor vehicles--whether electric or internal-combustion--is that only about 20-30 percent of the energy they consume is actually used to move the vehicle. The rest powers the myriad accessories: the computer (which is not the biggest power drain), the power-assisted brakes (which can be a major power drain for drivers who follow each other too close and are always hitting the brake pedal), and of course the air conditioner, which is the biggest energy user in places like Los Angeles, Houston and Jacksonville for about nine months out of the year.

In Switzerland, drivers are required by law to turn off their engines when waiting for a red light to turn green. They can get away with that in Switzerland, where summer is short and not terribly hot. But if you try that in Los Angeles, Houston or Jacksonville, you'll faint from the heat by the third red light.

 

[KilljoyKlown]

Fraggle how have you been doing? I am still considering a new car to be used in the Tucson, AZ area, and it does frequently get over 100 degrees days, weeks and even months at time. I've been thinking some kind of hybrid but heat is really hard on batteries, not to mention running the air conditioner just about every time you go anywhere. I am now thinking maybe one of the new clean deasil cars would hold up better. Volkswagen claims one of theirs gets over 800 miles on one tank of deasil fuel. That's sure way ahead of anything I've ever owned before.

 

[Futilitist]

I unresign.

Hey billvon and Russ Watters.

How about that stock market and oil price drop, eh? Weird huh? It is almost like I have been right the whole time! Wow.

This should pretty much kill the electric car pipedream.

And billvon,

I left you an answer about my latest forecast at:
http://thescienceforum.org/topic1090-70.html#p20203
Check it out before iNow throws it in the trash and bans me again!


---Futilitist

 

[Russ_Watters]

I unresign.

Hey billvon and Russ Watters.

How about that stock market and oil price drop, eh? Weird huh? It is almost like I have been right the whole time! Wow.

Lol, hey, look who's back! Yeah, I guess in OPPOSITELAND, you've been right all along! Here in the real world, I've been enjoying my cheap gas and bought a bunch of stock today. Life is good!

 

[Futilitist]

Ha ha. That's great Russ. Looks like things can only get better for you from here on.

(And I don't believe you really bought stocks today! If you did, well...never mind. Good luck?)



---Futilitist

 

[Billy T]

I unresign. ... It is almost like I have been right the whole time! Wow. ...

You are still falsifying, so please go away again. Here is quote, post 318, you made in "Apocalypse Soon" thread which you started that summarizes you view that higher priced oil, do to greater marginal production costs, would soon destroy civilization:

I have proven that an eventual collapse is inevitable and I have explained why. World production of conventional crude oil peaked in 2005. The basic theory predicts that we will experience severe economic consequences following peak. And that is just what is happening. Economic growth around the world is slowing, as predicted. Oil prices are rising, as predicted. ... It now seems as if the US is sliding into another recession, without ever really recovering from the last one, and we are trillions more in debt.

Need I note that price of oil is less than half what it was when you predicted it was rapidly rising?

 

[Russ_Watters]

Ha ha. That's great Russ. Looks like things can only get better for you from here on.

Well...better...then worse...then better again. So, ya know, mostly better. Like always.

(And I don't believe you really bought stocks today! If you did, well...never mind. Good luck?)

You should know be well enough by now to know I don't BS.


Rule #1 of stock market: buy low, sell high. And the stock market definitely lowered over the past week.

 

[Futilitist]

Hey Billy T.

I have been saying all along that the price of oil would rise until it couldn't be afforded and after that the economy would experience grave damage. That is exactly what happened.



---Futilitist