Posted on 01/01/2007 10:44:24 AM PST by Uncledave
An oil and security task force of the Council on Foreign Relations recently opined that "the voices that espouse 'energy independence' are doing the nation a disservice by focusing on a goal that is unachievable over the foreseeable future." Others have also said, essentially, that other nations will control our transportation fuel--get used to it. Yet House Democrats have announced a push for "energy independence in 10 years," and in November General Motors joined Toyota and perhaps other auto makers in a race to produce plug-in hybrid vehicles, hugely reducing the demand for oil. Who's right--those who drive toward independence or those who shrug?
Bet on major progress toward independence, spurred by market forces and a portfolio of rapidly developing oil-replacing technologies.
snip
All this is likely to change decisively, because electricity is about to become a major partner with alternative liquid fuels in replacing oil.
snip
Utilities are rapidly becoming quite interested in plug-ins because of the substantial benefit to them of being able to sell off-peak power at night. Because off-peak nighttime charging uses unutilized capacity, DOE's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory estimates that adopting plug-ins will not create a need for new base load electricity generation plants until plug-ins constitute over 84% of the country's 220 million passenger vehicles.
snip
Once plug-ins start appearing in showrooms it is not only consumers and utility shareholders who will be smiling. If cheap off-peak electricity supplies a portion of our transportation needs, this will help insulate alternative liquid fuels from OPEC market manipulation designed to cripple oil's competitors.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
I'm all for domestic production.
That doesn't even play in the vacuum of space. An object at rest has inertia. You must apply a force across a distance (energy) to move it. Remember that first day of physics class? F = mA. E = F X D. Remember that other silly law...an object in motion tends to remain in motion? Yes, you have to apply energy to stop the object at point B.
With friction approaching zero and speed approaching zero, you can get from point A to point B with energy expendeture approaching zero. All the rest is just details.
Only in fantasy land. It's the details that expose the misunderstanding. You shouldn't omit them.
Alot of the government money is in the form of military research grants. It gives us better weapons systems and guarantees the technology is available for our military.
Definatly mixed emotions on my part.
I'm not arguing about the fuel. I'm a big believer in hydrogen fuel, especially when stabilized by multiple carbon bonds.
You don't believe in electric cars, how about if it were powered by a 80 kW fuel reactor able to swollow gasoline, ethanol, liquified coal or even bio-oil running at 70% effiency? The current technology is the steam engine of old. It is needlessly complex, expensive, heavy and inefficient. Change is coming, I just hope I still have a driver's liscence.
"I'm a big believer in hydrogen fuel, especially when stabilized by multiple carbon bonds. "
That's pretty much what gasoline is.
"You don't believe in electric cars, how about if it were powered by a 80 kW fuel reactor able to swollow gasoline, ethanol, liquified coal or even bio-oil running at 70% effiency"
I don't believe in BATTERY powered electric cars. A fuel cell is not a battery, so it would fit the bill rather nicely....lots of work to do there. Fuel cells will do interesting things to our entire way of life if they are ever perfected for the mass market.
Remember that first day of calculus class? The lower bound is zero, really. Because of conservation of momentum, the force required to stop is the same and the lower bound is zero also, really.
I did not misunderstand and all pertinent stipulations for the statement to be true were made in the statement(except for elevation change as someone pointed out).
Because you threw out the statement that there was some lower bound of energy for transportation without really thinking about what affects that lower bound, you are limitted in seeing potential solutions.
When I go to work I burn 3 gallons of gasoline. If I drove 55 mph, I would probably burn 2 gallons. If I trimmed 3,000 lbs off my vehicle and made it very aerodynamic, I would burn about a gallon. If I was just moving my body, it would only take a few ounces.
Why does my car weigh 4000 lbs, two reasons.
First I am pushing around a very heavy engine and transmission and a frame capable of carrying that engine. What if I don't need a heavy engine and transmission.
Second, is safety, steel is very effective for safety but by no means is required. Soldiers don't wear steel helmets because it is too heavy and there is material that provides more safety with less weight.
Actually, there is a third reason. Steel is cheap.
If you break down where your energy is going, you can figure out what you need to use and what you are using just because that is how your dad did it.
Remember the lower bound is really zero. Every bit of energy above that buys you something but there may be a smarter way of doing it.
LOL... :)
Different program - to sign up for those rates, you have to agree to let the power company shut it off, during peak demand.
You pay for someone to do innovations on products every day of the week. It's part of any company from which you buy a product, and which has an R & D department.
>So, be "green", or be a terrorist supporter? Is that how it goes?
No, you seemed to be making the point that saving a little money was not worth the inconvenience of charging a battery, so I offered one more incentive to make the effort.
>You have unusually low rates "off peak" (no doubt regulated to be so).....
As far as I know, no regulation is involved. The utility is just trying to reduce their peak load. Do I need to explain why that reduces their costs?
>....but even so, you still can't make up the cost differential over a conventional vehicle.
I think the numbers are pretty clear that if I can buy a plug-in hybrid at a price within $5000 to $10000 of a 'conventional vehicle', it would save me money.
They are doing research to stay competitive and sell more product.
It has nothing to do with saving money. This is the point that you are missing. Banks are not in business to loan money, they are in business to make a profit just like these companies.
the government is on the leading edge
Because they have an unlimited budget. You give me an unlimited budget and I will move mountains and possibly for no reason just like the government does.
I think this is a good use of government money
I just checked the remittance advice on my last paycheck. That ain't the governments money it is taxpayer money. The government has no money.
So we have a kevlar car that cannot pull a trailer?
And it costs 200K?
I'll suffer with only 300hp and pay the higher cost of fuel as these silly clown cars will get no work done.
It's only zero if the upper bound is zero too. There is no free lunch. If you move from a state of rest, energy is expended. If you are in motion, you must expend energy in an equal and opposite direction to return to a state of rest. Energy from gasoline puts you in motion. Frictional energy on the brake rotor/drum is expended to return the vehicle to a state of rest. If you happen to be rolling uphill when you want to stop, the energy is transformed to gravitational potential energy.
When I go to work I burn 3 gallons of gasoline. If I drove 55 mph, I would probably burn 2 gallons. If I trimmed 3,000 lbs off my vehicle and made it very aerodynamic, I would burn about a gallon. If I was just moving my body, it would only take a few ounces.
The limit doesn't go to zero. The fuel itself has mass and chemical potential energy. It is also dependent on nascent oxygen to convert the chemical potential into useful energy. ΔG = ΔH - TΔS. You will be producing heat and gas along the way.
...$1,700 a year...
Is this the new math?
-- If you are in motion, you must expend energy in an equal and opposite direction to return to a state of rest.--
Hmmm. In an electrically driven car, one gains energy through regenerative braking while slowing down to a rest.
>Energy from gasoline puts you in motion. Frictional energy on the brake rotor/drum is expended to return the vehicle to a state of rest.
Most hybrids recover braking energy to recharge the battery.
Since efficiency is never 100%, you can never quite get there, but the lower bound is zero.
Of course, or you have to pay peak rates.
That would require a very large fly-wheel. Where does the energy come from to spin it? Going down hill?
Do these cars have one?
Sorry for what might be a dumb question but I am no more versed on this technology than I am on voodoo.
Are you nuts, or just bad at math?
--That would require a very large fly-wheel. Where does the energy come from to spin it? Going down hill?
Do these cars have one?
Sorry for what might be a dumb question but I am no more versed on this technology than I am on voodoo.--
The motors act like generators when braking. The energy recovered during braking is used to charge the batteries. This technology is being used in today's hybrids.
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.