To help get this train started, click it.
Posted on 05/18/2016 3:46:32 PM PDT by bananaman22
Electric cars hold the potential to destroy the oil business and save the electricity business. The big question now is when this will happen. Last year the world consumed about 93 million barrels of crude oil per day. About 42 percent of that, or 39.5 mmbpd, was used for transportation.
In its recent price swoon, oil prices went from over $100 per barrel to under $30 per barrel with a production surplus of 2 mmbpd worldwide. How would the industry fare with a surplus that was seven times greater?
(Excerpt) Read more at oilprice.com ...
No.
The infrastructure upgrades to neighborhood transformers would be very expensive. Utilities bank on them being able to cool down during night hours. They are undersized for neighborhood demand if you tack on a bunch of electric vehicles recharging every night for 6-8 hours.
Until there are refinements in the battery storage area , that is unlikely.
Cold weather reduces the ability to store energy , given current technology.
Electric cars seem clean, but most electrical generating system still rely on natural gas, coal fired , or fossil fuels to generate electrical power.
Take away the government subsidies (our tax monies), and solar and electro-voltaic generation fall flat.
Yeah. This is what never seems to come up.
HOW is that power generated in the first place?
No one ever thinks of that. Electricity just doesn’t come out of thin air.
EV’s are poppy cock. The only reason they are affordable is massive government subsidy.
CNG would be better but they have a massive infrastructure requirement also.
Electricity just doesn’t come out of thin air.”
No it doesn’t, ask any anti-fracker or wind power supporter and they will tell you that it comes out of the plug on the wall.
EVs are awesome. I drove one for two years. Every objection is being eradicated.
Mmmmm no. Not until you can “refill” EVs in under 5 minutes.
I agree.
These do however have the potential to replace our dependence on fossil fuel, but it is the battery technology which is currently standing in the way.
If batteries improve (significantly) it will become a real technology replacing, at least in part, fossil fuels.
But it’s not there yet.
Not by a long shot.
Except for the subsidies and the battery resale issue.
Nevermind coal, how about a springboard for LFTR research? ( Liquid Florine ( cooled ) Thorium Reactors?
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=liquid+fluoride+thorium+reactor+
Bugs me even Trump is speaking about this game changer...
I’m just posing a question. I often have questions nobody else seems concerned with, like, if Radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer and those rich people in the Hollywood hills are sitting on an abundance of Radon, why are not the houses being sold, not disclosing it. They seem so concerned about my smoking that they want to raise cigarette taxes two dollars a pack. Shouldn’t they be concerned with the Radon in their homes, or the home of their buyers?
In my research on Radon, I found that granite countertops can contain Radon. Shouldn’t homes be tested for Radon?
I live not too far from the VA hospital in the San Fernando Valley, they put solar panels in their grass covered lot, why are there no gopher holes under these solar panels, yet 20 feet away the grass is pock marked with gopher holes? Do the panels kill gophers and why do they want to relocate the desert tortoise when installing solar? Is it safe to put solar on your home?
I wanted to know about Ozone, so I did a little research. Lightning strikes create Ozone, but so does the arching of electric motors, and electric motors do it in the ambient air. Electric motors also create Nitric Acid. So when we have our trollies arching overhead lines, electric busses, electric trains and every car is replaced with electric cars, are we going to be able to breath? A generator is a motor wired backwards, are all those wind generators creating Ozone?
This is from Canada:
“Even very low concentrations of ozone can be harmful to the upper respiratory tract and the lungs. The severity of injury depends on both by the concentration of ozone and the duration of exposure. Severe and permanent lung injury or death could result from even a very short-term exposure to relatively low concentrations.”
Just questions from a be muddled mind.
The energy to charge the vehicles still has to come from somewhere.
It will come from nuclear or fossil fuels.
EVs are awesome. I drove one for two years. Every objection is being eradicated.
Except one. Me. When they create lanes for electric vehicles to go along with the bicycle and moped lanes that they already don’t have then my dump truck can get on down the road.The fuel you think about saving is more than consumed by real work impeded by do gooders not to mention time lost and wear and tear of jamming gears.
Rickshaw bound? Hybrids burn fuel as does the diesel electric locomotive. And they will go. True ev’s ... even the jolt got an engine.
That past didn’t make much sense. Try again.
past = post
Irish Tilt and most responders seem have the right instinct. Since the left has crippled the nuclear power industry (which is flourishing in China and Russia), fossil fuel must generate most electricity. Someone pointed out the issue of transformer capacity, an issue I, who did a master’s study of solar electric production, did not know about, but should have.
Electric cars are another boondoggle, though the hybrids seem to have shown their value. Solar electricity will always be marginal simply because the flux density of solar energy won’t be changing for a few billion years, and if it increases significantly Earth will no longer be hospitable for animal life. Peak conversion estimates when all the inefficiencies of solar-electric conversion are averaged over 24 hours is optimistically about 10 watts per square meter of solar photovoltaic collector, and that is assuming tracking collectors, no cloud cover, law humidity, mid-Summer, noontime sun, not fixed panels mounted on the roof of a home.
If you follow the articles on OilPrice.com, as I once did the “progressive” tilt will become evident. There is so much of that going on that I long ago dismissed them. All you need to do is look at the real numbers, numbers that will never change, and realize that every thing else reduces the solar flux that reaches the ground, flux that begins at the edge of the atmosphere at about 1 kw/meter squared at the equator with no atmospheric absorption, immediately dividing that by 4, because the earth revolves, and than learn about the dozens of other physical attenuators.
A free market would solve the problem, since most people need to develop expertise in their professions, and haven’t the time to study the physics of energy conversion. When politicians earn bonuses for spending taxpayer money on politically correct boondoggles this is what happens. Even Tesla has never made money when subsidies are subtracted, and it never will except as a boutique product for those for whom the quiet Lexus imitations are affordable.
When the Sierra Club declared that nuclear power was the best thing ever to happen to the environment, they were correct. When the Sierra Club determined the profitability of their legal division, they became antinuclear and predominantly a legal corporation, separated from their non-profit group (which still profits from donations).
When the “Global Warming” campaign was ramped up by Obama and Gore, the careful avoidance of the nuclear solution was glaring, and obvious to those who have followed this campaign, and wondered if principal funding came from Saudi Arabia, from Russia, or from home-grown revolutionaries.
The numbers, for any who care, are that no one has ever been killed by commercial nuclear power, and there is no air pollution, not even CO2, which many consider an accelerant for tree and food production. Non-commercial Chernobyl was a weapon fuel generator built in a communist state which produced energy as an ancillary benefit, with no pressure vessel and insignificant containment; it only killed three operators immediately and 60 estimated over the next ten years, a fraction of the normal 200 deaths caused by 1000 mw coal plants each year. No deaths or injuries at Three Mile Island or Fukujima, except from drowning and some non-fatal burns when pumps failed to keep cooling pond water circulating after the Tsunami.
“EVs are awesome. I drove one for two years. Every objection is being eradicated.”
Could you go through the major objections and explain how they are being eradicated?
I think in certain applications the EV makes sense.
“If batteries improve (significantly) ...”
Chemistry says the odds are low for that happening.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.