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 ...
How is this fair to people who work at night and are forced to recharge their vehicles during the day when rates are higher?
How the hell do you figure that? You're just guessing, aren't you?
Electric will most likely beat gasoline for very obvious reasons.
The first is due to the poor efficiencies of gasoline engines. About 25% of the energy in the gasoline is used to move the car. The rest is wasted as heat. An electric car is about 85% efficient. A power plant could literally burn gasoline in a 40% efficient turbine to make electricity for electric cars and it would still be cheaper per gallon to run electric than it would direct gasoline.
The second reason is that power plants don't burn gasoline. They burn cheaper fuels like coal. Electric cars use can make use of this even cheaper source of energy.
So what ever you pay for gasoline, you'll probably pay less in electricity to go the same distance.
The only thing that causes problems for electric is the mass of the batteries which hurts milage. That's much less of a problem now than in the past due to great improvements in battery technology.
Here's a site that shows gasoline versus electric. The yearly cost in electricity for 8000 miles of travel is estimated to be just $265.75 at $0.08/kWH.
Easy.
It ain't going to be fair to anyone of us.
The elite will continue to be carted around in SUV's and private jets. When Teddy Kennedy is driving himself daily in a crappy little forty thousand dollar car that weighs less than he does I will believe this garbage.
Before long we will be walking or leaving home three hours before work so that we can ride on buses beltching diesel fumes and doing the same thing to get home.
To take our transportation is just another freedom lost.
No, no it's not. We have plenty of oil and natural gas, if we would just exploit them. Nuclear power would help with generation of electricity. Turning back the clock to a never never past isn't a viable option.
Right now, heat pump technology is significantly cheaper than oil heat for the home. Perhaps electric cars will prove to be more economical than gas fueled ones.
UI called our company in North Haven and told my boss (electrical dept.) that we are facing an 80% increase.
Electric vehicles would make some sense if we were moving to nuclear energy - otherwise we'll use the same amount of energy on hybrids, we'll just be generating it at the power plants with oil instead of in the engines. Of course, the stability of the power grid is an issue too...
No, it wouldn't make sense even if we moved to nuclear energy.
Electricity production and price is gov't regulated. I don't want my freedom of movement subject to the whims of elected officials.
and the battery in that Macbook will die within 6 hours of use and here we have the real connection between the two technologies...
This technology (electric cars / "plug-ins" ) is hardly new..... they've been working on this since cars were first invented and we're still stuck with this battery problem......
When they manage a REAL breakthrough in that area, the lid will be off but until then, it's a niche market at best.
You might be right at today's prices. Yet electricity production and prices are regulated by gov't.
Oil production and pricing is controlled mostly by the free market.
Your endorsement of electicity is an endorsement of more goverment control of your life.
"Plug-ins are a great path for us. It would significantly improve the economics for wind energy as well, as there would be a larger market for overnight power (which is also when the winds are stronger)."
No they arent, no they won't, there will not, nnnnno.
Plug-ins and electric vehicles are for the technically illiterate to ponder as viable transportation alternatives.
Their benefits are ALWAYS mis-stated and/or exaggerated.
They will not work as a viable alternative to internal combustion engines.
Other than that, I completely agree with you.
This was discussed in previous threads. It is a plug in hybrid.
1. You charge the thing when there is less electrical demand.
2. During rolling blackouts, you run the thing on gasoline, it's a hybrid.
3. If there are fleets of these things plugged into the grid, they could theoretically prevent rolling blackouts by feeding power back into the grid.
" ....I imagine for a majority of those households having one plug-in for local trips and short commutes would fit in with their lifestyle."
Ok. You first.
"How about person who is living alone? Does he need to purchase two plug in vehicles?"
No, just a plug-in with a bike rack and a bicycle for the trip home.
"Hello, boss? I can't come into work today because the gov't drained the batteries on my car last night."
You can put your fate further into the hands of gov't, but I will not.
Thanks for taking the time to inform me. Much appreciated.
They are talking about plug-in hybrids, if electricity is more expensive than gas, run the thing on gas.
Three reasons why plug-ins are NOT a great path for us:
1) Government controls the quantity of electricity produced.
2) Government controls the infrastructure of how electricity is delivered.
3) Government controls the price of electricity sold.
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.