[Letitroll98]

The problem with doomsday predictions about oil is that it ignores the fact that supply and demand don't just suddenly drop off the face of a cliff.  There's a lot of oil out there that's too expensive to profitably extract currently because of all the cheap supply.  As the cheap stuff runs out, costs will ramp up to match the cost of getting to and using the more expensive stuff.  This will occur over time.  And as price for oil ramps up, the alternatives to oil will finally have a "fighting chance".  They will be embrace on a large scale only as and when it makes sense, economically.

And, it might end up being that most or all of the alternatives are going to be more expensive over the long term than oil is currently, but that doesn't mean we "run out", energy will still be abundant, just not as cheap.

This would be a nice thought if it were true.  Sure, just gradually slide into the new paradigm.  The problem is the actual numbers that show an significant increase in per capita energy usage combined with a massive increase in population.  So you not only have to supply today's energy demands, but the double and triple demands of a few decades from now.  New oil discoveries fell below production levels in 1984, so we've been on borrowed time for 25 years.  We are 3 or 4 decades away from the point where petroleum shortages will significantly impact food production.  If we start now we are best case able to replace petroleum on a large scale approximately 50 years out.  That's a 10-20 year overlap and that is if we start now, which is not happening.

Of course these figures are completely speculative guesses.  We could have a 10-20 year overlap to the good.  If anyone sees something occurring that even remotely looks like we are "starting now", please inform me, I'd very, very much like to be wrong.  My point to the whole thing is that we are an inventive, problem solving race, that doesn't start working hard on something until it becomes urgent.  You are quite correct that solutions will be driven by need and not before.  There's no urgency now, not a need for it, you've said yourself natural free market forces will adapt when they are suppose to.  I happen to believe that point will be far too late to save the lives of billions, but it will work after a fashion.   

[Rclark]

I'm glad to see the issue is no longer 'global warming'. Cat's out of the bag, carbon d does not cause the earth's tempurature to rise. It's the other way around, fluctuations in earth temp cause carbon d to rise and fall. Carbon d levels are a trailing indicator of temp, not the other way around, and it's the sun that determines our temp, period.

Pollution? Now that's a real problem, as is finding oil and the whole politics of that market.

[twitch54]

You'd probably be surprised at what I know about it.

possibly, I'd welcome ( in another thread of course) an open discussion about railroading.

I stated that it is not the most efficient means of motion if they did not have to start or stop.

The reality is they start and stop, so the evouloution of the diesel electric locomotive which is been going on for seventy years is an incredibly efficent unit for it's purpose, simply put there is no more efficent way to move 10,000 plus tons of freight accross this country.

as for the Op's original post and the topic of this thread I appologize for the diversion and now turn it back to the 'Volt' !

[Danny Richie]

The reality is they start and stop, so the evouloution of the diesel electric locomotive which is been going on for seventy years is an incredibly efficent unit for it's purpose, simply put there is no more efficent way to move 10,000 plus tons of freight accross this country.

I agree that there is not a more efficient way of doing what it does. There is no other way at all really. It is also the most efficient way to move have tonnage across land.

However, that being said, if you took away the load and down sized the whole thing to 2 tons, then a direct drive system will be more efficient than driving a generator that powers an electric motor. And doing so on a car like the Volt is not the best solution.

as for the Op's original post and the topic of this thread I appologize for the diversion and now turn it back to the 'Volt' !

Me too. Back to Volt talk.

[lonewolfny42]

Nutshell: the sun controls our climate. As global tempuratures rise and fall over eons due to solar activity, carbon d rises and falls as a trailing indicator. It is not the cause, it's an effect.

I have the answer....problem solved....




See...... 


Time will tell about the Volt.....

[HAL]

I really hope the Volt does well.  I really like my Honda Civic Hybrid.  Sounds like they have something that will compete. 

This is the competition to bring the battery technology price down that will help make the next generation electric cars more affordable and have longer ranges.   That is the key to this in my oppinion to get the range up so that it works in a more conventional plan of day to day operation.  Getting the price to be affordable is a big issue for most folks. 

The Leaf will be intersting to watch as the first full electric going to the public.  Hopefully the infrastructure will be there to keep them going, like eventually fast charging stations.  This is the real test. 

[Audiovista]

I really hope the Volt does well. 

Me too. I like how they did it and can see some advantages over the classic hybrid concept: 40 miles (or so) on pure electricity, ICE can run in optimum mode while charging batteries... Something I would easily buy when the prices become more mainstream (lower )

[DougSmith]

Electric cars are a nice concept, especially if they can be powered primarily from energy collected via solar panels.  How many panels do you suppose would be required to make the car "self sufficient"?   

By the way, here is something interesting related to temperature lag in data collected from polar ice cores.  Insolation is one factor, but not the whole story.  For the inquisitive types (like me) the original Vostock core research paper is here.

[2bigears]

  this car will be for a limited group of drivers.it is VERY COOL to break away from oil companies,but that power will most likely come from coal.[as dirty as you can get] Soooo your car is green to a point as the battery pack is as far from green as the coal fired power plant.you can get 60 mpg with a small diesel car right now that should run a half million miles trouble free.why would you want a battery pack ????  [[[[ on Mother Earth,we are dumpimg 100 million tonnes of CO2 per day,cows are farting maybe 1/2 that much C4.that has to have some kinda effect]]]]

[DougSmith]

Yes coal and oil are bad, but there are many other ways to generate electricity. 

[pjchappy]

Sorry it took a lot longer to clean this up and unlock it.  Only removed a handful of posts towards the end re global warming.  Regardless, hopefully the delay allowed some parties to cool-off quite a bit.

From now on, let's:

1.  Avoid discussions/arguments re global warming.  Feel free to mention the term (with care. . . ), but let's not get into details;
2.  No personal attacks;
3.  Try not to take things personally. . .95% of the time, the poster did not intend anything personal.

So, with that, post away!

Nevertheless (and again), I think the focus should be on the awesomeness of this:  Porsche 918 Spyder.  Super-high performance and amazing (potential) MPG.  Porsche developed their own hybrid technology for this. . .so, no licensing fees, etc.  It was given the green-light for production about 2-months ago.


Paul

[thunderbrick]

Thanks, Paul!  We have a lot of car enthusiasts here, but it degenerated into, well, you know!   

[geezer]

this car will be for a limited group of drivers.it is VERY COOL to break away from oil companies,but that power will most likely come from coal.[as dirty as you can get] Soooo your car is green to a point as the battery pack is as far from green as the coal fired power plant.you can get 60 mpg with a small diesel car right now that should run a half million miles trouble free.why would you want a battery pack ????  [[[[ on Mother Earth,we are dumpimg 100 million tonnes of CO2 per day,cows are farting maybe 1/2 that much C4.that has to have some kinda effect]]]]

Based on my reading, driving an electric car, even if the electricity comes from coal burning plants, produces less CO₂ than gas.

[ltr317]

Porsche 918 concept car - I'm lusting for it to become a production model. 

[doug s.]

a few random thoughts after having read this entire thread from start to finish:

-i am disappointed that there are any cars being made by gm - the market forces said this company shoulda gone down; i had been eagerly awaiting gm's bankruptcy for many years, and now, as a taxpayer, i am part-owner of 60% of the freaking company!?!   

-i am leery of any electric car being green, given the dirtiness of the technology to make these humongous batteries, and the problems that will be associated with their proper disposal.  and, if you are gonna do electric, at the wery least, it should be 100% electric, not a hybrid.  and, i admit - if i could afford this, i might be willing to try rationalizing - at least it's all electric. 


want big?

http://www.teslamotors.com/goelectric

-i am all for development of nuclear power...  when a proven method of safe storage of waste is found, and a safe method is found to keep the waste out of the hands of terrorists.  i do not see either happening any time soon.  not in my lifetime, certainly.

-the average american's carbon footprint from driving is about 2 to 5 tons/year, depending on what's being driven.  the typical meat eater can reduce their carbon footprint by 1 to 2 tons/year by going vegetarian or vegan...  hmmm...

-there are many ways to exploit renewable energy:









really high tech:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/solarpower/6536752/Japan-plans-solar-power-station-in-space.html

a case for being able to go to 100% renewable energy in 20 years:
http://solveclimate.com/blog/20091026/100-renewables-2030-less-fossil-power-case-made

doug s.

[Tyson]

My closest friend has his career in nuclear disposal, and the best/safest way to deal with it (according to him) is to bury it in the desert.  I believe him.  Nuclear power is the way to go.  Clean, safe, disposable.

[lonewolfny42]

For the DIY crowd......Link...

doug....watch the Tom Hanks video...

[doug s.]

My closest friend has his career in nuclear disposal, and the best/safest way to deal with it (according to him) is to bury it in the desert.  I believe him.  Nuclear power is the way to go.  Clean, safe, disposable.

i believe disposal in the desert is the best/safest way to deal w/it, too.  i yust don't believe this is even remotely safe.  and, it has to be transported, which is unsafe.  and, it doesn't keep terrorists from getting at it.  Nuclear power is definitely not the way to go.  dirty, unsafe, no way to dispose of it.

doug s.

[Tyson]

I guess we have to agree to disagree on this point

[doug s.]

I guess we have to agree to disagree on this point

agreed.   

renewable energy is truly the cleanest & safest, and is the way to go, imo...

doug s.